It wasn’t bullying - I was reporting what I recalled from the original interview. You could hear her shouting and his voice was quieter.
There was no implication of blame. A couple had a row. The neighbours called the police, who investigated and there was nothing to be concerned about.
That’s it. I am critical of the neighbours who then went to the media. Interestingly the guardian hasn’t released the tape - I suspect because that is much more of an issue from a privacy perspective.
FWIW I don’t like Boris, I don’t trust him and don’t believe he is qualified or has the judgement to be PM. If I had a vote (which I don’t) I’d vote for Hunt. My mother does have a vote and I suspect she will be influenced by my views.
( @TheScreamingEagles I wasn’t aware of the Worboys link. I have nothing but sympathy for her).
Fair enough. But the language used ("she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman") can be seen to be of the "she had it coming" type, even down to the use of "young woman" which implies that she is childlike and worthy of admonishment.
Really? It was originally claimed there were a million people on the march. According to Fullfact that is now down to between 312,000 and 400,000. That is what I call revising down.
Fullfact are basing that on very flawed methodology that assumes a static crowd all assembled at the same time, and then goes on to under-estimate both the crowd density and the area of the march (which wasn't just confined to the official route). Their figures are not credible.
They are very credible based as they are on well known and much used methodology backed by case studies. That is why they are always preferred over the unsubstantiated claims of organisers.
At the time I said it didn't matter how many people were on the march as they still represent a tiny minority of the population and would have included many ineligible to vote anyway. I stick to that but love seeing you squirm over your attempts to inflate numbers as some sort of support for your idiotic claims.
The funny thing is that at 300-400k it would still be one of the largest marches, up there with the Iraq war and the countryside alliance
If further proof were needed, that just shows what a half-wit Bill Cash is. The very letter he cites demolishes his point.
Quite why the five signatories of the letter felt it necessary to agree with everyone else that Gatt 24 doesn't apply unless the EU agrees that it should apply and in the context that a free-trade agreement is being negotiated is a mystery. We knew all that, it doesn't make it magically happen.
The suggestion is that if we called the EU's bluff over the WDA they would accept a standstill over nothing.
So it comes back to we hold all the cards. All the guff they have said about not reopening the WA you believe still is game playing. Based upon the EU's behaviour to date would you say that was a rational position to take?
If further proof were needed, that just shows what a half-wit Bill Cash is. The very letter he cites demolishes his point.
Quite why the five signatories of the letter felt it necessary to agree with everyone else that Gatt 24 doesn't apply unless the EU agrees that it should apply and in the context that a free-trade agreement is being negotiated is a mystery. We knew all that, it doesn't make it magically happen.
The suggestion is that if we called the EU's bluff over the WDA they would accept a standstill over nothing.
No it's not, the suggestion is that a unicorn called Gatt 24 will come galloping up and save us from no-deal disaster whether the EU agrees or not, which is utter unmitigated tosh.
Of course if the EU agrees to change the Withdrawal Agreement or come up with some other deal before October 31st we'd be leaving with a deal. Everyone knows that, and everyone knows that the chances of that are tiny. Gatt 24 has zilch to do with a no-deal scenario
Everyone I've seen suggest it has said the EU would agree it. I've not seen anyone say whether the EU agrees or not.
I have tried to read up on GATT 24 but all I read is scads of pro-Brexit content going "We'll trade tariff free whilst we negotiate a deal and all it takes is the teeny tiny thing of the EU agreeing to do that without a deal in place"
Is that really their idea. That the EU will agree to having a deal with us without having a deal?
I wrote about GATT 24 about two years ago when some minor blog suggested it. Ultimately, it requires the acquiescence of the EU; it cannot be forced on an unwilling party. Worse, and still uncommented on, any attempt by us to use it avoid treating all countries equally, would inevitably result in a negative WTO ruling.
If further proof were needed, that just shows what a half-wit Bill Cash is. The very letter he cites demolishes his point.
Quite why the five signatories of the letter felt it necessary to agree with everyone else that Gatt 24 doesn't apply unless the EU agrees that it should apply and in the context that a free-trade agreement is being negotiated is a mystery. We knew all that, it doesn't make it magically happen.
The suggestion is that if we called the EU's bluff over the WDA they would accept a standstill over nothing.
