Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » By signing the Good Friday Agreement 21 years ago the UK made

1356

Comments

  • Options

    Tory ministers get paid to repeat this idiotic lie. Whats your excuse?

    The Good Friday Agreement - passed by both countries by BINDING referenda - is not undemocratic. The Backstop preserves the GFA. To continue to parrot "undemocratic" baout something democratic demonstrates the kind of small-minded stupidity this country is increasingly good at.

    Its neither idiotic nor a lie. It is the truth. One I've been consistently posting here for a year while the line to take by everyone else was the WA was a good compromise - it is not.

    We had an article about Brexit Myths yesterday. Perhaps the biggest myth of all is that the backstop preserves the GFA. From the Irish and Nationalist side it does maybe, but from the unionist side it does not an it is undemocratic. 5/6 unionists oppose it including Lord Trimble who signed the GFA on behalf of unionists.

    Until there is a compromise that respects both communities there is no acceptable compromise.

    You don’t get to 58% support for the backstop in Northern Ireland solely with nationalist votes.

  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    DavidL said:

    Is he really that stupid or just being disingenuous?
    Surely he has a point, which is why a lightly-tweaked version of Theresa May's WA (for political cover) with a far longer transition period to facilitate a technical solution to the Irish border problem (by spaffing some money on some geeks, in civil service jargon) remains the best bet.

    This would allow Britain to leave on 31st October with almost everyone happy or at least able to save face, which is often what counts in politics, in negotiations and in life generally.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,672
    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    That old bullshit again.

    They really don’t get it, do they?
    Who doesn't get what?

    If you want to change something in a negotiation / meeting people come with ideas and possible plans. Boris hasn't come up with ideas / plans he's just saying we can't have this and doesn't provide any ways out of the mess.

    Which is why I read that letter exactly as that EU diplomat does..
    You are missing the point.

    I’m not talking about the contents of the letter.

    I’m talking about the EU’s attitude to Brexit as if it is just a malignancy in the Tory party.
  • Options
    tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,548
    Sean_F said:


    It was certainly never spelled out to us, back in 1998, that it would hugely complicate the process of leaving the EU. This seems rather like an insurance company suddenly whipping out the small print, when you make a claim.

    So you mean that they didn't know what they were voting for.....despite it being on a fully negotiated treaty? Come off it. No excuses. Compared to the vague concept and contradictions of the Brexit vote this was crystal clear both in majority and clarity.

    The one benefit I can see of a no deal is every charlatan who's tried to blame everyone else for years, afarage, Johnson, and many posters on here, having absolutely nowhere to hide. Their plan, their way, they will own the outcome 100% let's see how project fear looks from the other side.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,054

    Charles said:

    The principle of consent is what can solve this issue. Ie a NI referendum on the backstop.

    Unless there is something behind the scenes (DUP opposition?) or no way to prevent idiots in Parliament amending the legislation (eg to change the NI referendum to a U.K. wide Remain vs Revoke referendum) then why has it not been proposed?

    The original reason for dropping the NI backstop and replacing it with the all-UK backstop was because of DUP opposition. I don't see why the DUP would want to agree to a referendum on whether the DUP should be ignored and humiliated by their own voters.

    But in any case there's no time at this point due to Boris's October deadline self-bondage.
    Which was part of the plan to ensure we no deal. The do or die on 31 Oct commitment really is the thing that prevents so many other options, even ones that would align with things Boris would claim to want, because it means theres no time for them.

    A great way to pretend to be seeking things while only wanting no deal, very clever.
  • Options

    Mr. Observer, the vast majority of those who voted against the deal are pro-EU leftwing MPs. Until recently, the PM was a pro-EU, pro-Remain (at the referendum) MP.

    None of which means that Brexit is not being driven by right wing English nationalists. The government is owned by the ERG and BXP, not the Labour Party.

    yes, Barnsley, famouus for its right wing views.

    Barnsley has no representation in the current government. Barnsley voted for MPs that stood on a manifesto which specifically rejected a No Deal Brexit.

  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,672

    Scott_P said:
    That old bullshit again.

    They really don’t get it, do they?
    What they have not got from the British government is a proposal. It is at best a sketch of what might constitute a proposal, coupled with a list of objections to the current deal on the table.
    I get that bit. It’s the old “this is all about one wing of the Tory party “ shtick that grates.

    It’s very dismissive and leads to serious miscalculations on their part as well.
    David Cameron's memoirs hit the shops on the 19th of next month, and might shed more light on why he called the referendum. To what extent was it to fend off Ukip, which scored only three per cent in the 2010 election, or to stop Conservatives, in Cameron's own words at the 2006 party conference, "banging on about Europe"?
    It was a political response to the fact that a large minority, which eventually turned out to be a plurality, of the population had fundamental objections to the project of European federalism.

    The EU have got it totally the wrong way round. More fool them but it allows them to be cognitively dissonant and dismiss any contributions their own actions might have made to that state of affairs.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,763

    Mr. Jessop, aye. It seems nuts to me to actively invite constant surveillance of your own home. As for the 'internet of things' - it's mostly bone idleness. I can see why some want an online doorbell/external camera for security, but an online kettle is just daft.

    Mr. Eagles, if the vote had been 52/48 the other way, would you be so alarmed at England and Wales being chained to the EU against their will?

    No because England nor Wales has such a recent and long bloody history with their near neighbour that Northern Ireland.

    As ever you really need to learn some history.
    Irony meter just spiked :-)
    I’ll have you know at school I did an entire project on the consequences of Pope Adrian’s Papal bull on Ireland.

    Plus I’ve been doing a refresher course on Ireland for the wedding in Belfast I’ll be attending next March with lots of Presbyterians in attendance.

    I’ve already decided on the outfit, a green suit, white shirt, and a orange tie.
    There has been a lot of bull on Ireland and not just from Pope Adrian.

    Glad you went for the ornage tie, with a black one youd be mistaken for a policeman.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,361
    Incredible that the Irish border (GFA) problem received so little attention during the 2016 referendum campaign.

    Ditto regarding the possibility and the consequences of leaving the EU without a deal.

    We hear much about the beauty and sanctity of 'democracy' but how 'democratic' is a decision taken by a public who were (quite literally) ignorant of the biggest relevant issues pertaining to the decision?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,054
    edited August 2019
    Foxy said:

    Scott_P said:
    As he also says, “No Deal” is not like walking away from a buying a new house. We’ve already set fire to our old house, so we are gonna buy that new house the quick way or the slow way.
    I think he is correct about No Deal. The short term stuff will be annoying, expensive and inconvenient but tolerable. The real damage is in the longer term.

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1163707665492652033?s=19
    As baby boomers in particular love to remind us this country and its population are not as it was in the time of Dunkirk. Expecting us to react a certain way as a result or regretting that we will act a certain way as a result, based on a very flimsy national psyche about such things, strikes me as mistaken. Sure we remember the stand and rescue at Dunkirk more than the defeats leading to it being necessary, but I don't see the grounds for thinking that translates to acceptance of very practical issues which everyone will loudly be told have an easy solution to avoid entirely.

