The TIG can only afford a few more from the Tory party . Otherwise May will call an election but of course the Tories don’t want her to fight one .
A max of three Tories moving would be just enough to cause panic in the government but not enough for them to lose their working majority .
I think matters could come to a head next week depending on the whip arrangements . If Mays deal goes down what next .
A free vote on the no deal and extension would be the safest route . If the government whipped to support no deal the Tories would implode , if they whip against no deal the ERG will implode .
An interesting side story what does May vote for . Can she avoid the vote because coming down on one side or the other is going to cause big problems for her.
Fascinating piece on the TIG in City AM last week. It appears Chris Leslie wrote a piece in the FT which hinted at a broadly Blairite economic approach and a world away from both Conservative AND Labour spending commitments.
On the other side of the aisle, the argument went from the EU having no real influence over us to planes being unable to fly.
Unfortunately, bullshit, like human ingenuity (but far less pleasant), has no upper limit, and it certainly isn't reserved for just one side in the ongoing melodrama that is the UK/EU situation.
Hmm...Why would smaller States agree to this? Why would swing States that get tens of millions spent in them by each side agree to this? Why would Republican America in the fly over agree to give up power to those flaky east and west coasters?
I find it incredibly unlikely that this will come to pass. It seems a completely disproportionate response, even to something as daft as Trump.
On the other side of the aisle, the argument went from the EU having no real influence over us to planes being unable to fly.
Unfortunately, bullshit, like human ingenuity (but far less pleasant), has no upper limit, and it certainly isn't reserved for just one side in the ongoing melodrama that is the UK/EU situation.
It's not any power the EU has over us that would stop planes flying (if that happens, or choose whichever chaos you want): they're not some replacement for the Rothschilds in Brexiteer conspiracy theories, pulling the strings whilst cackling manically.
It's the fact we might choose to leave a group and have done essentially f'all work to fix the issues that would happen when we leave. We have agreements. Many of those agreements will become void. Therefore we need new agreements.
On the other side of the aisle, the argument went from the EU having no real influence over us to planes being unable to fly.
Unfortunately, bullshit, like human ingenuity (but far less pleasant), has no upper limit, and it certainly isn't reserved for just one side in the ongoing melodrama that is the UK/EU situation.
Your statement is true to some extent Mr Dancer, but I think the bullshitometer would clearly show a strong bias towards the likes of Boris Johnson, Liam Fox and David Davis who opined that the whole project would be easy and that the EU would easily acceded to our demands. The Sun piece down thread sums up the childishness simplicity of their naive collective proposition.
I'm quite partial to the occasional Nando's. especially the chicken livers, but sadly we don't have them here in Noo Yawk, which surprises me as I think it would do well here. It does exist in the US, but the vast majority are in the DC area. I'm not saying we've ever been down to Washington just to have a Nando's, but it was an additional attraction.
Anyway, on topic: if you look at the Wikipedia list of states currently considering the NPVIC, then it's just possible for it to be adopted by enough states to come into effect before 2020 without including deep red or flyover states. However, it would require swing states like FL and NC to adopt plus at least two of the very small states of DE, ME and NH that might not go for as it would lessen their influence in national politics. OTOH there are some other swing states that have pre-Trump were traditionally leaning Democratic such as MI, PA and WI that aren't currently considering it that could bring it over if they did.
So I agree that 2020 is an ask, but longer-term I would see it fairly likely to pass and sooner rather than later.
Most British people didn't want ever closer union and were only consulted when UKIP were snapping at the heels of the political class. We were also promised a referendum on Lisbon, which contained the helpfully (for the EU) short period for leaving determined by Article 50.
Now an incredibly incompetent government and opposition are buggering up leaving. Whilst that's not an edifying spectacle, decades of politicians ignoring the wishes of the electorate and then their own manifesto pledges, is what led us to this point.
Why is Hickenlooper at significantly longer odds than Tulsi Gabbard ?
Worth noting that it looks like Colorado will be on Super Tuesday, with Texas and California. This means Hickenlooper will likely be one of five candidates with state wins by March 3rd - assuming Beto stand in (and wins) Texas.
If he can put in place a decent number of second/third places in other states, that puts him in quite a good position.
I am extremely skeptical about his chances, but the 210/1 available this morning for President (when the nomination was around 40/1), was too tempting not to have a dabble.
Mr. Foremain, there was a ridiculous level of complacency from them, but that doesn't diminish the hyperbolic warnings of doom from the other side (or, indeed, lessen the incompetence of May).
The introduction, yet again, of narrowly economic questions into the debate about Brexit shows that the political class still don’t get it. They still don’t get why people voted for Brexit. And this goes for politicos from across the political spectrum. The Corbynista left patronises the hell out of Brexit voters by saying that the real reason they voted Leave is because they are ‘hurting’ economically, they feel ‘left behind’, they are still sad and wounded by the fallout from the financial crisis of 2008 onwards. In short, the vote for Brexit was a confused and tragic cry for help, mostly for economic help, and it falls to the PhD-laden activists of the Corbyn set to decipher that cry and answer it. Supercilious much?