No it's not, the suggestion is that a unicorn called Gatt 24 will come galloping up and save us from no-deal disaster whether the EU agrees or not, which is utter unmitigated tosh.
Of course if the EU agrees to change the Withdrawal Agreement or come up with some other deal before October 31st we'd be leaving with a deal. Everyone knows that, and everyone knows that the chances of that are tiny. Gatt 24 has zilch to do with a no-deal scenario
Everyone I've seen suggest it has said the EU would agree it. I've not seen anyone say whether the EU agrees or not.
A Link to an article that shows the EU will agree to it?
The only deal the EU has offered us is May's Deal... Without it we leave without any trade deal and no Gatt 24
Yes, but it is probably beyond the wit of a lazy fool who once said that it was similar to the congestion charge.
It does have physical checks but, if you drive from Geneva Airport into France, it is fairly seamless. There are plenty of people who live around Annecy who commute into Geneva every day for that same reason.
The other difference being that Switzerland is a signatory to Schengen (2008) as a member of EFTA. If Boris is proposing this as a solution I might even vote for him, but he might find the ERG remove their support.
They're not a member of Schengen through EFTA. They're a member because they held a referendum about a decade ago on whether to join.
Not sure it has "undisputed legal authority" as sounds more of a political opinion than a legal one. Possible it may have some glimmer of hope as the reality is that as long as we ensure all our products continue to adhere to EU standards (CE mark etc) which they all will it is possible for products to be seamlessly traded, but it will be up to both parties as to whether tariffs are applied. I would say that letter is more in hope than certainty.
Yes, but it is probably beyond the wit of a lazy fool who once said that it was similar to the congestion charge.
It does have physical checks but, if you drive from Geneva Airport into France, it is fairly seamless. There are plenty of people who live around Annecy who commute into Geneva every day for that same reason.
The other difference being that Switzerland is a signatory to Schengen (2008) as a member of EFTA. If Boris is proposing this as a solution I might even vote for him, but he might find the ERG remove their support.
They're not a member of Schengen through EFTA. They're a member because they held a referendum about a decade ago on whether to join.
OK, but amounts to same thing. Thank you for the detailed clarification. Still shows Boris talking out of his ample backside though doesn't it?
By contrast to the Clown, Jeremy Hunt cannot help but come over as a latter day Confucius.
Problem with this is, he is avoiding the flack he ought to be getting for peddling fantasy on Brexit instead of a plan. I want to see him pressed on this.
I would also like some debating space provided for the question of whether it is advisable for the leaders of our 2 main parties to have the same 1st name - Jeremy in this case. Not aware of a precedent for this. Might seem trivial but it should at least be discussed. Better safe than sorry.
Mr. Eek, that's not the case, they've said that a Canadian style FTA was on the table.
They've also said that in the event of No Deal, they would need us to agree to a solution to the Irish border, and to pay £39bn before they started negotiating.
I guess they mean Labour used him as a polling agent, which is someone entitled to go into polling stations on the day and ask for turnout details. It may have been unwise for Labour to do this - if indeed it did - but it is not illegal. The article linked in Tice's tweet is rather thin on details and it is hard to see where the criminality comes in.
Mr. Eek, that's not the case, they've said that a Canadian style FTA was on the table.
They've also said that in the event of No Deal, they would need us to agree to a solution to the Irish border, and to pay £39bn before they started negotiating.
The strategy appears to have morphed to, “Do what we want or we’ll shoot ourselves. You may suffer some collateral blood splatter”. Still, pensions will continue to be paid so no hardship there.
I have tried to read up on GATT 24 but all I read is scads of pro-Brexit content going "We'll trade tariff free whilst we negotiate a deal and all it takes is the teeny tiny thing of the EU agreeing to do that without a deal in place"
Is that really their idea. That the EU will agree to having a deal with us without having a deal?
Yes.
Pretty much what little BJ said on Newsnight. When asked why and how we would get this deal whilst playing silly buggers over the money and the Irish border, he trotted out the old ‘they need us more..’ stuff.
Mr. Eek, that's not the case, they've said that a Canadian style FTA was on the table.
GB only.
That's not true either.
The backstop comes into place in the event that two separate factors come into being:
1. There is no FTA that removes the need for a physical border and 2. A technical solution that allows customs checks away from the border has not been implemented
So, it's perfectly possible that we have a Canadian-style FTA with the EU, combined with customs checks away from the border.
