Redwood even voted against the Brady amendment which got a Commons majority, Boris does not need him
No-one needs Redwood in the sense of his being of any use for anything. He's always been just grit in life's Vaseline.
Redwood has always been a diehard No Dealer, he along with the likes of Chope refused to even vote for the Brady amendment which passed the Commons by 317 votes to 301.
Yet Boris is right to stick to trying to get the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop which passed the Commons unlike the Withdrawal Agreement as is which was voted down by the Commons 3 times.
The Brady amendment is the only Brexit option to have passed the Commons with EUref2 and revoke also being voted down by the Commons in the indicative votes
There were a number of Tory MPs who voted “for” the Brady amendment whilst holding opinions no different to Redwood. They did so to waste time in the belief that it increased the chances of no deal on March 31st. Your assumption that they would replicate their vote in the unlikely event that such a backstopless WA was actually agreed needs some scepticism and challenge.
Well it certainly got more votes in the Commons than any other alternative, including May's Withdrawal Agreement on the 3rd vote, so Boris is correct to try it while being ready to go to No Deal on 31st October if needed
You didn’t answer my question on why a post No Deal backstop is logical
You said the EU will insist on it (which I agree is possible - it is certainly what they are saying at the moment)
But why is it logical
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
It's not up to the UK to say what the EU and Ireland's negotiating priorities should be, as it affects them, any more than they should do to us. The UK government needs to realise the Backstop is the reddest of EU red lines and deal with it to its best advantage or least disadvantage.
But if we on this forum aim to take a more detached view, I would say Ireland is correct that on balance it's better for Northern Ireland to have an enforced sea border than a land border should the UK as a whole diverge from the EU. For practical reasons and reasons of visibility - there are ferry controls already on the sea border. Neither border might desirable - I would argue that - but if the UK is going to create a de facto hard border with the EU through divergence, it's better for Northern Ireland if it's the sea border. People in Northern Ireland agree with me, by a big margin.
If the backstop is the EU's reddest of red lines and democracy is the UK's reddest of red lines the No Deal is the only option remaining.
If democracy were a UK red line, it wouldn’t execute No Deal without a mandate.
It will be executed by our elected government, entirely appropriate. A future elected government can seek to reverse it, entirely appropriate.
But the Brexit That Was Promised was not No Deal. Also this is a minority government surviving on a majority of 1 due to supply and demand, not a majority government with a huge mandate (kinda like the original referendum being 52/48, not 66/33, meaning maybe a soft Brexit could bring unity, rather than a No Deal Brexit which will only cement the divisions)
One of the interesting things I wonder how people who laud the Osborne debt management defend. Specifically:
"So far, the outstanding cost of university tuition loans has added £105bn – around 5 per cent of GDP – to the UK’s debt. By the 2040s, according to Department for Education forecasts, it will have added £460bn, or nearly 12 per cent of GDP. The Office for Budget Responsibility projects that it will remain at above 10 per cent of GDP for decades thereafter.
With low interest rates, such a mountain of debt is manageable. When rates rise, that will change. The precise cost to government may also be underestimated. If university education turns out to be less useful than expected, the IFS points out, and future graduate earnings are even slightly lower than forecast, the taxpayer’s tab will rise rapidly. That seems plausible. In 2011, the government projected that it would end up paying for 30 per cent of the student loan book. That rate has since risen five times. It is now estimated at 54 per cent."
By increasing the numbers who go to university the value of being a graduate has been reduced. Which I suspect will ensure the taxpayer's tab will rise rapidly no matter what.
I mean that isn't necessarily true if you raised teaching standards and invested in education, but yes, it does seem to be the case in England. But what I'm wondering is more why people who think that the debt is under control and wasn't the coalition a great model for fiscal conservatism, when they've put this time bomb in the debt figures that could go off whenever. This is just setting up for in 20 years time another argument for the necessity of austerity due to government debt, despite the fact it was all artificially hidden by the same people who originally argued for austerity now.
A few of us - well me and Alanbrooke at least - pointed that out at the time.
Thanks for linking to the article, it was very good.
They have increased the number of undergraduate degrees they award fivefold since 1990, while the proportion of Firsts they hand out has quadrupled – from 7 per cent in 1994 to 29 per cent in 2019. For every student who got a First in the early 1990s, nearly 20 do now. Masters’ degrees, meanwhile, are nearly ten times as common as they were.
Boris Johnson now has 28 days to find a viable alternative to the Irish backstop.
Huge fudge coming probably by both sides.
Overnight on 5 live (4.00am) there was a report from France which surprised me in so far as the French do not want dislocation of travel and trade with the UK and indicated that if chaos happens on the 31st October, Macron would come under intense pressure and blame.
Now this was from the French side and it is the first time I have heard an adverse report from the EU side on any UK broadcast media
Anyone interested should be able to get it on playback
Redwood even voted against the Brady amendment which got a Commons majority, Boris does not need him
No-one needs Redwood in the sense of his being of any use for anything. He's always been just grit in life's Vaseline.
Redwood has always been a diehard No Dealer, he along with the likes of Chope refused to even vote for the Brady amendment which passed the Commons by 317 votes to 301.
Yet Boris is right to stick to trying to get the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop which passed the Commons unlike the Withdrawal Agreement as is which was voted down by the Commons 3 times.
The Brady amendment is the only Brexit option to have passed the Commons with EUref2 and revoke also being voted down by the Commons in the indicative votes
But the EU will not accept anything resembling to the Brady amendment, and it only passed the Commons because everyone knew the plan was a unicorn and would never actually happen.
In the very unlikely event of Johnson coming up with an amended version of May's deal agreed with the EU I have no doubt that Farage and his supporters in the ERG will find many new faults in it which make it completely unacceptable. Cries of betrayal will ring out across the land. This morning's comments from Davis and Cash are a harbinger. Johnson has many enemies and few friends and is trusted by nobody. He will not be able to sell a deal.
Suella Braverman on R4 saying she had no objection to a transition period in the event of a marvellous, detail free deal from BJ being accepted by the EU. Fingers are twitching in preparation for that hand brake turn.
After battering the backstop for cleaving one part of the UK from the rest, she then managed to see no contradiction in Priti Patel's statement that in the event of no deal, FOM would end on 31st Oct while the CTA would remain in place allowing the whole population of Eastern Europe to decamp to that part of the UK via Dublin.
Brexiteers, eh?
Sure, there will always be illegal immigration routes. But anyone who came to NI/Britain va Ireland (not sure why they wouldnt just fly to Belfast/Britain frankly) wouldnt be eligible for, inter alia, welfare, Renting a property, having a job or the right to remain.
The fires in the Amazon in Brazil and neighbouring countries as plotted on a chart on Sky news are frightening
I do not normally comment on climate change but like Brexit I accept the science but are more moderate in how we adapt over the next few decades
However, the Amazonian fires are a reminder to everyone to treat our planet and all those living on it, including all animals, with respect and concern and I am pleased Macron is raising it at the G7 this weekend
Bolsenaro (after sacking the government statistician that stated cutting down of the rain forest had increased significantly under his government) is now blaming foreign NGOs for starting fires to discredit him.
What a wonderful world HYUFD is wishing upon us with his confederation Trump, BJ, Salvini, Bolsenaro, Duerte and all the rest.
The UK is a democracy and has been for decades. You do not believe voting is a fundamental human right. Like me, you believe that it should be a right subject to qualification.
Of course the UK is a democracy, I don't dispute that it is. We have the right to elect MPs/MSPs/MEPs etc as relevant to any Parliament that sets our laws. Under the backstop that will no longer be the case though, we won't have MEPs but will still be subject to its laws.
I do believe it to be a fundamental human right. All free adult citizens should have the right without qualification. If we are in the backstop and subject to European Parliament laws how do we vote for MEPs for that?
Citizenship is a qualification.
We do not elect judges. They also set our laws.
Should non citizen taxpayers have the vote in a state? I've always wondered why people can live here practically all their lives, contribute to the society, not be eligible for citizenship and therefore not be allowed to vote, despite clearly being members of that society. I understand the slight concern for "dual loyalties" but seriously, there should be a threshold below citizenship that allows for voting.
Boris Johnson now has 28 days to find a viable alternative to the Irish backstop.
Huge fudge coming probably by both sides.
Overnight on 5 live (4.00am) there was a report from France which surprised me in so far as the French do not want dislocation of travel and trade with the UK and indicated that if chaos happens on the 31st October, Macron would come under intense pressure and blame.
Now this was from the French side and it is the first time I have heard an adverse report from the EU side on any UK broadcast media
Anyone interested should be able to get it on playback
I'm getting flashbacks to confident predictions of fudge under May
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
If you haven't worked this out after a million gazillion comments there's probably some kind of cognitive block somewhere and I'm not sure one more is going to help, but here goes.
The UK wants its to set its own laws and standards independently. However it also doesn't want a hard border.
Usually when you have two countries with different laws and standards you have a border to stop people bringing in things that are legal in one country and illegal in another. So if you don't want a border, you have to give up the ability to set laws and standards independently, as EU countries do.
The UK says it can work out clever ways to avoid the need for this, but it's vague about the practical details, and the EU side isn't convinced they really can or will. They've probably long suspected that the actual goal is to try to force Ireland to diverge from the EU, align its regulations with the UK and increase the impact of its border with the EU, which someone on the UK side recently blurted out.
So the EU's order of preference is: 1) Clever vague thing the British say they can do really working 2) Align NI, border in the Irish Sea 3) Align NI+UK 4) None of this, resulting in an adminstrative clusterfuck and/or Irish divergence from the EU
Hard border probably comes in above or below (4), depending who in the EU we're talking about.
