There is, actually, quite an obvious deal to be made here, if both sides dial it down.
A longer transition period. 3 years? 4? In which both sides endeavour to do their best to find a solution to the Irish Border issue, knowing that No Deal is a clear risk as the alternative.
Then, at the end of that, if they HAVEN'T found a solution, Britain will legislate a referendum for Northern Ireland, in which the Northern Irish themselves can choose which they prefer: to remain in the CU and SM, or to cut EU/Irish ties and allow a Border.
It is quite obvious Ulster would go with the former (in fact it would put Ulster in an enviable position, without all the risk of a proper Border poll and the anger that comes with).
There. I've just solved Brexit. Next.
The DUP won't accept the risk of any deviation from the rest of the UK. Next.
It is the last line that passes MPs by: Perhaps the biggest myth of all is that Brexit will be over on 31 October 2019. If only.
The only way this ends - finally and definitively - is if the EU collapses. Otherwise we will continue to be hopelessly split between those who wish to leave/stay out and those who wish to remain/rejoin.
But for all its institutional weaknesses, corruption and maladministration, the odds of that happening are the same as the odds of England getting Steve Smith for a duck.
It will end, because greater, more significant events - war, disease, climate change, alien invasion, robot supremacy - will overtake it, and render the entire question irrelevant.
No doubt there were people who thought - for good reason, in, say 100AD - that the Roman Empire was eternal. They were wrong. Rome fell.
And the EU, whatever it is, is certainly not the Roman Empire straddling the world with a singular purpose.
In 100 AD, the Roman Empire still had 1361 years to run. Indeed, on some measures it didn't end until 1806.
Waiting for it to fall, or indeed inciting rebellion in the hope of making it fall (check out the Gallic Empire) turned out not to be a profitable venture. To quote Keynes, in the long run we are all dead. But short of invading Hungary with Russian troops, there is no way the EU will collapse in time to be of any help in this situation.
Of course. But, likesay, the EU is not Rome. Not even close. It is a fissile andshaky construct, with an inbuilt lack of democracy, a massive divide between east and west, a nasty and probably insoluble migrant problem, and a fucking terrible currency rotting away at the core like Soviet era control rods in a rundown nuclear power station.
That sounded like a damn good approximation of Rome under the Empire to me, Byronic!
it would certainly be in with a serious chance at a Summarised Gibbon contest.
No.
It is, quite neatly, a good description of Rome at the end of the Western Empire. Say 400AD. It is not a good description of Rome at the height of her puissance. Three centuries earlier.
There is, actually, quite an obvious deal to be made here, if both sides dial it down.
A longer transition period. 3 years? 4? In which both sides endeavour to do their best to find a solution to the Irish Border issue, knowing that No Deal is a clear risk as the alternative.
Then, at the end of that, if they HAVEN'T found a solution, Britain will legislate a referendum for Northern Ireland, in which the Northern Irish themselves can choose which they prefer: to remain in the CU and SM, or to cut EU/Irish ties and allow a Border.
It is quite obvious Ulster would go with the former (in fact it would put Ulster in an enviable position, without all the risk of a proper Border poll and the anger that comes with).
There. I've just solved Brexit. Next.
The DUP won't accept the risk of any deviation from the rest of the UK. Next.
This deal could, I think, win a majority in the Commons, if the alternative is No Deal. So the DUP would have to lump it.
Oh, only if you believe as I do and almost every sane member of the human species (and probably much of the animal kingdom) that a No Deal Brexit will be a total and utter shitshow of the most epic proportions ever seen on these Isles.
Which would suit Cummings admirably.
But hardly Johnson. He wants to win the next election. So it seems odd that he plans to fight it in the exact circumstances that Corbyn supposedly wants.
Something not scanning with all this.
I think Johnson wants an election after he has delivered Brexit with a deal. And Corbyn wants an election before any Brexit has been delivered.
Yes. The problem is that he was forced into this position by the increasingly absurd leadership election. He's likely to come badly unstuck.
I don't use this term often. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever really used it. The man's an idiot. I don't think he's as bright as he'd like to make you believe and I certainly think he's a self-centred egomaniac with fewer principles than a peripatetic bonobo.
There is, actually, quite an obvious deal to be made here, if both sides dial it down.
A longer transition period. 3 years? 4? In which both sides endeavour to do their best to find a solution to the Irish Border issue, knowing that No Deal is a clear risk as the alternative.
Then, at the end of that, if they HAVEN'T found a solution, Britain will legislate a referendum for Northern Ireland, in which the Northern Irish themselves can choose which they prefer: to remain in the CU and SM, or to cut EU/Irish ties and allow a Border.
It is quite obvious Ulster would go with the former (in fact it would put Ulster in an enviable position, without all the risk of a proper Border poll and the anger that comes with).
There. I've just solved Brexit. Next.
The DUP won't accept the risk of any deviation from the rest of the UK. Next.
This deal could, I think, win a majority in the Commons, if the alternative is No Deal. So the DUP would have to lump it.
There is, actually, quite an obvious deal to be made here, if both sides dial it down.
A longer transition period. 3 years? 4? In which both sides endeavour to do their best to find a solution to the Irish Border issue, knowing that No Deal is a clear risk as the alternative.
Then, at the end of that, if they HAVEN'T found a solution, Britain will legislate a referendum for Northern Ireland, in which the Northern Irish themselves can choose which they prefer: to remain in the CU and SM, or to cut EU/Irish ties and allow a Border.
It is quite obvious Ulster would go with the former (in fact it would put Ulster in an enviable position, without all the risk of a proper Border poll and the anger that comes with).
There. I've just solved Brexit. Next.
The DUP won't accept the risk of any deviation from the rest of the UK. Next.
This deal could, I think, win a majority in the Commons, if the alternative is No Deal. So the DUP would have to lump it.
And the ERG too?
They are more problematic, but Boris would get dozens of Labour, LD and maybe even SNP votes. If the clear alternative is No Deal.
Then, at the end of that, if they HAVEN'T found a solution, Britain will legislate a referendum for Northern Ireland, in which the Northern Irish themselves can choose which they prefer: to remain in the CU and SM, or to cut EU/Irish ties and allow a Border.
It's not acceptable to give Northern Ireland the option of reimposing a border on the island of Ireland unilaterally, even if they're unlikely to take it. One of the principles of the peace process is that it's for the people of Ireland north and south to determine their future. Until then, the UK has an obligation not to impose anything to upset the balance.
At this rate Boris Johnson is even going to ruin our stockpiling efforts!
Yep. Some of us cynics have been stockpiling for months. You can barely get down my hall to the living room...
What kind of stock have you been piling up?
Knorr? Oxo?
2 parts soya milk to 1 part alcohol.
One thing we WON'T run out of is wine. Australia has the largest share of the UK retail wine market, bigger than France or Italy.
If we run out of alcohol then I riot.
We do make quite a lot of our own, as well. We are the world's biggest producer of scotch, the home of gin, plus all those lovely stouts, porters, IPAs, lagers....
You can rest easy. We can all get totally shit-faced as the country explodes.
The letter is the first time Johnson has ever acknowledged Ireland has legitimate interests. It still has arrogance in it but seems to me to be pleading with the EU to get him out of his difficult situation. ( Which is of his own making and Ireland/EU don't owe him any favours).
The backstop is the only thing he mentions.
The Yellowhammer revelations seem to have spooked the Johnson regime. And blaming No Deal on Hammond is nonsensical. Hammond wants a deal so much he voted for it three times, unlike Johnson. If you are really serious about No Deal, planning is sensible precautions you would want people to know about and you wouldn't seek to blame the outcome on implausible others.
