Mr. 43, that would make one wonder why the Remain campaign so thoroughly failed to articulate said advantages.
Because they did, and leavers just screamed and shouted that it was all LIES! ?
They didn't though. Most of the Remain campaign was negative. References to the benefits of the EU were lukewarm at best. The Remain case seemed to be better the devil we know.
I disagree. Look at one comment David Cameron made: “The European Union has helped reconcile countries which were once at each others’ throats for decades. Britain has a fundamental national interest in maintaining common purpose in Europe to avoid future conflict between European countries,”
Now, this caused a massive amount of handbag-wringing by the leavers on here. It was nothing to do with the EU, they said, and the EU has actually caused more conflict, or that NATO kept the peace, not the EU!
The problem is, IMV the leavers' arguments were self-serving bullshit. I'd never claim the reason we haven't had a major war in Europe in 74 years is solely down to the EU - but I'd also say it's not fully down to NATO, either. They both played a part, as did other things. But Cameron's comments ring true, for me at least. Countries that talk and have a vested interest in peace will not go to war. Countries that cut themselves off from other countries, who see other countries as the enemy, are far more likely to. And sadly that's the vision of the country many leavers have.
And there are many more examples like this. The problem is that the message got drowned out by leavers' anguished shouts.
(Cue more handbag-wringing from leavers... 3... 2... 1... )
Mr. 43, that would make one wonder why the Remain campaign so thoroughly failed to articulate said advantages.
Because they did, and leavers just screamed and shouted that it was all LIES! ?
They didn't though. Most of the Remain campaign was negative. References to the benefits of the EU were lukewarm at best. The Remain case seemed to be better the devil we know.
Iirc, a few years back during the Coalition, the government (Hague? Foreign Office) did a sector,-by-sector analysis that said the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. The documents seem to have been forgotten about during the referendum campaign.
Is that what turned Hague and Hammond from Eurosceptics to hardcore Remainers? I have wondered a lot about their change of heart.
No Deal has 44% support according to the Telegraph.
DO YOU AGREE... If the EU refuses to make any more concessions, the UK should leave without a deal?
Do YOU agree ... this is a massively leading question? And that, for example ...
DO YOU AGREE... If the UK government refuses to come up with a way to limit economic damage, it should avoid No Deal? ...
... would generate a very different result?
Have you ever seen the Yes Prime Minister skit on polling where Bernard answers the same question in opposite ways within thirty seconds? A fine piece of satire. Especially good because it's true.
I don't think they let you post on PB without having seen it.
Mr. 43, that would make one wonder why the Remain campaign so thoroughly failed to articulate said advantages.
Because they did, and leavers just screamed and shouted that it was all LIES! ?
They didn't though. Most of the Remain campaign was negative. References to the benefits of the EU were lukewarm at best. The Remain case seemed to be better the devil we know.
I disagree. Look at one comment David Cameron made: “The European Union has helped reconcile countries which were once at each others’ throats for decades. Britain has a fundamental national interest in maintaining common purpose in Europe to avoid future conflict between European countries,”
Now, this caused a massive amount of handbag-wringing by the leavers on here. It was nothing to do with the EU, they said, and the EU has actually caused more conflict, or that NATO kept the peace, not the EU!
The problem is, IMV the leavers' arguments were self-serving bullshit. I'd never claim the reason we haven't had a major war in Europe in 74 years is solely down to the EU - but I'd also say it's not fully down to NATO, either. They both played a part, as did other things. But Cameron's comments ring true, for me at least. Countries that talk and have a vested interest in peace will not go to war. Countries that cut themselves off from other countries, who see other countries as the enemy, are far more likely to. And sadly that's the vision of the country many leavers have.
And there are many more examples like this. The problem is that the message got drowned out by leavers' anguished shouts.
(Cue more handbag-wringing from leavers... 3... 2... 1... )
Of course it’s true.
Why else would Putin be so anxious to disrupt it ?
In what way do you think he is anti-semitic? Presumably you don't think he will be carting them off to gas chambers.
Well, that's an absurd way of putting it, but as it's an important question, I'll try to give an answer. Apologies for the length.
Firstly, there is no one smoking gun. He hasn't been seen in Jackboots marching down Whitehall or calling for all Jews to wear a yellow Star of David.
So putting that to one side: for ages I was calling him a 'passive anti-Semite'. Someone who genuinely believed he was anti-racist, but who had spent so long understandably angry about the Palestinian cause that he had lost sight of what that meant. But one event (and annoyingly I forget which) pushed me over to him being a knowing, active anti-Semite.
A big pointer is *that* mural. I'm not Jewish, and not particularly bothered about Jewish affairs. But that mural screamed dodginess. If someone who claims to be anti-racist to his core didn't think: "Hang on, might that not be a little anti-Semitic; perhaps I should be every careful in supporting it..." evidently does not know some of the commonest anti-Semitic tropes. And if that's the case, the best that can be said is that he's in no position to judge whether his actions are anti-Semitic. He claims he didn't look at it: and if that's the case, why the f did he support something he didn't look at, and why has he not been caught out supporting (say) KKK or anti-Muslim stuff through similar blindness?
Then there is his defence of people who have made openly anti-Semitic comments, from Ken Livingstone onwards. It's fine supporting your friends and fellow travellers, but if you support them in their anti-Semitism, you're just as bad as they are. It's easy to use a form of words to support them personally, but the act.
Then there are a host of other comments and actions: from the IHRA debacle to the 'English irony' comments, or the Tunis wreath row.
Or the Chakrabarti whitewash - and if it wasn't a whitewash, then it was massive incompetence. Or the fact he (iirc) calls those nice people in Hizbollah 'friends'. Or the fact he has utterly failed to close down the issue, which should be as easy as pie to shut down - unless you actually agree with the people committing the wrongs?
I know his supporters will look at the above and say that it is thin gruel: except there's a fair but more, and the fact that when he gets into these problems it's always about Jewish people, and not about other ethnic minorities, does make it appear rather deliberate.
Finally, there is the fact that many within Labour - including MPs who have worked hard for the party for years, even decades - say he is.
I think he's a non-passive anti-semite but he's just rather good at keeping quiet about it.
Mr. 43, that would make one wonder why the Remain campaign so thoroughly failed to articulate said advantages.
Because they did, and leavers just screamed and shouted that it was all LIES! ?
They didn't though. Most of the Remain campaign was negative. References to the benefits of the EU were lukewarm at best. The Remain case seemed to be better the devil we know.
I disagree. Look at one comment David Cameron made: “The European Union has helped reconcile countries which were once at each others’ throats for decades. Britain has a fundamental national interest in maintaining common purpose in Europe to avoid future conflict between European countries,”
Now, this caused a massive amount of handbag-wringing by the leavers on here. It was nothing to do with the EU, they said, and the EU has actually caused more conflict, or that NATO kept the peace, not the EU!
The problem is, IMV the leavers' arguments were self-serving bullshit. I'd never claim the reason we haven't had a major war in Europe in 74 years is solely down to the EU - but I'd also say it's not fully down to NATO, either. They both played a part, as did other things. But Cameron's comments ring true, for me at least. Countries that talk and have a vested interest in peace will not go to war. Countries that cut themselves off from other countries, who see other countries as the enemy, are far more likely to. And sadly that's the vision of the country many leavers have.
And there are many more examples like this. The problem is that the message got drowned out by leavers' anguished shouts.
(Cue more handbag-wringing from leavers... 3... 2... 1... )
I would argue the key problem with such a view is that it's quite a western view. For example, the EU didn't prevent wars in Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia and Poland. There is even a case, albeit a tenuous one, that it was a significant cause of the current war in the Ukraine (although anyone who thinks the lion's share of blame doesn't lie with Putin is mad). Even in the west, it didn't prevent a military coup in France in 1959, in Spain in 1981 or the war in Algeria.
That said, of course, the fact is Europe has become more peaceful - but arguably that is a trend that goes back to the eighteenth century.