    I dont doubt a small amount of stubborn 'it's their fault, we can manage' reaction, they are planning the same after all, but it seems limited to me
  • Options
    eek said:

    geoffw said:

    That's a good letter Boris has written to the Tusker.

    No it isn't it's a letter that says we are completely clueless.

    It’s a letter that confirms the government wants a No Deal Brexit.

  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,763

    Mr. Observer, the vast majority of those who voted against the deal are pro-EU leftwing MPs. Until recently, the PM was a pro-EU, pro-Remain (at the referendum) MP.

    None of which means that Brexit is not being driven by right wing English nationalists. The government is owned by the ERG and BXP, not the Labour Party.

    yes, Barnsley, famouus for its right wing views.

    Barnsley has no representation in the current government. Barnsley voted for MPs that stood on a manifesto which specifically rejected a No Deal Brexit.

    and yet it voted 70% leave and for a BXP MEP.

    https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/eu-referendum-barnsley-results/

    how do you expalin that ?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,068
    edited August 2019
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:


    So hopefully one upshot of all this might be the unification of the island of Ireland.

    The Protestant Unionist majority in counties Antrim and Queen met McGuinness.

    However Northern Ireland was created in the first place as a substantial proportion of the Irish population in the North wanted to stay British rather than join the Free State and as long as that remains the case their wishes should be respected
    That's a dangerous argument and can be twisted either way. For example, imagine saying in 1922 'the Catholic Irish majority in Fermanagh and Tyrone has been there for centuries and should not be forced into the United Kingdom against their will.' Yet that's what happened, with the Boundary Commission more or less a sop to delay opposition.

    To be honest, I think the real issue in a lot of this is actually Arlene Foster, who has been a disaster. It says an awful lot for the lack of integrity of the DUP that somebody who has behaved as ineptly she has over Cash for Ash (admittedly before she became leader) has not been forced out. She makes Chris Grayling and Michael Gove look like models of competence and integrity. Not only can I not blame SF in the slightest for not working with her, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that most of the fuss over the backstop is red meat thrown to her right wing in a bid to cling on to power.
    Fermanagah and Tyrone should never have been part of Northern Ireland in the first place, I do not disagree on that and would happily let it join the Republic tomorrow but that does not change the position of Antrim and Down.

    Even if Foster goes a poll at the weekend showed 5 out of 6 Northern Ireland Unionists oppose the backstop so that position will not change
    The electoral evidence suggests that Fermanagh and S Tyrone is very finely balanced between Unionist and Nationalist. Unless you're suggesting population shifts of the kind that occurred when the Republic was established and Protestants from the South went North.
    Fermanagah and Tyrone has a Sinn Fein MP, every seat in Antrim has a DUP MP
    You're normally keen on figures; at the last election Sinn Fein had an 875 majority over the Unionist, plus there were 2500 SDLP votes. In the 2015 election the SDLP vote was enough to give the Unionist the seat. In 2010 Sinn Fein famously had a majority of 4 over the Combined Unionist, although there were 3700 or SDLP votes.
    It's close.
  • Options

    Mr. Observer, the vast majority of those who voted against the deal are pro-EU leftwing MPs. Until recently, the PM was a pro-EU, pro-Remain (at the referendum) MP.

    None of which means that Brexit is not being driven by right wing English nationalists. The government is owned by the ERG and BXP, not the Labour Party.

    yes, Barnsley, famouus for its right wing views.

    Barnsley has no representation in the current government. Barnsley voted for MPs that stood on a manifesto which specifically rejected a No Deal Brexit.

    and yet it voted 70% leave and for a BXP MEP.

    https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/eu-referendum-barnsley-results/

    how do you expalin that ?
    Nobody gives a shit about the Euros hence the turnout.

    The Dingles voted for UKIP in the 2014 Euros and then returned exclusively Labour MPs the next year.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,977
    edited August 2019
    Just looking at the politics, if I were the BXP I’d not be going near the Tories right now. I would not want to be associated with the No Deal they are planning to deliver and I’d be thinking there is still a very big space for betrayal.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,054
    edited August 2019
    tlg86 said:

    I'm 32. I remember the troubles.

    I'm 32, and dont. I remember seeing Gerry Adams on TV and thinking his name was Sinn Fein.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,028

    Just looking at the politics, if I were the BXP I’d not be going near the Tories right now. I would not want to be associated with the No Deal they are planning to deliver and I’d be thinking there is still a very big space for betrayal.

    Yep - the Brexit party can't lose.

    Extension - betrayal.
    Leave with a deal - betrayal
    No Deal - betrayal and incompetency (once anything goes wrong)
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,763
    edited August 2019

    Mr. Observer, the vast majority of those who voted against the deal are pro-EU leftwing MPs. Until recently, the PM was a pro-EU, pro-Remain (at the referendum) MP.

    None of which means that Brexit is not being driven by right wing English nationalists. The government is owned by the ERG and BXP, not the Labour Party.

    yes, Barnsley, famouus for its right wing views.

    Barnsley has no representation in the current government. Barnsley voted for MPs that stood on a manifesto which specifically rejected a No Deal Brexit.

    and yet it voted 70% leave and for a BXP MEP.

    https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/eu-referendum-barnsley-results/

    how do you expalin that ?
    Nobody gives a shit about the Euros hence the turnout.

    The Dingles voted for UKIP in the 2014 Euros and then returned exclusively Labour MPs the next year.
    hmmm

    and yet Daves biggest miscalculation was all those people he thought would never turn out to vote. And then they did.

    Ive noticed how none of the parties are bleating much about the unrepresented voter these days. Theyre too worried theyll not get the answer they expected.

    as for giving a shit about the Euros, I suspect the LDs will differ.
  • Options

    Mr. Observer, the vast majority of those who voted against the deal are pro-EU leftwing MPs. Until recently, the PM was a pro-EU, pro-Remain (at the referendum) MP.

    None of which means that Brexit is not being driven by right wing English nationalists. The government is owned by the ERG and BXP, not the Labour Party.

    yes, Barnsley, famouus for its right wing views.

    Barnsley has no representation in the current government. Barnsley voted for MPs that stood on a manifesto which specifically rejected a No Deal Brexit.

    and yet it voted 70% leave and for a BXP MEP.

    https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/eu-referendum-barnsley-results/

    how do you expalin that ?

    That leaving the EU without a deal is not the only way to leave the EU.

  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,054

    Mr. P, it's rich of the EU to rule out renegotiating then complain the UK Government doesn't want to renegotiate!

    Both are being entirely phoney about Intentions, they are just engaging in PR ahead of no deal or the September parliamentary crisis.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,028

    eek said:

    geoffw said:

    That's a good letter Boris has written to the Tusker.

    No it isn't it's a letter that says we are completely clueless.

    It’s a letter that confirms the government wants a No Deal Brexit.

    I repeat my previous comment...
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,147

    Mr. Observer, the vast majority of those who voted against the deal are pro-EU leftwing MPs. Until recently, the PM was a pro-EU, pro-Remain (at the referendum) MP.