I have tried to read up on GATT 24 but all I read is scads of pro-Brexit content going "We'll trade tariff free whilst we negotiate a deal and all it takes is the teeny tiny thing of the EU agreeing to do that without a deal in place"
Is that really their idea. That the EU will agree to having a deal with us without having a deal?
I wrote about GATT 24 about two years ago when some minor blog suggested it. Ultimately, it requires the acquiescence of the EU; it cannot be forced on an unwilling party. Worse, and still uncommented on, any attempt by us to use it avoid treating all countries equally, would inevitably result in a negative WTO ruling.
Even if all those hurdles were overcome it only applies to goods not services
Note the reference to “Group Leader”. Despite what Guido says, it’s been sent to a councillor, not an ordinary member/activist. Quite obviously it’s a lot more serious for an elected representative to be advocating support for another political party; there isn’t any evidence here that there is any sort of wider purge going on.
I have tried to read up on GATT 24 but all I read is scads of pro-Brexit content going "We'll trade tariff free whilst we negotiate a deal and all it takes is the teeny tiny thing of the EU agreeing to do that without a deal in place"
Is that really their idea. That the EU will agree to having a deal with us without having a deal?
I wrote about GATT 24 about two years ago when some minor blog suggested it. Ultimately, it requires the acquiescence of the EU; it cannot be forced on an unwilling party. Worse, and still uncommented on, any attempt by us to use it avoid treating all countries equally, would inevitably result in a negative WTO ruling.
Even if all those hurdles were overcome it only applies to goods not services
Fair enough. But the language used ("she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman") can be seen to be of the "she had it coming" type, even down to the use of "young woman" which implies that she is childlike and worthy of admonishment.
As we chew over the issues of the moment one can never predict with total confidence whether you will be on the correct (woke) side of each particular item or not. In this case I am pleased to report that you are.
But anyway, what really matters, when do you think the WA will be ratified? My current thinking says Q2 2020. Outside chance of Q1.
Everyone I've seen suggest it has said the EU would agree it. I've not seen anyone say whether the EU agrees or not.
In which case it is a statement about what happens if we leave with a deal, so why on earth are they saying it provides protection against a no-deal disaster? I'd hope they were just being unbelievably stupid, but it is not just Mark Francois pointing at this unicorn, so it's hard to resist the conclusion that they are being deliberately and dangerously dishonest.
I have tried to read up on GATT 24 but all I read is scads of pro-Brexit content going "We'll trade tariff free whilst we negotiate a deal and all it takes is the teeny tiny thing of the EU agreeing to do that without a deal in place"
Is that really their idea. That the EU will agree to having a deal with us without having a deal?
I wrote about GATT 24 about two years ago when some minor blog suggested it. Ultimately, it requires the acquiescence of the EU; it cannot be forced on an unwilling party. Worse, and still uncommented on, any attempt by us to use it avoid treating all countries equally, would inevitably result in a negative WTO ruling.
Even if all those hurdles were overcome it only applies to goods not services
I have tried to read up on GATT 24 but all I read is scads of pro-Brexit content going "We'll trade tariff free whilst we negotiate a deal and all it takes is the teeny tiny thing of the EU agreeing to do that without a deal in place"
Is that really their idea. That the EU will agree to having a deal with us without having a deal?
I wrote about GATT 24 about two years ago when some minor blog suggested it. Ultimately, it requires the acquiescence of the EU; it cannot be forced on an unwilling party. Worse, and still uncommented on, any attempt by us to use it avoid treating all countries equally, would inevitably result in a negative WTO ruling.
Even if all those hurdles were overcome it only applies to goods not services
As far as I am aware, there are no tariffs levied on services between the EU and third party states.
The (service) issue with leaving the EU without a deal is not tariffs, but on British professional qualifications (being no longer issued by EU bodies) no longer being acceptable.
The EU has no jurisdiction to force members to accept British professional qualifications, so it would be up to individual states to change their own rules. (I would note that Spain is ahead of the UK in this area, having passed measures recognising British qualifications, and covering double taxation. I don't know of any other member state to have done so.)
Ironically, of course, this means that there will be a substantial number of EU citizens working in the EU who got their qualifications in the UK, and who might be technically barred from their profession in the event of No Deal Brexit.