I think Common Market 2.0 would survive the voters if - and only if - there was some fig leaf regarding immigration; perhaps a return to the pre-Maastricht situation where people could work, but there were no benefits.
(In other words, while there would be a meaningful number of voters who were very unhappy, there would also be quite a lot who found it an acceptable compromise.)
I also wonder if us getting Common Market 2.0 might actually do more to loosen the EU over time that anything else. It would be an attractive outcome for a number of EU countries who are not committed to "the project". And if those countries prospered more over time...
How many MEPs and votes in the council will we get? Zero.
Timing of the referendum . Holding it during the European Football Championships .
Bad decision. On the day itself it didn’t help that the se esp London was plagued by huge thunderstorms whilst high Leave areas were basking in sunshine .
Turnout was lower in London than further north . The weather was a bad sign !
In what way do you think he is anti-semitic? Presumably you don't think he will be carting them off to gas chambers.
Well, that's an absurd way of putting it, but as it's an important question, I'll try to give an answer. Apologies for the length.
Firstly, there is no one smoking gun. He hasn't been seen in Jackboots marching down Whitehall or calling for all Jews to wear a yellow Star of David.
So putting that to one side: for ages I was calling him a 'passive anti-Semite'. Someone who genuinely believed he was anti-racist, but who had spent so long understandably angry about the Palestinian cause that he had lost sight of what that meant. But one event (and annoyingly I forget which) pushed me over to him being a knowing, active anti-Semite.
A big pointer is *that* mural. I'm not Jewish, and not particularly bothered about Jewish affairs. But that mural screamed dodginess. If someone who claims to be anti-racist to his core didn't think: "Hang on, might that not be a little anti-Semitic; perhaps I should be every careful in supporting it..." evidently does not know some of the commonest anti-Semitic tropes. And if that's the case, the best that can be said is that he's in no position to judge whether his actions are anti-Semitic. He claims he didn't look at it: and if that's the case, why the f did he support something he didn't look at, and why has he not been caught out supporting (say) KKK or anti-Muslim stuff through similar blindness?
Then there is his defence of people who have made openly anti-Semitic comments, from Ken Livingstone onwards. It's fine supporting your friends and fellow travellers, but if you support them in their anti-Semitism, you're just as bad as they are. It's easy to use a form of words to support them personally, but the act.
Then there are a host of other comments and actions: from the IHRA debacle to the 'English irony' comments, or the Tunis wreath row.
Finally, there is the fact that many within Labour - including MPs who have worked hard for the party for years, even decades - say he is.
AS, like all racism, is rarely as extreme as Nazism. Indeed it blends fairly subtly into the general population as does anti-afro caribean predjudice or Islamophobia. Use of the obselete and demeaning terminology of Coloured" or "funny tinge" is wrong, but hardly a KKK lynch mob.
I don't think Jezza has been accused of wishing harm to individual Jews, or to British Judaism, despite his hostility to the Israeli state as currently constituted. Some of his associates perhaps are rather different.
Timing of the referendum . Holding it during the European Football Championships .
Bad decision. On the day itself it didn’t help that the se esp London was plagued by huge thunderstorms whilst high Leave areas were basking in sunshine .
Turnout was lower in London than further north . The weather was a bad sign !
Although the killer punch for Remain was probably the very low turnout in Northern Ireland and comparatively low turnout in Scotland.
I think Common Market 2.0 would survive the voters if - and only if - there was some fig leaf regarding immigration; perhaps a return to the pre-Maastricht situation where people could work, but there were no benefits.
(In other words, while there would be a meaningful number of voters who were very unhappy, there would also be quite a lot who found it an acceptable compromise.)
I also wonder if us getting Common Market 2.0 might actually do more to loosen the EU over time that anything else. It would be an attractive outcome for a number of EU countries who are not committed to "the project". And if those countries prospered more over time...
EU immigration to the UK has actually fallen since the referendum anyway, 'Common Market 2.0' is really a more BINO version of May's Deal ie the whole UK stays in the Single Market and the Customs Union, at least until a future FTA is agreed, the DUP could then at least see GB mirror the terms of the NI backstop, however the ERG would get even less Brexit than is on offer with May's Deal
Mr. 43, that would make one wonder why the Remain campaign so thoroughly failed to articulate said advantages.
Because they did, and leavers just screamed and shouted that it was all LIES! ?
They didn't though. Most of the Remain campaign was negative. References to the benefits of the EU were lukewarm at best. The Remain case seemed to be better the devil we know.
I disagree. Look at one comment David Cameron made: “The European Union has helped reconcile countries which were once at each others’ throats for decades. Britain has a fundamental national interest in maintaining common purpose in Europe to avoid future conflict between European countries,”
Now, this caused a massive amount of handbag-wringing by the leavers on here. It was nothing to do with the EU, they said, and the EU has actually caused more conflict, or that NATO kept the peace, not the EU!
The problem is, IMV the leavers' arguments were self-serving bullshit. I'd never claim the reason we haven't had a major war in Europe in 74 years is solely down to the EU - but I'd also say it's not fully down to NATO, either. They both played a part, as did other things. But Cameron's comments ring true, for me at least. Countries that talk and have a vested interest in peace will not go to war. Countries that cut themselves off from other countries, who see other countries as the enemy, are far more likely to. And sadly that's the vision of the country many leavers have.
And there are many more examples like this. The problem is that the message got drowned out by leavers' anguished shouts.
(Cue more handbag-wringing from leavers... 3... 2... 1... )
No hand wringing. Just a comment that as usual you are talking bollocks. There is no anguish, only facts and the fact is you are wrong.
Mr. 43, that would make one wonder why the Remain campaign so thoroughly failed to articulate said advantages.
Because they did, and leavers just screamed and shouted that it was all LIES! ?
They didn't though. Most of the Remain campaign was negative. References to the benefits of the EU were lukewarm at best. The Remain case seemed to be better the devil we know.
I disagree. Look at one comment David Cameron made: “The European Union has helped reconcile countries which were once at each others’ throats for decades. Britain has a fundamental national interest in maintaining common purpose in Europe to avoid future conflict between European countries,”
Now, this caused a massive amount of handbag-wringing by the leavers on here. It was nothing to do with the EU, they said, and the EU has actually caused more conflict, or that NATO kept the peace, not the EU!
The problem is, IMV the leavers' arguments were self-serving bullshit. I'd never claim the reason we haven't had a major war in Europe in 74 years is solely down to the EU - but I'd also say it's not fully down to NATO, either. They both played a part, as did other things. But Cameron's comments ring true, for me at least. Countries that talk and have a vested interest in peace will not go to war. Countries that cut themselves off from other countries, who see other countries as the enemy, are far more likely to. And sadly that's the vision of the country many leavers have.
And there are many more examples like this. The problem is that the message got drowned out by leavers' anguished shouts.
(Cue more handbag-wringing from leavers... 3... 2... 1... )
No hand wringing. Just a comment that as usual you are talking bollocks. There is no anguish, only facts and the fact is you are wrong.
I would argue the key problem with such a view is that it's quite a western view. For example, the EU didn't prevent wars in Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia and Poland. There is even a case, albeit a tenuous one, that it was a significant cause of the current war in the Ukraine (although anyone who thinks the lion's share of blame doesn't lie with Putin is mad). Even in the west, it didn't prevent a military coup in France in 1959, in Spain in 1981 or the war in Algeria.
That said, of course, the fact is Europe has become more peaceful - but arguably that is a trend that goes back to the eighteenth century.
I think I agree in part with that. It *is* a very western European view: but we have not had a war amongst EU member states in coming up to 75 years, and that must be approaching a record. After Waterloo you had the French invasion of Spain, the Seven Weeks' War and others (from memory, as you know I am not an Historian!)
It's also possible to argue that states have been internally more stable since the EU: thre have been no war of independence or manor uprisings in member states (except, perhaps, France 1968?)
And that matters, as the cause of the last two world wars can be firmly placed in the rivalry between two European powers who are now friends. Common interest indeed.