The WA says: * Do (1) if you can produce something workable, with independent arbitration if you say your plans are workable and we say they're not * Failing that, since the DUP nixed (2), (3)
This isn't particularly ungenerous to the UK, IMHO.
I understand that's the EU's order of preference. That's not the UK's though. It is extremely ungenerous to the UK since the UK has chosen to set its own laws and standard independently. Aligning violates the VERY FIRST thing you wrote, which is that we set our own laws and standards independently.
The UK's order of preference while maintaining our ability to keep our abiity to set our own laws and standards independently is:
Suella Braverman on R4 saying she had no objection to a transition period in the event of a marvellous, detail free deal from BJ being accepted by the EU. Fingers are twitching in preparation for that hand brake turn.
After battering the backstop for cleaving one part of the UK from the rest, she then managed to see no contradiction in Priti Patel's statement that in the event of no deal, FOM would end on 31st Oct while the CTA would remain in place allowing the whole population of Eastern Europe to decamp to that part of the UK via Dublin.
Brexiteers, eh?
Unless we're going to stop Polish people taking holidays here, there isn't really a contradiction in your final paragraph.
You didn’t answer my question on why a post No Deal backstop is logical
You said the EU will insist on it (which I agree is possible - it is certainly what they are saying at the moment)
But why is it logical
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
It's not up to the UK to say what the EU and Ireland's negotiating priorities should be, as it affects them, any more than they should do to us. The UK government needs to realise the Backstop is the reddest of EU red lines and deal with it to its best advantage or least disadvantage.
But if we on this forum aim to take a more detached view, I would say Ireland is correct that on balance it's better for Northern Ireland to have an enforced sea border than a land border should the UK as a whole diverge from the EU. For practical reasons and reasons of visibility - there are ferry controls already on the sea border. Neither border might desirable - I would argue that - but if the UK is going to create a de facto hard border with the EU through divergence, it's better for Northern Ireland if it's the sea border. People in Northern Ireland agree with me, by a big margin.
If the backstop is the EU's reddest of red lines and democracy is the UK's reddest of red lines the No Deal is the only option remaining.
If democracy were a UK red line, it wouldn’t execute No Deal without a mandate.
It will be executed by our elected government, entirely appropriate. A future elected government can seek to reverse it, entirely appropriate.
A future government cannot reverse a no deal Brexit.
A future Gov't can apply for EU membership, same as any other 3rd country in the European orbit. Whether they will (Probably only the Lib Dems will) or not is another matter.
A future government can reverse no deal Brexit by signing trade deals and exiting the North Korea model of government we are heading too
The fires in the Amazon in Brazil and neighbouring countries as plotted on a chart on Sky news are frightening
I do not normally comment on climate change but like Brexit I accept the science but are more moderate in how we adapt over the next few decades
However, the Amazonian fires are a reminder to everyone to treat our planet and all those living on it, including all animals, with respect and concern and I am pleased Macron is raising it at the G7 this weekend
Bolsenaro (after sacking the government statistician that stated cutting down of the rain forest had increased significantly under his government) is now blaming foreign NGOs for starting fires to discredit him.
What a wonderful world HYUFD is wishing upon us with his confederation Trump, BJ, Salvini, Bolsenaro, Duerte and all the rest.
A judge only a few weeks ago deemed large swathes of the Amazon protected against oil and farm interests, in favour of indigenous peoples, and now those forests are ablaze. These are not natural forest fires supercharged by climate change (like Siberia atm). This is purposeful burning by people who want to make money.
On topic, Donald Trump himself is highly unpredictable. Like OGH, I don't think that he should be so short-priced to run again. There are too many different ways that he might blow up.
Gosh! I didn't know that OGH was even qualified to run for POTUS!
Can someone please tell me what OGH means? I've been wondering this for forever. Google suggests Oberste Gerichtshof, the supreme court in Austria and the Urban Dictionary suggests Obsessed (Lady) Gaga Hater.
I don't think that either of these fits Mr Smithson.
The UK is a democracy and has been for decades. You do not believe voting is a fundamental human right. Like me, you believe that it should be a right subject to qualification.
Of course the UK is a democracy, I don't dispute that it is. We have the right to elect MPs/MSPs/MEPs etc as relevant to any Parliament that sets our laws. Under the backstop that will no longer be the case though, we won't have MEPs but will still be subject to its laws.
I do believe it to be a fundamental human right. All free adult citizens should have the right without qualification. If we are in the backstop and subject to European Parliament laws how do we vote for MEPs for that?
Citizenship is a qualification.
We do not elect judges. They also set our laws.
Should non citizen taxpayers have the vote in a state? I've always wondered why people can live here practically all their lives, contribute to the society, not be eligible for citizenship and therefore not be allowed to vote, despite clearly being members of that society. I understand the slight concern for "dual loyalties" but seriously, there should be a threshold below citizenship that allows for voting.
In the UK some non-citizens do have the right to vote. Others don’t. On the face of it, this does look rather discriminatory, but it is a decision our sovereign Parliament has made and the courts have not overturned - or maybe not been asked to look at.
The UK is a democracy and has been for decades. You do not believe voting is a fundamental human right. Like me, you believe that it should be a right subject to qualification.
Of course the UK is a democracy, I don't dispute that it is. We have the right to elect MPs/MSPs/MEPs etc as relevant to any Parliament that sets our laws. Under the backstop that will no longer be the case though, we won't have MEPs but will still be subject to its laws.
I do believe it to be a fundamental human right. All free adult citizens should have the right without qualification. If we are in the backstop and subject to European Parliament laws how do we vote for MEPs for that?
What about free adult citizens who are not in possession of an id?
Boris Johnson now has 28 days to find a viable alternative to the Irish backstop.
Huge fudge coming probably by both sides.
Overnight on 5 live (4.00am) there was a report from France which surprised me in so far as the French do not want dislocation of travel and trade with the UK and indicated that if chaos happens on the 31st October, Macron would come under intense pressure and blame.
Now this was from the French side and it is the first time I have heard an adverse report from the EU side on any UK broadcast media
Anyone interested should be able to get it on playback
I'm getting flashbacks to confident predictions of fudge under May
I would rather have huge amounts of fudge than the poison of no deal or no brexit
Redwood even voted against the Brady amendment which got a Commons majority, Boris does not need him
No-one needs Redwood in the sense of his being of any use for anything. He's always been just grit in life's Vaseline.
Redwood has always been a diehard No Dealer, he along with the likes of Chope refused to even vote for the Brady amendment which passed the Commons by 317 votes to 301.
Yet Boris is right to stick to trying to get the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop which passed the Commons unlike the Withdrawal Agreement as is which was voted down by the Commons 3 times.
The Brady amendment is the only Brexit option to have passed the Commons with EUref2 and revoke also being voted down by the Commons in the indicative votes
But the EU will not accept anything resembling to the Brady amendment, and it only passed the Commons because everyone knew the plan was a unicorn and would never actually happen.
In the very unlikely event of Johnson coming up with an amended version of May's deal agreed with the EU I have no doubt that Farage and his supporters in the ERG will find many new faults in it which make it completely unacceptable. Cries of betrayal will ring out across the land. This morning's comments from Davis and Cash are a harbinger. Johnson has many enemies and few friends and is trusted by nobody. He will not be able to sell a deal.
Macron and Merkel did not rule out a technical solution for the Irish border last night and in any case as last night's council by election in Rugby showed the Brexit Party is now picking up Labour votes as much as Tories, provided Boris does not extend again but delivers Brexit Deal or No Deal he can win a Tory majority regardless of Farage
On topic, Donald Trump himself is highly unpredictable. Like OGH, I don't think that he should be so short-priced to run again. There are too many different ways that he might blow up.
Gosh! I didn't know that OGH was even qualified to run for POTUS!
Can someone please tell me what OGH means? I've been wondering this for forever. Google suggests Oberste Gerichtshof, the supreme court in Austria and the Urban Dictionary suggests Obsessed (Lady) Gaga Hater.
I don't think that either of these fits Mr Smithson.
Our Genial Host
or if you piss him off enough Obergruppenfuehrer Himmler :-)
On topic, Donald Trump himself is highly unpredictable. Like OGH, I don't think that he should be so short-priced to run again. There are too many different ways that he might blow up.
Gosh! I didn't know that OGH was even qualified to run for POTUS!
Can someone please tell me what OGH means? I've been wondering this for forever. Google suggests Oberste Gerichtshof, the supreme court in Austria and the Urban Dictionary suggests Obsessed (Lady) Gaga Hater.
I don't think that either of these fits Mr Smithson.
The fires in the Amazon in Brazil and neighbouring countries as plotted on a chart on Sky news are frightening
I do not normally comment on climate change but like Brexit I accept the science but are more moderate in how we adapt over the next few decades
However, the Amazonian fires are a reminder to everyone to treat our planet and all those living on it, including all animals, with respect and concern and I am pleased Macron is raising it at the G7 this weekend
Bolsenaro (after sacking the government statistician that stated cutting down of the rain forest had increased significantly under his government) is now blaming foreign NGOs for starting fires to discredit him.
What a wonderful world HYUFD is wishing upon us with his confederation Trump, BJ, Salvini, Bolsenaro, Duerte and all the rest.
Bolsenaro is very much an accomplice in this and Brazil need worldwide sanctions.
The UK is a democracy and has been for decades. You do not believe voting is a fundamental human right. Like me, you believe that it should be a right subject to qualification.
Of course the UK is a democracy, I don't dispute that it is. We have the right to elect MPs/MSPs/MEPs etc as relevant to any Parliament that sets our laws. Under the backstop that will no longer be the case though, we won't have MEPs but will still be subject to its laws.