I have tried to read up on GATT 24 but all I read is scads of pro-Brexit content going "We'll trade tariff free whilst we negotiate a deal and all it takes is the teeny tiny thing of the EU agreeing to do that without a deal in place"
Is that really their idea. That the EU will agree to having a deal with us without having a deal?
I wrote about GATT 24 about two years ago when some minor blog suggested it. Ultimately, it requires the acquiescence of the EU; it cannot be forced on an unwilling party. Worse, and still uncommented on, any attempt by us to use it avoid treating all countries equally, would inevitably result in a negative WTO ruling.
Even if all those hurdles were overcome it only applies to goods not services
But anyway, what really matters, when do you think the WA will be ratified? My current thinking says Q2 2020. Outside chance of Q1.
It's not clear whether the WA can be ratified once we've left. It's a provision under Article 50 of the treaty, agreed by QMV in the Council, but once we become a third-party country that no longer applies so we'd be applying from scratch (in legal terms, though obviously not in terms of the likely terms of any agreement). That in turn means unanimous formal ratification by the EU27. We really don't want to go that way.
It wasn’t bullying - I was reporting what I recalled from the original interview. You could hear her shouting and his voice was quieter.
There was no implication of blame. A couple had a row. The neighbours called the police, who investigated and there was nothing to be concerned about.
That’s it. I am critical of the neighbours who then went to the media. Interestingly the guardian hasn’t released the tape - I suspect because that is much more of an issue from a privacy perspective.
FWIW I don’t like Boris, I don’t trust him and don’t believe he is qualified or has the judgement to be PM. If I had a vote (which I don’t) I’d vote for Hunt. My mother does have a vote and I suspect she will be influenced by my views.
( @TheScreamingEagles I wasn’t aware of the Worboys link. I have nothing but sympathy for her).
Fair enough. But the language used ("she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman") can be seen to be of the "she had it coming" type, even down to the use of "young woman" which implies that she is childlike and worthy of admonishment.
She’s 31 - how else would you describe her? I will admit that I started with young lady and then edited my post!!
“Demanding and volatile” is purely based on the reports that the row was about him spilling wine on the sofa. It seems a little bit of an overreaction but maybe I’m atypically phlegmatic?
Fair enough. But the language used ("she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman") can be seen to be of the "she had it coming" type, even down to the use of "young woman" which implies that she is childlike and worthy of admonishment.
As we chew over the issues of the moment one can never predict with total confidence whether you will be on the correct (woke) side of each particular item or not. In this case I am pleased to report that you are.
But anyway, what really matters, when do you think the WA will be ratified? My current thinking says Q2 2020. Outside chance of Q1.
I suppose a useful rule of thumb would be that I am always on the correct side of any particular item. I will not, however, seek to make Woke rhyme with Love.
As for the WA my market would be earlier than that.
But anyway, what really matters, when do you think the WA will be ratified? My current thinking says Q2 2020. Outside chance of Q1.
It's not clear whether the WA can be ratified once we've left. It's a provision under Article 50 of the treaty, agreed by QMV in the Council, but once we become a third-party country that no longer applies so we'd be applying from scratch (in legal terms, though obviously not in terms of the likely terms of any agreement). That in turn means unanimous formal ratification by the EU27. We really don't want to go that way.
There you go again. Applying some logic and reason to the Tory Brexit debate. When will you learn?
If further proof were needed, that just shows what a half-wit Bill Cash is. The very letter he cites demolishes his point.
Quite why the five signatories of the letter felt it necessary to agree with everyone else that Gatt 24 doesn't apply unless the EU agrees that it should apply and in the context that a free-trade agreement is being negotiated is a mystery. We knew all that, it doesn't make it magically happen.
The suggestion is that if we called the EU's bluff over the WDA they would accept a standstill over nothing.
So it comes back to we hold all the cards. All the guff they have said about not reopening the WA you believe still is game playing. Based upon the EU's behaviour to date would you say that was a rational position to take?
Because they think - rightly so far - that we will fold
If further proof were needed, that just shows what a half-wit Bill Cash is. The very letter he cites demolishes his point.
Quite why the five signatories of the letter felt it necessary to agree with everyone else that Gatt 24 doesn't apply unless the EU agrees that it should apply and in the context that a free-trade agreement is being negotiated is a mystery. We knew all that, it doesn't make it magically happen.
The suggestion is that if we called the EU's bluff over the WDA they would accept a standstill over nothing.