    None of which means that Brexit is not being driven by right wing English nationalists. The government is owned by the ERG and BXP, not the Labour Party.

    yes, Barnsley, famouus for its right wing views.

    Barnsley has no representation in the current government. Barnsley voted for MPs that stood on a manifesto which specifically rejected a No Deal Brexit.

    and yet it voted 70% leave and for a BXP MEP.

    https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/eu-referendum-barnsley-results/

    how do you expalin that ?
    Nobody gives a shit about the Euros hence the turnout.

    The Dingles voted for UKIP in the 2014 Euros and then returned exclusively Labour MPs the next year.
    hmmm

    and yet Daves biggest miscalculation was all those people he thought would never turn out to vote. And then they did.

    Ive noticed how none of the parties are bleating much about the unrepresented voter these days. Theyre too worried theyll not get the answer they expected.

    as for giving a shit about the Euros, I suspect the LDs will differ.
    Turnout in Barnsley was well below the national average. Only 28%.

    https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/european-election-results-2019/
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,763

    Mr. Observer, the vast majority of those who voted against the deal are pro-EU leftwing MPs. Until recently, the PM was a pro-EU, pro-Remain (at the referendum) MP.

    None of which means that Brexit is not being driven by right wing English nationalists. The government is owned by the ERG and BXP, not the Labour Party.

    yes, Barnsley, famouus for its right wing views.

    Barnsley has no representation in the current government. Barnsley voted for MPs that stood on a manifesto which specifically rejected a No Deal Brexit.

    and yet it voted 70% leave and for a BXP MEP.

    https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/eu-referendum-barnsley-results/

    how do you expalin that ?

    That leaving the EU without a deal is not the only way to leave the EU.

    maybe you should spend less time in London
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,095
    I’m 27 and only just remember the tail end of the Troubles.
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,177
    eek said:

    eek said:

    geoffw said:

    That's a good letter Boris has written to the Tusker.

    No it isn't it's a letter that says we are completely clueless.

    It’s a letter that confirms the government wants a No Deal Brexit.

    I repeat my previous comment...
    ad infinitum ad nauseam
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,207
    kle4 said:

    tlg86 said:

    I'm 32. I remember the troubles.

    I'm 32, and dont. I remember seeing Gerry Adams on TV and thinking his name was Sinn Fein.
    Some of it is sport related. I remember the football game in Dublin in 1995 (not really the troubles, but similar), the bomb in Manchester in Euro 96, the bomb in Docklands in 1996, and the Grand National postponement in 1997. I very much remember Easter 1998 and Omagh that August.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,227
    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    They actually mainly voted Leave to gain greater control of immigration and sovereignty, not to become a superpower again and there are over 190 countries in the world the vast majority of which are not the US or China or in the EU
    I see Myth no 1 is being given another airing.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,054

    Voting for Jeremy Corbyn to stop No Deal is like the General in Terminator 3 who presses the button that allows SkyNet to take over the global computer network in order to quash a virus it itself helped create.

    Is Sophie’s choice.

    Sustained No Deal is likely to put Corbyn in Downing Street.
    Jeremy Corbyn only has power to the extent he can command Labour MPs.
    The last three years have shown Labour MPs have no backbone in standing up to Corbyn.

    The casual defence/silence of antisemitism tells you everything.
    Surely not, they'll mention how jolly cross and sad they are about something from time to time to show how they totally wont just bend the knee or grab ankle before a man they dont think is fit for the job.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,763

    Mr. Observer, the vast majority of those who voted against the deal are pro-EU leftwing MPs. Until recently, the PM was a pro-EU, pro-Remain (at the referendum) MP.

    None of which means that Brexit is not being driven by right wing English nationalists. The government is owned by the ERG and BXP, not the Labour Party.

    yes, Barnsley, famouus for its right wing views.

    Barnsley has no representation in the current government. Barnsley voted for MPs that stood on a manifesto which specifically rejected a No Deal Brexit.

    and yet it voted 70% leave and for a BXP MEP.

    https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/eu-referendum-barnsley-results/

    how do you expalin that ?
    Nobody gives a shit about the Euros hence the turnout.

    The Dingles voted for UKIP in the 2014 Euros and then returned exclusively Labour MPs the next year.
    hmmm

    and yet Daves biggest miscalculation was all those people he thought would never turn out to vote. And then they did.

    Ive noticed how none of the parties are bleating much about the unrepresented voter these days. Theyre too worried theyll not get the answer they expected.

    as for giving a shit about the Euros, I suspect the LDs will differ.
    Turnout in Barnsley was well below the national average. Only 28%.

    https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/european-election-results-2019/
    Probably because the xenophobic fascist inhabitants were off on a pogrom that day
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,068
    It's somewhat ironic that Northern Ireland and it's politics is the rock on which Leaving may founder, when one translation of "Sinn Fein" is "ourselves alone"
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,054
    edited August 2019
    A very very good point. They are essentially admitting they want alternative arrangements but do not think they can figure something out in the transition period...and yet expect to come up with it in a month.

    If they were being honest in intent. Which describing as undemocratic is something he voted for shows they are not.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,068

    Mr. Observer, the vast majority of those who voted against the deal are pro-EU leftwing MPs. Until recently, the PM was a pro-EU, pro-Remain (at the referendum) MP.

    None of which means that Brexit is not being driven by right wing English nationalists. The government is owned by the ERG and BXP, not the Labour Party.

    yes, Barnsley, famouus for its right wing views.

    Barnsley has no representation in the current government. Barnsley voted for MPs that stood on a manifesto which specifically rejected a No Deal Brexit.

    and yet it voted 70% leave and for a BXP MEP.

    https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/eu-referendum-barnsley-results/

    how do you expalin that ?
    Nobody gives a shit about the Euros hence the turnout.

    The Dingles voted for UKIP in the 2014 Euros and then returned exclusively Labour MPs the next year.
    hmmm

    and yet Daves biggest miscalculation was all those people he thought would never turn out to vote. And then they did.

    Ive noticed how none of the parties are bleating much about the unrepresented voter these days. Theyre too worried theyll not get the answer they expected.

    as for giving a shit about the Euros, I suspect the LDs will differ.
    Turnout in Barnsley was well below the national average. Only 28%.

    https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/european-election-results-2019/
    Probably because the xenophobic fascist inhabitants were off on a pogrom that day
    Nay, 'twere a day out in Brid!
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,054
    That is actually probably true, even though it's a stupid and lame reason not to publish and likely not their real reason.
  • Options

    Mr. Observer, the vast majority of those who voted against the deal are pro-EU leftwing MPs. Until recently, the PM was a pro-EU, pro-Remain (at the referendum) MP.

    None of which means that Brexit is not being driven by right wing English nationalists. The government is owned by the ERG and BXP, not the Labour Party.

    yes, Barnsley, famouus for its right wing views.

    Barnsley has no representation in the current government. Barnsley voted for MPs that stood on a manifesto which specifically rejected a No Deal Brexit.

    and yet it voted 70% leave and for a BXP MEP.

    https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/eu-referendum-barnsley-results/

    how do you expalin that ?