I do believe it to be a fundamental human right. All free adult citizens should have the right without qualification. If we are in the backstop and subject to European Parliament laws how do we vote for MEPs for that?
What about free adult citizens who are not in possession of an id?
They have a right to get ID and a right to vote with it.
The fires in the Amazon in Brazil and neighbouring countries as plotted on a chart on Sky news are frightening
I do not normally comment on climate change but like Brexit I accept the science but are more moderate in how we adapt over the next few decades
However, the Amazonian fires are a reminder to everyone to treat our planet and all those living on it, including all animals, with respect and concern and I am pleased Macron is raising it at the G7 this weekend
Bolsenaro (after sacking the government statistician that stated cutting down of the rain forest had increased significantly under his government) is now blaming foreign NGOs for starting fires to discredit him.
What a wonderful world HYUFD is wishing upon us with his confederation Trump, BJ, Salvini, Bolsenaro, Duerte and all the rest.
A judge only a few weeks ago deemed large swathes of the Amazon protected against oil and farm interests, in favour of indigenous peoples, and now those forests are ablaze. These are not natural forest fires supercharged by climate change (like Siberia atm). This is purposeful burning by people who want to make money.
And that requires worldwide condemnation and sanctions
The UK is a democracy and has been for decades. You do not believe voting is a fundamental human right. Like me, you believe that it should be a right subject to qualification.
Of course the UK is a democracy, I don't dispute that it is. We have the right to elect MPs/MSPs/MEPs etc as relevant to any Parliament that sets our laws. Under the backstop that will no longer be the case though, we won't have MEPs but will still be subject to its laws.
I do believe it to be a fundamental human right. All free adult citizens should have the right without qualification. If we are in the backstop and subject to European Parliament laws how do we vote for MEPs for that?
Citizenship is a qualification.
We do not elect judges. They also set our laws.
Should non citizen taxpayers have the vote in a state? I've always wondered why people can live here practically all their lives, contribute to the society, not be eligible for citizenship and therefore not be allowed to vote, despite clearly being members of that society. I understand the slight concern for "dual loyalties" but seriously, there should be a threshold below citizenship that allows for voting.
In the UK some non-citizens do have the right to vote. Others don’t. On the face of it, this does look rather discriminatory, but it is a decision our sovereign Parliament has made and the courts have not overturned - or maybe not been asked to look at.
We generously treat some non citizens as citizens for historical reasons but we treat all free adult citizens the same. If we discriminated between free adult citizens the courts wouldn't get involved.
Boris Johnson now has 28 days to find a viable alternative to the Irish backstop.
Huge fudge coming probably by both sides.
Overnight on 5 live (4.00am) there was a report from France which surprised me in so far as the French do not want dislocation of travel and trade with the UK and indicated that if chaos happens on the 31st October, Macron would come under intense pressure and blame.
Now this was from the French side and it is the first time I have heard an adverse report from the EU side on any UK broadcast media
Anyone interested should be able to get it on playback
Johnson cannot risk a fudge. He has to deliver a No Deal Brexit. Politically, anything else would be a disaster. And this is all about politics, nothing else.
Redwood even voted against the Brady amendment which got a Commons majority, Boris does not need him
No-one needs Redwood in the sense of his being of any use for anything. He's always been just grit in life's Vaseline.
Redwood has always been a diehard No Dealer, he along with the likes of Chope refused to even vote for the Brady amendment which passed the Commons by 317 votes to 301.
Yet Boris is right to stick to trying to get the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop which passed the Commons unlike the Withdrawal Agreement as is which was voted down by the Commons 3 times.
The Brady amendment is the only Brexit option to have passed the Commons with EUref2 and revoke also being voted down by the Commons in the indicative votes
But the EU will not accept anything resembling to the Brady amendment, and it only passed the Commons because everyone knew the plan was a unicorn and would never actually happen.
In the very unlikely event of Johnson coming up with an amended version of May's deal agreed with the EU I have no doubt that Farage and his supporters in the ERG will find many new faults in it which make it completely unacceptable. Cries of betrayal will ring out across the land. This morning's comments from Davis and Cash are a harbinger. Johnson has many enemies and few friends and is trusted by nobody. He will not be able to sell a deal.
Macron and Merkel did not rule out a technical solution for the Irish border last night and in any case as last night's council by election in Rugby showed the Brexit Party is now picking up Labour votes as much as Tories, provided Boris does not extend again but delivers Brexit Deal or No Deal he can win a Tory majority regardless of Farage
He cannot deliver a deal. No deal - which as a polling expert you will know is supported by at most 33% of voters, and that is before they have actually experienced it - is hardly likely to enhance the Tories' prospects.
Macron and Merkel did not rule out a technical solution for the Irish border last night and in any case as last night's council by election showed the Brexit Party is now picking up Labour votes as much as Tories, provided Boris does not extend again but delivers Brexit Deal or No Deal he can win a Tory majority regardless of Farage
Sometime in October -
"Because of our renewed energy and clear resolution to leave, our European friends have seen the light and have agreed to fresh talks with no pre-conditions with a view to agreeing a deal that works for all. It would be foolish not to take advantage of this and therefore the article 50 deadline will be amended from 31 October 2019 to ?/?/2020. Just rejoice in that news."
I hope you are getting ready to sell this. Boris expects ...
Macron and Merkel did not rule out a technical solution for the Irish border last night and in any case as last night's council by election showed the Brexit Party is now picking up Labour votes as much as Tories, provided Boris does not extend again but delivers Brexit Deal or No Deal he can win a Tory majority regardless of Farage
Sometime in October -
"Because of our renewed energy and clear resolution to leave, our European friends have seen the light and have agreed to fresh talks with no pre-conditions with a view to agreeing a deal that works for all. It would be foolish not to take advantage of this and therefore the article 50 deadline will be amended from 31 October 2019 to ?/?/2020. Just rejoice in that news."
I hope you are getting ready to sell this. Boris expects ...
I think you are wrong. But if the EU commits to dropping the backstop unconditionally I would be fine with that.
The fires in the Amazon in Brazil and neighbouring countries as plotted on a chart on Sky news are frightening
I do not normally comment on climate change but like Brexit I accept the science but are more moderate in how we adapt over the next few decades
However, the Amazonian fires are a reminder to everyone to treat our planet and all those living on it, including all animals, with respect and concern and I am pleased Macron is raising it at the G7 this weekend
Bolsenaro (after sacking the government statistician that stated cutting down of the rain forest had increased significantly under his government) is now blaming foreign NGOs for starting fires to discredit him.
What a wonderful world HYUFD is wishing upon us with his confederation Trump, BJ, Salvini, Bolsenaro, Duerte and all the rest.
A judge only a few weeks ago deemed large swathes of the Amazon protected against oil and farm interests, in favour of indigenous peoples, and now those forests are ablaze. These are not natural forest fires supercharged by climate change (like Siberia atm). This is purposeful burning by people who want to make money.
And that requires worldwide condemnation and sanctions
Bolsonaro is, of course, another hero of the Brexit-backing English nationalist right who now run our country.
I understand that's the EU's order of preference. That's not the UK's though. It is extremely ungenerous to the UK since the UK has chosen to set its own laws and standard independently. Aligning violates the VERY FIRST thing you wrote, which is that we set our own laws and standards independently.
The UK's order of preference while maintaining our ability to keep our abiity to set our own laws and standards independently is:
1) 4) Hard border
2 and 3 are nixed.
So the next step, assuming you're right about what the UK thinks (which is complicated IMHO) is to refuse a transition or a trade deal until the UK agree to an option that's long-term non-terrible for one of their members. This may take some time after crashing out with No Deal.
Do you now follow what the players in this are doing? Upthread you were talking like you were puzzled.
Suella Braverman on R4 saying she had no objection to a transition period in the event of a marvellous, detail free deal from BJ being accepted by the EU. Fingers are twitching in preparation for that hand brake turn.
After battering the backstop for cleaving one part of the UK from the rest, she then managed to see no contradiction in Priti Patel's statement that in the event of no deal, FOM would end on 31st Oct while the CTA would remain in place allowing the whole population of Eastern Europe to decamp to that part of the UK via Dublin.
Brexiteers, eh?
Unless we're going to stop Polish people taking holidays here, there isn't really a contradiction in your final paragraph.
Apart from there should be no differentiation between NI and the rest of the UK except when approved by Tory Brexiteers and the DUP.
The fires in the Amazon in Brazil and neighbouring countries as plotted on a chart on Sky news are frightening
I do not normally comment on climate change but like Brexit I accept the science but are more moderate in how we adapt over the next few decades
However, the Amazonian fires are a reminder to everyone to treat our planet and all those living on it, including all animals, with respect and concern and I am pleased Macron is raising it at the G7 this weekend
Bolsenaro (after sacking the government statistician that stated cutting down of the rain forest had increased significantly under his government) is now blaming foreign NGOs for starting fires to discredit him.
What a wonderful world HYUFD is wishing upon us with his confederation Trump, BJ, Salvini, Bolsenaro, Duerte and all the rest.
A judge only a few weeks ago deemed large swathes of the Amazon protected against oil and farm interests, in favour of indigenous peoples, and now those forests are ablaze. These are not natural forest fires supercharged by climate change (like Siberia atm). This is purposeful burning by people who want to make money.
And that requires worldwide condemnation and sanctions
Bolsonaro is, of course, another hero of the Brexit-backing English nationalist right who now run our country.
I understand that's the EU's order of preference. That's not the UK's though. It is extremely ungenerous to the UK since the UK has chosen to set its own laws and standard independently. Aligning violates the VERY FIRST thing you wrote, which is that we set our own laws and standards independently.