Which makes me think Johnson isn't serious about No Deal.
Then, at the end of that, if they HAVEN'T found a solution, Britain will legislate a referendum for Northern Ireland, in which the Northern Irish themselves can choose which they prefer: to remain in the CU and SM, or to cut EU/Irish ties and allow a Border.
It's not acceptable to give Northern Ireland the option of reimposing a border on the island of Ireland unilaterally, even if they're unlikely to take it. One of the principles of the peace process is that it's for the people of Ireland north and south to determine their future. Until then, the UK has an obligation not to impose anything to upset the balance.
Would the Irish complain if the alternative is No Deal? I don't think so. Dublin would know that the Norns would vote for the SM and CU (thus nudging a united Ireland somewhat nearer, by the way). The Irish would happily accept this as a decent compromise, and if the Irish were happy, the EU would eagerly agree.
Then, at the end of that, if they HAVEN'T found a solution, Britain will legislate a referendum for Northern Ireland, in which the Northern Irish themselves can choose which they prefer: to remain in the CU and SM, or to cut EU/Irish ties and allow a Border.
It's not acceptable to give Northern Ireland the option of reimposing a border on the island of Ireland unilaterally, even if they're unlikely to take it. One of the principles of the peace process is that it's for the people of Ireland north and south to determine their future. Until then, the UK has an obligation not to impose anything to upset the balance.
Would the Irish complain if the alternative is No Deal? I don't think so. Dublin would know that the Norns would vote for the SM and CU (thus nudging a united Ireland somewhat nearer, by the way). The Irish would happily accept this as a decent compromise, and if the Irish were happy, the EU would eagerly agree.
Who knew Brexit was so easily fixed? Pff!
Consign to bin, along with 'Ireland will agree to remove the backstop because No Deal is worse'.
Then, at the end of that, if they HAVEN'T found a solution, Britain will legislate a referendum for Northern Ireland, in which the Northern Irish themselves can choose which they prefer: to remain in the CU and SM, or to cut EU/Irish ties and allow a Border.
It's not acceptable to give Northern Ireland the option of reimposing a border on the island of Ireland unilaterally, even if they're unlikely to take it. One of the principles of the peace process is that it's for the people of Ireland north and south to determine their future. Until then, the UK has an obligation not to impose anything to upset the balance.
Would the Irish complain if the alternative is No Deal? I don't think so. Dublin would know that the Norns would vote for the SM and CU (thus nudging a united Ireland somewhat nearer, by the way). The Irish would happily accept this as a decent compromise, and if the Irish were happy, the EU would eagerly agree.
Who knew Brexit was so easily fixed? Pff!
Consign to bin, along with 'Ireland will agree to remove the backstop because No Deal is worse'.
You have NO imagination. It's almost as if you guys don't WANT Brexit to work.
Then, at the end of that, if they HAVEN'T found a solution, Britain will legislate a referendum for Northern Ireland, in which the Northern Irish themselves can choose which they prefer: to remain in the CU and SM, or to cut EU/Irish ties and allow a Border.
It's not acceptable to give Northern Ireland the option of reimposing a border on the island of Ireland unilaterally, even if they're unlikely to take it. One of the principles of the peace process is that it's for the people of Ireland north and south to determine their future. Until then, the UK has an obligation not to impose anything to upset the balance.
Would the Irish complain if the alternative is No Deal? I don't think so. Dublin would know that the Norns would vote for the SM and CU (thus nudging a united Ireland somewhat nearer, by the way). The Irish would happily accept this as a decent compromise, and if the Irish were happy, the EU would eagerly agree.
Who knew Brexit was so easily fixed? Pff!
Consign to bin, along with 'Ireland will agree to remove the backstop because No Deal is worse'.
You have NO imagination. It's almost as if you guys don't WANT Brexit to work.
Then, at the end of that, if they HAVEN'T found a solution, Britain will legislate a referendum for Northern Ireland, in which the Northern Irish themselves can choose which they prefer: to remain in the CU and SM, or to cut EU/Irish ties and allow a Border.
It's not acceptable to give Northern Ireland the option of reimposing a border on the island of Ireland unilaterally, even if they're unlikely to take it. One of the principles of the peace process is that it's for the people of Ireland north and south to determine their future. Until then, the UK has an obligation not to impose anything to upset the balance.
Would the Irish complain if the alternative is No Deal? I don't think so. Dublin would know that the Norns would vote for the SM and CU (thus nudging a united Ireland somewhat nearer, by the way). The Irish would happily accept this as a decent compromise, and if the Irish were happy, the EU would eagerly agree.
Who knew Brexit was so easily fixed? Pff!
Consign to bin, along with 'Ireland will agree to remove the backstop because No Deal is worse'.
You have NO imagination. It's almost as if you guys don't WANT Brexit to work.
Then, at the end of that, if they HAVEN'T found a solution, Britain will legislate a referendum for Northern Ireland, in which the Northern Irish themselves can choose which they prefer: to remain in the CU and SM, or to cut EU/Irish ties and allow a Border.
It's not acceptable to give Northern Ireland the option of reimposing a border on the island of Ireland unilaterally, even if they're unlikely to take it. One of the principles of the peace process is that it's for the people of Ireland north and south to determine their future. Until then, the UK has an obligation not to impose anything to upset the balance.
Would the Irish complain if the alternative is No Deal? I don't think so. Dublin would know that the Norns would vote for the SM and CU (thus nudging a united Ireland somewhat nearer, by the way). The Irish would happily accept this as a decent compromise, and if the Irish were happy, the EU would eagerly agree.
Who knew Brexit was so easily fixed? Pff!
Consign to bin, along with 'Ireland will agree to remove the backstop because No Deal is worse'.
You have NO imagination. It's almost as if you guys don't WANT Brexit to work.
Let's talk about Greenland. Greenland left the EU in a dispute about fish. It wanted to keep the stocks for itself. It then went into a multiyear negotiation, which resulted in an arrangement that looked remarkably similar to the one it had before. The thing is that Greenland now misses out on the possibilities of diversification and development that the EU offered. So Greenland is beholden to a fragile resource. Aware people realise Greenland has lost out by leaving the EU, but there is essentially no effort going into rejoining
Let's talk about Greenland. Greenland left the EU in a dispute about fish. It wanted to keep the stocks for itself. It then went into a multiyear negotiation, which resulted in an arrangement that looked remarkably similar to the one it had before. The thing is that Greenland now misses out on the possibilities of diversification and development that the EU offered. So Greenland is beholden to a fragile resource. Aware people realise Greenland has lost out by leaving the EU, but there is essentially no effort going into rejoining
They don't seem to do too badly out of it, a quarter of a billion euros in development funding over a six year period for a population of 50k... that's a ten thousand euros per person per year.
Edit: a thousand euros. I shouldn't do maths this late...
Then, at the end of that, if they HAVEN'T found a solution, Britain will legislate a referendum for Northern Ireland, in which the Northern Irish themselves can choose which they prefer: to remain in the CU and SM, or to cut EU/Irish ties and allow a Border.
It's not acceptable to give Northern Ireland the option of reimposing a border on the island of Ireland unilaterally, even if they're unlikely to take it. One of the principles of the peace process is that it's for the people of Ireland north and south to determine their future. Until then, the UK has an obligation not to impose anything to upset the balance.