    That leaving the EU without a deal is not the only way to leave the EU.

    maybe you should spend less time in London

    Yeah, whatever. ROFL

  • Options
    nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138
    kle4 said:

    tlg86 said:

    I'm 32. I remember the troubles.

    I'm 32, and dont. I remember seeing Gerry Adams on TV and thinking his name was Sinn Fein.
    I'm 32, and don't remember it.

    Except for hearing about Ealing Broadway being apparently bombed.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002
    kle4 said:

    That is actually probably true, even though it's a stupid and lame reason not to publish and likely not their real reason.
    I'm going to be very disappointed in the great British public's ability to panic buy if bread and milk are still available in the shops on November 1st.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002
    I'm 38 and remember plenty of ra bombs going off.
    The lack of bins in railways has always pissed me off, I've always seen that as a bit of being cowed by terrorism.
    I also remember terrorism being talked about in 2001 like it was a new thing !!
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,151
    edited August 2019
    kle4 said:


    Which was part of the plan to ensure we no deal. The do or die on 31 Oct commitment really is the thing that prevents so many other options, even ones that would align with things Boris would claim to want, because it means theres no time for them.

    A great way to pretend to be seeking things while only wanting no deal, very clever.

    I don't think I'm convinced that there's a dastardly machiavellian plan to do No Deal. Or if there is, it's Cummings and other advisors not Boris. I'm inclined to believe the "TMay to Yakety Sax" theory. He's basically making the same moves that TMay was making only quicker and more boldly. He says what the grumpiest parts of his base want to hear and that boxes him in for the next steps.

    If there was a deliberate plan to go No Deal I think he'd be doing more to lower expectations. It's only a short step from sunny patriotic optimism to blood, sweat and tears, he could easily have taken it but he didn't. If he *does* have a plan, it's for an early election or for parliament to stop him crashing out, but I'm not convinced he does. It's Vietnam, not Operation Barbarossa.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,090
    kinabalu said:

    Incredible that the Irish border (GFA) problem received so little attention during the 2016 referendum campaign.

    Ditto regarding the possibility and the consequences of leaving the EU without a deal.

    We hear much about the beauty and sanctity of 'democracy' but how 'democratic' is a decision taken by a public who were (quite literally) ignorant of the biggest relevant issues pertaining to the decision?

    When does the UK ever look at anything outside Engl;and's interests, most of them would struggle to know where other parts of the UK are, and before the swivel eyed start whining about me hating the English I am talking about our ruling class and politicians.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,090
    Pulpstar said:

    kle4 said:

    That is actually probably true, even though it's a stupid and lame reason not to publish and likely not their real reason.
    I'm going to be very disappointed in the great British public's ability to panic buy if bread and milk are still available in the shops on November 1st.
    Given they were empty after a few flurries of snow it does not take much.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,054

    kle4 said:


    Which was part of the plan to ensure we no deal. The do or die on 31 Oct commitment really is the thing that prevents so many other options, even ones that would align with things Boris would claim to want, because it means theres no time for them.

    A great way to pretend to be seeking things while only wanting no deal, very clever.

    I don't think I'm convinced that there's a dastardly machiavellian plan to do No Deal. Or if there is, it's Cummings and other advisors not Boris. I'm inclined to believe the "TMay to Yakety Sax" theory. He's basically making the same moves that TMay was making only quicker and more boldly. He says what the grumpiest parts of his base want to hear and that boxes him in for the next steps.

    If there was a deliberate plan to go No Deal I think he'd be doing more to lower expectations. It's only a short step from sunny patriotic optimism to blood, sweat and tears, he could easily have taken it but he didn't. If he *does* have a plan, it's for an early election or for parliament to stop him crashing out, but I'm not convinced he does. It's Vietnam, not Operation Barbarossa.
    I dont think its dastardly, the reason expectations have not been lowered is he needs to be ready for a snap election as you suggest. Hes ready if parliament stops him and he has prepared enough to move forward if they dont. The rest is all fig leaf moves
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    kle4 said:

    Voting for Jeremy Corbyn to stop No Deal is like the General in Terminator 3 who presses the button that allows SkyNet to take over the global computer network in order to quash a virus it itself helped create.

    Is Sophie’s choice.

    Sustained No Deal is likely to put Corbyn in Downing Street.
    Jeremy Corbyn only has power to the extent he can command Labour MPs.
    The last three years have shown Labour MPs have no backbone in standing up to Corbyn.

    The casual defence/silence of antisemitism tells you everything.
    Surely not, they'll mention how jolly cross and sad they are about something from time to time to show how they totally wont just bend the knee or grab ankle before a man they dont think is fit for the job.
    And yet, on the other hand, Boris.
  • Options
    StreeterStreeter Posts: 684

    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    That old bullshit again.

    They really don’t get it, do they?
    Who doesn't get what?

    If you want to change something in a negotiation / meeting people come with ideas and possible plans. Boris hasn't come up with ideas / plans he's just saying we can't have this and doesn't provide any ways out of the mess.

    Which is why I read that letter exactly as that EU diplomat does..
    You are missing the point.

    I’m not talking about the contents of the letter.

    I’m talking about the EU’s attitude to Brexit as if it is just a malignancy in the Tory party.
    It so is. Brexit had no salience prior to the referendum being called.

    The Tories will never be forgiven for this shit show.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,672
    Pulpstar said:

    I'm 38 and remember plenty of ra bombs going off.
    The lack of bins in railways has always pissed me off, I've always seen that as a bit of being cowed by terrorism.
    I also remember terrorism being talked about in 2001 like it was a new thing !!

    It’s also a bit of an excuse.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,007

    Mr. Jessop, aye. It seems nuts to me to actively invite constant surveillance of your own home. As for the 'internet of things' - it's mostly bone idleness. I can see why some want an online doorbell/external camera for security, but an online kettle is just daft.

    Mr. Eagles, if the vote had been 52/48 the other way, would you be so alarmed at England and Wales being chained to the EU against their will?

    No because England nor Wales has such a recent and long bloody history with their near neighbour that Northern Ireland.

    As ever you really need to learn some history.
    Irony meter just spiked :-)
    I’ve already decided on the outfit, a green suit, white shirt, and a orange tie.
    I. I. I...can't. I just can't. Oh. Ug. (retching sounds)... :)

  • Options
    TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    tlg86 said:

    I'm 32. I remember the troubles.

    I'm 32, and dont. I remember seeing Gerry Adams on TV and thinking his name was Sinn Fein.
    Some of it is sport related. I remember the football game in Dublin in 1995 (not really the troubles, but similar), the bomb in Manchester in Euro 96, the bomb in Docklands in 1996, and the Grand National postponement in 1997. I very much remember Easter 1998 and Omagh that August.
    I travelled round both parts of Ireland in 1990 with a green military-style rucksack. On reflection, probably not the most sensible thing to do. I remember being shocked by the gun-toting police and security barriers in Belfast city centre.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,672
    Streeter said:

    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    That old bullshit again.

    They really don’t get it, do they?
    Who doesn't get what?