The UK's order of preference while maintaining our ability to keep our abiity to set our own laws and standards independently is:
1) 4) Hard border
2 and 3 are nixed.
So the next step, assuming you're right about what the UK thinks (which is complicated IMHO) is to refuse a transition or a trade deal until the UK agree to an option that's long-term non-terrible for one of their members. This may take some time after crashing out with No Deal.
Do you now follow what the players in this are doing? Upthread you were talking like you were puzzled.
No long term the solution is to agree 1 or 4 or a hard border. Those are the only common areas we agree on.
They may prefer 2 or 3 but since they aren't an option 1 or 4 or hard border are areas of mutual acccord.
The UK is a democracy and has been for decades. You do not believe voting is a fundamental human right. Like me, you believe that it should be a right subject to qualification.
Of course the UK is a democracy, I don't dispute that it is. We have the right to elect MPs/MSPs/MEPs etc as relevant to any Parliament that sets our laws. Under the backstop that will no longer be the case though, we won't have MEPs but will still be subject to its laws.
I do believe it to be a fundamental human right. All free adult citizens should have the right without qualification. If we are in the backstop and subject to European Parliament laws how do we vote for MEPs for that?
Citizenship is a qualification.
We do not elect judges. They also set our laws.
Should non citizen taxpayers have the vote in a state? I've always wondered why people can live here practically all their lives, contribute to the society, not be eligible for citizenship and therefore not be allowed to vote, despite clearly being members of that society. I understand the slight concern for "dual loyalties" but seriously, there should be a threshold below citizenship that allows for voting.
My preference is 5 years unbroken residency Residency should only be allowed in one country (which for most countries is already true for tax purposes). I would be amenable to caviats such as being a student for 6 years does not qualify you, but if you find a job after being a student, then those student years do count. Residency as a minor also counts so someone whose parents move country when they are 12 gets to vote when reaching 18.
I would be prepared to debate the exact length of residency required. I think it is crazy that people can move country with the plan of staying and working there for very many years, pay taxes, comply with every local rule but are not allowed to vote in that country.
P.S. Oh, and before someone says, why doesn't that person get citizenship, there are other political and financial reasons that come into play, such as losing citizenship and of their country of birth and so needing toobtain a visa to visit family or having to pay well over 2000 pounds in total (Switzerland).
Suella Braverman on R4 saying she had no objection to a transition period in the event of a marvellous, detail free deal from BJ being accepted by the EU. Fingers are twitching in preparation for that hand brake turn.
After battering the backstop for cleaving one part of the UK from the rest, she then managed to see no contradiction in Priti Patel's statement that in the event of no deal, FOM would end on 31st Oct while the CTA would remain in place allowing the whole population of Eastern Europe to decamp to that part of the UK via Dublin.
Brexiteers, eh?
Unless we're going to stop Polish people taking holidays here, there isn't really a contradiction in your final paragraph.
Apart from there should be no differentiation between NI and the rest of the UK except when approved by Tory Brexiteers and the DUP.
The UK is a democracy and has been for decades. You do not believe voting is a fundamental human right. Like me, you believe that it should be a right subject to qualification.
Of course the UK is a democracy, I don't dispute that it is. We have the right to elect MPs/MSPs/MEPs etc as relevant to any Parliament that sets our laws. Under the backstop that will no longer be the case though, we won't have MEPs but will still be subject to its laws.
I do believe it to be a fundamental human right. All free adult citizens should have the right without qualification. If we are in the backstop and subject to European Parliament laws how do we vote for MEPs for that?
What about free adult citizens who are not in possession of an id?
They have a right to get ID and a right to vote with it.
The UK is a democracy and has been for decades. You do not believe voting is a fundamental human right. Like me, you believe that it should be a right subject to qualification.
Of course the UK is a democracy, I don't dispute that it is. We have the right to elect MPs/MSPs/MEPs etc as relevant to any Parliament that sets our laws. Under the backstop that will no longer be the case though, we won't have MEPs but will still be subject to its laws.
I do believe it to be a fundamental human right. All free adult citizens should have the right without qualification. If we are in the backstop and subject to European Parliament laws how do we vote for MEPs for that?
What about free adult citizens who are not in possession of an id?
They have a right to get ID and a right to vote with it.
Prisoners?
Barring a miscarriage of justice have a right not to commit crimes and not be incarcerated. They are serving their sentence. Once they have served their sentence they can vote.
I think you are wrong. But if the EU commits to dropping the backstop unconditionally I would be fine with that.
"Fresh talks with no pre-conditions".
To be spun as a Win in order to get the extension through without an election or a leadership challenge. Then a 'Boris Deal' to be agreed - with the backstop there in substance but not in form. Also to be spun as a Win so as to get it ratified without an election or a leadership challenge. Then in the spring of 2020, that election.
This, in my view, is the Johnson plan.
Let's see if he can execute. If he can ... and wins the election ... Great Man.
On topic, Donald Trump himself is highly unpredictable. Like OGH, I don't think that he should be so short-priced to run again. There are too many different ways that he might blow up.
Gosh! I didn't know that OGH was even qualified to run for POTUS!
Can someone please tell me what OGH means? I've been wondering this for forever. Google suggests Oberste Gerichtshof, the supreme court in Austria and the Urban Dictionary suggests Obsessed (Lady) Gaga Hater.
I don't think that either of these fits Mr Smithson.
Our Genial Host
Thanks (and to Alan Brooke as well). I would never have figured that out on my own.
Meanwhile, the odds on a 2019 general election continue to drift on Betfair. It was last matched at 1.65. Personally I think that's still way too short. The window for a 2019 election is really quite narrow.
I think you are wrong. But if the EU commits to dropping the backstop unconditionally I would be fine with that.
"Fresh talks with no pre-conditions".
To be spun as a Win in order to get the extension through without an election or a leadership challenge. Then a 'Boris Deal' to be agreed - with the backstop there in substance but not in form. Also to be spun as a Win so as to get it ratified without an election or a leadership challenge. Then in the spring of 2020, that election.
This, in my view, is the Johnson plan.
Let's see if he can execute. If he can ... and wins the election ... Great Man.
You should declare a financial interest every time you make that claim.
The fires in the Amazon in Brazil and neighbouring countries as plotted on a chart on Sky news are frightening
I do not normally comment on climate change but like Brexit I accept the science but are more moderate in how we adapt over the next few decades
However, the Amazonian fires are a reminder to everyone to treat our planet and all those living on it, including all animals, with respect and concern and I am pleased Macron is raising it at the G7 this weekend
Bolsenaro (after sacking the government statistician that stated cutting down of the rain forest had increased significantly under his government) is now blaming foreign NGOs for starting fires to discredit him.
What a wonderful world HYUFD is wishing upon us with his confederation Trump, BJ, Salvini, Bolsenaro, Duerte and all the rest.
A judge only a few weeks ago deemed large swathes of the Amazon protected against oil and farm interests, in favour of indigenous peoples, and now those forests are ablaze. These are not natural forest fires supercharged by climate change (like Siberia atm). This is purposeful burning by people who want to make money.
And that requires worldwide condemnation and sanctions
Bolsonaro is, of course, another hero of the Brexit-backing English nationalist right who now run our country.
Not with this conservative.
It’s not your party any more, Mr G. The people now in control have no problem in allying with someone overseeing incalculable damage to global ecology, the environment and future generations. That’s hard-right, Brexit-backing, English nationalism for you.
Boris Johnson now has 28 days to find a viable alternative to the Irish backstop.
And '28 days later' ... ??
We would probably be about to start a GE campaign that would conclude well after the UK has left on 31st October. The 28 days will take us well past the window in the first week of September that might (or might not) allow for a GE vote before 31st October, so that option is definitively ruled out as a means of halting Brexit. The only hope that those seeking to frustrate Brexit have left is that they might be able to force through legislation that directs Johnson to seek an extension in the event of no agreement. That implies that they would also have to put an alternative government in place without a GE, as Johnson would certainly seek to force a GE in order to frustrate the passage of any such legislation by halting parliamentary business. With Brexit taking place before polling day, I think he could be reasonably confident of claiming most of the Brexit Party vote and winning that election.
The UK is a democracy and has been for decades. You do not believe voting is a fundamental human right. Like me, you believe that it should be a right subject to qualification.
Of course the UK is a democracy, I don't dispute that it is. We have the right to elect MPs/MSPs/MEPs etc as relevant to any Parliament that sets our laws. Under the backstop that will no longer be the case though, we won't have MEPs but will still be subject to its laws.
I do believe it to be a fundamental human right. All free adult citizens should have the right without qualification. If we are in the backstop and subject to European Parliament laws how do we vote for MEPs for that?
What about free adult citizens who are not in possession of an id?
They have a right to get ID and a right to vote with it.
Prisoners?
Barring a miscarriage of justice have a right not to commit crimes and not be incarcerated. They are serving their sentence. Once they have served their sentence they can vote.
So it's absolutely not a fundamental human right, in your opinion.
If the state has the power the remove a right from parts of society it deems 'unworthy' in some way, it is *not* a fundamental right. That's unarguable to me - though I know that is wishful thinking.
The UK is a democracy and has been for decades. You do not believe voting is a fundamental human right. Like me, you believe that it should be a right subject to qualification.
Of course the UK is a democracy, I don't dispute that it is. We have the right to elect MPs/MSPs/MEPs etc as relevant to any Parliament that sets our laws. Under the backstop that will no longer be the case though, we won't have MEPs but will still be subject to its laws.