Would the Irish complain if the alternative is No Deal? I don't think so. Dublin would know that the Norns would vote for the SM and CU (thus nudging a united Ireland somewhat nearer, by the way). The Irish would happily accept this as a decent compromise, and if the Irish were happy, the EU would eagerly agree.
Who knew Brexit was so easily fixed? Pff!
Consign to bin, along with 'Ireland will agree to remove the backstop because No Deal is worse'.
You have NO imagination. It's almost as if you guys don't WANT Brexit to work.
Let's talk about Greenland. Greenland left the EU in a dispute about fish. It wanted to keep the stocks for itself. It then went into a multiyear negotiation, which resulted in an arrangement that looked remarkably similar to the one it had before. The thing is that Greenland now misses out on the possibilities of diversification and development that the EU offered. So Greenland is beholden to a fragile resource. Aware people realise Greenland has lost out by leaving the EU, but there is essentially no effort going into rejoining
Although it left, Greenland is still sovereign territory of EU member-state Denmark.
It is the last line that passes MPs by: Perhaps the biggest myth of all is that Brexit will be over on 31 October 2019. If only.
The only way this ends - finally and definitively - is if the EU collapses. Otherwise we will continue to be hopelessly split between those who wish to leave/stay out and those who wish to remain/rejoin.
But for all its institutional weaknesses, corruption and maladministration, the odds of that happening are the same as the odds of England getting Steve Smith for a duck.
It will end, because greater, more significant events - war, disease, climate change, alien invasion, robot supremacy - will overtake it, and render the entire question irrelevant.
No doubt there were people who thought - for good reason, in, say 100AD - that the Roman Empire was eternal. They were wrong. Rome fell.
And the EU, whatever it is, is certainly not the Roman Empire straddling the world with a singular purpose.
In 100 AD, the Roman Empire still had 1361 years to run. Indeed, on some measures it didn't end until 1806.
Waiting for it to fall, or indeed inciting rebellion in the hope of making it fall (check out the Gallic Empire) turned out not to be a profitable venture. To quote Keynes, in the long run we are all dead. But short of invading Hungary with Russian troops, there is no way the EU will collapse in time to be of any help in this situation.
Of course. But, likesay, the EU is not Rome. Not even close. It is a fissile andshaky construct, with an inbuilt lack of democracy, a massive divide between east and west, a nasty and probably insoluble migrant problem, and a fucking terrible currency rotting away at the core like Soviet era control rods in a rundown nuclear power station.
Wait; were you talking about the Roman Empire from about Severus on, or were you talking about the EU?
Then, at the end of that, if they HAVEN'T found a solution, Britain will legislate a referendum for Northern Ireland, in which the Northern Irish themselves can choose which they prefer: to remain in the CU and SM, or to cut EU/Irish ties and allow a Border.
It's not acceptable to give Northern Ireland the option of reimposing a border on the island of Ireland unilaterally, even if they're unlikely to take it. One of the principles of the peace process is that it's for the people of Ireland north and south to determine their future. Until then, the UK has an obligation not to impose anything to upset the balance.
Would the Irish complain if the alternative is No Deal? I don't think so. Dublin would know that the Norns would vote for the SM and CU (thus nudging a united Ireland somewhat nearer, by the way). The Irish would happily accept this as a decent compromise, and if the Irish were happy, the EU would eagerly agree.
Who knew Brexit was so easily fixed? Pff!
Consign to bin, along with 'Ireland will agree to remove the backstop because No Deal is worse'.
You have NO imagination. It's almost as if you guys don't WANT Brexit to work.
Let's talk about Greenland. Greenland left the EU in a dispute about fish. It wanted to keep the stocks for itself. It then went into a multiyear negotiation, which resulted in an arrangement that looked remarkably similar to the one it had before. The thing is that Greenland now misses out on the possibilities of diversification and development that the EU offered. So Greenland is beholden to a fragile resource. Aware people realise Greenland has lost out by leaving the EU, but there is essentially no effort going into rejoining
Gotta pull rank here.
I've been to Greenland, and talked to Greenlanders. I doubt you have.
They want total independence from Denmark, and want to move FURTHER from the EU. Their model is Iceland, which is also moving away from EU membership.
Sadly, the various problems of Greenlandic society mean this is unlikely. The Danes keep them fed but discontented with the soma of subsidy.
I wonder how long the relatively good Conservative polling figures will survive the cognitive dissonances:
1. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'You need to make preparations for major adjustments'. 2. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'the EU will blink because us crashing out with no deal will be so bad for them.' 3. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'The last lot didn't make proper arrangements for us crashing out with no deal'. 4. 'There cannot be any actual negotiations unless the backstop goes' vs 'I'm straining every sinew and travelling to Berlin and Paris to try to negotiate'.
I previously thought it would take the actual reality of crash-out to clobber the support for it. Maybe we won't have to wait that long.
I'm hard pressed to think of any example in modern UK history where a PM has been so stupid. Maybe Eden at a stretch, but at least he was responding to events. This is an unforced error prompted by nothing other than making a fetish out of a date chosen by the French.
At this rate Boris Johnson is even going to ruin our stockpiling efforts!
Yep. Some of us cynics have been stockpiling for months. You can barely get down my hall to the living room...
What kind of stock have you been piling up?
Knorr? Oxo?
2 parts soya milk to 1 part alcohol.
One thing we WON'T run out of is wine. Australia has the largest share of the UK retail wine market, bigger than France or Italy.
If we run out of alcohol then I riot.
We do make quite a lot of our own, as well. We are the world's biggest producer of scotch, the home of gin, plus all those lovely stouts, porters, IPAs, lagers....
You can rest easy. We can all get totally shit-faced as the country explodes.
We're the biggest producer of something that can only be produced here.
Let's talk about Greenland. Greenland left the EU in a dispute about fish. It wanted to keep the stocks for itself. It then went into a multiyear negotiation, which resulted in an arrangement that looked remarkably similar to the one it had before. The thing is that Greenland now misses out on the possibilities of diversification and development that the EU offered. So Greenland is beholden to a fragile resource. Aware people realise Greenland has lost out by leaving the EU, but there is essentially no effort going into rejoining
Greenland has fewer people than Shell has service stations.
Oh, only if you believe as I do and almost every sane member of the human species (and probably much of the animal kingdom) that a No Deal Brexit will be a total and utter shitshow of the most epic proportions ever seen on these Isles.
Which would suit Cummings admirably.
But hardly Johnson. He wants to win the next election. So it seems odd that he plans to fight it in the exact circumstances that Corbyn supposedly wants.
Something not scanning with all this.
I think Johnson wants an election after he has delivered Brexit with a deal. And Corbyn wants an election before any Brexit has been delivered.
Yes. The problem is that he was forced into this position by the increasingly absurd leadership election. He's likely to come badly unstuck.
I don't use this term often. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever really used it. The man's an idiot. I don't think he's as bright as he'd like to make you believe and I certainly think he's a self-centred egomaniac with fewer principles than a peripatetic bonobo.
I think a lot of people have been assuming he's a clever man pretending to be a stupid man, but now they're realising he's just a stupid man pretending to be a clever man pretending to be a stupid man. It's as simple as that.
There is, actually, quite an obvious deal to be made here, if both sides dial it down.
A longer transition period. 3 years? 4? In which both sides endeavour to do their best to find a solution to the Irish Border issue, knowing that No Deal is a clear risk as the alternative.
Then, at the end of that, if they HAVEN'T found a solution, Britain will legislate a referendum for Northern Ireland, in which the Northern Irish themselves can choose which they prefer: to remain in the CU and SM, or to cut EU/Irish ties and allow a Border.