On the right too, and in pro-Remain circles, there is an obsession with the economic dimension of Brexit. What will it do to jobs? The amount of time lorries have to wait at Dover? Will we have to pay €7 to visit Europe post-Brexit? What about data-roaming charges when we’re holidaying in Spain? Have you thought about all of this, you dumb Brexiteers?! https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/theresa-mays-bung-shows-she-still-doesnt-understand-brexit/
Most British people didn't want ever closer union and were only consulted when UKIP were snapping at the heels of the political class. We were also promised a referendum on Lisbon, which contained the helpfully (for the EU) short period for leaving determined by Article 50.
Now an incredibly incompetent government and opposition are buggering up leaving. Whilst that's not an edifying spectacle, decades of politicians ignoring the wishes of the electorate and then their own manifesto pledges, is what led us to this point.
Hmm, not really Mr Dancer. You are basing your assumption on a pejorative definition of "ever-closer union" which has been massively over exaggerated by anti-EU agitators. The French will never allow a super-state and they are not bothered by it as a concept. Secondly you are relying only on opinion polls for your assertion. Prior to relatively recently only a very small number of people put Europe as a high priority for them. Essentially they were not bothered, and they had good reason not to be as it was a benign relationship. Sadly sensationalist propaganda convinced them, otherwise.
Labour's complaints team said to be in chaos amid rumours its head has resigned following revelations in the Sunday papers that antisemitism cases were shared with staff in Corbyn's office.
Mr. Foremain, there was a ridiculous level of complacency from them, but that doesn't diminish the hyperbolic warnings of doom from the other side (or, indeed, lessen the incompetence of May).
The warnings of doom may yet play out, or they may not. What we do know for certain is that the complacency that you rightly mention was highly misleading, and those that are guilty of it should be called to account. As Alan Sugar has said, if a company director mislead shareholders in the way these numpties did they would be banged up. What a shame the regulatory framework for lying politicians is much looser than it is for business people.
Mr. Foremain, nothing says benign like foreign laws being imposed on a nation-state with no power to refuse them, whilst paying billions every year for the privilege.
It's only a few years ago Clegg was claiming an EU army was a fantasy.
As an aside, supposing May's deal passes, I would guess that would include the idiocy of Article 13. Knowing May's technological deficiency and authoritarian streak, it'd probably remain even if we actually extricated ourselves from the bureaucratic octopus.
The introduction, yet again, of narrowly economic questions into the debate about Brexit shows that the political class still don’t get it. They still don’t get why people voted for Brexit. And this goes for politicos from across the political spectrum. The Corbynista left patronises the hell out of Brexit voters by saying that the real reason they voted Leave is because they are ‘hurting’ economically, they feel ‘left behind’, they are still sad and wounded by the fallout from the financial crisis of 2008 onwards. In short, the vote for Brexit was a confused and tragic cry for help, mostly for economic help, and it falls to the PhD-laden activists of the Corbyn set to decipher that cry and answer it. Supercilious much?
On the right too, and in pro-Remain circles, there is an obsession with the economic dimension of Brexit. What will it do to jobs? The amount of time lorries have to wait at Dover? Will we have to pay €7 to visit Europe post-Brexit? What about data-roaming charges when we’re holidaying in Spain? Have you thought about all of this, you dumb Brexiteers?! https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/theresa-mays-bung-shows-she-still-doesnt-understand-brexit/
Ooh, me sir, me sir, pick me sir.
Q: Have you thought about all of this, you dumb Brexiteers?! A: No.
Most British people didn't want ever closer union and were only consulted when UKIP were snapping at the heels of the political class. We were also promised a referendum on Lisbon, which contained the helpfully (for the EU) short period for leaving determined by Article 50.
Now an incredibly incompetent government and opposition are buggering up leaving. Whilst that's not an edifying spectacle, decades of politicians ignoring the wishes of the electorate and then their own manifesto pledges, is what led us to this point.
You seem to have moved on from misreading history to rewriting it.
Europe was way down the list of things that people in Britain were interested in. The upsurge in support for UKIP didn't correspond to the Lisbon Treaty, an event that scarcely troubled most people. And how do you know that most British don't want an ever closer union? We've had two referendums - one overwhelmingly in favour, and the second narrowly against. The third one could go either way. At the moment polling indicates leave are quite likely to lose, and the hysterical objections of leave advocates suggest they believe that too. We've had one election where a major party proposed leaving, and they lost badly. You are entitled to your opinions but don't project them onto everyone else.
Mr. Foremain, nothing says benign like foreign laws being imposed on a nation-state with no power to refuse them, whilst paying billions every year for the privilege.
It's only a few years ago Clegg was claiming an EU army was a fantasy.