I do believe it to be a fundamental human right. All free adult citizens should have the right without qualification. If we are in the backstop and subject to European Parliament laws how do we vote for MEPs for that?
What about free adult citizens who are not in possession of an id?
They have a right to get ID and a right to vote with it.
Prisoners?
Barring a miscarriage of justice have a right not to commit crimes and not be incarcerated. They are serving their sentence. Once they have served their sentence they can vote.
As an aside and point of info in the coming Shetland by election prisoners of certain sentence lengths will be allowed to vote. A first in the UK
Walsh was in favour of the death penalty (back in 2016) in 1 circumstance. In 2019 he's discovered that it puts innocent people at risk (which was why we got rid of it).
It’s no surprise that Brexit-backing, right-wing, English Nationalist zealots are huge admirers of Bolsonaro, is it? Destroying the world for future generations so a few people can get rich now is pretty much what they’re all about.
Walsh was in favour of the death penalty (back in 2016) in 1 circumstance. In 2019 he's discovered that it puts innocent people at risk (which was why we got rid of it).
You don't win a GOP primary by being against the death penalty though. This isn't the UK Tories
Obviously I'm opposed to the death penalty on the basis we might get it wrong, even in this circumstance. Full life tariff for murder of a police officer performing his duties would be appropriate I think though.
The fires in the Amazon in Brazil and neighbouring countries as plotted on a chart on Sky news are frightening
I do not normally comment on climate change but like Brexit I accept the science but are more moderate in how we adapt over the next few decades
However, the Amazonian fires are a reminder to everyone to treat our planet and all those living on it, including all animals, with respect and concern and I am pleased Macron is raising it at the G7 this weekend
Bolsenaro (after sacking the government statistician that stated cutting down of the rain forest had increased significantly under his government) is now blaming foreign NGOs for starting fires to discredit him.
What a wonderful world HYUFD is wishing upon us with his confederation Trump, BJ, Salvini, Bolsenaro, Duerte and all the rest.
A judge only a few weeks ago deemed large swathes of the Amazon protected against oil and farm interests, in favour of indigenous peoples, and now those forests are ablaze. These are not natural forest fires supercharged by climate change (like Siberia atm). This is purposeful burning by people who want to make money.
And that requires worldwide condemnation and sanctions
Bolsonaro is, of course, another hero of the Brexit-backing English nationalist right who now run our country.
Not with this conservative.
It’s not your party any more, Mr G. The people now in control have no problem in allying with someone overseeing incalculable damage to global ecology, the environment and future generations. That’s hard-right, Brexit-backing, English nationalism for you.
So the next step, assuming you're right about what the UK thinks (which is complicated IMHO) is to refuse a transition or a trade deal until the UK agree to an option that's long-term non-terrible for one of their members. This may take some time after crashing out with No Deal.
Do you now follow what the players in this are doing? Upthread you were talking like you were puzzled.
No long term the solution is to agree 1 or 4 or a hard border. Those are the only common areas we agree on.
They may prefer 2 or 3 but since they aren't an option 1 or 4 or hard border are areas of mutual acccord.
I think what's happening here is that you're trying really, really hard not to understand what's going on.
The UK is a democracy and has been for decades. You do not believe voting is a fundamental human right. Like me, you believe that it should be a right subject to qualification.
Of course the UK is a democracy, I don't dispute that it is. We have the right to elect MPs/MSPs/MEPs etc as relevant to any Parliament that sets our laws. Under the backstop that will no longer be the case though, we won't have MEPs but will still be subject to its laws.
I do believe it to be a fundamental human right. All free adult citizens should have the right without qualification. If we are in the backstop and subject to European Parliament laws how do we vote for MEPs for that?
What about free adult citizens who are not in possession of an id?
They have a right to get ID and a right to vote with it.
Prisoners?
Barring a miscarriage of justice have a right not to commit crimes and not be incarcerated. They are serving their sentence. Once they have served their sentence they can vote.
So it's absolutely not a fundamental human right, in your opinion.
If the state has the power the remove a right from parts of society it deems 'unworthy' in some way, it is *not* a fundamental right. That's unarguable to me - though I know that is wishful thinking.
Prisoners lose many fundamental rights following habeas corpus and a fair trial.
Are you proposing prisoners should be as free as free citizens?
I suppose the signs were all there, and certain PBers will now be welcoming him to the New World Order.
'Since his resignation as Prime Minister and loss of his party chairmanship, Sigmundur Davíð has repeatedly asserted that he was the victim of a global conspiracy to bring him down. He has implied that George Soros, "banking elites", the Swedish public broadcaster, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and the Icelandic public broadcaster conspired against him. In February 2017, Sigmundur Davíð said that there had been a "hostile takeover" of the Progressive Party and that the current leadership of the party no longer reflects the will of the majority of the party members. In March 2017, Sigmundur Davíð further alleged that the SVTs Uppdrag granskning interview was "falsified", and that the interviewers had practised how to confuse him as much as they could.
In September 2017, after the announcement of a snap election, Sigmundur Davíð stated in an open letter on his website that he was seeking to form a new political party before the 2017 Icelandic parliamentary election. His new party, the Centre Party Miðflokkurinn, has been described as "populist". Miðflokkurinn finished fifth in the 2017 parliamentary election with seven candidates, including Sigmundur Davíð, being elected to the Althing. It received 10.9% of the vote, slightly ahead of the Progressive Party. Since 2017, Sigmundur Davíð has been a member of the Icelandic Division of the International Parliamentary Assembly.
In 2019, he criticized the Paris Climate Accords as pointless, and argued that actions taken to curb climate change will not have an impact.'
Boris Johnson now has 28 days to find a viable alternative to the Irish backstop.
Huge fudge coming probably by both sides.
Overnight on 5 live (4.00am) there was a report from France which surprised me in so far as the French do not want dislocation of travel and trade with the UK and indicated that if chaos happens on the 31st October, Macron would come under intense pressure and blame.
Now this was from the French side and it is the first time I have heard an adverse report from the EU side on any UK broadcast media
Anyone interested should be able to get it on playback
Johnson cannot risk a fudge. He has to deliver a No Deal Brexit. Politically, anything else would be a disaster. And this is all about politics, nothing else.
I think he hopes, and perhaps believes, that the EU will fudge things sufficiently for him to claim victory and do a deal. But this will not happen - they are going to push him to the brink, though ATM I think parliament will find a way of stopping no deal, though only at the very last moment, maybe a few days before. Whatever happens Boris will be toast.
Walsh was in favour of the death penalty (back in 2016) in 1 circumstance. In 2019 he's discovered that it puts innocent people at risk (which was why we got rid of it).
Indeed. It's the reason I oppose it.
If you could 100% guarantee only guilty e.g. Cop killers would get it then I would be ok with it. It is a consequence of their actions. You can't no system is perfect and such a mistake is unforgivable therefore it is morally wrong.
The UK is a democracy and has been for decades. You do not believe voting is a fundamental human right. Like me, you believe that it should be a right subject to qualification.
Of course the UK is a democracy, I don't dispute that it is. We have the right to elect MPs/MSPs/MEPs etc as relevant to any Parliament that sets our laws. Under the backstop that will no longer be the case though, we won't have MEPs but will still be subject to its laws.
I do believe it to be a fundamental human right. All free adult citizens should have the right without qualification. If we are in the backstop and subject to European Parliament laws how do we vote for MEPs for that?
What about free adult citizens who are not in possession of an id?
They have a right to get ID and a right to vote with it.
Prisoners?
Barring a miscarriage of justice have a right not to commit crimes and not be incarcerated. They are serving their sentence. Once they have served their sentence they can vote.
Those that believe that democracy should be at the heart of our consitution need to be looking at getting a new one. The constitution we have is a just a tinkered form of a mixed constitution - a Parliament composed of the Sovereign (monarchy), a House of Lords (aristocracy) and House of Commons (democracy). If you think we should be wholly democractic, fine, but we need significantly greater reform than that of the last two decades, or even the last century.
We would probably be about to start a GE campaign that would conclude well after the UK has left on 31st October. The 28 days will take us well past the window in the first week of September that might (or might not) allow for a GE vote before 31st October, so that option is definitively ruled out as a means of halting Brexit. The only hope that those seeking to frustrate Brexit have left is that they might be able to force through legislation that directs Johnson to seek an extension in the event of no agreement. That implies that they would also have to put an alternative government in place without a GE, as Johnson would certainly seek to force a GE in order to frustrate the passage of any such legislation by halting parliamentary business. With Brexit taking place before polling day, I think he could be reasonably confident of claiming most of the Brexit Party vote and winning that election.
So the next step, assuming you're right about what the UK thinks (which is complicated IMHO) is to refuse a transition or a trade deal until the UK agree to an option that's long-term non-terrible for one of their members. This may take some time after crashing out with No Deal.
Do you now follow what the players in this are doing? Upthread you were talking like you were puzzled.
No long term the solution is to agree 1 or 4 or a hard border. Those are the only common areas we agree on.
They may prefer 2 or 3 but since they aren't an option 1 or 4 or hard border are areas of mutual acccord.
I think what's happening here is that you're trying really, really hard not to understand what's going on.
These conversations remind of arguments I've had with creationists or AGW deniers*. A bullet-proof facade of deflection, denialism and obtuseness in the face of rational argument and facts. It's a large part of why I'm much less active on here; it's all so futile.
*Specifically those who denied it was happening at all, who are thankfully less and less common, having been replaced by the "ok it's happening, but it will be ok because reasons".
Redwood even voted against the Brady amendment which got a Commons majority, Boris does not need him
No-one needs Redwood in the sense of his being of any use for anything. He's always been just grit in life's Vaseline.