It is quite obvious Ulster would go with the former (in fact it would put Ulster in an enviable position, without all the risk of a proper Border poll and the anger that comes with).
There. I've just solved Brexit. Next.
The DUP won't accept the risk of any deviation from the rest of the UK. Next.
This deal could, I think, win a majority in the Commons, if the alternative is No Deal. So the DUP would have to lump it.
There is, actually, quite an obvious deal to be made here, if both sides dial it down.
A longer transition period. 3 years? 4? In which both sides endeavour to do their best to find a solution to the Irish Border issue, knowing that No Deal is a clear risk as the alternative.
Then, at the end of that, if they HAVEN'T found a solution, Britain will legislate a referendum for Northern Ireland, in which the Northern Irish themselves can choose which they prefer: to remain in the CU and SM, or to cut EU/Irish ties and allow a Border.
It is quite obvious Ulster would go with the former (in fact it would put Ulster in an enviable position, without all the risk of a proper Border poll and the anger that comes with).
There. I've just solved Brexit. Next.
The DUP won't accept the risk of any deviation from the rest of the UK. Next.
This deal could, I think, win a majority in the Commons, if the alternative is No Deal. So the DUP would have to lump it.
I enjoyed the header, thanks Cyclefree. There are some more myths I think. One being 'Boris doesn't mean what he says.' He has been admirably consistent.
I enjoyed the header, thanks Cyclefree. There are some more myths I think. One being 'Boris doesn't mean what he says.' He has been admirably consistent.
Well, yes, he's strapped himself into a strait jacket and thrown away the key, if that's what you mean.
(Frantically looks round for the override. WHERE'S THE OVERRIDE???)
"Enterprise can wait! She's not going anywhere!"
Thank you, Sunil. I didn't think anybody would get it...
Best Star Trek movie ever
Well TWOK doesn't have much competition... One of the sad things about the 21st century is the growing propensity to reassess ST:TMP as a legitimate arthouse movie of some worth, instead of a hours long dirge indulging yet more of Roddenberry's weird sex theories. RedLetterMedia did a YouTube on it: you might like to Google it.
Let's talk about Greenland. Greenland left the EU in a dispute about fish. It wanted to keep the stocks for itself. It then went into a multiyear negotiation, which resulted in an arrangement that looked remarkably similar to the one it had before. The thing is that Greenland now misses out on the possibilities of diversification and development that the EU offered. So Greenland is beholden to a fragile resource. Aware people realise Greenland has lost out by leaving the EU, but there is essentially no effort going into rejoining
Greenland has fewer people than Shell has service stations.
Little known fact: Greenland has the highest suicide rate on earth. Even though it is spectacularly, hauntingly beautiful.
When you go there, you realise why. It's not just the boozing and the child abuse. You feel like you are on a hostile planet, designed to kill you, at any moment. It is exhilarating in small doses, like belladonna tincture, but if you live there? Wow.
I wonder how long the relatively good Conservative polling figures will survive the cognitive dissonances:
1. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'You need to make preparations for major adjustments'. 2. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'the EU will blink because us crashing out with no deal will be so bad for them.' 3. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'The last lot didn't make proper arrangements for us crashing out with no deal'. 4. 'There cannot be any actual negotiations unless the backstop goes' vs 'I'm straining every sinew and travelling to Berlin and Paris to try to negotiate'.
I previously thought it would take the actual reality of crash-out to clobber the support for it. Maybe we won't have to wait that long.
I'm hard pressed to think of any example in modern UK history where a PM has been so stupid. Maybe Eden at a stretch, but at least he was responding to events. This is an unforced error prompted by nothing other than making a fetish out of a date chosen by the French.
Cognitive dissonance has been remarkably enduring. I thought we would be out by now. I'm not the only one. The entire EU strategy was about easing us gently into the "transition period" and THEN realising just how crap rule-taking is going to be.
Mind you, the backstop thing let the cat out of the bag.
I wonder how long the relatively good Conservative polling figures will survive the cognitive dissonances:
1. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'You need to make preparations for major adjustments'. 2. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'the EU will blink because us crashing out with no deal will be so bad for them.' 3. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'The last lot didn't make proper arrangements for us crashing out with no deal'. 4. 'There cannot be any actual negotiations unless the backstop goes' vs 'I'm straining every sinew and travelling to Berlin and Paris to try to negotiate'.
I previously thought it would take the actual reality of crash-out to clobber the support for it. Maybe we won't have to wait that long.
I'm hard pressed to think of any example in modern UK history where a PM has been so stupid. Maybe Eden at a stretch, but at least he was responding to events. This is an unforced error prompted by nothing other than making a fetish out of a date chosen by the French.
Yes, the infatuation with 31 Oct (which we were lumbered with only on the insistence of Macron, the other nations favoured 1 Jan or some other date in Q1) is particularly bizarre. Is there something particularly auspicious about Halloween for Leavers, or is it mere coincidence? In any case, holding oneself to that date is clearly idiotic.
Coming late to this, but congrats to @cyclefree for a succinct and insightful header on just a few of the deceptions politicians are attempting to smuggle past credulous voters.
I wonder how long the relatively good Conservative polling figures will survive the cognitive dissonances:
1. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'You need to make preparations for major adjustments'. 2. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'the EU will blink because us crashing out with no deal will be so bad for them.' 3. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'The last lot didn't make proper arrangements for us crashing out with no deal'. 4. 'There cannot be any actual negotiations unless the backstop goes' vs 'I'm straining every sinew and travelling to Berlin and Paris to try to negotiate'.
I previously thought it would take the actual reality of crash-out to clobber the support for it. Maybe we won't have to wait that long.
I'm hard pressed to think of any example in modern UK history where a PM has been so stupid. Maybe Eden at a stretch, but at least he was responding to events. This is an unforced error prompted by nothing other than making a fetish out of a date chosen by the French.
Very similar ones on your side.
No deal will destroy Britain but its impact on ROEU will be apparently be a trifling inconvenience.
No deal is so calamitous to Britain that no significant preparations for it were made over the past three years by the excuse for a Government and the even lamer excuse for a Chancellor.
We'll all face mass food shortages, and there's going to be a vast glut of unwanted lamb.
Food prices are going to go through the roof, and farmers will be put out of business by a flood of cheap imported, um, food.
At this rate Boris Johnson is even going to ruin our stockpiling efforts!
Yep. Some of us cynics have been stockpiling for months. You can barely get down my hall to the living room...
What kind of stock have you been piling up?
Knorr? Oxo?
2 parts soya milk to 1 part alcohol.
One thing we WON'T run out of is wine. Australia has the largest share of the UK retail wine market, bigger than France or Italy.
If we run out of alcohol then I riot.
We do make quite a lot of our own, as well. We are the world's biggest producer of scotch, the home of gin, plus all those lovely stouts, porters, IPAs, lagers....
You can rest easy. We can all get totally shit-faced as the country explodes.
We're the biggest producer of something that can only be produced here.
I enjoyed the header, thanks Cyclefree. There are some more myths I think. One being 'Boris doesn't mean what he says.' He has been admirably consistent.
Well, yes, he's strapped himself into a strait jacket and thrown away the key, if that's what you mean.
It's not what I mean, but go ahead and throw a tantrum if it makes you feel better.