As an aside, supposing May's deal passes, I would guess that would include the idiocy of Article 13. Knowing May's technological deficiency and authoritarian streak, it'd probably remain even if we actually extricated ourselves from the bureaucratic octopus.
Mr Dancer, we have the right to refuse them....as that is what we are doing by inadvisably leaving the club! They are also no more foreign laws than other articles of international law as they are ratified by our parliament, either directly or by statutory instrument.
Had we remained in the EU an EU army would probably have remained a fantasy, and even if it had come t pass, it is no more something to get stirred up about than NATO or IFOR. I do, however respect your position because you always hold your views in a civilised way!
Labour's complaints team said to be in chaos amid rumours its head has resigned following revelations in the Sunday papers that antisemitism cases were shared with staff in Corbyn's office.
The introduction, yet again, of narrowly economic questions into the debate about Brexit shows that the political class still don’t get it. They still don’t get why people voted for Brexit. And this goes for politicos from across the political spectrum. The Corbynista left patronises the hell out of Brexit voters by saying that the real reason they voted Leave is because they are ‘hurting’ economically, they feel ‘left behind’, they are still sad and wounded by the fallout from the financial crisis of 2008 onwards. In short, the vote for Brexit was a confused and tragic cry for help, mostly for economic help, and it falls to the PhD-laden activists of the Corbyn set to decipher that cry and answer it. Supercilious much?
On the right too, and in pro-Remain circles, there is an obsession with the economic dimension of Brexit. What will it do to jobs? The amount of time lorries have to wait at Dover? Will we have to pay €7 to visit Europe post-Brexit? What about data-roaming charges when we’re holidaying in Spain? Have you thought about all of this, you dumb Brexiteers?! https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/theresa-mays-bung-shows-she-still-doesnt-understand-brexit/
That could equally have been written by Alastair - until it got the the assertion that 'it's all about sovereignty'. Alastair's view that 'it's all about immigration' is, at the very least, equally persuasive.
And Mr O'Neill shows remarkable chutzpah in accusing others of being supercilious.
Labour's complaints team said to be in chaos amid rumours its head has resigned following revelations in the Sunday papers that antisemitism cases were shared with staff in Corbyn's office.
Heart of Stone etc etc...
Except this crowd could be in Downing Street within months.
Mr. Borough, I remember reading of that in Court of the Red Tsar. Quite a letter.
Mr. Recidivist, I'm amused to be accused of rewriting history when you cite a referendum in favour of the EU, which preceded the EU's creation by about two decades.
Mr. Borough, I remember reading of that in Court of the Red Tsar. Quite a letter.
Mr. Recidivist, I'm amused to be accused of rewriting history when you cite a referendum in favour of the EU, which preceded the EU's creation by about two decades.
You knew what I meant. And we all knew that joining the Common Market was a step towards greater integration down the road. I heard none other than Barbara Castle warning a packed house about exactly that.
Just laid Theresa May to leave as Tory party leader this year at 1.68 on betfair. Reckon that's value.
If her Deal passes, she obviously survives the year other things being equal. If we end up with a No Deal Brexit - I think very possible she stays in place for a bit to deal with the crisis and perhaps says she will step down next year.
Even if something else happens on Brexit - I don't know that she is likely to resign necessarily. And she does have that theoretical immunity to leadership challenge until December. DYOR of course.
Most British people didn't want ever closer union and were only consulted when UKIP were snapping at the heels of the political class. We were also promised a referendum on Lisbon, which contained the helpfully (for the EU) short period for leaving determined by Article 50.
Now an incredibly incompetent government and opposition are buggering up leaving. Whilst that's not an edifying spectacle, decades of politicians ignoring the wishes of the electorate and then their own manifesto pledges, is what led us to this point.
Your second and third paragraphs are irrelevant. And the substance of your first line is wrong.
Aside from that, well done.
It is our fault. And whilst our government may be incompetent, I doubt any government could have done much better for the same reason we always get to: the central lie at the heart of the leave campaign meant that no-one can define what Brexit means, because every leave voter had their own sunny vision, many of which are mutually incompatible.
So yes, it is out fault. I'll take some of the blame myself, but as a leave voter, and an agitator for leave, you need to take some yourself.
Most British people didn't want ever closer union and were only consulted when UKIP were snapping at the heels of the political class. We were also promised a referendum on Lisbon, which contained the helpfully (for the EU) short period for leaving determined by Article 50.
Now an incredibly incompetent government and opposition are buggering up leaving. Whilst that's not an edifying spectacle, decades of politicians ignoring the wishes of the electorate and then their own manifesto pledges, is what led us to this point.
Hmm, not really Mr Dancer. You are basing your assumption on a pejorative definition of "ever-closer union" which has been massively over exaggerated by anti-EU agitators. The French will never allow a super-state and they are not bothered by it as a concept. Secondly you are relying only on opinion polls for your assertion. Prior to relatively recently only a very small number of people put Europe as a high priority for them. Essentially they were not bothered, and they had good reason not to be as it was a benign relationship. Sadly sensationalist propaganda convinced them, otherwise.