    If you want to change something in a negotiation / meeting people come with ideas and possible plans. Boris hasn't come up with ideas / plans he's just saying we can't have this and doesn't provide any ways out of the mess.

    Which is why I read that letter exactly as that EU diplomat does..
    You are missing the point.

    I’m not talking about the contents of the letter.

    I’m talking about the EU’s attitude to Brexit as if it is just a malignancy in the Tory party.
    It so is. Brexit had no salience prior to the referendum being called.

    The Tories will never be forgiven for this shit show.
    The latter may well be true.

    The first isn’t and this post is a classic of the non-sequitur genre in which you specialise.
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,912
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Voting for Jeremy Corbyn to stop No Deal is like the General in Terminator 3 who presses the button that allows SkyNet to take over the global computer network in order to quash a virus it itself helped create.

    Is Sophie’s choice.

    Sustained No Deal is likely to put Corbyn in Downing Street.
    On the latest polling No Deal in October is the only way to ensure a Tory majority in the autumn as the Brexit Party vote collapses to the Tories, extending again though puts Corbyn in Downing Street and the Tories collapse to third behind Labour and the Brexit Party.

    Sustained No Deal could also revive the LDs more than Corbyn Labour as they are the main anti Brexit Party
    From this and other posts I get the impression that your prime objective is to ensure there is a Tory government regardless of their policies. I think someone before commented that it is like following a football team. I am a LD because of their philosophy. If that changed I wouldn't be a LD.
    I am not a member of a political party for this reason. Politics is not a sport, and supporting a party is not like supporting England in cricket. If a political party I used to like is crap then I will change my vote. My vote at the local level is often different from County, National or EU level. If I became a member of a Party then I would be obliged to vote according to the colour on my membership card rather than the political issues.

    I don't start supporting India just because the next Test match is going to be on a turning pitch.
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,912
    kle4 said:

    tlg86 said:

    I'm 32. I remember the troubles.

    I'm 32, and dont. I remember seeing Gerry Adams on TV and thinking his name was Sinn Fein.
    My earliest memory is there being a significant security check* going into the Science Museum in the mid seventies. I didn't understand why at the time, then a few months later there was another bomb in London and somehow I put the two together.

    *An airport style metal detector "door frame" and an inspection of every bag.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,054

    kle4 said:

    Voting for Jeremy Corbyn to stop No Deal is like the General in Terminator 3 who presses the button that allows SkyNet to take over the global computer network in order to quash a virus it itself helped create.

    Is Sophie’s choice.

    Sustained No Deal is likely to put Corbyn in Downing Street.
    Jeremy Corbyn only has power to the extent he can command Labour MPs.
    The last three years have shown Labour MPs have no backbone in standing up to Corbyn.

    The casual defence/silence of antisemitism tells you everything.
    Surely not, they'll mention how jolly cross and sad they are about something from time to time to show how they totally wont just bend the knee or grab ankle before a man they dont think is fit for the job.
    And yet, on the other hand, Boris.
    They were doing the same when it was May and would do the same if it were Hunt or someone else. Bottom line is they are too committed to the party brand to do more than grumble whatever the external situation. That's fine, so long as they stop whinging about Corbyn all the time, which in fairness they have been in one of their periods of quieter moaning, when they will still back him in all the ways that matter.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,147

    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    That old bullshit again.

    They really don’t get it, do they?
    Who doesn't get what?

    If you want to change something in a negotiation / meeting people come with ideas and possible plans. Boris hasn't come up with ideas / plans he's just saying we can't have this and doesn't provide any ways out of the mess.

    Which is why I read that letter exactly as that EU diplomat does..
    You are missing the point.

    I’m not talking about the contents of the letter.

    I’m talking about the EU’s attitude to Brexit as if it is just a malignancy in the Tory party.
    You're right that it should trigger some introspection on the EU's part. Did they indulge British exceptionalism for too long? Did offering opt-outs just fuel a sense that being fully out would be a desirable state? Did it nurture a sense that Britain could dictate the terms of its membership to the rest and that threatening to leave altogether would give it leverage?

    There's lots for them to think about.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,436
    kle4 said:

    That is actually probably true, even though it's a stupid and lame reason not to publish and likely not their real reason.
    I think the public can understand what 1000s of lorries queuing at Dover means.
  • Options

    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    That old bullshit again.

    They really don’t get it, do they?
    Who doesn't get what?

    If you want to change something in a negotiation / meeting people come with ideas and possible plans. Boris hasn't come up with ideas / plans he's just saying we can't have this and doesn't provide any ways out of the mess.

    Which is why I read that letter exactly as that EU diplomat does..
    You are missing the point.

    I’m not talking about the contents of the letter.

    I’m talking about the EU’s attitude to Brexit as if it is just a malignancy in the Tory party.
    You're right that it should trigger some introspection on the EU's part. Did they indulge British exceptionalism for too long? Did offering opt-outs just fuel a sense that being fully out would be a desirable state? Did it nurture a sense that Britain could dictate the terms of its membership to the rest and that threatening to leave altogether would give it leverage?

    There's lots for them to think about.
    LOL. If those are the lessons the EU is taking away ftom this then they are even more screwed than anyone thought.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    I think the public can understand what 1000s of lorries queuing at Dover means.

    There is scant evidence to support that assertion.

    The same public called 999 when KFC ran out of chicken.
  • Options
    viewcode said:

    Mr. Jessop, aye. It seems nuts to me to actively invite constant surveillance of your own home. As for the 'internet of things' - it's mostly bone idleness. I can see why some want an online doorbell/external camera for security, but an online kettle is just daft.

    Mr. Eagles, if the vote had been 52/48 the other way, would you be so alarmed at England and Wales being chained to the EU against their will?

    No because England nor Wales has such a recent and long bloody history with their near neighbour that Northern Ireland.

    As ever you really need to learn some history.
    Irony meter just spiked :-)
    I’ve already decided on the outfit, a green suit, white shirt, and a orange tie.
    I. I. I...can't. I just can't. Oh. Ug. (retching sounds)... :)

    Well this is the second choice shirt I might wear in Belfast. I think it will go down well.


  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,324
    I'm starting to feel sorry for Boris. He's now desperate to remove the backstop - a forlorn hope in itself, but the swivel-eyed loons are already out in force saying that even with the backstop removed the WA would amount to 'betrayal' and be 'the worst deal in history'. The poor bastard doesn't stand a chance.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,028

    viewcode said:

    Mr. Jessop, aye. It seems nuts to me to actively invite constant surveillance of your own home. As for the 'internet of things' - it's mostly bone idleness. I can see why some want an online doorbell/external camera for security, but an online kettle is just daft.

    Mr. Eagles, if the vote had been 52/48 the other way, would you be so alarmed at England and Wales being chained to the EU against their will?

    No because England nor Wales has such a recent and long bloody history with their near neighbour that Northern Ireland.

    As ever you really need to learn some history.
    Irony meter just spiked :-)
    I’ve already decided on the outfit, a green suit, white shirt, and a orange tie.
    I. I. I...can't. I just can't. Oh. Ug. (retching sounds)... :)

    Well this is the second choice shirt I might wear in Belfast. I think it will go down well.