So it comes back to we hold all the cards. All the guff they have said about not reopening the WA you believe still is game playing. Based upon the EU's behaviour to date would you say that was a rational position to take?
Because they think - rightly so far - that we will fold
I mean none of us know the EU but haven't they disbanded the negotiating team? Do we really think that the EU is the kind of agile, flexible organisation that can negotiate a new WA in a month or two?
It wasn’t bullying - I was reporting what I recalled from the original interview. You could hear her shouting and his voice was quieter.
There was no implication of blame. A couple had a row. The neighbours called the police, who investigated and there was nothing to be concerned about.
That’s it. I am critical of the neighbours who then went to the media. Interestingly the guardian hasn’t released the tape - I suspect because that is much more of an issue from a privacy perspective.
FWIW I don’t like Boris, I don’t trust him and don’t believe he is qualified or has the judgement to be PM. If I had a vote (which I don’t) I’d vote for Hunt. My mother does have a vote and I suspect she will be influenced by my views.
( @TheScreamingEagles I wasn’t aware of the Worboys link. I have nothing but sympathy for her).
Fair enough. But the language used ("she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman") can be seen to be of the "she had it coming" type, even down to the use of "young woman" which implies that she is childlike and worthy of admonishment.
She’s 31 - how else would you describe her? I will admit that I started with young lady and then edited my post!!
“Demanding and volatile” is purely based on the reports that the row was about him spilling wine on the sofa. It seems a little bit of an overreaction but maybe I’m atypically phlegmatic?
I suspect, and I could be wrong here, that your sofas aren't white.
If further proof were needed, that just shows what a half-wit Bill Cash is. The very letter he cites demolishes his point.
Quite why the five signatories of the letter felt it necessary to agree with everyone else that Gatt 24 doesn't apply unless the EU agrees that it should apply and in the context that a free-trade agreement is being negotiated is a mystery. We knew all that, it doesn't make it magically happen.
The suggestion is that if we called the EU's bluff over the WDA they would accept a standstill over nothing.
So it comes back to we hold all the cards. All the guff they have said about not reopening the WA you believe still is game playing. Based upon the EU's behaviour to date would you say that was a rational position to take?
Because they think - rightly so far - that we will fold
I mean none of us know the EU but haven't they disbanded the negotiating team? Do we really think that the EU is the kind of agile, flexible organisation that can negotiate a new WA in a month or two?
There is no chance that a new agreement can be reached, and the relevant legislation drafted and passed by the various parties before the October 31 deadline.
It is possible for the EU and the UK to reach "Heads of Terms" on a new agreement by then. But it would still likely require a three to four month extension to jump through the relevant hoops post agreement.
I have tried to read up on GATT 24 but all I read is scads of pro-Brexit content going "We'll trade tariff free whilst we negotiate a deal and all it takes is the teeny tiny thing of the EU agreeing to do that without a deal in place"
Is that really their idea. That the EU will agree to having a deal with us without having a deal?
I wrote about GATT 24 about two years ago when some minor blog suggested it. Ultimately, it requires the acquiescence of the EU; it cannot be forced on an unwilling party. Worse, and still uncommented on, any attempt by us to use it avoid treating all countries equally, would inevitably result in a negative WTO ruling.
Even if all those hurdles were overcome it only applies to goods not services
As far as I am aware, there are no tariffs levied on services between the EU and third party states.
The (service) issue with leaving the EU without a deal is not tariffs, but on British professional qualifications (being no longer issued by EU bodies) no longer being acceptable.
The EU has no jurisdiction to force members to accept British professional qualifications, so it would be up to individual states to change their own rules. (I would note that Spain is ahead of the UK in this area, having passed measures recognising British qualifications, and covering double taxation. I don't know of any other member state to have done so.)
Ironically, of course, this means that there will be a substantial number of EU citizens working in the EU who got their qualifications in the UK, and who might be technically barred from their profession in the event of No Deal Brexit.
What we can say for sure is that everyone will be completely confused in the event of no deal, even the experts don't understand what would happen and it will be open season for all those who want to create chaos and generally play silly buggers when it comes to trade and other interaction between the UK and the EU.
Which brings me to French border guards at Calais. It may of course be that their well-known anglophilia and appreciation of the UK's importance to the EU means that they will realise it is in their interests not to enforce full third country rules on day 1. Or perhaps it may be that they will use the uncertainty and confusion to bring the whole thing to a grinding halt whilst they sit back and watch the perfidious English stew.