I wonder how long the relatively good Conservative polling figures will survive the cognitive dissonances:
1. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'You need to make preparations for major adjustments'. 2. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'the EU will blink because us crashing out with no deal will be so bad for them.' 3. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'The last lot didn't make proper arrangements for us crashing out with no deal'. 4. 'There cannot be any actual negotiations unless the backstop goes' vs 'I'm straining every sinew and travelling to Berlin and Paris to try to negotiate'.
I previously thought it would take the actual reality of crash-out to clobber the support for it. Maybe we won't have to wait that long.
I'm hard pressed to think of any example in modern UK history where a PM has been so stupid. Maybe Eden at a stretch, but at least he was responding to events. This is an unforced error prompted by nothing other than making a fetish out of a date chosen by the French.
Yes, the infatuation with 31 Oct (which we were lumbered with only on the insistence of Macron, the other nations favoured 1 Jan or some other date in Q1) is particularly bizarre. Is there something particularly auspicious about Halloween for Leavers, or is it mere coincidence? In any case, holding oneself to that date is clearly idiotic.
Isn't it the day before the new Commission begins its role? It was specifically chosen to prevent us grandstanding all Summer about re-opening negotiations..?
Let's talk about Greenland. Greenland left the EU in a dispute about fish. It wanted to keep the stocks for itself. It then went into a multiyear negotiation, which resulted in an arrangement that looked remarkably similar to the one it had before. The thing is that Greenland now misses out on the possibilities of diversification and development that the EU offered. So Greenland is beholden to a fragile resource. Aware people realise Greenland has lost out by leaving the EU, but there is essentially no effort going into rejoining
Greenland has fewer people than Shell has service stations.
Little known fact: Greenland has the highest suicide rate on earth. Even though it is spectacularly, hauntingly beautiful.
When you go there, you realise why. It's not just the boozing and the child abuse. You feel like you are on a hostile planet, designed to kill you, at any moment. It is exhilarating in small doses, like belladonna tincture, but if you live there? Wow.
It would have been on my list of guesses for the world’s highest suicide rate. Residence at such extreme latitudes is literally maddening: almost permanently dark for several months of the year, and inhumanely cold. Then endless light in the short summer. It is miracle that anyone is willing to live in such a bipolar environment.
I wonder how long the relatively good Conservative polling figures will survive the cognitive dissonances:
1. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'You need to make preparations for major adjustments'. 2. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'the EU will blink because us crashing out with no deal will be so bad for them.' 3. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'The last lot didn't make proper arrangements for us crashing out with no deal'. 4. 'There cannot be any actual negotiations unless the backstop goes' vs 'I'm straining every sinew and travelling to Berlin and Paris to try to negotiate'.
I previously thought it would take the actual reality of crash-out to clobber the support for it. Maybe we won't have to wait that long.
I'm hard pressed to think of any example in modern UK history where a PM has been so stupid. Maybe Eden at a stretch, but at least he was responding to events. This is an unforced error prompted by nothing other than making a fetish out of a date chosen by the French.
Yes, the infatuation with 31 Oct (which we were lumbered with only on the insistence of Macron, the other nations favoured 1 Jan or some other date in Q1) is particularly bizarre. Is there something particularly auspicious about Halloween for Leavers, or is it mere coincidence? In any case, holding oneself to that date is clearly idiotic.
Isn't it the day before the new Commission begins its role? It was specifically chosen to prevent us grandstanding all Summer about re-opening negotiations..?
Perhaps. Who can remember the reason? Much of the EU27 supported a lengthier delay as I recall. For reasons known only to themselves, the collection of clowns, comics and quarterwits in the cabinet have wedded themselves to an aggressive timetable set by the French president.
Let's talk about Greenland. Greenland left the EU in a dispute about fish. It wanted to keep the stocks for itself. It then went into a multiyear negotiation, which resulted in an arrangement that looked remarkably similar to the one it had before. The thing is that Greenland now misses out on the possibilities of diversification and development that the EU offered. So Greenland is beholden to a fragile resource. Aware people realise Greenland has lost out by leaving the EU, but there is essentially no effort going into rejoining
Greenland has fewer people than Shell has service stations.
Little known fact: Greenland has the highest suicide rate on earth. Even though it is spectacularly, hauntingly beautiful.
When you go there, you realise why. It's not just the boozing and the child abuse. You feel like you are on a hostile planet, designed to kill you, at any moment. It is exhilarating in small doses, like belladonna tincture, but if you live there? Wow.
It would have been on my list of guesses for the world’s highest suicide rate. Residence at such extreme latitudes is literally maddening: almost permanently dark for several months of the year, and inhumanely cold. Then endless light in the short summer. It is miracle that anyone is willing to live in such a bipolar environment.
Indeed. This June I was in far northern Russia, and - for the first time - experienced a true Arctic midsummer, with no real darkness.
It is exquisite, in itself, but you quickly feel yourself going mad from insomnia and disorientation.
In Greenland, quite a few people (locals and incomers) told me they prefer the endless dark of the winters. You can sleep. The skies are sublimely starry and clear (Greenland has a famously dry climate). They go sledding and kayaking by moonlight...
I thought Boris's letter seemed entirely sensible. I think it will play well with the public.
I thought it was bonkers. And yes it will. However, that is of limited and diminishing utility. Push is once again coming to shove. Once again, that perennial Tory Plan A, get the EU to cave, has failed, with more weeks wasted.
Is that not a major concession by them? Seems like one.
Not really. If Dublin were happy with an alternative set of arrangements already then the backstop wouldn't be triggered. Not needing it is just a question of timing.
OT there is one day left on iplayer for Michael Cockerill's programme, How to be an Ex-Prime Minister, covering departing PMs from Churchill to Blair. The film reveals who left office bankrupt, who did TV commercials for Cheshire cheese, who had his own chat show and who has never had a single happy day since leaving Number Ten. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007r80c
John Major went to the Oval; Theresa May went to Lords.
Surely tonight's Boris letter is the end of any deluded fantasy Boris is anything other than a bluffing charlatan ? His only option now is to attempt No Deal against the wishes of a majority of the UK population, Parliament and two of the four UK nations.
Surely tonight's Boris letter is the end of any deluded fantasy Boris is anything other than a bluffing charlatan ? His only option now is to attempt No Deal against the wishes of a majority of the UK population, Parliament and two of the four UK nations.
Surely tonight's Boris letter is the end of any deluded fantasy Boris is anything other than a bluffing charlatan ? His only option now is to attempt No Deal against the wishes of a majority of the UK population, Parliament and two of the four UK nations.
Good Luck with that.
The Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop is the only option to have got a parliamentary majority and most voters and Opinium for example suggests No Deal is preferred to Revoke
I wonder how long the relatively good Conservative polling figures will survive the cognitive dissonances:
1. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'You need to make preparations for major adjustments'. 2. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'the EU will blink because us crashing out with no deal will be so bad for them.' 3. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'The last lot didn't make proper arrangements for us crashing out with no deal'. 4. 'There cannot be any actual negotiations unless the backstop goes' vs 'I'm straining every sinew and travelling to Berlin and Paris to try to negotiate'.
I previously thought it would take the actual reality of crash-out to clobber the support for it. Maybe we won't have to wait that long.
I'm hard pressed to think of any example in modern UK history where a PM has been so stupid. Maybe Eden at a stretch, but at least he was responding to events. This is an unforced error prompted by nothing other than making a fetish out of a date chosen by the French.
Very similar ones on your side.
No deal will destroy Britain but its impact on ROEU will be apparently be a trifling inconvenience.