Redwood has always been a diehard No Dealer, he along with the likes of Chope refused to even vote for the Brady amendment which passed the Commons by 317 votes to 301.
Yet Boris is right to stick to trying to get the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop which passed the Commons unlike the Withdrawal Agreement as is which was voted down by the Commons 3 times.
The Brady amendment is the only Brexit option to have passed the Commons with EUref2 and revoke also being voted down by the Commons in the indicative votes
But the EU will not accept anything resembling to the Brady amendment, and it only passed the Commons because everyone knew the plan was a unicorn and would never actually happen.
In the very unlikely event of Johnson coming up with an amended version of May's deal agreed with the EU I have no doubt that Farage and his supporters in the ERG will find many new faults in it which make it completely unacceptable. Cries of betrayal will ring out across the land. This morning's comments from Davis and Cash are a harbinger. Johnson has many enemies and few friends and is trusted by nobody. He will not be able to sell a deal.
Macron and Merkel did not rule out a technical solution for the Irish border last night and in any case as last night's council by election in Rugby showed the Brexit Party is now picking up Labour votes as much as Tories, provided Boris does not extend again but delivers Brexit Deal or No Deal he can win a Tory majority regardless of Farage
He cannot deliver a deal. No deal - which as a polling expert you will know is supported by at most 33% of voters, and that is before they have actually experienced it - is hardly likely to enhance the Tories' prospects.
It is hardly likely to enhance the Tories' prospects only if you accept that the worst case scenarios peddled by Project Fear are born out by reality.
I suppose the signs were all there, and certain PBers will now be welcoming him to the New World Order.
'Since his resignation as Prime Minister and loss of his party chairmanship, Sigmundur Davíð has repeatedly asserted that he was the victim of a global conspiracy to bring him down. He has implied that George Soros, "banking elites", the Swedish public broadcaster, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and the Icelandic public broadcaster conspired against him. In February 2017, Sigmundur Davíð said that there had been a "hostile takeover" of the Progressive Party and that the current leadership of the party no longer reflects the will of the majority of the party members. In March 2017, Sigmundur Davíð further alleged that the SVTs Uppdrag granskning interview was "falsified", and that the interviewers had practised how to confuse him as much as they could.
In September 2017, after the announcement of a snap election, Sigmundur Davíð stated in an open letter on his website that he was seeking to form a new political party before the 2017 Icelandic parliamentary election. His new party, the Centre Party Miðflokkurinn, has been described as "populist". Miðflokkurinn finished fifth in the 2017 parliamentary election with seven candidates, including Sigmundur Davíð, being elected to the Althing. It received 10.9% of the vote, slightly ahead of the Progressive Party. Since 2017, Sigmundur Davíð has been a member of the Icelandic Division of the International Parliamentary Assembly.
In 2019, he criticized the Paris Climate Accords as pointless, and argued that actions taken to curb climate change will not have an impact.'
There are so many layers of tragedy regarding this. Leaders like Trump, Bolsenaro and Xi Jinping aren't stupid people so I can only assume they are more interested in the preservation and perpetuation of the form of capitalism which has lined their and their friends' pockets and has ravaged so much of the planet rather than showing real generational leadership.
It is your grandchildren and their children and my nephews and their children who will end up paying the price for our short-sighted profligacy. Yes, I'm confident human ingenuity will come to the rescue but the damage has been done and all we can do is mitigate the impacts down the line.
The impact of even modest climate change will affect millions of people - maybe not us directly but as areas of the world suffer their populations will migrate to other places and what will our response be? We see it in Australia and Italy - the answer isn't humanity but inhumanity - there's no future for any of us if that's all we have.
In fairness Boris/Cummings have played a blinder over the last couple of days. The euro-sceptic press are in such a frenzy of adoration that it will be difficult for them to row back and be critical when Boris requests an extension to give Theresa's WA another go. They've achieved something else too that's very clever: everyone is now worshipping Boris because he fought off the horror of No Deal. So No Deal, which many claimed was the optimal outcome only a few days ago, has now been vilified and removed from the equation. Smart.
The UK is a democracy and has been for decades. You do not believe voting is a fundamental human right. Like me, you believe that it should be a right subject to qualification.
Of course the UK is a democracy, I don't dispute that it is. We have the right to elect MPs/MSPs/MEPs etc as relevant to any Parliament that sets our laws. Under the backstop that will no longer be the case though, we won't have MEPs but will still be subject to its laws.
I do believe it to be a fundamental human right. All free adult citizens should have the right without qualification. If we are in the backstop and subject to European Parliament laws how do we vote for MEPs for that?
What about free adult citizens who are not in possession of an id?
They have a right to get ID and a right to vote with it.
Prisoners?
Barring a miscarriage of justice have a right not to commit crimes and not be incarcerated. They are serving their sentence. Once they have served their sentence they can vote.
Those that believe that democracy should be at the heart of our consitution need to be looking at getting a new one. The constitution we have is a just a tinkered form of a mixed constitution - a Parliament composed of the Sovereign (monarchy), a House of Lords (aristocracy) and House of Commons (democracy). If you think we should be wholly democractic, fine, but we need significantly greater reform than that of the last two decades, or even the last century.
I am a republican because of that. So yes.
However in reality the monarchy don't interfere in politics so it is moot.
Also in reality due to the Parliament Act the Commons can override the Lords.
The UK is a democracy and has been for decades. You do not believe voting is a fundamental human right. Like me, you believe that it should be a right subject to qualification.
Of course the UK is a democracy, I don't dispute that it is. We have the right to elect MPs/MSPs/MEPs etc as relevant to any Parliament that sets our laws. Under the backstop that will no longer be the case though, we won't have MEPs but will still be subject to its laws.
I do believe it to be a fundamental human right. All free adult citizens should have the right without qualification. If we are in the backstop and subject to European Parliament laws how do we vote for MEPs for that?
What about free adult citizens who are not in possession of an id?
They have a right to get ID and a right to vote with it.
Prisoners?
Barring a miscarriage of justice have a right not to commit crimes and not be incarcerated. They are serving their sentence. Once they have served their sentence they can vote.
So it's absolutely not a fundamental human right, in your opinion.
If the state has the power the remove a right from parts of society it deems 'unworthy' in some way, it is *not* a fundamental right. That's unarguable to me - though I know that is wishful thinking.
Prisoners lose many fundamental rights following habeas corpus and a fair trial.
Are you proposing prisoners should be as free as free citizens?
You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "fundamental" and how it's used with regard to human rights. As such I'm withdrawing from this discussion. We can agree to disagree.
Boris Johnson now has 28 days to find a viable alternative to the Irish backstop.
And '28 days later' ... ??
We would probably be about to start a GE campaign that would conclude well after the UK has left on 31st October. The 28 days will take us well past the window in the first week of September that might (or might not) allow for a GE vote before 31st October, so that option is definitively ruled out as a means of halting Brexit. The only hope that those seeking to frustrate Brexit have left is that they might be able to force through legislation that directs Johnson to seek an extension in the event of no agreement. That implies that they would also have to put an alternative government in place without a GE, as Johnson would certainly seek to force a GE in order to frustrate the passage of any such legislation by halting parliamentary business. With Brexit taking place before polling day, I think he could be reasonably confident of claiming most of the Brexit Party vote and winning that election.
Johnson does not have the power to force a GE. He would need opposition support and the opposition would demand an A50 extension as the price of such support.
We would probably be about to start a GE campaign that would conclude well after the UK has left on 31st October. The 28 days will take us well past the window in the first week of September that might (or might not) allow for a GE vote before 31st October, so that option is definitively ruled out as a means of halting Brexit. The only hope that those seeking to frustrate Brexit have left is that they might be able to force through legislation that directs Johnson to seek an extension in the event of no agreement. That implies that they would also have to put an alternative government in place without a GE, as Johnson would certainly seek to force a GE in order to frustrate the passage of any such legislation by halting parliamentary business. With Brexit taking place before polling day, I think he could be reasonably confident of claiming most of the Brexit Party vote and winning that election.
You have clearly bought 'Do or Die!'.
Hope you didn't break the bank to pay for it.
"Do or Die". More loaded Remainer language. I am in fact quite sanguine about the prospect of the UK leaving on 31st October with negotiations continuing beyond that point in an atmosphere of realpolitik.
We would probably be about to start a GE campaign that would conclude well after the UK has left on 31st October. The 28 days will take us well past the window in the first week of September that might (or might not) allow for a GE vote before 31st October, so that option is definitively ruled out as a means of halting Brexit. The only hope that those seeking to frustrate Brexit have left is that they might be able to force through legislation that directs Johnson to seek an extension in the event of no agreement. That implies that they would also have to put an alternative government in place without a GE, as Johnson would certainly seek to force a GE in order to frustrate the passage of any such legislation by halting parliamentary business. With Brexit taking place before polling day, I think he could be reasonably confident of claiming most of the Brexit Party vote and winning that election.
You have clearly bought 'Do or Die!'.
Hope you didn't break the bank to pay for it.
"Do or Die". More loaded Remainer language. I am in fact quite sanguine about the prospect of the UK leaving on 31st October with negotiations continuing beyond that point in an atmosphere of realpolitik.
These conversations remind of arguments I've had with creationists or AGW deniers*. A bullet-proof facade of deflection, denialism and obtuseness in the face of rational argument and facts. It's a large part of why I'm much less active on here; it's all so futile.
*Specifically those who denied it was happening at all, who are thankfully less and less common, having been replaced by the "ok it's happening, but it will be ok because reasons".
Agree, just somehow got sucked into that one in a moment of weakness.