    A hat to go with it?

    image

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,402

    DavidL said:

    Is he really that stupid or just being disingenuous?
    Surely he has a point, which is why a lightly-tweaked version of Theresa May's WA (for political cover) with a far longer transition period to facilitate a technical solution to the Irish border problem (by spaffing some money on some geeks, in civil service jargon) remains the best bet.

    This would allow Britain to leave on 31st October with almost everyone happy or at least able to save face, which is often what counts in politics, in negotiations and in life generally.
    The point of the backstop is that we would be negotiating with a solution that suits the EU just fine as the default. It is as stupid as taking no deal off the table and then trying to negotiate an acceptable deal for leaving. Personally I would live with it as the price of getting Brexit over the line but this approach of not negotiating with the EU without tying our hands behind our back first and then pointing out the inevitable outcome is unsatisfactory is simply a dishonest tactic to stop Brexit happening at all.
  • Options
    eek said:

    viewcode said:

    Mr. Jessop, aye. It seems nuts to me to actively invite constant surveillance of your own home. As for the 'internet of things' - it's mostly bone idleness. I can see why some want an online doorbell/external camera for security, but an online kettle is just daft.

    Mr. Eagles, if the vote had been 52/48 the other way, would you be so alarmed at England and Wales being chained to the EU against their will?

    No because England nor Wales has such a recent and long bloody history with their near neighbour that Northern Ireland.

    As ever you really need to learn some history.
    Irony meter just spiked :-)
    I’ve already decided on the outfit, a green suit, white shirt, and a orange tie.
    I. I. I...can't. I just can't. Oh. Ug. (retching sounds)... :)

    Well this is the second choice shirt I might wear in Belfast. I think it will go down well.


    A hat to go with it?

    image

    Now that’s just OTT.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,622
    kinabalu said:

    Incredible that the Irish border (GFA) problem received so little attention during the 2016 referendum campaign.

    Ditto regarding the possibility and the consequences of leaving the EU without a deal.

    We hear much about the beauty and sanctity of 'democracy' but how 'democratic' is a decision taken by a public who were (quite literally) ignorant of the biggest relevant issues pertaining to the decision?

    This has been an important point for quite a time now. A critical issue right now is: What is Ireland/EU policy with regard to the GFA and border issues if we leave the EU without a deal. If that is incoherent, or unformed, or uncertain then we can be sure we are not the only ones with a problem. Can anyone inform us as to their most recent position? And are they ready for it?

    The truth is still that TMs WA deal was the best we could do in the circumstances and we should have snapped it up. Labour have never been clear I think as to their problems with it (as opposed to the Political Declaration).

  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,028

    I'm starting to feel sorry for Boris. He's now desperate to remove the backstop - a forlorn hope in itself, but the swivel-eyed loons are already out in force saying that even with the backstop removed the WA would amount to 'betrayal' and be 'the worst deal in history'. The poor bastard doesn't stand a chance.

    Yep

    Extension - betrayal.
    Leave with a deal - betrayal
    No Deal - betrayal and incompetency (once anything goes wrong)
    Revoke - betrayal

    Being honest he may as well go for the complete reverse ferret and then try again after another election.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,151
    edited August 2019
    44, definitely remember bombs and things. The Brighton Bomb was a huge deal, killed my MP's wife, then the church I'd been to on school trips in London got blown up in the Baltic Exchange bomb.

    Also there was this weird case that was before my time, where the Cadet Force armoury at my school (a little shed with a surprisingly impressive array of weapons) got robbed by the IRA, only to be rumbled when they'd put so much stuff in the van they couldn't get it up the hill, and the policeman who showed up to help them wondered why they had 100 rifles and a couple of mortars in the back. This was one of a succession of Great Essex Crimes Foiled By A Problem With The Van, another one being the time somebody stole a bunch of nuclear fuel rods from Bradwell Power Station, only to get collared trying to drive them over to a scrap metal dealer.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,672

    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    That old bullshit again.

    They really don’t get it, do they?
    Who doesn't get what?

    If you want to change something in a negotiation / meeting people come with ideas and possible plans. Boris hasn't come up with ideas / plans he's just saying we can't have this and doesn't provide any ways out of the mess.

    Which is why I read that letter exactly as that EU diplomat does..
    You are missing the point.

    I’m not talking about the contents of the letter.

    I’m talking about the EU’s attitude to Brexit as if it is just a malignancy in the Tory party.
    You're right that it should trigger some introspection on the EU's part. Did they indulge British exceptionalism for too long? Did offering opt-outs just fuel a sense that being fully out would be a desirable state? Did it nurture a sense that Britain could dictate the terms of its membership to the rest and that threatening to leave altogether would give it leverage?

    There's lots for them to think about.
    If such a No Compromise position had been adopted by the EU it would have led to us leaving sooner rather than later.

    If, for example, membership of the Euro had been compulsory to remain in the EU in, say, 2002 to ratify the Nice Treaty (with the EU constitution on the horizon too at the time) I expect the UK would have voted to Leave by a clear margin, albeit I expect it would have opted at that stage to remain in the Single Market.

    If Blair had taken us into the whole lot without a referendum we’d be facing even deeper polarisation and resentment now.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,028

    eek said:

    viewcode said:

    Mr. Jessop, aye. It seems nuts to me to actively invite constant surveillance of your own home. As for the 'internet of things' - it's mostly bone idleness. I can see why some want an online doorbell/external camera for security, but an online kettle is just daft.

    Mr. Eagles, if the vote had been 52/48 the other way, would you be so alarmed at England and Wales being chained to the EU against their will?

    No because England nor Wales has such a recent and long bloody history with their near neighbour that Northern Ireland.

    As ever you really need to learn some history.
    Irony meter just spiked :-)
    I’ve already decided on the outfit, a green suit, white shirt, and a orange tie.
    I. I. I...can't. I just can't. Oh. Ug. (retching sounds)... :)

    Well this is the second choice shirt I might wear in Belfast. I think it will go down well.


    A hat to go with it?

    image

    Now that’s just OTT.
    I didn't think it was possible for you to be OTTed...
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,622
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Is he really that stupid or just being disingenuous?
    Surely he has a point, which is why a lightly-tweaked version of Theresa May's WA (for political cover) with a far longer transition period to facilitate a technical solution to the Irish border problem (by spaffing some money on some geeks, in civil service jargon) remains the best bet.

    This would allow Britain to leave on 31st October with almost everyone happy or at least able to save face, which is often what counts in politics, in negotiations and in life generally.
    The point of the backstop is that we would be negotiating with a solution that suits the EU just fine as the default. It is as stupid as taking no deal off the table and then trying to negotiate an acceptable deal for leaving. Personally I would live with it as the price of getting Brexit over the line but this approach of not negotiating with the EU without tying our hands behind our back first and then pointing out the inevitable outcome is unsatisfactory is simply a dishonest tactic to stop Brexit happening at all.
    Correct.

  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,125
    Ahem - because he is getting a lot of flack so an utterly pointless post. The fact that there are numerous idiots in the Royal Family should shock no-one.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,147

    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    That old bullshit again.