But anyway, what really matters, when do you think the WA will be ratified? My current thinking says Q2 2020. Outside chance of Q1.
It's not clear whether the WA can be ratified once we've left. It's a provision under Article 50 of the treaty, agreed by QMV in the Council, but once we become a third-party country that no longer applies so we'd be applying from scratch (in legal terms, though obviously not in terms of the likely terms of any agreement). That in turn means unanimous formal ratification by the EU27. We really don't want to go that way.
Oh well the first thing is that we will ask for another extension. Will it be granted? Very difficult to say.
Both candidates have said they will take us out without a deal but I'm afraid my cognitive dissonance means I have great difficulty believing that either would.
But anyway, what really matters, when do you think the WA will be ratified? My current thinking says Q2 2020. Outside chance of Q1.
It's not clear whether the WA can be ratified once we've left. It's a provision under Article 50 of the treaty, agreed by QMV in the Council, but once we become a third-party country that no longer applies so we'd be applying from scratch (in legal terms, though obviously not in terms of the likely terms of any agreement). That in turn means unanimous formal ratification by the EU27. We really don't want to go that way.
Doesn’t it also mean we can agree a deal with Ireland on the border separately?
It's not clear whether the WA can be ratified once we've left. It's a provision under Article 50 of the treaty, agreed by QMV in the Council, but once we become a third-party country that no longer applies so we'd be applying from scratch (in legal terms, though obviously not in terms of the likely terms of any agreement). That in turn means unanimous formal ratification by the EU27. We really don't want to go that way.
No, definitely not a good plan.
I think we will be extending and ratifying it in 2020. Not to say I'm confident of that but right now it is my 'most likely unlikely'.
If further proof were needed, that just shows what a half-wit Bill Cash is. The very letter he cites demolishes his point.
Quite why the five signatories of the letter felt it necessary to agree with everyone else that Gatt 24 doesn't apply unless the EU agrees that it should apply and in the context that a free-trade agreement is being negotiated is a mystery. We knew all that, it doesn't make it magically happen.
The suggestion is that if we called the EU's bluff over the WDA they would accept a standstill over nothing.
So it comes back to we hold all the cards. All the guff they have said about not reopening the WA you believe still is game playing. Based upon the EU's behaviour to date would you say that was a rational position to take?
Because they think - rightly so far - that we will fold
I mean none of us know the EU but haven't they disbanded the negotiating team? Do we really think that the EU is the kind of agile, flexible organisation that can negotiate a new WA in a month or two?
Almost certainly not 😉
But I once extended a 45 day negotiation window by “stopping the clock” for 14 months
It wasn’t bullying - I was reporting what I recalled from the original interview. You could hear her shouting and his voice was quieter.
There was no implication of blame. A couple had a row. The neighbours called the police, who investigated and there was nothing to be concerned about.
That’s it. I am critical of the neighbours who then went to the media. Interestingly the guardian hasn’t released the tape - I suspect because that is much more of an issue from a privacy perspective.
FWIW I don’t like Boris, I don’t trust him and don’t believe he is qualified or has the judgement to be PM. If I had a vote (which I don’t) I’d vote for Hunt. My mother does have a vote and I suspect she will be influenced by my views.
( @TheScreamingEagles I wasn’t aware of the Worboys link. I have nothing but sympathy for her).
Fair enough. But the language used ("she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman") can be seen to be of the "she had it coming" type, even down to the use of "young woman" which implies that she is childlike and worthy of admonishment.
She’s 31 - how else would you describe her? I will admit that I started with young lady and then edited my post!!
“Demanding and volatile” is purely based on the reports that the row was about him spilling wine on the sofa. It seems a little bit of an overreaction but maybe I’m atypically phlegmatic?
I suspect, and I could be wrong here, that your sofas aren't white.
It wasn’t bullying - I was reporting what I recalled from the original interview. You could hear her shouting and his voice was quieter.
There was no implication of blame. A couple had a row. The neighbours called the police, who investigated and there was nothing to be concerned about.
That’s it. I am critical of the neighbours who then went to the media. Interestingly the guardian hasn’t released the tape - I suspect because that is much more of an issue from a privacy perspective.