Just think where we'd be if "Remain" had won. Osborne would be favourite for Tory leader about to receive the nod at conference from David Cameron's 9 triumphant years as PM.
Just think where we'd be if "Remain" had won. Osborne would be favourite for Tory leader about to receive the nod at conference from David Cameron's 9 triumphant years as PM.
Just think where we'd be if "Remain" had won. Osborne would be favourite for Tory leader about to receive the nod at conference from David Cameron's 9 triumphant years as PM.
Just think where we'd be if "Remain" had won. Osborne would be favourite for Tory leader about to receive the nod at conference from David Cameron's 9 triumphant years as PM.
Osborne's departure from politics makes all of Brexit worthwhile :-)
Just think where we'd be if "Remain" had won. Osborne would be favourite for Tory leader about to receive the nod at conference from David Cameron's 9 triumphant years as PM.
If it had been 52-48 to Remain, we'd have heard endlessly about how the 16 million could not be ignored, and a Brexiteer would have deposed Cameron.
These conversations remind of arguments I've had with creationists or AGW deniers*. A bullet-proof facade of deflection, denialism and obtuseness in the face of rational argument and facts. It's a large part of why I'm much less active on here; it's all so futile.
*Specifically those who denied it was happening at all, who are thankfully less and less common, having been replaced by the "ok it's happening, but it will be ok because reasons".
Agree, just somehow got sucked into that one in a moment of weakness.
Some comments are like those clickbait adds you get under provincial news website articles. You avoid them for weeks and then get suckered in by one.
"You won't believe what she looks like now!" becomes "You won't believe he/she actually holds this opinion!".
Just think where we'd be if "Remain" had won. Osborne would be favourite for Tory leader about to receive the nod at conference from David Cameron's 9 triumphant years as PM.
If it had been 52-48 to Remain, we'd have heard endlessly about how the 16 million could not be ignored, and a Brexiteer would have deposed Cameron.
Which begs the obvious question: who exactly would the USA be paying the money to? Who owns Scotland?
Unionists keep telling us that Scotland is a dead-weight, pulling down the Yookay. In that case, she can’t be worth anything. You lot should be paying Trump to take Scotland off your hands.
It's amazing how Boris has fundamentally changed the atmosphere in just a few days. Suddenly to want to do a deal with the EU is the very epitome of groovy. Anyone demanding a 'clean Brexit' will now be viewed as either slightly unhinged or a sour old rotter who needs to get with the programme. If Boris carries on like this it'll be 99% in favour of rejoin by Christmas!
Boris Johnson now has 28 days to find a viable alternative to the Irish backstop.
Huge fudge coming probably by both sides.
Overnight on 5 live (4.00am) there was a report from France which surprised me in so far as the French do not want dislocation of travel and trade with the UK and indicated that if chaos happens on the 31st October, Macron would come under intense pressure and blame.
Now this was from the French side and it is the first time I have heard an adverse report from the EU side on any UK broadcast media
Anyone interested should be able to get it on playback
Johnson cannot risk a fudge. He has to deliver a No Deal Brexit. Politically, anything else would be a disaster. And this is all about politics, nothing else.
I think he hopes, and perhaps believes, that the EU will fudge things sufficiently for him to claim victory and do a deal. But this will not happen - they are going to push him to the brink, though ATM I think parliament will find a way of stopping no deal, though only at the very last moment, maybe a few days before. Whatever happens Boris will be toast.
Not sure that Parliament blocking Brexit (no deal or otherwise) toasts Boris tbh. Particularly against Corbyn and a split opposition in an election in the immediate aftermath.
Just think where we'd be if "Remain" had won. Osborne would be favourite for Tory leader about to receive the nod at conference from David Cameron's 9 triumphant years as PM.
If it had been 52-48 to Remain, we'd have heard endlessly about how the 16 million could not be ignored, and a Brexiteer would have deposed Cameron.
and then they would have been ignored anyway as per the last 40 years
Just think where we'd be if "Remain" had won. Osborne would be favourite for Tory leader about to receive the nod at conference from David Cameron's 9 triumphant years as PM.
And Ukip would be on 25% in the polls...
Counterfactual history - off to alternatehistory.com with you !!
Seriously, would they? Farage is an empty vessel who makes a lot of noise but three and a half years would have passed in the alternate reality as well and without the Brexit millstone, the Government would have done other things. Would the Conservative Party have remained united or would a small group have splintered to either join UKIP or form the European Reform Party?
It's a huge subject and I think very complicated and more so as time passes.
Just think where we'd be if "Remain" had won. Osborne would be favourite for Tory leader about to receive the nod at conference from David Cameron's 9 triumphant years as PM.
If it had been 52-48 to Remain, we'd have heard endlessly about how the 16 million could not be ignored, and a Brexiteer would have deposed Cameron.
Well you can virtually guarantee that both hardcore remainers and Brexiteers would have swapped arguments. The difference is there would be virtually no chance of Brexit being implemented at this point.
Just think where we'd be if "Remain" had won. Osborne would be favourite for Tory leader about to receive the nod at conference from David Cameron's 9 triumphant years as PM.
And Ukip would be on 25% in the polls...
Counterfactual history - off to alternatehistory.com with you !!
Seriously, would they? Farage is an empty vessel who makes a lot of noise but three and a half years would have passed in the alternate reality as well and without the Brexit millstone, the Government would have done other things. Would the Conservative Party have remained united or would a small group have splintered to either join UKIP or form the European Reform Party?
It's a huge subject and I think very complicated and more so as time passes.
I had my stab at this last year. It was a lot of fun writing it:
Just think where we'd be if "Remain" had won. Osborne would be favourite for Tory leader about to receive the nod at conference from David Cameron's 9 triumphant years as PM.
If it had been 52-48 to Remain, we'd have heard endlessly about how the 16 million could not be ignored, and a Brexiteer would have deposed Cameron.
Well you can virtually guarantee that both hardcore remainers and Brexiteers would have swapped arguments. The difference is there would be virtually no chance of Brexit being implemented at this point.
I think there'd be a very strong chance a second referendum would be in the Tory manifesto to try to wins the votes of Brexiteers wanting another go.
Just think where we'd be if "Remain" had won. Osborne would be favourite for Tory leader about to receive the nod at conference from David Cameron's 9 triumphant years as PM.
And Ukip would be on 25% in the polls...
Counterfactual history - off to alternatehistory.com with you !!
Seriously, would they? Farage is an empty vessel who makes a lot of noise but three and a half years would have passed in the alternate reality as well and without the Brexit millstone, the Government would have done other things. Would the Conservative Party have remained united or would a small group have splintered to either join UKIP or form the European Reform Party?
It's a huge subject and I think very complicated and more so as time passes.
No idea really. I suppose Cameron's deal would have been given some scrutiny. In the event of any (or even all of it) not being ratified by the EU there could have been a bit of fuss over it.
Personally I'd have happily moved on, albeit a lot less sympathetic to moaning about housing shortages and food banks and all the rest of it.
Just think where we'd be if "Remain" had won. Osborne would be favourite for Tory leader about to receive the nod at conference from David Cameron's 9 triumphant years as PM.
If it had been 52-48 to Remain, we'd have heard endlessly about how the 16 million could not be ignored, and a Brexiteer would have deposed Cameron.
Too true, Brexiteers wracked with concern about the wishes of the 38% being ignored in Scotland are bad enough, the whining in that scenario would have burst eardrums.
Just think where we'd be if "Remain" had won. Osborne would be favourite for Tory leader about to receive the nod at conference from David Cameron's 9 triumphant years as PM.
If it had been 52-48 to Remain, we'd have heard endlessly about how the 16 million could not be ignored, and a Brexiteer would have deposed Cameron.
Yep. And how because Leave came so close to winning, we should have another referendum (and that Leave would have won but the result was fixed). Oh well.
We would probably be about to start a GE campaign that would conclude well after the UK has left on 31st October. The 28 days will take us well past the window in the first week of September that might (or might not) allow for a GE vote before 31st October, so that option is definitively ruled out as a means of halting Brexit. The only hope that those seeking to frustrate Brexit have left is that they might be able to force through legislation that directs Johnson to seek an extension in the event of no agreement. That implies that they would also have to put an alternative government in place without a GE, as Johnson would certainly seek to force a GE in order to frustrate the passage of any such legislation by halting parliamentary business. With Brexit taking place before polling day, I think he could be reasonably confident of claiming most of the Brexit Party vote and winning that election.
You have clearly bought 'Do or Die!'.
Hope you didn't break the bank to pay for it.
"Do or Die". More loaded Remainer language. I am in fact quite sanguine about the prospect of the UK leaving on 31st October with negotiations continuing beyond that point in an atmosphere of realpolitik.
"Do or Die" weren't those Boris' words ?
But not with the loaded pejorative meaning you imply in using them in order to demean Johnson's motives.
Similarly "No Deal" was used by May in her Lancaster House speech at a point when she appeared committed to a meaningful Brexit but was wording subsequently jumped on by Remainers and given a pejorative meaning. i.e. It is not a question of whether or not the UK eventually reaches a "deal" of some sort with the EU (with or without tariffs), it is a question of whether such an arrangement is in place by 31st October. And it is clear that no comprehensive deal will be in place by 31st October because even May's so called "Deal" was really just an agreement to keep talking on the devil in the detail after the UK had conceded that it that would have both its hands tied behind its back in those talks.
The UK is a democracy and has been for decades. You do not believe voting is a fundamental human right. Like me, you believe that it should be a right subject to qualification.
Of course the UK is a democracy...
What about free adult citizens who are not in possession of an id?
They have a right to get ID and a right to vote with it.
Prisoners?