No Deal has 44% support according to the Telegraph.
How many people could explain the difference between Deal and No Deal ?
How many people know that "no deal" doesn't exactly mean "no deal"? (In that I mean there will be agreements covering individual sectors)
Certainly "No Deal" will lead to mini deals, some fairly minimal and practical, but they would come very quickly to the same 3 issues at the heart of the WA.
"No Deal" is really just another form of can kicking.
In what way do you think he is anti-semitic? Presumably you don't think he will be carting them off to gas chambers.
Well, that's an absurd way of putting it, but as it's an important question, I'll try to give an answer. Apologies for the length.
Firstly, there is no one smoking gun. He hasn't been seen in Jackboots marching down Whitehall or calling for all Jews to wear a yellow Star of David.
So putting that to one side: for ages I was calling him a 'passive anti-Semite'. Someone who genuinely believed he was anti-racist, but who had spent so long understandably angry about the Palestinian cause that he had lost sight of what that meant. But one event (and annoyingly I forget which) pushed me over to him being a knowing, active anti-Semite.
Then there is his defence of people who have made openly anti-Semitic comments, from Ken Livingstone onwards. It's fine supporting your friends and fellow travellers, but if you support them in their anti-Semitism, you're just as bad as they are. It's easy to use a form of words to support them personally, but the act.
Then there are a host of other comments and actions: from the IHRA debacle to the 'English irony' comments, or the Tunis wreath row.
Or the Chakrabarti whitewash - and if it wasn't a whitewash, then it was massive incompetence. Or the fact he (iirc) calls those nice people in Hizbollah 'friends'. Or the fact he has utterly failed to close down the issue, which should be as easy as pie to shut down - unless you actually agree with the people committing the wrongs?
I know his supporters will look at the above and say that it is thin gruel: except there's a fair but more, and the fact that when he gets into these problems it's always about Jewish people, and not about other ethnic minorities, does make it appear rather deliberate.
Finally, there is the fact that many within Labour - including MPs who have worked hard for the party for years, even decades - say he is.
That is as you say thin gruel. I am not Jewish, but I do have a name that sounds Jewish so I have a small amount of skin in this game and will keep an open mind. I've been on the receiving end of very low level anti-semitism. I don't think any of what is attributed to Corbyn is remotely worthy of the description. I do think it is an extraordinarily convenient accusation for Corbyn's detractors though.
Mr. 43, that would make one wonder why the Remain campaign so thoroughly failed to articulate said advantages.
Because they did, and leavers just screamed and shouted that it was all LIES! ?
They didn't though. Most of the Remain campaign was negative. References to the benefits of the EU were lukewarm at best. The Remain case seemed to be better the devil we know.
I disagree. Look at one comment David Cameron made: “The European Union has helped reconcile countries which were once at each others’ throats for decades. Britain has a fundamental national interest in maintaining common purpose in Europe to avoid future conflict between European countries,”
Now, this caused a massive amount of handbag-wringing by the leavers on here. It was nothing to do with the EU, they said, and the EU has actually caused more conflict, or that NATO kept the peace, not the EU!
The problem is, IMV the leavers' arguments were self-serving bullshit. I'd never claim the reason we haven't had a major war in Europe in 74 years is solely down to the EU - but I'd also say it's not fully down to NATO, either. They both played a part, as did other things. But Cameron's comments ring true, for me at least. Countries that talk and have a vested interest in peace will not go to war. Countries that cut themselves off from other countries, who see other countries as the enemy, are far more likely to. And sadly that's the vision of the country many leavers have.
And there are many more examples like this. The problem is that the message got drowned out by leavers' anguished shouts.
(Cue more handbag-wringing from leavers... 3... 2... 1... )
No hand wringing. Just a comment that as usual you are talking bollocks. There is no anguish, only facts and the fact is you are wrong.
Richard, I see you're still using your customary impoliteness. I'll respond to you when you actually have an argument to make instead of insults.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
In what way do you think he is anti-semitic? Presumably you don't think he will be carting them off to gas chambers.
Well, that's an absurd way of putting it, but as it's an important question, I'll try to give an answer. Apologies for the length.
Firstly, there is no one smoking gun. He hasn't been seen in Jackboots marching down Whitehall or calling for all Jews to wear a yellow Star of David.
So putting that to one side: for ages I was calling him a 'passive anti-Semite'. Someone who genuinely believed he was anti-racist, but who had spent so long understandably angry about the Palestinian cause that he had lost sight of what that meant. But one event (and annoyingly I forget which) pushed me over to him being a knowing, active anti-Semite.
Then there is his defence of people who have made openly anti-Semitic comments, from Ken Livingstone onwards. It's fine supporting your friends and fellow travellers, but if you support them in their anti-Semitism, you're just as bad as they are. It's easy to use a form of words to support them personally, but the act.
Then there are a host of other comments and actions: from the IHRA debacle to the 'English irony' comments, or the Tunis wreath row.
Or the Chakrabarti whitewash - and if it wasn't a whitewash, then it was massive incompetence. Or the fact he (iirc) calls those nice people in Hizbollah 'friends'. Or the fact he has utterly failed to close down the issue, which should be as easy as pie to shut down - unless you actually agree with the people committing the wrongs?
I know his supporters will look at the above and say that it is thin gruel: except there's a fair but more, and the fact that when he gets into these problems it's always about Jewish people, and not about other ethnic minorities, does make it appear rather deliberate.
Finally, there is the fact that many within Labour - including MPs who have worked hard for the party for years, even decades - say he is.
That is as you say thin gruel. I am not Jewish, but I do have a name that sounds Jewish so I have a small amount of skin in this game and will keep an open mind. I've been on the receiving end of very low level anti-semitism. I don't think any of what is attributed to Corbyn is remotely worthy of the description. I do think it is an extraordinarily convenient accusation for Corbyn's detractors though.
I said his supporters would say it is thin gruel: I am *not* a supporter of his. It is rather hard to explain such a pattern, though.
How do you explain it then? Or do you think it is all a conspiracy against him?
I would argue the key problem with such a view is that it's quite a western view. For example, the EU didn't prevent wars in Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia and Poland. There is even a case, albeit a tenuous one, that it was a significant cause of the current war in the Ukraine (although anyone who thinks the lion's share of blame doesn't lie with Putin is mad). Even in the west, it didn't prevent a military coup in France in 1959, in Spain in 1981 or the war in Algeria.
That said, of course, the fact is Europe has become more peaceful - but arguably that is a trend that goes back to the eighteenth century.
I think I agree in part with that. It *is* a very western European view: but we have not had a war amongst EU member states in coming up to 75 years, and that must be approaching a record. After Waterloo you had the French invasion of Spain, the Seven Weeks' War and others (from memory, as you know I am not an Historian!)
It's also possible to argue that states have been internally more stable since the EU: thre have been no war of independence or manor uprisings in member states (except, perhaps, France 1968?)
And that matters, as the cause of the last two world wars can be firmly placed in the rivalry between two European powers who are now friends. Common interest indeed.
France into Spain in 1823, several revolutions in 1830 and 1848, the Crimean War, the French invasion of Italy, the Franco-Prussian War, the Risorgimento, the Paris Commune of 1871, the Russo-Turkish War and the Moroccan Crisis are the ones I can think of.
I don't think Russia is currently anyone's friend, including Germany's, but it would be nice to think that will change at some point. (And yes, I know you meant France!)
It's a fun header but a real stretch. Skimming the full report, they seem to have got some scientists to derive thousands of social attitudes in countless societies and assign them to these 7 categories, which they seem to have decided a priori were the key things that societies might come up with (as opposed, for instance, with "obeying God", which I suspect would feautre in some societies). They've made a serious effort to avoid depending on any one rating person, but the categories are so ambiguous as to be of doubtful utility - I'm keen on helping my family, for instance, but I wouldn't want society organised on the basis of what was best for them.