No deal is so calamitous to Britain that no significant preparations for it were made over the past three years by the excuse for a Government and the even lamer excuse for a Chancellor.
I'm not really a fan of Javid, but in this case it seems a bit unfair to single him out.
"Twitter and Facebook have taken steps to block what they described as a state-backed Chinese misinformation campaign.
Twitter said it removed 936 accounts it said were being used to “sow political discord in Hong Kong”.
The network said the accounts originated in mainland China and were part of a coordinated attempt to undermine the “legitimacy and political positions of the protest movement”.
Facebook said it had, after being tipped off by Twitter, removed "seven Pages, three Groups and five Facebook accounts.”"
"Twitter and Facebook have taken steps to block what they described as a state-backed Chinese misinformation campaign.
Twitter said it removed 936 accounts it said were being used to “sow political discord in Hong Kong”.
The network said the accounts originated in mainland China and were part of a coordinated attempt to undermine the “legitimacy and political positions of the protest movement”.
Facebook said it had, after being tipped off by Twitter, removed "seven Pages, three Groups and five Facebook accounts.”"
Don't want to go into details, but I have an American friend (female) who has first hand accounts of this stuff. It boggles the mind. And some of it is waaaaaaay worse than anything which has emerged, so far.
Judging by the allergic reactions, so far, prominent Democrats have more to fear from the Epstein fall-out, than prominent Republicans. Which makes sense, given the metrosexual, liberal, Silicon valley circles in which Epstein moved.
Surely tonight's Boris letter is the end of any deluded fantasy Boris is anything other than a bluffing charlatan ? His only option now is to attempt No Deal against the wishes of a majority of the UK population, Parliament and two of the four UK nations.
Good Luck with that.
The Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop is the only option to have got a parliamentary majority and most voters and Opinium for example suggests No Deal is preferred to Revoke
Question is, will it still be preferred after the fact, when its consequences are realised?
There's literally nothing on the Brexit Party list of objections to the WA that's true.
Irrelevant. Because they didn't leave when they had the chance the Tories have now subcontracted their Brexit policy to BXP out of panic and fear, with only shamelessness preventing admission of that. BXP can claim and believe anything and the Tories will seek to do what they want.
And before someone claims the Tory policy is to just get Brexit of some kind to mollify BXP, the official policy, if that was what they actually wanted the WA would have been approved.
I'm sure it did. We all know the reasons they say they wont drop it, but if the EU could just find a way to drop, change or kick into the grass the backstop the damn thing would probably sail through now, eventhough the Spartans and Grievers would still resist.
I dont buy for a second that the EU could not manage that, especially when holding firm helps cause that which they claim not to want, but no matter what we think they see dropping it or changing it as losing and that means it has a political cost which they dont want to pay. Not when they believe we will pay the larger cost from no deal.
And before someone claims the Tory policy is to just get Brexit of some kind to mollify BXP, the official policy, if that was what they actually wanted the WA would have been approved.
This was what May's administration seemed to genuinely be trying to achieve, and the majority of Tory MPs voted to approve her WA, and yet this was still nowhere near enough for the thing to pass. Even if Johnson and his cabinet gave 110% effort to obtain a deal with the EU and drive it through Parliament (replace the exact percentage with whatever impossible cliched level of commitment you so desire) there must surely be significant doubts whether it would receive parliamentary approval, even without considering the tightness of the time-frame. I get the impression that many of the politicians currently campaigning against No Deal Brexit might find it more palatable to allow that to occur than to be seen to be voting in favour of a Tory Brexit, particularly if they can relieve their conscience (and explain themselves to their constituents) by taking part in some other efforts, however fanciful, to stop Brexit.
There's literally nothing on the Brexit Party list of objections to the WA that's true.
Irrelevant. Because they didn't leave when they had the chance the Tories have now subcontracted their Brexit policy to BXP out of panic and fear, with only shamelessness preventing admission of that. BXP can claim and believe anything and the Tories will seek to do what they want.
And before someone claims the Tory policy is to just get Brexit of some kind to mollify BXP, the official policy, if that was what they actually wanted the WA would have been approved.
The WA was unmitigated shit which is why it suffered the largest rejection ever in the Commons. The fact it's admirers still want to see some merit in that dead horse is perhaps the biggest myth of all.
Judging by the allergic reactions, so far, prominent Democrats have more to fear from the Epstein fall-out, than prominent Republicans. Which makes sense, given the metrosexual, liberal, Silicon valley circles in which Epstein moved.
We shall see. Maybe.
Don't get your point. Are metrosexual liberals more likely to abuse children? That's close to the idea that homosexuals are more likely child abusers. Whereas, we know the vast majority of CSA takes place within families. Often, though far from exclusively, within outwardly conventional family groupings.
Judging by the allergic reactions, so far, prominent Democrats have more to fear from the Epstein fall-out, than prominent Republicans. Which makes sense, given the metrosexual, liberal, Silicon valley circles in which Epstein moved.
We shall see. Maybe.
Don't get your point. Are metrosexual liberals more likely to abuse children? That's close to the idea that homosexuals are more likely child abusers. Whereas, we know the vast majority of CSA takes place within families. Often, though far from exclusively, within outwardly conventional family groupings.
I imagine both Donald Trump and Bill Clinton were worried when Epstein was arrested. Do you know who almost certainly wasn't?
Judging by the allergic reactions, so far, prominent Democrats have more to fear from the Epstein fall-out, than prominent Republicans. Which makes sense, given the metrosexual, liberal, Silicon valley circles in which Epstein moved.
We shall see. Maybe.
Don't get your point. Are metrosexual liberals more likely to abuse children? That's close to the idea that homosexuals are more likely child abusers. Whereas, we know the vast majority of CSA takes place within families. Often, though far from exclusively, within outwardly conventional family groupings.
I imagine both Donald Trump and Bill Clinton were worried when Epstein was arrested. Do you know who almost certainly wasn't?
Judging by the allergic reactions, so far, prominent Democrats have more to fear from the Epstein fall-out, than prominent Republicans. Which makes sense, given the metrosexual, liberal, Silicon valley circles in which Epstein moved.
We shall see. Maybe.
Don't get your point. Are metrosexual liberals more likely to abuse children? That's close to the idea that homosexuals are more likely child abusers. Whereas, we know the vast majority of CSA takes place within families. Often, though far from exclusively, within outwardly conventional family groupings.
I imagine both Donald Trump and Bill Clinton were worried when Epstein was arrested. Do you know who almost certainly wasn't?
Barack Obama.
Perhaps not in relation to Epstein but there were rumours of visitations to bars in his younger days with Rahm Emanuel and former lovers who Emanuel ensured disappeared
I might be wrong about the difficulty Boris would face if he did get a deal actually, and in any event it seems unlikely to matter since it seems so hypothetical. But let's say the government did seal a new WA which looks very much like the old one, and with some changes regarding the backstop (probably not much time to change anything else significant other than to remove the immediate sticking point, and just perhaps there's some room for manoeuvre somewhere - completely hypothetically, via some fixed time limit or establishing a procedure for further kicking-into-long-grass regarding alternative arrangements).
Let's also assume there's enough time to attempt to get it through Parliament. But who would vote for it in the Commons?
Certainly wouldn't get the full support of the Tory parliamentary party.
DUP might not buy an obvious fudge and even hypothetically it's hard to see any non-fudgy solution.
Lib Dems - couldn't be seen to vote for Brexit when Remain has become their electoral and ideological rallying point. Probably applies to their Remain Alliance friends too.