And one thing Cammo did achieve is to exempt us from it, anyways. Simples.
Spicy chicken basically. Popular with yoof for the past 10 years or so, and MOR politicians.
As I said on the earlier thread, Nando's is another high street chain that industrialises cruelty by failing to offer free range chicken. We really need to end battery farming and, if it means eating less chicken (and less meat), then so much to the better. We eat too much meat anyway.
I stopped buying cooked chicken from Sainsbury's when they dropped the "high welfare" option. Perhaps if they'd called it "tastes less like cardboard smeared with spicy gloop" it would have sold more.
A bizarre move from Sainsbury's – there is actually a fairly high awareness of these issues among the public.
The same public that was happy enough eating Tesco's horseburgers until it was pointed out to them what they contained?
Or are you saying that acted as some sort of catalyst for much greater awareness; because if so I haven't seen much evidence of it (outside certain hipster-y areas of London) where it existed previously.
Well there it is. It was just a matter of time before one of the usual suspects claimed that concern over food standards and animal welfare was a “hipster/remainer/leftist/London* thing”. Actually, it is far more widespread than that, as you would recognise if a) you knew anything about it or b) bothered to look into it.
Mr. Foremain, nothing says benign like foreign laws being imposed on a nation-state with no power to refuse them, whilst paying billions every year for the privilege.
It's only a few years ago Clegg was claiming an EU army was a fantasy.
As an aside, supposing May's deal passes, I would guess that would include the idiocy of Article 13. Knowing May's technological deficiency and authoritarian streak, it'd probably remain even if we actually extricated ourselves from the bureaucratic octopus.
Yet an EU army is actually a good idea. None of the EU nations really has the military or political capability to be able to operate independently in the current global environment.
Most British people didn't want ever closer union and were only consulted when UKIP were snapping at the heels of the political class. We were also promised a referendum on Lisbon, which contained the helpfully (for the EU) short period for leaving determined by Article 50.
Now an incredibly incompetent government and opposition are buggering up leaving. Whilst that's not an edifying spectacle, decades of politicians ignoring the wishes of the electorate and then their own manifesto pledges, is what led us to this point.
Your second and third paragraphs are irrelevant. And the substance of your first line is wrong.
Aside from that, well done.
It is our fault. And whilst our government may be incompetent, I doubt any government could have done much better for the same reason we always get to: the central lie at the heart of the leave campaign meant that no-one can define what Brexit means, because every leave voter had their own sunny vision, many of which are mutually incompatible.
So yes, it is out fault. I'll take some of the blame myself, but as a leave voter, and an agitator for leave, you need to take some yourself.
It's our fault for electing a parliament so split that it can't make it's mind up with a party elected into "power" led by a "leader" who wouldn't know how to compromise if her live or career depended on it.
Mr. Stodge, sounds like it could have some appeal, if the Tiggers don't prove a short-lived phenomenon.
Although I wonder how that fits in with the likes of Soubry.
I think one of the biggest problems the centre and centre-left has faced has been to confront the demons of the global financial crash which brought a decade and a half of broadly centre-left economics crashing down.
The economic and by definition political battlefields were abdicated first to austerity and later to socialist spending and as neither is the answer it may be with the passage to time a more genuinely social democratic approach (or perhaps the social market economy approach if you prefer) might start looking more attractive again.
Mr. Borough, I remember reading of that in Court of the Red Tsar. Quite a letter.
Great book, Montefiore is always worth reading. My favourite bit from that book (I think, it's been a while since I read it) was the story about how the Soviets reverse-engineered interned B-29s into the Tu-4. While the story about whether or not they should replicate the mis-drilled hole is probably apocryphal, I'd like to think the debate about what colour stars should be painted on the finished article is true. One group pointed out that Comrade Stalin said they should deliver an exact copy of the B-29, and the interned B-29s had white American stars painted on them. The other group were "Are you crazy? You're going to show Comrade Stalin a plane that doesn't have Soviet red stars painted on it?" That group won, according to the story.
Mr. Stodge, sounds like it could have some appeal, if the Tiggers don't prove a short-lived phenomenon.
Although I wonder how that fits in with the likes of Soubry.
I think one of the biggest problems the centre and centre-left has faced has been to confront the demons of the global financial crash which brought a decade and a half of broadly centre-left economics crashing down.
The economic and by definition political battlefields were abdicated first to austerity and later to socialist spending and as neither is the answer it may be with the passage to time a more genuinely social democratic approach (or perhaps the social market economy approach if you prefer) might start looking more attractive again.
Yet it was actually right-wing free market deregulation that had its credibility demolished.
Mr. Jessop, I appreciate your praise for my remarkable consistency
The problem is what it's always been, and would still be had the vote gone the other way. The UK likes the economic side of the EU, and not the political side. The EU has decided these things are utterly indivisible. We faced a fork in the road guaranteed to annoy about half the population.