FWIW I don’t like Boris, I don’t trust him and don’t believe he is qualified or has the judgement to be PM. If I had a vote (which I don’t) I’d vote for Hunt. My mother does have a vote and I suspect she will be influenced by my views.
( @TheScreamingEagles I wasn’t aware of the Worboys link. I have nothing but sympathy for her).
Fair enough. But the language used ("she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman") can be seen to be of the "she had it coming" type, even down to the use of "young woman" which implies that she is childlike and worthy of admonishment.
She’s 31 - how else would you describe her? I will admit that I started with young lady and then edited my post!!
“Demanding and volatile” is purely based on the reports that the row was about him spilling wine on the sofa. It seems a little bit of an overreaction but maybe I’m atypically phlegmatic?
I suspect, and I could be wrong here, that your sofas aren't white.
What is a “socialist conviction” in this context? [feel free to add Peterborough jokes but I’d be genuinely interested in what he’s aiming for here - a differentiation from Marxist, a view that the EU is a manifestation of socialism in action or just rhetorical bollocks, like John Redwood invoking Thatcherite convictions.]
Johnson has caught Hunt up in a day. A raft of eye catching spending pledges, tax cuts and a wholesale reform of the NHS as well as hinting at a shiny new GE win. Wow! What a day!
I guess they mean Labour used him as a polling agent, which is someone entitled to go into polling stations on the day and ask for turnout details. It may have been unwise for Labour to do this - if indeed it did - but it is not illegal. The article linked in Tice's tweet is rather thin on details and it is hard to see where the criminality comes in.
It was clearly stupid of Labour to do so. But even if he was a murderer, it should not stop him from being a polling agent unless they have proof they did some irregularity regarding this election.
A private garden party attending by the sort of people in the photo is unlikely to be a rabble that requires a rabble rousing speech. Rousing perhaps. Arousing, one hopes not. Rabble rousing, really?
The backstop comes into place in the event that two separate factors come into being:
1. There is no FTA that removes the need for a physical border and 2. A technical solution that allows customs checks away from the border has not been implemented
So, it's perfectly possible that we have a Canadian-style FTA with the EU, combined with customs checks away from the border.
Possible if tech solutions can be agreed.
I was referring to what is 'on the table' - i.e. the 2 off-the-shelf and definitely available options offered by the EU.
1. A Norway type arrangement. 2. A Canada style FTA.
TM rejected (1) because it contravenes her red lines (perceived spirit of the referendum) and she rejected (2) because it was offered for GB only (border in the Irish Sea, integrity of the UK violated).
I assume he'll have been in backchannel communication with Farage for a free run at a No deal GE.
I rather doubt it, and I don't think Farage would give him a free run. I think Boris believes he can just wing it, or get away with a massive U-turn which he'll be able to bluster his way through.
I suppose the challenge for Brexiteers is that there are not that many clever people that are prepared to support the cause, so you have to roll them out at any opportunity and make out they are expert opinion even when in fact they are not. Who needs experts anyway? Brexit supporters don't! All you need is to just believe and it will be great!
Spectacularly stupid. That by itself should rule him out as a potential leader, let alone anything else
You may not agree with it but I think (and have thought all along) that he does genuinely believe that we should leave the EU on a specific date with or without a deal.
And the thing is the selectorate agrees with him too. So he will be PM on 22nd July and then we're very likely to leave with or without a deal shortly afterwards.
Better cash in all your money and put it under the floor boards!
Spectacularly stupid. That by itself should rule him out as a potential leader, let alone anything else
You may not agree with it but I think (and have thought all along) that he does genuinely believe that we should leave the EU on a specific date with or without a deal.
And the thing is the selectorate agrees with him too. So he will be PM on 22nd July and then we're very likely to leave with or without a deal shortly afterwards.
Better cash in all your money and put it under the floor boards!
Best not keep it in Sterling, Euros dollars or gold would be a better bet..
I assume he'll have been in backchannel communication with Farage for a free run at a No deal GE.
I rather doubt it, and I don't think Farage would give him a free run. I think Boris believes he can just wing it, or get away with a massive U-turn which he'll be able to bluster his way through.
He doesn't think that far ahead. I am not joking because I don't rate him, I have met people like him in the business world. One used to work for me. He is completely and utterly out of his depth. All he is thinking about at the moment is how to win the beauty contest and how good his ego will feel when he wins, nothing else. Do the job? He will worry about that when it happens.