SNP - presumably in a similar situation to the Lib Dems, and a disastrous No Deal Brexit would actually help them attain their core political raison d'etre.
Corbyn - massive defeat for the government might be the trigger for a GE as far as he's concerned?
Labour backbenchers - might depend on constituency. May seemed to think she'd get a lot of abstentions but it didn't happen. And many Labour MPs in strong leave seats seemed to prefer to vote in line with their personal preferences, presumably having done the maths on their majorities and figuring that a red rosette would win the day anyhow. Perhaps if this was clearly a genuine last-chance to avoid No Deal and every other route was closed off, they might bite at it. Maybe even their leadership might.
I'm sure there's a question of optics, not wanting Johnson to look like he's heroically pulled a deal out of the bag at the last minute, only for Labour/SNP etc to throw the country into economic disaster. But then there'll always be some fatal flaw they could point to in any proposed agreement, and if it doesn't get through parliament the opposition can blame both the government's failure to secure a good enough deal, and, almost certainly, Tory disunity. So particularly if they've done their bit at a VoNC or attempt to push a second ref through, they might have a cop-out on why they effectively voted for No Deal. Nothing worse than what Johnson had done himself in the past, of course.
I'm sure it did. We all know the reasons they say they wont drop it, but if the EU could just find a way to drop, change or kick into the grass the backstop the damn thing would probably sail through now, eventhough the Spartans and Grievers would still resist.
I dont buy for a second that the EU could not manage that, especially when holding firm helps cause that which they claim not to want, but no matter what we think they see dropping it or changing it as losing and that means it has a political cost which they dont want to pay. Not when they believe we will pay the larger cost from no deal.
That BXP leaflet is just flat out, undisputably wrong isn't it? There are no fishing quotas in the WA. It was one of May's victories.
Judging by the allergic reactions, so far, prominent Democrats have more to fear from the Epstein fall-out, than prominent Republicans. Which makes sense, given the metrosexual, liberal, Silicon valley circles in which Epstein moved.
We shall see. Maybe.
Don't get your point. Are metrosexual liberals more likely to abuse children? That's close to the idea that homosexuals are more likely child abusers. Whereas, we know the vast majority of CSA takes place within families. Often, though far from exclusively, within outwardly conventional family groupings.
I imagine both Donald Trump and Bill Clinton were worried when Epstein was arrested. Do you know who almost certainly wasn't?
Barack Obama.
Perhaps not in relation to Epstein but there were rumours of visitations to bars in his younger days with Rahm Emanuel and former lovers who Emanuel ensured disappeared
That is strange as I remember reading an article with interviews of ex-girlfriends. How exactly did Rahm Emmanuel disappear them? With the candlestick in the library?
I might be wrong about the difficulty Boris would face if he did get a deal actually, and in any event it seems unlikely to matter since it seems so hypothetical. But let's say the government did seal a new WA which looks very much like the old one, and with some changes regarding the backstop (probably not much time to change anything else significant other than to remove the immediate sticking point, and just perhaps there's some room for manoeuvre somewhere - completely hypothetically, via some fixed time limit or establishing a procedure for further kicking-into-long-grass regarding alternative arrangements).
Let's also assume there's enough time to attempt to get it through Parliament. But who would vote for it in the Commons?
Certainly wouldn't get the full support of the Tory parliamentary party.
DUP might not buy an obvious fudge and even hypothetically it's hard to see any non-fudgy solution.
Lib Dems - couldn't be seen to vote for Brexit when Remain has become their electoral and ideological rallying point. Probably applies to their Remain Alliance friends too.
SNP - presumably in a similar situation to the Lib Dems, and a disastrous No Deal Brexit would actually help them attain their core political raison d'etre.
Corbyn - massive defeat for the government might be the trigger for a GE as far as he's concerned?
Labour backbenchers - might depend on constituency. May seemed to think she'd get a lot of abstentions but it didn't happen. And many Labour MPs in strong leave seats seemed to prefer to vote in line with their personal preferences, presumably having done the maths on their majorities and figuring that a red rosette would win the day anyhow. Perhaps if this was clearly a genuine last-chance to avoid No Deal and every other route was closed off, they might bite at it. Maybe even their leadership might.
I'm sure there's a question of optics, not wanting Johnson to look like he's heroically pulled a deal out of the bag at the last minute, only for Labour/SNP etc to throw the country into economic disaster. But then there'll always be some fatal flaw they could point to in any proposed agreement, and if it doesn't get through parliament the opposition can blame both the government's failure to secure a good enough deal, and, almost certainly, Tory disunity. So particularly if they've done their bit at a VoNC or attempt to push a second ref through, they might have a cop-out on why they effectively voted for No Deal. Nothing worse than what Johnson had done himself in the past, of course.
I think a new deal, with most of the backstop problems removed, would get all but 10 or so Tories and 30-40 Labour rebels. Labour MPs would be very clearly voting for No Deal if they voted the next conpromise down.
Judging by the allergic reactions, so far, prominent Democrats have more to fear from the Epstein fall-out, than prominent Republicans. Which makes sense, given the metrosexual, liberal, Silicon valley circles in which Epstein moved.
We shall see. Maybe.
I think that's probably right.
On the other hand, there are an awful lot of photos of Epstein and Trump, so it's hard not to believe the mud is going to stick in a whole lot of places.
It's probably marginally good news for female Democrats. And maybe Pete Buttigieg, on the basis that he's pretty conclusively gay.
I think a new deal, with most of the backstop problems removed, would get all but 10 or so Tories and 30-40 Labour rebels. Labour MPs would be very clearly voting for No Deal if they voted the next conpromise down.
You might be right, though "Labour rebels" suggests you think Corbyn would back the thing - am I reading you correctly?
Agree that if this were the case, then even with Lab and Con rebels it would render DUP/Lib Dems/Green/Plaid/SNP votes redundant.
Corbyn has seen (arguably facilitated) Cameron being broken over Europe, and played a big part in getting May broken over it too. If he had a chance at the hat trick, would he take it?
There's literally nothing on the Brexit Party list of objections to the WA that's true.
Irrelevant. Because they didn't leave when they had the chance the Tories have now subcontracted their Brexit policy to BXP out of panic and fear, with only shamelessness preventing admission of that. BXP can claim and believe anything and the Tories will seek to do what they want.
And before someone claims the Tory policy is to just get Brexit of some kind to mollify BXP, the official policy, if that was what they actually wanted the WA would have been approved.
The WA was unmitigated shit which is why it suffered the largest rejection ever in the Commons. The fact it's admirers still want to see some merit in that dead horse is perhaps the biggest myth of all.
Wait.
You said you were in favour of the WA, with the exception of the backstop.
I'm sure it did. We all know the reasons they say they wont drop it, but if the EU could just find a way to drop, change or kick into the grass the backstop the damn thing would probably sail through now, eventhough the Spartans and Grievers would still resist.
I dont buy for a second that the EU could not manage that, especially when holding firm helps cause that which they claim not to want, but no matter what we think they see dropping it or changing it as losing and that means it has a political cost which they dont want to pay. Not when they believe we will pay the larger cost from no deal.
That BXP leaflet is just flat out, undisputably wrong isn't it? There are no fishing quotas in the WA. It was one of May's victories.
We leave the CFP and CAP on day one, so yes it is incorrect.
It is, however, important to note that the UK government has sold fishing quotas to various operators (British, European, and Canadian that I know of; quite possibly American and Japanese as well). These were quotas that came through our membership of the EU.