And the evidence that if people do think that family comes first they then extrapolted it to the Milibands and voted accordingly? It's a giant leap, unsupported by any polling evidence that I've seen.
Makes a change from Brexit, though. Is anything happening about that?
I would argue the key problem with such a view is that it's quite a western view. For example, the EU didn't prevent wars in Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia and Poland. There is even a case, albeit a tenuous one, that it was a significant cause of the current war in the Ukraine (although anyone who thinks the lion's share of blame doesn't lie with Putin is mad). Even in the west, it didn't prevent a military coup in France in 1959, in Spain in 1981 or the war in Algeria.
That said, of course, the fact is Europe has become more peaceful - but arguably that is a trend that goes back to the eighteenth century.
I think I agree in part with that. It *is* a very western European view: but we have not had a war amongst EU member states in coming up to 75 years, and that must be approaching a record. After Waterloo you had the French invasion of Spain, the Seven Weeks' War and others (from memory, as you know I am not an Historian!)
It's also possible to argue that states have been internally more stable since the EU: thre have been no war of independence or manor uprisings in member states (except, perhaps, France 1968?)
And that matters, as the cause of the last two world wars can be firmly placed in the rivalry between two European powers who are now friends. Common interest indeed.
The EU is more a part of the backlash against nationalism than its cause in the post war period.
The rise of nationalism on the continent is in large part because of the passing of the generation that experienced it in the Thirties and Forties.
Off Topic, this week I had this incident described to me by a patient who was on one of the Destroyers escorting this ship. He watched it explode with several friends on board. These men won't be with us for long.
Brown was the previous PM? Huh? I'm fairly sure there was an oily looking bloke called David Cameron in between them. And she's got a looong way to go before beating him.
Timing of the referendum . Holding it during the European Football Championships .
Bad decision. On the day itself it didn’t help that the se esp London was plagued by huge thunderstorms whilst high Leave areas were basking in sunshine .
Turnout was lower in London than further north . The weather was a bad sign !
Although the killer punch for Remain was probably the very low turnout in Northern Ireland and comparatively low turnout in Scotland.
Except Northern Ireland's entire population was the same size as Leave's victory.
If Northern Ireland had had a turnout 15 points higher, and Scotland 10 points, it would still have been a Leave win.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
I thought both Brown and May would be a complete disaster as PM and I have been proved correct on both accounts. Perhaps it is a recurrent theme of politics that leaders or potential ones are talked up by sycophantic media, when it is clear to anyone with independent thought that they will be an absolute disaster as PM.
I think Brown and May being 35 & 36 in the tenure table are coupled by their utter incompetence and lack of skills to deal with the top job!
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
Off Topic, this week I had this incident described to me by a patient who was on one of the Destroyers escorting this ship. He watched it explode with several friends on board. These men won't be with us for long.
Presumably he must be nearing ninety now, even if he was only just eighteen at the time? As you say, the time is now approaching when we will no longer have the eyewitnesses with us.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
This has been part of my assumptions for awhile now. She's almost there already I'd have thought - while you might get an interim PM if she stepped down immediately after, say, a deal, an easier solution for the party would be that she steps down as leader of the party and stays on as PM for the length of the leadership contest. The last one that went to the members took a couple of months. so if she makes it to what was supposed to be Brexit day and announces her intent to stand down sometime after that, she makes it past Brown.
She's already got PM 2016-2019 down, so she doesn't have to actually get to 3 years, though I imagine she'd like to.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
In what way do you think he is anti-semitic? Presumably you don't think he will be carting them off to gas chambers.
Well, that's an absurd way of putting it, but as it's an important question, I'll try to give an answer. Apologies for the length.
Firstly, there is no one smoking gun. He hasn't been seen in Jackboots marching down Whitehall or calling for all Jews to wear a yellow Star of David.
Then there are a host of other comments and actions: from the IHRA debacle to the 'English irony' comments, or the Tunis wreath row.
Or the Chakrabarti whitewash - and if it wasn't a whitewash, then it was massive incompetence. Or the fact he (iirc) calls those nice people in Hizbollah 'friends'. Or the fact he has utterly failed to close down the issue, which should be as easy as pie to shut down - unless you actually agree with the people committing the wrongs?
I know his supporters will look at the above and say that it is thin gruel: except there's a fair but more, and the fact that when he gets into these problems it's always about Jewish people, and not about other ethnic minorities, does make it appear rather deliberate.
Finally, there is the fact that many within Labour - including MPs who have worked hard for the party for years, even decades - say he is.
That is as you say thin gruel. I am not Jewish, but I do have a name that sounds Jewish so I have a small amount of skin in this game and will keep an open mind. I've been on the receiving end of very low level anti-semitism. I don't think any of what is attributed to Corbyn is remotely worthy of the description. I do think it is an extraordinarily convenient accusation for Corbyn's detractors though.
I said his supporters would say it is thin gruel: I am *not* a supporter of his. It is rather hard to explain such a pattern, though.
How do you explain it then? Or do you think it is all a conspiracy against him?
I don't see any pattern that needs explaining. I am not one of his supporters either. But my objection to his talking to Hezbollah is that it is self indulgent and unlikely to help. It's a rough neighbourhood and they've probably done some bad things, but you can say the same about most of the organisations around there. I'd say avoiding getting involved is the best policy.
But the huge amount of coverage this issue is being given is clearly politically motivated. I wouldn't use the word conspiracy simply because that implies it is being done covertly. This is pretty much out in the open.
Timing of the referendum . Holding it during the European Football Championships .
Bad decision. On the day itself it didn’t help that the se esp London was plagued by huge thunderstorms whilst high Leave areas were basking in sunshine .
Turnout was lower in London than further north . The weather was a bad sign !
The weather down here on the day was seriously awful. To the point where much of the transport was screwed and people were struggling to get home. We still would have lost anyway, but it would have been closer!
Timing of the referendum . Holding it during the European Football Championships .
Bad decision. On the day itself it didn’t help that the se esp London was plagued by huge thunderstorms whilst high Leave areas were basking in sunshine .
Turnout was lower in London than further north . The weather was a bad sign !
Although the killer punch for Remain was probably the very low turnout in Northern Ireland and comparatively low turnout in Scotland.
Except Northern Ireland's entire population was the same size as Leave's victory.
If Northern Ireland had had a turnout 15 points higher, and Scotland 10 points, it would still have been a Leave win.
Fair point. And of course many of those who stayed at home might well have voted Leave on a forced choice.
Off Topic, this week I had this incident described to me by a patient who was on one of the Destroyers escorting this ship. He watched it explode with several friends on board. These men won't be with us for long.
Presumably he must be nearing ninety now, even if he was only just eighteen at the time? As you say, the time is now approaching when we will no longer have the eyewitnesses with us.
Born 1923, he was 18 at the time. He had a number of other ships and stayed in the Navy post war. I always let the oldsters tell their stories. He always volunteered for gunnery ranging, to get out of Church Parade...
I would argue the key problem with such a view is that it's quite a western view. For example, the EU didn't prevent wars in Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia and Poland. There is even a case, albeit a tenuous one, that it was a significant cause of the current war in the Ukraine (although anyone who thinks the lion's share of blame doesn't lie with Putin is mad). Even in the west, it didn't prevent a military coup in France in 1959, in Spain in 1981 or the war in Algeria.
That said, of course, the fact is Europe has become more peaceful - but arguably that is a trend that goes back to the eighteenth century.
I think I agree in part with that. It *is* a very western European view: but we have not had a war amongst EU member states in coming up to 75 years, and that must be approaching a record. After Waterloo you had the French invasion of Spain, the Seven Weeks' War and others (from memory, as you know I am not an Historian!)
It's also possible to argue that states have been internally more stable since the EU: thre have been no war of independence or manor uprisings in member states (except, perhaps, France 1968?)
And that matters, as the cause of the last two world wars can be firmly placed in the rivalry between two European powers who are now friends. Common interest indeed.