Spectacularly stupid. That by itself should rule him out as a potential leader, let alone anything else
You may not agree with it but I think (and have thought all along) that he does genuinely believe that we should leave the EU on a specific date with or without a deal.
And the thing is the selectorate agrees with him too. So he will be PM on 22nd July and then we're very likely to leave with or without a deal shortly afterwards.
Better cash in all your money and put it under the floor boards!
Best not keep it in Sterling, Euros dollars or gold would be a better bet..
Comments
Boris has no plan.
Nothing has changed.
PS Painting people on crates is an odd sort of hobby. Or is it some sort of euphemism?
Trump's onto a winner here.
The only deal the EU has offered us is May's Deal... Without it we leave without any trade deal and no Gatt 24
Banks vs Cadwalldr
Tice vs SNP chap
BRP vs Labour in Peterborough
They'd back Hitler I reckon.
https://twitter.com/tonynevin/status/1143504957968125952
That’s it, I think.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48664373
Problem with this is, he is avoiding the flack he ought to be getting for peddling fantasy on Brexit instead of a plan. I want to see him pressed on this.
I would also like some debating space provided for the question of whether it is advisable for the leaders of our 2 main parties to have the same 1st name - Jeremy in this case. Not aware of a precedent for this. Might seem trivial but it should at least be discussed. Better safe than sorry.
The Canadian-style FTA would be the destination; the Withdrawal Agreement the means to get there with minimum disruption.
The backstop comes into place in the event that two separate factors come into being:
1. There is no FTA that removes the need for a physical border
and
2. A technical solution that allows customs checks away from the border has not been implemented
So, it's perfectly possible that we have a Canadian-style FTA with the EU, combined with customs checks away from the border.
But anyway, what really matters, when do you think the WA will be ratified? My current thinking says Q2 2020. Outside chance of Q1.
Angiogram now in Chesterfield next week
Back home taking it easy.
The (service) issue with leaving the EU without a deal is not tariffs, but on British professional qualifications (being no longer issued by EU bodies) no longer being acceptable.
The EU has no jurisdiction to force members to accept British professional qualifications, so it would be up to individual states to change their own rules. (I would note that Spain is ahead of the UK in this area, having passed measures recognising British qualifications, and covering double taxation. I don't know of any other member state to have done so.)
Ironically, of course, this means that there will be a substantial number of EU citizens working in the EU who got their qualifications in the UK, and who might be technically barred from their profession in the event of No Deal Brexit.
“Demanding and volatile” is purely based on the reports that the row was about him spilling wine on the sofa. It seems a little bit of an overreaction but maybe I’m atypically phlegmatic?
As for the WA my market would be earlier than that.
It is possible for the EU and the UK to reach "Heads of Terms" on a new agreement by then. But it would still likely require a three to four month extension to jump through the relevant hoops post agreement.
Which brings me to French border guards at Calais. It may of course be that their well-known anglophilia and appreciation of the UK's importance to the EU means that they will realise it is in their interests not to enforce full third country rules on day 1. Or perhaps it may be that they will use the uncertainty and confusion to bring the whole thing to a grinding halt whilst they sit back and watch the perfidious English stew.
I wonder which it will be.
Both candidates have said they will take us out without a deal but I'm afraid my cognitive dissonance means I have great difficulty believing that either would.
I think we will be extending and ratifying it in 2020. Not to say I'm confident of that but right now it is my 'most likely unlikely'.
But I once extended a 45 day negotiation window by “stopping the clock” for 14 months
Matches the gold satin curtains 😳
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1143536757360738304/photo/1
Spectacularly stupid. That by itself should rule him out as a potential leader, let alone anything else
stop him from being a polling agent unless they have proof they did some irregularity regarding this election.
I was referring to what is 'on the table' - i.e. the 2 off-the-shelf and definitely available options offered by the EU.
1. A Norway type arrangement.
2. A Canada style FTA.
TM rejected (1) because it contravenes her red lines (perceived spirit of the referendum) and she rejected (2) because it was offered for GB only (border in the Irish Sea, integrity of the UK violated).
That is my understanding.
And the thing is the selectorate agrees with him too. So he will be PM on 22nd July and then we're very likely to leave with or without a deal shortly afterwards.
Better cash in all your money and put it under the floor boards!