Whilst a noisy minority on either side really hate/love the EU, most people are ambivalent and those with a preference aren't over the top about it, they just think that, on balance, the EU is a net positive/negative.
One major difference is that, had we voted the other way, politicians and broadcast media would be insisting we respect the result and calling the matter settled.
Mr. Foremain, nothing says benign like foreign laws being imposed on a nation-state with no power to refuse them, whilst paying billions every year for the privilege.
It's only a few years ago Clegg was claiming an EU army was a fantasy.
As an aside, supposing May's deal passes, I would guess that would include the idiocy of Article 13. Knowing May's technological deficiency and authoritarian streak, it'd probably remain even if we actually extricated ourselves from the bureaucratic octopus.
Yet an EU army is actually a good idea. None of the EU nations really has the military or political capability to be able to operate independently in the current global environment.
Yes, I can't quite see what the objection is against participating in an EU army if we're happy to have our forces under NATO commanded by an American (SACEUR).
May's latest, when asked if the fall in police numbers had contributed to the rise in knife crime. "If you look at the figures, what you see is that there's no direct correlation between certain crimes and police numbers."
She may be right of course; the knee-jerk answer isn't necessarily the correct one, but ...
Mr. Foremain, nothing says benign like foreign laws being imposed on a nation-state with no power to refuse them, whilst paying billions every year for the privilege.
It's only a few years ago Clegg was claiming an EU army was a fantasy.
As an aside, supposing May's deal passes, I would guess that would include the idiocy of Article 13. Knowing May's technological deficiency and authoritarian streak, it'd probably remain even if we actually extricated ourselves from the bureaucratic octopus.
Yet an EU army is actually a good idea. None of the EU nations really has the military or political capability to be able to operate independently in the current global environment.
Yes, I can't quite see what the objection is against participating in an EU army if we're happy to have our forces under NATO commanded by an American (SACEUR).
Seems like an unnecessary extra layer if NATO already exists.
Mr. Jessop, I appreciate your praise for my remarkable consistency
The problem is what it's always been, and would still be had the vote gone the other way. The UK likes the economic side of the EU, and not the political side. The EU has decided these things are utterly indivisible. We faced a fork in the road guaranteed to annoy about half the population.
Whilst a noisy minority on either side really hate/love the EU, most people are ambivalent and those with a preference aren't over the top about it, they just think that, on balance, the EU is a net positive/negative.
One major difference is that, had we voted the other way, politicians and broadcast media would be insisting we respect the result and calling the matter settled.
That's a rather different discussion point from the one we were discussing!
"One major difference is that, had we voted the other way, politicians and broadcast media would be insisting we respect the result and calling the matter settled."
The major difference being that we wouldn't be in the sh*t situation we find ourselves in today, staring down into the abyss of a no-deal Brexit.
Mr. Foremain, nothing says benign like foreign laws being imposed on a nation-state with no power to refuse them, whilst paying billions every year for the privilege.
It's only a few years ago Clegg was claiming an EU army was a fantasy.
As an aside, supposing May's deal passes, I would guess that would include the idiocy of Article 13. Knowing May's technological deficiency and authoritarian streak, it'd probably remain even if we actually extricated ourselves from the bureaucratic octopus.
Yet an EU army is actually a good idea. None of the EU nations really has the military or political capability to be able to operate independently in the current global environment.
Indeed. It might force a few of them to take their international obligations more seriously. We might also have had the opportunity to lead how it would look, but no, the isolationists must have their way!
Mr. Foremain, nothing says benign like foreign laws being imposed on a nation-state with no power to refuse them, whilst paying billions every year for the privilege.
It's only a few years ago Clegg was claiming an EU army was a fantasy.
As an aside, supposing May's deal passes, I would guess that would include the idiocy of Article 13. Knowing May's technological deficiency and authoritarian streak, it'd probably remain even if we actually extricated ourselves from the bureaucratic octopus.
Yet an EU army is actually a good idea. None of the EU nations really has the military or political capability to be able to operate independently in the current global environment.
Yes, I can't quite see what the objection is against participating in an EU army if we're happy to have our forces under NATO commanded by an American (SACEUR).
There was a post on a Facebook page in a strong Leave area that I look at which was, the other day not only warning of the strong possibility of a European Army but that our youth would be conscripted into it.
Mr. Foremain, nothing says benign like foreign laws being imposed on a nation-state with no power to refuse them, whilst paying billions every year for the privilege.
It's only a few years ago Clegg was claiming an EU army was a fantasy.
As an aside, supposing May's deal passes, I would guess that would include the idiocy of Article 13. Knowing May's technological deficiency and authoritarian streak, it'd probably remain even if we actually extricated ourselves from the bureaucratic octopus.
Yet an EU army is actually a good idea. None of the EU nations really has the military or political capability to be able to operate independently in the current global environment.