The EU is more a part of the backlash against nationalism than its cause in the post war period.
The rise of nationalism on the continent is in large part because of the passing of the generation that experienced it in the Thirties and Forties.
(Snip)
Again, I agree with that in part. It's a complex issue - and I'd argue that the people who claim that the EU has kept the peace are as wrong as those who claim it had done nothing for peace. It was one piece of the puzzle that helped peace and reconciliation.
On the other hand: an elderly relative says he voted leave because he lived through the war, and could never trust Germany. So it might work that way around as well. (And he says that in front of a German friend of his wife!)
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
It's a fun header but a real stretch. Skimming the full report, they seem to have got some scientists to derive thousands of social attitudes in countless societies and assign them to these 7 categories, which they seem to have decided a priori were the key things that societies might come up with (as opposed, for instance, with "obeying God", which I suspect would feautre in some societies). They've made a serious effort to avoid depending on any one rating person, but the categories are so ambiguous as to be of doubtful utility - I'm keen on helping my family, for instance, but I wouldn't want society organised on the basis of what was best for them....
So clearly you would fall in the 18% who think ‘dividing resources fairly’ the most important moral value. And ‘some societies’ doesn’t come into it; they were studying rules which appear to be universal across cultures.
No Deal has 44% support according to the Telegraph.
How many people could explain the difference between Deal and No Deal ?
How many people know that "no deal" doesn't exactly mean "no deal"? (In that I mean there will be agreements covering individual sectors)
Certainly "No Deal" will lead to mini deals, some fairly minimal and practical, but they would come very quickly to the same 3 issues at the heart of the WA.
"No Deal" is really just another form of can kicking.
Well it's like changing ends at half time - instead of starting from "We're in - how much out do we want to be", we are starting from "We're out - how much in do we want to be" - the answers are not the same.
Off Topic, this week I had this incident described to me by a patient who was on one of the Destroyers escorting this ship. He watched it explode with several friends on board. These men won't be with us for long.
Presumably he must be nearing ninety now, even if he was only just eighteen at the time? As you say, the time is now approaching when we will no longer have the eyewitnesses with us.
Born 1923, he was 18 at the time. He had a number of other ships and stayed in the Navy post war. I always let the oldsters tell their stories. He always volunteered for gunnery ranging, to get out of Church Parade...
Yeah, epic fail of my maths there, I knocked ten years off by accident. Never do sums when tired and drinking a cider. Approaching a hundred is what I should have said, isn't it, unless they had cabin boys aged ten aboard!
Technically the youngest surviving combatant of WWII should now be coming up to 92. Given the total War nature of it, there will be younger survivors, but not much younger, and not many.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
I think Common Market 2.0 would survive the voters if - and only if - there was some fig leaf regarding immigration; perhaps a return to the pre-Maastricht situation where people could work, but there were no benefits.
(In other words, while there would be a meaningful number of voters who were very unhappy, there would also be quite a lot who found it an acceptable compromise.)
I also wonder if us getting Common Market 2.0 might actually do more to loosen the EU over time that anything else. It would be an attractive outcome for a number of EU countries who are not committed to "the project". And if those countries prospered more over time...
You get protection because the others are bound by the same rules as you, even though you have no say over the rules and they don't take your interest into account. The Norwegian parliament made this point in their very interesting review of the Norway option. In general Norway thinks "Norway" is nonsense but they make the best of it because they can't agree either to be a member of the EU or cast themselves off from it. Pretty much like us, but it makes even less sense for us because we're much bigger.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
This has been part of my assumptions for awhile now. She's almost there already I'd have thought - while you might get an interim PM if she stepped down immediately after, say, a deal, an easier solution for the party would be that she steps down as leader of the party and stays on as PM for the length of the leadership contest. The last one that went to the members took a couple of months. so if she makes it to what was supposed to be Brexit day and announces her intent to stand down sometime after that, she makes it past Brown.
She's already got PM 2016-2019 down, so she doesn't have to actually get to 3 years, though I imagine she'd like to.
People who make it to No.10, don't tend to leave voluntarily, Cameron was an exception and many on here say that he jumped before he was pushed in the aftermath of 2016!
Its not about marking time being PM, it is having the power to affect peoples lives and having the media hang off every word they say. They know as soon as they stop being PM, their influence and opinion count for very little. TM is unusual in that her influence and opinion counts for nothing already, she is in office but not in power to use that delightful phrase!
I don't see any pattern that needs explaining. I am not one of his supporters either. But my objection to his talking to Hezbollah is that it is self indulgent and unlikely to help. It's a rough neighbourhood and they've probably done some bad things, but you can say the same about most of the organisations around there. I'd say avoiding getting involved is the best policy.
But the huge amount of coverage this issue is being given is clearly politically motivated. I wouldn't use the word conspiracy simply because that implies it is being done covertly. This is pretty much out in the open.
I'm genuinely surprised you don't see a pattern. I look forward to you giving your political antagonists similar benefit of the doubt in the future!
So another question: if you are going to ignore all the above (and it was not a comprehensive list), what would he have to do or say to convince you that he is anti-Semitic? If you use the criteria you mentioned in your first post, that's a rather high bar!
On another point: even if you think he isn't anti-Semitic, this mess is not the result of his opponents. It's all down to him, and his inability to stop the mess within his party. He had an opportunity with the Chakrabati report a couple of years ago, but all he ever does is poor fuel on the fire. You might want to consider why that might be.
I would argue the key problem with such a view is that it's quite a western view. For example, the EU didn't prevent wars in Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia and Poland. There is even a case, albeit a tenuous one, that it was a significant cause of the current war in the Ukraine (although anyone who thinks the lion's share of blame doesn't lie with Putin is mad). Even in the west, it didn't prevent a military coup in France in 1959, in Spain in 1981 or the war in Algeria.
That said, of course, the fact is Europe has become more peaceful - but arguably that is a trend that goes back to the eighteenth century.
I think I agree in part with that. It *is* a very western European view: but we have not had a war amongst EU member states in coming up to 75 years, and that must be approaching a record. After Waterloo you had the French invasion of Spain, the Seven Weeks' War and others (from memory, as you know I am not an Historian!)
It's also possible to argue that states have been internally more stable since the EU: thre have been no war of independence or manor uprisings in member states (except, perhaps, France 1968?)
And that matters, as the cause of the last two world wars can be firmly placed in the rivalry between two European powers who are now friends. Common interest indeed.
The EU is more a part of the backlash against nationalism than its cause in the post war period.
The rise of nationalism on the continent is in large part because of the passing of the generation that experienced it in the Thirties and Forties.
(Snip)
Again, I agree with that in part. It's a complex issue - and I'd argue that the people who claim that the EU has kept the peace are as wrong as those who claim it had done nothing for peace. It was one piece of the puzzle that helped peace and reconciliation....
What is perhaps less controversial is that the EUnhas significantly and rapidly improved the prosperity of the poorer nations which have joined it. And prosperous societies are less likely to engage in war - particularly civil war.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
This has been part of my assumptions for awhile now. She's almost there already I'd have thought - while you might get an interim PM if she stepped down immediately after, say, a deal, an easier solution for the party would be that she steps down as leader of the party and stays on as PM for the length of the leadership contest. The last one that went to the members took a couple of months. so if she makes it to what was supposed to be Brexit day and announces her intent to stand down sometime after that, she makes it past Brown.
She's already got PM 2016-2019 down, so she doesn't have to actually get to 3 years, though I imagine she'd like to.
TM is unusual in that her influence and opinion counts for nothing already, she is in office but not in power to use that delightful phrase!
Which is why length of service may actually be so important to her. It's all she has.
The Earl of Derby 3 years, 280 days terms 3 Conservative 1852 William Pitt the Younger 18 years, 343 days terms 2 Tory (Pittite) 1783
I don't know what was up in the 1850s, but three separate terms and Derby still couldn't make it to 4 years?