    They really don’t get it, do they?
    Who doesn't get what?

    If you want to change something in a negotiation / meeting people come with ideas and possible plans. Boris hasn't come up with ideas / plans he's just saying we can't have this and doesn't provide any ways out of the mess.

    Which is why I read that letter exactly as that EU diplomat does..
    You are missing the point.

    I’m not talking about the contents of the letter.

    I’m talking about the EU’s attitude to Brexit as if it is just a malignancy in the Tory party.
    You're right that it should trigger some introspection on the EU's part. Did they indulge British exceptionalism for too long? Did offering opt-outs just fuel a sense that being fully out would be a desirable state? Did it nurture a sense that Britain could dictate the terms of its membership to the rest and that threatening to leave altogether would give it leverage?

    There's lots for them to think about.
    If such a No Compromise position had been adopted by the EU it would have led to us leaving sooner rather than later.

    If, for example, membership of the Euro had been compulsory to remain in the EU in, say, 2002 to ratify the Nice Treaty (with the EU constitution on the horizon too at the time) I expect the UK would have voted to Leave by a clear margin, albeit I expect it would have opted at that stage to remain in the Single Market.

    If Blair had taken us into the whole lot without a referendum we’d be facing even deeper polarisation and resentment now.
    If Major had held a referendum on Maastricht without any opt-outs, I think he'd have won. The nascent loony wing headed by Thatcher sans marbles would have lost.

    The problem for modern Eurosceptics like you is that it always boils down to a culture war against Blair.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,090
    felix said:

    Ahem - because he is getting a lot of flack so an utterly pointless post. The fact that there are numerous idiots in the Royal Family should shock no-one.
    They are a pair of hypocrites that is why
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,033
    I am bit surprised the Prince Andrew story hasn't been more prominent. The Duke of Edinburgh might have to drop dead to distract everyone if it gets serious.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,147
    DavidL said:

    The point of the backstop is that we would be negotiating with a solution that suits the EU just fine as the default. It is as stupid as taking no deal off the table and then trying to negotiate an acceptable deal for leaving. Personally I would live with it as the price of getting Brexit over the line but this approach of not negotiating with the EU without tying our hands behind our back first and then pointing out the inevitable outcome is unsatisfactory is simply a dishonest tactic to stop Brexit happening at all.

    The UK's official policy, enshrined in a treaty is that reunification of Ireland suits it just fine. Why is the backstop therefore unacceptable?
  • Options
    StreeterStreeter Posts: 684

    Streeter said:

    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    That old bullshit again.

    They really don’t get it, do they?
    Who doesn't get what?

    If you want to change something in a negotiation / meeting people come with ideas and possible plans. Boris hasn't come up with ideas / plans he's just saying we can't have this and doesn't provide any ways out of the mess.

    Which is why I read that letter exactly as that EU diplomat does..
    You are missing the point.

    I’m not talking about the contents of the letter.

    I’m talking about the EU’s attitude to Brexit as if it is just a malignancy in the Tory party.
    It so is. Brexit had no salience prior to the referendum being called.

    The Tories will never be forgiven for this shit show.
    The latter may well be true.

    The first isn’t and this post is a classic of the non-sequitur genre in which you specialise.
    Wrong as usual.

    “Europe was not a particularly salient issue for most voters in the period until 2010 and only became so after it was linked with immigration.”

    https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-11/UK_Press_Coverage_of_the_ EU_Referendum.pdf
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,090
    Dura_Ace said:

    I am bit surprised the Prince Andrew story hasn't been more prominent. The Duke of Edinburgh might have to drop dead to distract everyone if it gets serious.
    Apart from being caught over the body with a smoking gun it is hard to see it being any more obvious. What a creep.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,402

    DavidL said:

    The point of the backstop is that we would be negotiating with a solution that suits the EU just fine as the default. It is as stupid as taking no deal off the table and then trying to negotiate an acceptable deal for leaving. Personally I would live with it as the price of getting Brexit over the line but this approach of not negotiating with the EU without tying our hands behind our back first and then pointing out the inevitable outcome is unsatisfactory is simply a dishonest tactic to stop Brexit happening at all.

    The UK's official policy, enshrined in a treaty is that reunification of Ireland suits it just fine. Why is the backstop therefore unacceptable?
    Really? Unification is acceptable if a majority both sides of the border votes for it. The effect of the backstop is that laws are introduced to NI or, at present, to the whole of the UK by a body that does not represent the people of NI or the UK post Brexit. I don't care enough about the sort of laws we are talking about to stop Brexit as a result but the difference is obvious.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Is he really that stupid or just being disingenuous?
    Surely he has a point, which is why a lightly-tweaked version of Theresa May's WA (for political cover) with a far longer transition period to facilitate a technical solution to the Irish border problem (by spaffing some money on some geeks, in civil service jargon) remains the best bet.

    This would allow Britain to leave on 31st October with almost everyone happy or at least able to save face, which is often what counts in politics, in negotiations and in life generally.
    The point of the backstop is that we would be negotiating with a solution that suits the EU just fine as the default. It is as stupid as taking no deal off the table and then trying to negotiate an acceptable deal for leaving. Personally I would live with it as the price of getting Brexit over the line but this approach of not negotiating with the EU without tying our hands behind our back first and then pointing out the inevitable outcome is unsatisfactory is simply a dishonest tactic to stop Brexit happening at all.

    As you have noted before, the UK staying in the customs union indefinitely is not "just fine" for the EU. It was a compromise. What suited the EU just fine was the original Northern Ireland backstop, which the EIU agreed to give up.

  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,281
    Dura_Ace said:

    I am bit surprised the Prince Andrew story hasn't been more prominent. The Duke of Edinburgh might have to drop dead to distract everyone if it gets serious.
    Dulce et Decorum est pro patria mori, even if you're a hundred and canteen.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    This is why Sylvia Hermon is the person to lead the GoNAfaE.

    Say you're a Labour MP in a heavily leave-voting constituency. You're opposed to No Deal but you support Brexit, or want your constituents to think you do.

    Jeremy Corbyn has been voted down or not voted on because he obviously didn't have the numbers. Obviously you won't back Ken Clarke or some other Tory grandee who many of your constituents hate with a passion, or a LibDem who your members hate with an even greater passion. Then Sylvia Hermon comes up for a vote. She tells her story about how she joined the UUP after seeing how they put aside partisan differences and compromised for peace, and also mentions that left them and won as an independent after they hooked up with the Tories. She goes on telly and makes a heartfelt appeal to stop No Deal and protect the peace.

    Imagine you vote her down and the Troubles kick off again. Do you want that to be *your* responsibility?

    There would be much worse choices.
    Given her stated views on Jeremy Corbyn, he would have to show a lot more magnanimity than he has publicly displayed to date.
    Be quite a move if she did though. 'JC may be a shit, but No Deal is a shitfest. I'll take the gig.'
    In order of preference I'd have thought that Jeremy Corbyn goes:

    1) Jeremy Corbyn




    2) Some friendly and unthreatening Labour grandee



    3=) Ian Blackford
    3=) Liz Saville-Roberts

    5) Caroline Lucas

    6) Anyone else.