No it's a terrible idea.
Soldiers would be left in limbo in dangerous situations while the chinless goons of Brussels were arguing about who was going to supply to currants for the biscuits.
The weirdest things are Stalin helping out a commissar's daughter (who'd run up to speak with her father) with her homework, or teaching Kaganovic[sp] to improve his literacy. And then ordering quotas for execution.
Mr. Jessop, slowly being boiled is still being boiled.
May's latest, when asked if the fall in police numbers had contributed to the rise in knife crime. "If you look at the figures, what you see is that there's no direct correlation between certain crimes and police numbers."
She may be right of course; the knee-jerk answer isn't necessarily the correct one, but ...
Isn't it the stop of stop and search that is to blame?
May's latest, when asked if the fall in police numbers had contributed to the rise in knife crime. "If you look at the figures, what you see is that there's no direct correlation between certain crimes and police numbers."
She may be right of course; the knee-jerk answer isn't necessarily the correct one, but ...
I was recently talking to a retired London policeman who lives in our village. He said our village had a 'gang' who, if they met a real London gang, would be so scared that they'd p*ss themselves. Yet some carry knives because it's seen as being a 'cool' thing. He said that they're so pathetic they won't cause any serious problems deliberately, but one day there would be an accident.
I do wonder if as much as anything else it's a cultural issue - and one not based on race or religion, but on communications, music and media.
Sounds like Charlie Falconer’s wish to get access to current and historic email at Labour HQ is causing some disquiet at what that might reveal about who has been influencing decisions about antisemitism
The former Ms McCluskey has been through all extant 673 cases, because the computer swept the numbers about all the others under the carpet, and only 1.9% or so merited serious action.
And it was now all hunky-dory and Jezza was free with a single bound.
And 673 is only 0.01% of the membership anyway, so the problem hardly exists, and obviously there aren't any more to be found amongst the other 499327 members.
Who directs an EU army? To whom does its soldiers owe allegiance?
And before anyone wibbles about NATO: if this is the same as NATO then why does it need to reproduce NATO? We know it'll be different because the EU trends towards ever-closer integration and national powers being gobbled up by Brussels.
Who directs an EU army? To whom does its soldiers owe allegiance?
And before anyone wibbles about NATO: if this is the same as NATO then why does it need to reproduce NATO? We know it'll be different because the EU trends towards ever-closer integration and national powers being gobbled up by Brussels.
After Tom Watson's move last week, Corbynistas were out in force claiming it would breach GDPR for him to see anything (although apparently not for Charlie to see the same stuff)
Anyhow, how does "staff using UNITE email addresses" fit that narrative...
Mr. Foremain, nothing says benign like foreign laws being imposed on a nation-state with no power to refuse them, whilst paying billions every year for the privilege.
It's only a few years ago Clegg was claiming an EU army was a fantasy.
As an aside, supposing May's deal passes, I would guess that would include the idiocy of Article 13. Knowing May's technological deficiency and authoritarian streak, it'd probably remain even if we actually extricated ourselves from the bureaucratic octopus.
Yet an EU army is actually a good idea. None of the EU nations really has the military or political capability to be able to operate independently in the current global environment.
No it's a terrible idea. Soldiers would be left in limbo in dangerous situations while the chinless goons of Brussels were arguing about who was going to supply to currants for the biscuits.
You would prefer them to be under the control and direction of the incompetent goons that make up Mrs May`s Cabinet?
Mr. Foremain, nothing says benign like foreign laws being imposed on a nation-state with no power to refuse them, whilst paying billions every year for the privilege.
It's only a few years ago Clegg was claiming an EU army was a fantasy.
As an aside, supposing May's deal passes, I would guess that would include the idiocy of Article 13. Knowing May's technological deficiency and authoritarian streak, it'd probably remain even if we actually extricated ourselves from the bureaucratic octopus.
Yet an EU army is actually a good idea. None of the EU nations really has the military or political capability to be able to operate independently in the current global environment.
Yes, I can't quite see what the objection is against participating in an EU army if we're happy to have our forces under NATO commanded by an American (SACEUR).
There was a post on a Facebook page in a strong Leave area that I look at which was, the other day not only warning of the strong possibility of a European Army but that our youth would be conscripted into it.
Why doesn't that surprise you. Leave need any straw they can find to prop up a plan which is starting to seriously unravel.
Spicy chicken basically. Popular with yoof for the past 10 years or so, and MOR politicians.
As I said on the earlier thread, Nando's is another high street chain that industrialises cruelty by failing to offer free range chicken. We really need to end battery farming and, if it means eating less chicken (and less meat), then so much to the better. We eat too much meat anyway.
I stopped buying cooked chicken from Sainsbury's when they dropped the "high welfare" option. Perhaps if they'd called it "tastes less like cardboard smeared with spicy gloop" it would have sold more.
A bizarre move from Sainsbury's – there is actually a fairly high awareness of these issues among the public.