Following the Peelite/Protectionist split of 1846, Derby became the leader of the protectionists, later Conservatives. Throughout the 1850s they were the largest party, but because the Peelites, Radicals and Irish supported the Whigs they were never able to form a majority. Indeed three of these parties ultimately merged in 1859 to become the Liberals. So Derby led the party for 22 years, and yet had just three short stints as PM of a minority government. In fact it was Disraeli, his successor, who won the Protectionists/Conservatives their first majority since 1841 in 1874.
It's a fun header but a real stretch. Skimming the full report, they seem to have got some scientists to derive thousands of social attitudes in countless societies and assign them to these 7 categories, which they seem to have decided a priori were the key things that societies might come up with (as opposed, for instance, with "obeying God", which I suspect would feautre in some societies). They've made a serious effort to avoid depending on any one rating person, but the categories are so ambiguous as to be of doubtful utility - I'm keen on helping my family, for instance, but I wouldn't want society organised on the basis of what was best for them.
And the evidence that if people do think that family comes first they then extrapolted it to the Milibands and voted accordingly? It's a giant leap, unsupported by any polling evidence that I've seen.
Makes a change from Brexit, though. Is anything happening about that?
The trouble with multiple linear regression is you can come up with spurious correlations really easily. There must be millions of papers in the scientific literature discussing them.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
Off Topic, this week I had this incident described to me by a patient who was on one of the Destroyers escorting this ship. He watched it explode with several friends on board. These men won't be with us for long.
Presumably he must be nearing ninety now, even if he was only just eighteen at the time? As you say, the time is now approaching when we will no longer have the eyewitnesses with us.
I think it was the most massive explosion ever caught on camera up until then.
In 1945, when Japanese battleship Yamato exploded, the mushroom cloud was seen 100 miles away in the southern main island of Kyushu.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
I think Common Market 2.0 would survive the voters if - and only if - there was some fig leaf regarding immigration; perhaps a return to the pre-Maastricht situation where people could work, but there were no benefits.
(In other words, while there would be a meaningful number of voters who were very unhappy, there would also be quite a lot who found it an acceptable compromise.)
I also wonder if us getting Common Market 2.0 might actually do more to loosen the EU over time that anything else. It would be an attractive outcome for a number of EU countries who are not committed to "the project". And if those countries prospered more over time...
You get protection because the others are bound by the same rules as you, even though you have no say over the rules and they don't take your interest into account. The Norwegian parliament made this point in their very interesting review of the Norway option. In general Norway thinks "Norway" is nonsense but they make the best of it because they can't agree either to be a member of the EU or cast themselves off from it. Pretty much like us, but it makes even less sense for us because we're much bigger.
Edit. The SM requires full movement of Labour. Benefits aren't part of that
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
Thousands of people who invested in a high-risk bond scheme marketed as a "Fixed Rate ISA" fear they have lost everything after the company collapsed."
I think I agree in part with that. It *is* a very western European view: but we have not had a war amongst EU member states in coming up to 75 years, and that must be approaching a record. After Waterloo you had the French invasion of Spain, the Seven Weeks' War and others (from memory, as you know I am not an Historian!)
It's also possible to argue that states have been internally more stable since the EU: thre have been no war of independence or manor uprisings in member states (except, perhaps, France 1968?)
And that matters, as the cause of the last two world wars can be firmly placed in the rivalry between two European powers who are now friends. Common interest indeed.
The EU is more a part of the backlash against nationalism than its cause in the post war period.
The rise of nationalism on the continent is in large part because of the passing of the generation that experienced it in the Thirties and Forties.
(Snip)
Again, I agree with that in part. It's a complex issue - and I'd argue that the people who claim that the EU has kept the peace are as wrong as those who claim it had done nothing for peace. It was one piece of the puzzle that helped peace and reconciliation.
On the other hand: an elderly relative says he voted leave because he lived through the war, and could never trust Germany. So it might work that way around as well. (And he says that in front of a German friend of his wife!)
We need to be clear about what the EU can't do and what it does do. It can't act as policeman. It won't stop countries who are minded to do so from doing bad things to each other. Therefore "keeping" the peace is perhaps not a good way of putting it. It does however provide a forum where leaders of good intention can work out their differences and build trust in each other. The intention has to be there and the trust comes slowly and isn't always there. The EU has particular problems with countries like Hungary and recently Italy.
I think also that the EU institutions are due a greater credit than they are sometimes given in these parts as honest brokers. They have a difficult job of herding the cats that no-one else wants to do. By and large they do a decent job of it.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
I don't see any pattern that needs explaining. I am not one of his supporters either. But my objection to his talking to Hezbollah is that it is self indulgent and unlikely to help. It's a rough neighbourhood and they've probably done some bad things, but you can say the same about most of the organisations around there. I'd say avoiding getting involved is the best policy.
But the huge amount of coverage this issue is being given is clearly politically motivated. I wouldn't use the word conspiracy simply because that implies it is being done covertly. This is pretty much out in the open.
I'm genuinely surprised you don't see a pattern. I look forward to you giving your political antagonists similar benefit of the doubt in the future!
So another question: if you are going to ignore all the above (and it was not a comprehensive list), what would he have to do or say to convince you that he is anti-Semitic? If you use the criteria you mentioned in your first post, that's a rather high bar!
On another point: even if you think he isn't anti-Semitic, this mess is not the result of his opponents. It's all down to him, and his inability to stop the mess within his party. He had an opportunity with the Chakrabati report a couple of years ago, but all he ever does is poor fuel on the fire. You might want to consider why that might be.
I don't know if he's antisemitic. I'm not a mind reader. Neither are you. I am pretty sure the Conservative councillor who referred to Jews as Yids that I knew in the seventies was anti-semitic. Though even he wasn't exactly Himmler as he was in favour of sending them all to Israel while rather mysteriously also thinking that a small dash of Jewish blood was somehow beneficial. But that is what people are like when you actually know them. We are often a mess of contradictions and confusion about the stuff we don't actually need to understand to get by in our daily lives. So I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.
How do you explain Corbyn going to a passover celebration with a Jewish group who were obviously very pleased to see him?
Thousands of people who invested in a high-risk bond scheme marketed as a "Fixed Rate ISA" fear they have lost everything after the company collapsed."
Already discussed - the type of product being offered 'mini bonds' isn't regulated by the FCA and I bet many people bought them as they thought they were ISA eligible -The selling of ISAs of course are regulated.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
”Give it a few months and the only negotiations Theresa will be doing are how much she can get for an appearance on Celebrity Bake Off,” says one Conservative MP.
Mr. 43, that would make one wonder why the Remain campaign so thoroughly failed to articulate said advantages.
Because they did, and leavers just screamed and shouted that it was all LIES! ?
They didn't though. Most of the Remain campaign was negative. References to the benefits of the EU were lukewarm at best. The Remain case seemed to be better the devil we know.
I disagree. Look at one comment David Cameron made: “The European Union has helped reconcile countries which were once at each others’ throats for decades. Britain has a fundamental national interest in maintaining common purpose in Europe to avoid future conflict between European countries,”
Now, this caused a massive amount of handbag-wringing by the leavers on here. It was nothing to do with the EU, they said, and the EU has actually caused more conflict, or that NATO kept the peace, not the EU!
The problem is, IMV the leavers' arguments were self-serving bullshit. I'd never claim the reason we haven't had a major war in Europe in 74 years is solely down to the EU - but I'd also say it's not fully down to NATO, either. They both played a part, as did other things. But Cameron's comments ring true, for me at least. Countries that talk and have a vested interest in peace will not go to war. Countries that cut themselves off from other countries, who see other countries as the enemy, are far more likely to. And sadly that's the vision of the country many leavers have.
And there are many more examples like this. The problem is that the message got drowned out by leavers' anguished shouts.
(Cue more handbag-wringing from leavers... 3... 2... 1... )
Here is more from David Cameron but damning with faint praise rather than a ringing endorsement: Like many, I have had my doubts about the European Union as an organisation. I still do. But just because an organisation is frustrating it does not mean that you should necessarily walk out of it, and certainly not without thinking very carefully through the consequences.