Barring a miscarriage of justice have a right not to commit crimes and not be incarcerated. They are serving their sentence. Once they have served their sentence they can vote.
Those that believe that democracy should be at the heart of our consitution need to be looking at getting a new one. The constitution we have is a just a tinkered form of a mixed constitution - a Parliament composed of the Sovereign (monarchy), a House of Lords (aristocracy) and House of Commons (democracy). If you think we should be wholly democractic, fine, but we need significantly greater reform than that of the last two decades, or even the last century.
I am a republican because of that. So yes.
However in reality the monarchy don't interfere in politics so it is moot.
Also in reality due to the Parliament Act the Commons can override the Lords.
So supreme authority rides with the Commons.
Your last point is open to debate but I think you have a fundamental philosophical difference with many posters on here that no amount of debate will overcome. You believe in democracy as an absolute. I, for my part, do not. Liberal democracy, which is essentially what we have in the west, means that there are checks against what we consider to be “the tyranny of the majority”. That is why we shudder at the phrase “the will of the people”. Yes, ultimately democracy prevails, but there are significant checks in getting there - hence the difficulty in changing the constitution in most countries.
So the backstop has democratic flaws but from a liberal perspective it is perfectly acceptable to preserve the peace in a troubled part of our islands. Should the sovereign will of the people so decide it can elect a government to walk away from it. It’s not easy but some things never are.
Comments
Thanks for linking to the article, it was very good.
They have increased the number of undergraduate degrees they award fivefold since 1990, while the proportion of Firsts they hand out has quadrupled – from 7 per cent in 1994 to 29 per cent in 2019. For every student who got a First in the early 1990s, nearly 20 do now. Masters’ degrees, meanwhile, are nearly ten times as common as they were.
Overnight on 5 live (4.00am) there was a report from France which surprised me in so far as the French do not want dislocation of travel and trade with the UK and indicated that if chaos happens on the 31st October, Macron would come under intense pressure and blame.
Now this was from the French side and it is the first time I have heard an adverse report from the EU side on any UK broadcast media
Anyone interested should be able to get it on playback
In the very unlikely event of Johnson coming up with an amended version of May's deal agreed with the EU I have no doubt that Farage and his supporters in the ERG will find many new faults in it which make it completely unacceptable. Cries of betrayal will ring out across the land. This morning's comments from Davis and Cash are a harbinger. Johnson has many enemies and few friends and is trusted by nobody. He will not be able to sell a deal.
What a wonderful world HYUFD is wishing upon us with his confederation Trump, BJ, Salvini, Bolsenaro, Duerte and all the rest.
The UK's order of preference while maintaining our ability to keep our abiity to set our own laws and standards independently is:
1)
4)
Hard border
2 and 3 are nixed.
Google suggests Oberste Gerichtshof, the supreme court in Austria and the Urban Dictionary suggests Obsessed (Lady) Gaga Hater.
I don't think that either of these fits Mr Smithson.
or if you piss him off enough Obergruppenfuehrer Himmler :-)
"Because of our renewed energy and clear resolution to leave, our European friends have seen the light and have agreed to fresh talks with no pre-conditions with a view to agreeing a deal that works for all. It would be foolish not to take advantage of this and therefore the article 50 deadline will be amended from 31 October 2019 to ?/?/2020. Just rejoice in that news."
I hope you are getting ready to sell this. Boris expects ...
"No ifs, no buts"
Do you now follow what the players in this are doing? Upthread you were talking like you were puzzled.
They may prefer 2 or 3 but since they aren't an option 1 or 4 or hard border are areas of mutual acccord.
Residency as a minor also counts so someone whose parents move country when they are 12 gets to vote when reaching 18.
I would be prepared to debate the exact length of residency required. I think it is crazy that people can move country with the plan of staying and working there for very many years, pay taxes, comply with every local rule but are not allowed to vote in that country.
P.S. Oh, and before someone says, why doesn't that person get citizenship, there are other political and financial reasons that come into play, such as losing citizenship and of their country of birth and so needing toobtain a visa to visit family or having to pay well over 2000 pounds in total (Switzerland).
Migration isn't simply controlled at the border.
To be spun as a Win in order to get the extension through without an election or a leadership challenge. Then a 'Boris Deal' to be agreed - with the backstop there in substance but not in form. Also to be spun as a Win so as to get it ratified without an election or a leadership challenge. Then in the spring of 2020, that election.
This, in my view, is the Johnson plan.
Let's see if he can execute. If he can ... and wins the election ... Great Man.
https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/751245834793132032
Till he isn't
https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/1164530599698284546
If the state has the power the remove a right from parts of society it deems 'unworthy' in some way, it is *not* a fundamental right. That's unarguable to me - though I know that is wishful thinking.
Walsh was in favour of the death penalty (back in 2016) in 1 circumstance.
In 2019 he's discovered that it puts innocent people at risk (which was why we got rid of it).
Obviously I'm opposed to the death penalty on the basis we might get it wrong, even in this circumstance. Full life tariff for murder of a police officer performing his duties would be appropriate I think though.
No new taxes. No new runway at Heathrow. Immigration below 100,000.
Get ready for the latest (and maybe the biggest).
Are you proposing prisoners should be as free as free citizens?
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1164438178318733312?s=20
I suppose the signs were all there, and certain PBers will now be welcoming him to the New World Order.
'Since his resignation as Prime Minister and loss of his party chairmanship, Sigmundur Davíð has repeatedly asserted that he was the victim of a global conspiracy to bring him down. He has implied that George Soros, "banking elites", the Swedish public broadcaster, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and the Icelandic public broadcaster conspired against him. In February 2017, Sigmundur Davíð said that there had been a "hostile takeover" of the Progressive Party and that the current leadership of the party no longer reflects the will of the majority of the party members. In March 2017, Sigmundur Davíð further alleged that the SVTs Uppdrag granskning interview was "falsified", and that the interviewers had practised how to confuse him as much as they could.
In September 2017, after the announcement of a snap election, Sigmundur Davíð stated in an open letter on his website that he was seeking to form a new political party before the 2017 Icelandic parliamentary election. His new party, the Centre Party Miðflokkurinn, has been described as "populist". Miðflokkurinn finished fifth in the 2017 parliamentary election with seven candidates, including Sigmundur Davíð, being elected to the Althing. It received 10.9% of the vote, slightly ahead of the Progressive Party. Since 2017, Sigmundur Davíð has been a member of the Icelandic Division of the International Parliamentary Assembly.
In 2019, he criticized the Paris Climate Accords as pointless, and argued that actions taken to curb climate change will not have an impact.'
If you could 100% guarantee only guilty e.g. Cop killers would get it then I would be ok with it. It is a consequence of their actions. You can't no system is perfect and such a mistake is unforgivable therefore it is morally wrong.
Hope you didn't break the bank to pay for it.
*Specifically those who denied it was happening at all, who are thankfully less and less common, having been replaced by the "ok it's happening, but it will be ok because reasons".
:-)
It is your grandchildren and their children and my nephews and their children who will end up paying the price for our short-sighted profligacy. Yes, I'm confident human ingenuity will come to the rescue but the damage has been done and all we can do is mitigate the impacts down the line.
The impact of even modest climate change will affect millions of people - maybe not us directly but as areas of the world suffer their populations will migrate to other places and what will our response be? We see it in Australia and Italy - the answer isn't humanity but inhumanity - there's no future for any of us if that's all we have.
However in reality the monarchy don't interfere in politics so it is moot.
Also in reality due to the Parliament Act the Commons can override the Lords.
So supreme authority rides with the Commons.
(Khan 1.43/1.45, Bailey 9.6/14.5, Benita 7/8.6, Berry 60/100)
https://twitter.com/visualsatire/status/1164794504987074560/photo/1
"You won't believe what she looks like now!" becomes "You won't believe he/she actually holds this opinion!".
The man who fronted the leave campaign perhaps?
‘Donald Trump should buy Scotland, not Greenland’
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/donald-trump-should-buy-scotland-not-greenland-jim-duffy-1-4988969
Which begs the obvious question: who exactly would the USA be paying the money to? Who owns Scotland?
Unionists keep telling us that Scotland is a dead-weight, pulling down the Yookay. In that case, she can’t be worth anything. You lot should be paying Trump to take Scotland off your hands.
https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1164821882006167552
Particularly against Corbyn and a split opposition in an election in the immediate aftermath.
Seriously, would they? Farage is an empty vessel who makes a lot of noise but three and a half years would have passed in the alternate reality as well and without the Brexit millstone, the Government would have done other things. Would the Conservative Party have remained united or would a small group have splintered to either join UKIP or form the European Reform Party?
It's a huge subject and I think very complicated and more so as time passes.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/12/21/dangerous-corner-where-would-we-be-now-if-remain-had-won-5248/
Personally I'd have happily moved on, albeit a lot less sympathetic to moaning about housing shortages and food banks and all the rest of it.
Similarly "No Deal" was used by May in her Lancaster House speech at a point when she appeared committed to a meaningful Brexit but was wording subsequently jumped on by Remainers and given a pejorative meaning. i.e. It is not a question of whether or not the UK eventually reaches a "deal" of some sort with the EU (with or without tariffs), it is a question of whether such an arrangement is in place by 31st October. And it is clear that no comprehensive deal will be in place by 31st October because even May's so called "Deal" was really just an agreement to keep talking on the devil in the detail after the UK had conceded that it that would have both its hands tied behind its back in those talks.
So the backstop has democratic flaws but from a liberal perspective it is perfectly acceptable to preserve the peace in a troubled part of our islands. Should the sovereign will of the people so decide it can elect a government to walk away from it. It’s not easy but some things never are.