The same public that was happy enough eating Tesco's horseburgers until it was pointed out to them what they contained?
Or are you saying that acted as some sort of catalyst for much greater awareness; because if so I haven't seen much evidence of it (outside certain hipster-y areas of London) where it existed previously.
Well there it is. It was just a matter of time before one of the usual suspects claimed that concern over food standards and animal welfare was a “hipster/remainer/leftist/London* thing”. Actually, it is far more widespread than that, as you would recognise if a) you knew anything about it or b) bothered to look into it.
Not really I don’t support Corbyn but the media have cremated this now . Still waiting for the media to discuss the Islamophobia amongst the Tory party .
Most British people didn't want ever closer union and were only consulted when UKIP were snapping at the heels of the political class. We were also promised a referendum on Lisbon, which contained the helpfully (for the EU) short period for leaving determined by Article 50.
Now an incredibly incompetent government and opposition are buggering up leaving. Whilst that's not an edifying spectacle, decades of politicians ignoring the wishes of the electorate and then their own manifesto pledges, is what led us to this point.
You seem to have moved on from misreading history to rewriting it.
Europe was way down the list of things that people in Britain were interested in. The upsurge in support for UKIP didn't correspond to the Lisbon Treaty, an event that scarcely troubled most people. And how do you know that most British don't want an ever closer union? We've had two referendums - one overwhelmingly in favour, and the second narrowly against. The third one could go either way. At the moment polling indicates leave are quite likely to lose, and the hysterical objections of leave advocates suggest they believe that too. We've had one election where a major party proposed leaving, and they lost badly. You are entitled to your opinions but don't project them onto everyone else.
"Nobody cares" was always a terrible argument in favour of EU membership. it turned out that 33 m cared enough to vote about it.
Comments
Unfortunately, bullshit, like human ingenuity (but far less pleasant), has no upper limit, and it certainly isn't reserved for just one side in the ongoing melodrama that is the UK/EU situation.
I find it incredibly unlikely that this will come to pass. It seems a completely disproportionate response, even to something as daft as Trump.
It's the fact we might choose to leave a group and have done essentially f'all work to fix the issues that would happen when we leave. We have agreements. Many of those agreements will become void. Therefore we need new agreements.
It's not the EU's fault: it's ours.
Although I wonder how that fits in with the likes of Soubry.
https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1102588605808160768
Anyway, on topic: if you look at the Wikipedia list of states currently considering the NPVIC, then it's just possible for it to be adopted by enough states to come into effect before 2020 without including deep red or flyover states. However, it would require swing states like FL and NC to adopt plus at least two of the very small states of DE, ME and NH that might not go for as it would lessen their influence in national politics. OTOH there are some other swing states that have pre-Trump were traditionally leaning Democratic such as MI, PA and WI that aren't currently considering it that could bring it over if they did.
So I agree that 2020 is an ask, but longer-term I would see it fairly likely to pass and sooner rather than later.
Most British people didn't want ever closer union and were only consulted when UKIP were snapping at the heels of the political class. We were also promised a referendum on Lisbon, which contained the helpfully (for the EU) short period for leaving determined by Article 50.
Now an incredibly incompetent government and opposition are buggering up leaving. Whilst that's not an edifying spectacle, decades of politicians ignoring the wishes of the electorate and then their own manifesto pledges, is what led us to this point.
Why Gabbard is not longer still eludes me.
The introduction, yet again, of narrowly economic questions into the debate about Brexit shows that the political class still don’t get it. They still don’t get why people voted for Brexit. And this goes for politicos from across the political spectrum. The Corbynista left patronises the hell out of Brexit voters by saying that the real reason they voted Leave is because they are ‘hurting’ economically, they feel ‘left behind’, they are still sad and wounded by the fallout from the financial crisis of 2008 onwards. In short, the vote for Brexit was a confused and tragic cry for help, mostly for economic help, and it falls to the PhD-laden activists of the Corbyn set to decipher that cry and answer it. Supercilious much?
On the right too, and in pro-Remain circles, there is an obsession with the economic dimension of Brexit. What will it do to jobs? The amount of time lorries have to wait at Dover? Will we have to pay €7 to visit Europe post-Brexit? What about data-roaming charges when we’re holidaying in Spain? Have you thought about all of this, you dumb Brexiteers?!
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/theresa-mays-bung-shows-she-still-doesnt-understand-brexit/
The Red Roar
@TheRedRoar
Labour's complaints team said to be in chaos amid rumours its head has resigned following revelations in the Sunday papers that antisemitism cases were shared with staff in Corbyn's office.
Heart of Stone etc etc...
It's only a few years ago Clegg was claiming an EU army was a fantasy.
As an aside, supposing May's deal passes, I would guess that would include the idiocy of Article 13. Knowing May's technological deficiency and authoritarian streak, it'd probably remain even if we actually extricated ourselves from the bureaucratic octopus.
Q: Have you thought about all of this, you dumb Brexiteers?!