Mr. 43, that would make one wonder why the Remain campaign so thoroughly failed to articulate said advantages.
Because they did, and leavers just screamed and shouted that it was all LIES! ?
They didn't though. Most of the Remain campaign was negative. References to the benefits of the EU were lukewarm at best. The Remain case seemed to be better the devil we know.
I disagree. Look at one comment David Cameron made: “The European Union has helped reconcile countries which were once at each others’ throats for decades. Britain has a fundamental national interest in maintaining common purpose in Europe to avoid future conflict between European countries,”
Now, this caused a massive amount of handbag-wringing by the leavers on here. It was nothing to do with the EU, they said, and the EU has actually caused more conflict, or that NATO kept the peace, not the EU!
The problem is, IMV the leavers' arguments were self-serving bullshit. I'd never claim the reason we haven't had a major war in Europe in 74 years is solely down to the EU - but I'd also say it's not fully down to NATO, either. They both played a part, as did other things. But Cameron's comments ring true, for me at least. Countries that talk and have a vested interest in peace will not go to war. Countries that cut themselves off from other countries, who see other countries as the enemy, are far more likely to. And sadly that's the vision of the country many leavers have.
And there are many more examples like this. The problem is that the message got drowned out by leavers' anguished shouts.
(Cue more handbag-wringing from leavers... 3... 2... 1... )
Here is more from David Cameron but damning with faint praise rather than a ringing endorsement: Like many, I have had my doubts about the European Union as an organisation. I still do. But just because an organisation is frustrating it does not mean that you should necessarily walk out of it, and certainly not without thinking very carefully through the consequences.
Cameron was an AWFUL salesman. And even me, an arch-Remainer, could see many of the Remain arguments were contrived, or just repetition of a lazy consensus.
Leave was mendacious and reactionary though.
I went for contrived and lazy over deceitful and racist.
I don't know if he's antisemitic. I'm not a mind reader. Neither are you. I am pretty sure the Conservative councillor who referred to Jews as Yids that I knew in the seventies was anti-semitic. Though even he wasn't exactly Himmler as he was in favour of sending them all to Israel while rather mysteriously also thinking that a small dash of Jewish blood was somehow beneficial. But that is what people are like when you actually know them. We are often a mess of contradictions and confusion about the stuff we don't actually need to understand to get by in our daily lives. So I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.
How do you explain Corbyn going to a passover celebration with a Jewish group who were obviously very pleased to see him?
Are you referring to the radical Jewish group Jewdas?
"Jeremy Corbyn has said he “learned a lot” at a Passover event hosted by a leftwing Jewish group highly critical of mainstream Jewish bodies, after he was rebuked by MPs for attending."
"Jewdas, the group which hosted Jeremy Corbyn at a Seder last night, is a left-wing and anti-Zionist organisation of British Jews. Representing what it describes as “radical voices for the alternative diaspora”, Jewdas has been fiercely critical of both the state of Israel and the mainstream British Jewish communal leadership. The group tweeted last December that Israel was “a steaming pile of sewage which needs to be disposed of”, and claimed last week’s protest against antisemitism was “the work of cynical manipulations by people whose express loyalty is to the Conservative Party and the right wing of the Labour Party”."
It wasn't exactly a tough gig for him, was it? Fellow political believers; fellow political travellers. It's not as it he went to an Haredi celebration. Note: I am not calling Jewdas 'bad' Jews: just that politically they have a great deal in common with Corbyn. He was on home turf; they could find a lot to agree on without getting onto religion.
Go back to my original list. Look at that mural. Just look at it. Does it ring warning bells in your mind? And why do you think Corbyn supported the artist? It's either an utter lack of knowledge of anti-Semitism, an agreement with anti-Semitism, or sheer, bloody incompetence. If the former, you would have thought he would have learnt about it by now given the political troubles it has caused him; if the latter, how many times do you use that excuse before it rings false?
Here is more from David Cameron but damning with faint praise rather than a ringing endorsement: Like many, I have had my doubts about the European Union as an organisation. I still do. But just because an organisation is frustrating it does not mean that you should necessarily walk out of it, and certainly not without thinking very carefully through the consequences.
Indeed. It's called honesty.
Cameron was a eurosceptic. Not the way many leavers seem to think of the term, where anything short of europhobia is a dangerous europhillia, but someone who saw the EU had good and bad points. That's why he wanted a renegotiation to help with some of those bad points.
In fact, it's not too far off my own position.
He'd have been silly going for a renegotiation whilst stating he thought the EU was perfect!
Mr. 43, that would make one wonder why the Remain campaign so thoroughly failed to articulate said advantages.
Because they did, and leavers just screamed and shouted that it was all LIES! ?
They didn't though. Most of the Remain campaign was negative. References to the benefits of the EU were lukewarm at best. The Remain case seemed to be better the devil we know.
I disagree. Look at one comment David Cameron made: “The European Union has helped reconcile countries which were once at each others’ throats for decades. Britain has a fundamental national interest in maintaining common purpose in Europe to avoid future conflict between European countries,”
Now, this caused a massive amount of handbag-wringing by the leavers on here. It was nothing to do with the EU, they said, and the EU has actually caused more conflict, or that NATO kept the peace, not the EU!
And there are many more examples like this. The problem is that the message got drowned out by leavers' anguished shouts.
(Cue more handbag-wringing from leavers... 3... 2... 1... )
Here is more from David Cameron but damning with faint praise rather than a ringing endorsement: Like many, I have had my doubts about the European Union as an organisation. I still do. But just because an organisation is frustrating it does not mean that you should necessarily walk out of it, and certainly not without thinking very carefully through the consequences.
Cameron was an AWFUL salesman. And even me, an arch-Remainer, could see many of the Remain arguments were contrived, or just repetition of a lazy consensus.
Leave was mendacious and reactionary though.
I went for contrived and lazy over deceitful and racist.
Some people seem to say that really Britain couldn’t survive, couldn’t do okay outside the European Union. I don’t think that is true.
Let’s be frank, Britain is an amazing country. We’ve got the fifth biggest economy in the world. We’re a top ten manufacturer. We’ve got incredibly strong financial services. The world wants to come and do business here.
Look at the record of inward investment. Look at the leaders beating the path to our door to come and see what’s happening with this great country’s economy. The argument isn’t whether Britain could survive outside the EU. Of course it could.
Thousands of people who invested in a high-risk bond scheme marketed as a "Fixed Rate ISA" fear they have lost everything after the company collapsed."
Already discussed - the type of product being offered 'mini bonds' isn't regulated by the FCA and I bet many people bought them as they thought they were ISA eligible -The selling of ISAs of course are regulated.
Absolutely staggering that the FCA were warned about this in 2015 but did nothing for three years. Given that the scam was promoted with ads claiming FCA authorisation, that must be the biggest failure of consumer protection in the financial sector in decades, if not longer.
Comments
“The European Union has helped reconcile countries which were once at each others’ throats for decades. Britain has a fundamental national interest in maintaining common purpose in Europe to avoid future conflict between European countries,”
Now, this caused a massive amount of handbag-wringing by the leavers on here. It was nothing to do with the EU, they said, and the EU has actually caused more conflict, or that NATO kept the peace, not the EU!
The problem is, IMV the leavers' arguments were self-serving bullshit. I'd never claim the reason we haven't had a major war in Europe in 74 years is solely down to the EU - but I'd also say it's not fully down to NATO, either. They both played a part, as did other things. But Cameron's comments ring true, for me at least. Countries that talk and have a vested interest in peace will not go to war. Countries that cut themselves off from other countries, who see other countries as the enemy, are far more likely to. And sadly that's the vision of the country many leavers have.
And there are many more examples like this. The problem is that the message got drowned out by leavers' anguished shouts.
(Cue more handbag-wringing from leavers... 3... 2... 1...
Why else would Putin be so anxious to disrupt it ?