It is yet another of those details that has been missed that is likely to come back and bite us hard, unless we properly legislate for a new method of managing fishing rights in a post-October 31 world.
Comments
Knorr?
Oxo?
2 parts soya milk to 1 part alcohol.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1163552373597528065
I don't use this term often. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever really used it. The man's an idiot. I don't think he's as bright as he'd like to make you believe and I certainly think he's a self-centred egomaniac with fewer principles than a peripatetic bonobo.
You can rest easy. We can all get totally shit-faced as the country explodes.
The letter is the first time Johnson has ever acknowledged Ireland has legitimate interests. It still has arrogance in it but seems to me to be pleading with the EU to get him out of his difficult situation. ( Which is of his own making and Ireland/EU don't owe him any favours).
The backstop is the only thing he mentions.
The Yellowhammer revelations seem to have spooked the Johnson regime. And blaming No Deal on Hammond is nonsensical. Hammond wants a deal so much he voted for it three times, unlike Johnson. If you are really serious about No Deal, planning is sensible precautions you would want people to know about and you wouldn't seek to blame the outcome on implausible others.
Which makes me think Johnson isn't serious about No Deal.
Who knew Brexit was so easily fixed? Pff!
Edit: a thousand euros. I shouldn't do maths this late...
I've been to Greenland, and talked to Greenlanders. I doubt you have.
They want total independence from Denmark, and want to move FURTHER from the EU. Their model is Iceland, which is also moving away from EU membership.
Sadly, the various problems of Greenlandic society mean this is unlikely. The Danes keep them fed but discontented with the soma of subsidy.
(Frantically looks round for the override. WHERE'S THE OVERRIDE???)
1. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'You need to make preparations for major adjustments'.
2. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'the EU will blink because us crashing out with no deal will be so bad for them.'
3. 'Crashing out with no deal won't be so bad' vs 'The last lot didn't make proper arrangements for us crashing out with no deal'.
4. 'There cannot be any actual negotiations unless the backstop goes' vs 'I'm straining every sinew and travelling to Berlin and Paris to try to negotiate'.
I previously thought it would take the actual reality of crash-out to clobber the support for it. Maybe we won't have to wait that long.
I'm hard pressed to think of any example in modern UK history where a PM has been so stupid. Maybe Eden at a stretch, but at least he was responding to events. This is an unforced error prompted by nothing other than making a fetish out of a date chosen by the French.
That's quite an achievement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Greenland
When you go there, you realise why. It's not just the boozing and the child abuse. You feel like you are on a hostile planet, designed to kill you, at any moment. It is exhilarating in small doses, like belladonna tincture, but if you live there? Wow.
Mind you, the backstop thing let the cat out of the bag.
Maybe it doesn't make much difference.
No deal will destroy Britain but its impact on ROEU will be apparently be a trifling inconvenience.
No deal is so calamitous to Britain that no significant preparations for it were made over the past three years by the excuse for a Government and the even lamer excuse for a Chancellor.
We'll all face mass food shortages, and there's going to be a vast glut of unwanted lamb.
Food prices are going to go through the roof, and farmers will be put out of business by a flood of cheap imported, um, food.
Yes, it was a prime example of meaningless platitudes, designed to keep everyone happy.
It is exquisite, in itself, but you quickly feel yourself going mad from insomnia and disorientation.
In Greenland, quite a few people (locals and incomers) told me they prefer the endless dark of the winters. You can sleep. The skies are sublimely starry and clear (Greenland has a famously dry climate). They go sledding and kayaking by moonlight...
The film reveals who left office bankrupt, who did TV commercials for Cheshire cheese, who had his own chat show and who has never had a single happy day since leaving Number Ten.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007r80c
John Major went to the Oval; Theresa May went to Lords.
https://twitter.com/brexitparty_uk/status/1163553359502172161
Whatever happens I'm going to keep calm and Brexit on!
Good Luck with that.
https://twitter.com/robcrilly/status/1163524590188077058?s=20
Twitter said it removed 936 accounts it said were being used to “sow political discord in Hong Kong”.
The network said the accounts originated in mainland China and were part of a coordinated attempt to undermine the “legitimacy and political positions of the protest movement”.
Facebook said it had, after being tipped off by Twitter, removed "seven Pages, three Groups and five Facebook accounts.”"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49402222
Giuffre's father ….. worked at Mar-a-Lago.
Epstein himself was hired by Barr's father as a schoolteacher, when in his early 20s - even though he had no relevant experience at all.
We shall see. Maybe.
And before someone claims the Tory policy is to just get Brexit of some kind to mollify BXP, the official policy, if that was what they actually wanted the WA would have been approved.
I dont buy for a second that the EU could not manage that, especially when holding firm helps cause that which they claim not to want, but no matter what we think they see dropping it or changing it as losing and that means it has a political cost which they dont want to pay. Not when they believe we will pay the larger cost from no deal.
Whereas, we know the vast majority of CSA takes place within families. Often, though far from exclusively, within outwardly conventional family groupings.
Barack Obama.
Let's also assume there's enough time to attempt to get it through Parliament. But who would vote for it in the Commons?
Certainly wouldn't get the full support of the Tory parliamentary party.
DUP might not buy an obvious fudge and even hypothetically it's hard to see any non-fudgy solution.
Lib Dems - couldn't be seen to vote for Brexit when Remain has become their electoral and ideological rallying point. Probably applies to their Remain Alliance friends too.
SNP - presumably in a similar situation to the Lib Dems, and a disastrous No Deal Brexit would actually help them attain their core political raison d'etre.
Corbyn - massive defeat for the government might be the trigger for a GE as far as he's concerned?
Labour backbenchers - might depend on constituency. May seemed to think she'd get a lot of abstentions but it didn't happen. And many Labour MPs in strong leave seats seemed to prefer to vote in line with their personal preferences, presumably having done the maths on their majorities and figuring that a red rosette would win the day anyhow. Perhaps if this was clearly a genuine last-chance to avoid No Deal and every other route was closed off, they might bite at it. Maybe even their leadership might.
I'm sure there's a question of optics, not wanting Johnson to look like he's heroically pulled a deal out of the bag at the last minute, only for Labour/SNP etc to throw the country into economic disaster. But then there'll always be some fatal flaw they could point to in any proposed agreement, and if it doesn't get through parliament the opposition can blame both the government's failure to secure a good enough deal, and, almost certainly, Tory disunity. So particularly if they've done their bit at a VoNC or attempt to push a second ref through, they might have a cop-out on why they effectively voted for No Deal. Nothing worse than what Johnson had done himself in the past, of course.
On the other hand, there are an awful lot of photos of Epstein and Trump, so it's hard not to believe the mud is going to stick in a whole lot of places.
It's probably marginally good news for female Democrats. And maybe Pete Buttigieg, on the basis that he's pretty conclusively gay.
Agree that if this were the case, then even with Lab and Con rebels it would render DUP/Lib Dems/Green/Plaid/SNP votes redundant.
Corbyn has seen (arguably facilitated) Cameron being broken over Europe, and played a big part in getting May broken over it too. If he had a chance at the hat trick, would he take it?
You said you were in favour of the WA, with the exception of the backstop.
Now, it's "unmitigatred shit".
It is, however, important to note that the UK government has sold fishing quotas to various operators (British, European, and Canadian that I know of; quite possibly American and Japanese as well). These were quotas that came through our membership of the EU.
It is yet another of those details that has been missed that is likely to come back and bite us hard, unless we properly legislate for a new method of managing fishing rights in a post-October 31 world.