A: No.
https://twitter.com/KingsPlace/status/1102285110022455306
Europe was way down the list of things that people in Britain were interested in. The upsurge in support for UKIP didn't correspond to the Lisbon Treaty, an event that scarcely troubled most people. And how do you know that most British don't want an ever closer union? We've had two referendums - one overwhelmingly in favour, and the second narrowly against. The third one could go either way. At the moment polling indicates leave are quite likely to lose, and the hysterical objections of leave advocates suggest they believe that too. We've had one election where a major party proposed leaving, and they lost badly. You are entitled to your opinions but don't project them onto everyone else.
Had we remained in the EU an EU army would probably have remained a fantasy, and even if it had come t pass, it is no more something to get stirred up about than NATO or IFOR. I do, however respect your position because you always hold your views in a civilised way!
Now what was that about data protection?
Alastair's view that 'it's all about immigration' is, at the very least, equally persuasive.
And Mr O'Neill shows remarkable chutzpah in accusing others of being supercilious.
Mr. Recidivist, I'm amused to be accused of rewriting history when you cite a referendum in favour of the EU, which preceded the EU's creation by about two decades.
Reckon that's value.
If her Deal passes, she obviously survives the year other things being equal. If we end up with a No Deal Brexit - I think very possible she stays in place for a bit to deal with the crisis and perhaps says she will step down next year.
Even if something else happens on Brexit - I don't know that she is likely to resign necessarily. And she does have that theoretical immunity to leadership challenge until December. DYOR of course.
Equally even if the ERG made the offer I don't think they have the numbers to get it through...
Aside from that, well done.
It is our fault. And whilst our government may be incompetent, I doubt any government could have done much better for the same reason we always get to: the central lie at the heart of the leave campaign meant that no-one can define what Brexit means, because every leave voter had their own sunny vision, many of which are mutually incompatible.
So yes, it is out fault. I'll take some of the blame myself, but as a leave voter, and an agitator for leave, you need to take some yourself.
*take your pick
The economic and by definition political battlefields were abdicated first to austerity and later to socialist spending and as neither is the answer it may be with the passage to time a more genuinely social democratic approach (or perhaps the social market economy approach if you prefer) might start looking more attractive again.
I work on the assumption that he is a not particularly convincing spoof.
The problem is what it's always been, and would still be had the vote gone the other way. The UK likes the economic side of the EU, and not the political side. The EU has decided these things are utterly indivisible. We faced a fork in the road guaranteed to annoy about half the population.
Whilst a noisy minority on either side really hate/love the EU, most people are ambivalent and those with a preference aren't over the top about it, they just think that, on balance, the EU is a net positive/negative.
One major difference is that, had we voted the other way, politicians and broadcast media would be insisting we respect the result and calling the matter settled.
You just know Corbyn couldn't work a shredder.....
A new strategy from the Good Lord?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/birds-eye-bringing-back-findus-14084123
They had the most fantastic insulation properties, given the nuclear fusion reaction that was triggered inside simply by placing them under the grill.
If Pons and Fleischman had studied Crispy Pancakes their research careers might not have ended in disgrace.
She may be right of course; the knee-jerk answer isn't necessarily the correct one, but ...
"One major difference is that, had we voted the other way, politicians and broadcast media would be insisting we respect the result and calling the matter settled."
The major difference being that we wouldn't be in the sh*t situation we find ourselves in today, staring down into the abyss of a no-deal Brexit.
Soldiers would be left in limbo in dangerous situations while the chinless goons of Brussels were arguing about who was going to supply to currants for the biscuits.
The weirdest things are Stalin helping out a commissar's daughter (who'd run up to speak with her father) with her homework, or teaching Kaganovic[sp] to improve his literacy. And then ordering quotas for execution.
Mr. Jessop, slowly being boiled is still being boiled.
I do wonder if as much as anything else it's a cultural issue - and one not based on race or religion, but on communications, music and media.
@ShippersUnbound
Sounds like Charlie Falconer’s wish to get access to current and historic email at Labour HQ is causing some disquiet at what that might reveal about who has been influencing decisions about antisemitism
ho ho ho
The former Ms McCluskey has been through all extant 673 cases, because the computer swept the numbers about all the others under the carpet, and only 1.9% or so merited serious action.
And it was now all hunky-dory and Jezza was free with a single bound.
And 673 is only 0.01% of the membership anyway, so the problem hardly exists, and obviously there aren't any more to be found amongst the other 499327 members.
So we can all go home and have jam for tea.
Surely?
Holy hell....
He really is a loathsome creature . Come the revolution another one on the list of needing re-education .
And before anyone wibbles about NATO: if this is the same as NATO then why does it need to reproduce NATO? We know it'll be different because the EU trends towards ever-closer integration and national powers being gobbled up by Brussels.
Anyhow, how does "staff using UNITE email addresses" fit that narrative...
https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1102605516537237505