That said, of course, the fact is Europe has become more peaceful - but arguably that is a trend that goes back to the eighteenth century.
Bad decision. On the day itself it didn’t help that the se esp London was plagued by huge thunderstorms whilst high Leave areas were basking in sunshine .
Turnout was lower in London than further north . The weather was a bad sign !
I don't think Jezza has been accused of wishing harm to individual Jews, or to British Judaism, despite his hostility to the Israeli state as currently constituted. Some of his associates perhaps are rather different.
https://news.sky.com/story/eu-immigration-to-britain-falls-to-five-year-low-say-ons-figures-11438635
It's also possible to argue that states have been internally more stable since the EU: thre have been no war of independence or manor uprisings in member states (except, perhaps, France 1968?)
And that matters, as the cause of the last two world wars can be firmly placed in the rivalry between two European powers who are now friends. Common interest indeed.
"No Deal" is really just another form of can kicking.
In the meantime, I hope you're fit and well.
https://twitter.com/jennifermerode/status/1104834915860971521?s=21
How do you explain it then? Or do you think it is all a conspiracy against him?
I don't think Russia is currently anyone's friend, including Germany's, but it would be nice to think that will change at some point. (And yes, I know you meant France!)
And the evidence that if people do think that family comes first they then extrapolted it to the Milibands and voted accordingly? It's a giant leap, unsupported by any polling evidence that I've seen.
Makes a change from Brexit, though. Is anything happening about that?
The rise of nationalism on the continent is in large part because of the passing of the generation that experienced it in the Thirties and Forties.
Off Topic, this week I had this incident described to me by a patient who was on one of the Destroyers escorting this ship. He watched it explode with several friends on board. These men won't be with us for long.
https://youtu.be/YdrISbwy_zI
If Northern Ireland had had a turnout 15 points higher, and Scotland 10 points, it would still have been a Leave win.
I think Brown and May being 35 & 36 in the tenure table are coupled by their utter incompetence and lack of skills to deal with the top job!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_tenure
She's already got PM 2016-2019 down, so she doesn't have to actually get to 3 years, though I imagine she'd like to.
Pause.
I'll get my coat...
But the huge amount of coverage this issue is being given is clearly politically motivated. I wouldn't use the word conspiracy simply because that implies it is being done covertly. This is pretty much out in the open.
The Earl of Derby 3 years, 280 days terms 3 Conservative 1852
William Pitt the Younger 18 years, 343 days terms 2 Tory (Pittite) 1783
I don't know what was up in the 1850s, but three separate terms and Derby still couldn't make it to 4 years?
On the other hand: an elderly relative says he voted leave because he lived through the war, and could never trust Germany. So it might work that way around as well. (And he says that in front of a German friend of his wife!)
And ‘some societies’ doesn’t come into it; they were studying rules which appear to be universal across cultures.
Technically the youngest surviving combatant of WWII should now be coming up to 92. Given the total War nature of it, there will be younger survivors, but not much younger, and not many.
Its not about marking time being PM, it is having the power to affect peoples lives and having the media hang off every word they say. They know as soon as they stop being PM, their influence and opinion count for very little. TM is unusual in that her influence and opinion counts for nothing already, she is in office but not in power to use that delightful phrase!
So another question: if you are going to ignore all the above (and it was not a comprehensive list), what would he have to do or say to convince you that he is anti-Semitic? If you use the criteria you mentioned in your first post, that's a rather high bar!
On another point: even if you think he isn't anti-Semitic, this mess is not the result of his opponents. It's all down to him, and his inability to stop the mess within his party. He had an opportunity with the Chakrabati report a couple of years ago, but all he ever does is poor fuel on the fire. You might want to consider why that might be.
In 1945, when Japanese battleship Yamato exploded, the mushroom cloud was seen 100 miles away in the southern main island of Kyushu.
Edit - autocorrect doesn't understand my awesome punning.
That is, the glory days of Chanderpaul rather than Richards.
But time for me to rind up.
The rest of the puns haven't quite been the cream.
I wish the company a pleasant evening. May your puns all be up to gage.
Thousands of people who invested in a high-risk bond scheme marketed as a "Fixed Rate ISA" fear they have lost everything after the company collapsed."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47454328
I think also that the EU institutions are due a greater credit than they are sometimes given in these parts as honest brokers. They have a difficult job of herding the cats that no-one else wants to do. By and large they do a decent job of it.
https://twitter.com/cooledmiliband/status/590240348204625921
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/574993604659298304
How do you explain Corbyn going to a passover celebration with a Jewish group who were obviously very pleased to see him?
https://www.fca.org.uk/news/news-stories/london-capital-and-finance-plc-enters-administration
Meanwhile, a Tory leadership contest seems highly likely within the month. March be the end of May.
Your dough cannot be fried and I don’t knead choux.
Radio Rum Baba
It's a Rind of Magic
Ham, er, to Fall
Under Pressure Cooker
Flesh!
We are the Champignons
Seven Seeds of Rye
You're my Zest Friend
Heaven for Every Bun
Bohemian Bap-sody
https://labourlist.org/2019/03/shadow-ministers-welcome-ehrc-probe-into-labours-handling-of-antisemitism/
Looks like they are 'welcoming' the enquiry through gritted teeth.
Like many, I have had my doubts about the European Union as an organisation. I still do. But just because an organisation is frustrating it does not mean that you should necessarily walk out of it, and certainly not without thinking very carefully through the consequences.
Bizarrely, it’s a quiet night - yet this could be the most important week in our politics since June 2016.
And even me, an arch-Remainer, could see many of the Remain arguments were contrived, or just repetition of a lazy consensus.
Leave was mendacious and reactionary though.
I went for contrived and lazy over deceitful and racist.
"Jeremy Corbyn has said he “learned a lot” at a Passover event hosted by a leftwing Jewish group highly critical of mainstream Jewish bodies, after he was rebuked by MPs for attending."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/03/jeremy-corbyn-called-irresponsible-after-attending-radical-jewish-event
"Jewdas, the group which hosted Jeremy Corbyn at a Seder last night, is a left-wing and anti-Zionist organisation of British Jews.
Representing what it describes as “radical voices for the alternative diaspora”, Jewdas has been fiercely critical of both the state of Israel and the mainstream British Jewish communal leadership.
The group tweeted last December that Israel was “a steaming pile of sewage which needs to be disposed of”, and claimed last week’s protest against antisemitism was “the work of cynical manipulations by people whose express loyalty is to the Conservative Party and the right wing of the Labour Party”."
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/just-what-is-jewdas-1.461800
It wasn't exactly a tough gig for him, was it? Fellow political believers; fellow political travellers. It's not as it he went to an Haredi celebration. Note: I am not calling Jewdas 'bad' Jews: just that politically they have a great deal in common with Corbyn. He was on home turf; they could find a lot to agree on without getting onto religion.
Go back to my original list. Look at that mural. Just look at it. Does it ring warning bells in your mind? And why do you think Corbyn supported the artist? It's either an utter lack of knowledge of anti-Semitism, an agreement with anti-Semitism, or sheer, bloody incompetence. If the former, you would have thought he would have learnt about it by now given the political troubles it has caused him; if the latter, how many times do you use that excuse before it rings false?
Cameron was a eurosceptic. Not the way many leavers seem to think of the term, where anything short of europhobia is a dangerous europhillia, but someone who saw the EU had good and bad points. That's why he wanted a renegotiation to help with some of those bad points.
In fact, it's not too far off my own position.
He'd have been silly going for a renegotiation whilst stating he thought the EU was perfect!
Let’s be frank, Britain is an amazing country. We’ve got the fifth biggest economy in the world. We’re a top ten manufacturer. We’ve got incredibly strong financial services. The world wants to come and do business here.
Look at the record of inward investment. Look at the leaders beating the path to our door to come and see what’s happening with this great country’s economy. The argument isn’t whether Britain could survive outside the EU. Of course it could.
- D C, Nov 2015.