    I'm not sure he gets beyond 1 but I'm pretty sure he doesn't get as far as 6.
    - ”3=) Ian Blackford”

    An SNP MP in the running for UK PM.

    Alice is so far through the looking glass she’s on crack cocaine.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,678
    edited August 2019
    eristdoof said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Voting for Jeremy Corbyn to stop No Deal is like the General in Terminator 3 who presses the button that allows SkyNet to take over the global computer network in order to quash a virus it itself helped create.

    Is Sophie’s choice.

    Sustained No Deal is likely to put Corbyn in Downing Street.
    On the latest polling No Deal in October is the only way to ensure a Tory majority in the autumn as the Brexit Party vote collapses to the Tories, extending again though puts Corbyn in Downing Street and the Tories collapse to third behind Labour and the Brexit Party.

    Sustained No Deal could also revive the LDs more than Corbyn Labour as they are the main anti Brexit Party
    From this and other posts I get the impression that your prime objective is to ensure there is a Tory government regardless of their policies. I think someone before commented that it is like following a football team. I am a LD because of their philosophy. If that changed I wouldn't be a LD.
    I am not a member of a political party for this reason. Politics is not a sport, and supporting a party is not like supporting England in cricket. If a political party I used to like is crap then I will change my vote. My vote at the local level is often different from County, National or EU level. If I became a member of a Party then I would be obliged to vote according to the colour on my membership card rather than the political issues.

    I don't start supporting India just because the next Test match is going to be on a turning pitch.
    Yes I agree and on more than one occasion I have not supported the LDs in a vote and I don't agree on all policies, but generally they are a good fit for me.

    Clearly I also don't support them just in a hope of a win, although when they do it is so satisfying as it is such a rare event.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,147
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The point of the backstop is that we would be negotiating with a solution that suits the EU just fine as the default. It is as stupid as taking no deal off the table and then trying to negotiate an acceptable deal for leaving. Personally I would live with it as the price of getting Brexit over the line but this approach of not negotiating with the EU without tying our hands behind our back first and then pointing out the inevitable outcome is unsatisfactory is simply a dishonest tactic to stop Brexit happening at all.

    The UK's official policy, enshrined in a treaty is that reunification of Ireland suits it just fine. Why is the backstop therefore unacceptable?
    Really? Unification is acceptable if a majority both sides of the border votes for it. The effect of the backstop is that laws are introduced to NI or, at present, to the whole of the UK by a body that does not represent the people of NI or the UK post Brexit. I don't care enough about the sort of laws we are talking about to stop Brexit as a result but the difference is obvious.
    And imposing economic divergence on the island of Ireland based on the votes of people in Great Britain is acceptable? It's pure hypocrisy to object to the backstop on those grounds.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited August 2019
    Deleted as the point is already made.
  • Options
    TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    Dura_Ace said:

    I am bit surprised the Prince Andrew story hasn't been more prominent. The Duke of Edinburgh might have to drop dead to distract everyone if it gets serious.
    "Nothing to see here" .... :-/
  • Options
    In 2011 a Vanity Fair article quoted a friend of [Prince Andrew] saying: “After Jeffrey was convicted, I phoned Andrew and told him, ‘You cannot have a relationship with Jeffrey.’ And he said, ‘Stop giving me a hard time. You’re such a puritan . . . Jeffrey’s my friend. Being loyal to your friends is a virtue. And I’m going to be loyal to him.’”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-welcomed-epstein-and-young-masseuse-to-balmoral-ml3s3qkd0

    The Royal Family are supporters of nonces, what an awful country we have become.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,281

    Prince Andrew has been in the papers and on telly so it is hardly being hushed up..

    It's been ramping up fairly gradually, I'd say 'the Family Firm' is probably at around Deacon 2 (fear of booing when Royalty is present) currently.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002
    I'm half wondering if Boris' plan was for parliament to stop him but now it's looking like they might not want/able to given the Corbyn dynamic.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,920
    edited August 2019

    In 2011 a Vanity Fair article quoted a friend of [Prince Andrew] saying: “After Jeffrey was convicted, I phoned Andrew and told him, ‘You cannot have a relationship with Jeffrey.’ And he said, ‘Stop giving me a hard time. You’re such a puritan . . . Jeffrey’s my friend. Being loyal to your friends is a virtue. And I’m going to be loyal to him.’”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-welcomed-epstein-and-young-masseuse-to-balmoral-ml3s3qkd0

    The Royal Family are supporters of nonces, what an awful country we have become.

    Whenever the Royals get involved with Americans is never ends well...
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,324
    I see the lessons of the Carl Beech debacle have been well and truly learnt by everyone on here.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,920
    edited August 2019
    Pulpstar said:

    I'm half wondering if Boris' plan was for parliament to stop him but now it's looking like they might not want/able to given the Corbyn dynamic.

    Doubt it. He wouldn't have appointed Cummings if he wasn't serious...
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    There's only one thing worse than being misunderstood, and that's being understood.
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    I'm half wondering if Boris' plan was for parliament to stop him but now it's looking like they might not want/able to given the Corbyn dynamic.

    I said that last month.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,151
    GIN1138 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'm half wondering if Boris' plan was for parliament to stop him but now it's looking like they might not want/able to given the Corbyn dynamic.

    Doubt it. He wouldn't have appointed Cummings if he wasn't serious...
    His whole argument during the leadership election was that he had to *look* serious. The same applies if your goal is to get parliament to VONC you: They won't play along if it looks like the alternative is that you'll have to swallow an extension. An advisor is a pretty good way to signal, because they look serious, but they're also disposable if you decide to reverse-ferret.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,602
    edited August 2019
    Steve Smith ruled out of the Headingley test.

    It’s coming home, it’s coming home, The Ashes are coming home.

    https://twitter.com/cricketcomau/status/1163746421151096832?s=21
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    I see the lessons of the Carl Beech debacle have been well and truly learnt by everyone on here.

    I see your Nick and give you Jimmy Savile.

    One for the public enquiry in 2022 is WTF were the secret squirrels doing? Surely it is their job to keep an eye on the company Prince Andrew keeps, especially when they pitch up at Balmoral (and also if, as some tin foil wearers suggest, Epstein was also spying for the CIA/KGB/Mossad).
  • Options
    BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    Perhaps yourself and Iain Lee have been on holiday. He is facing a lot of questions.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,281
    Hey Paddy Blamers, you've got Nick Timothy batting for your team. That must be just lovely for you.

    https://twitter.com/TelePolitics/status/1163714858547896325?s=20
  • Options
    Labour next round of selections to replace retiring MPs:

    Ashfield: All Women Shortlist
    Blyth Valley: AWS
    City of Durham: AWS
    Coventry North West: Open
    Ealing North: Open
    Erith & Thamesmead: AWS
    Liverpool West Derby: Open
    Poplar & Limehouse: AWS
    Rother Valley: Open
    Vauxhall: Open
This discussion has been closed.