Just had a 'nuisance' call from an 01296 number; someone purporting to represent a firm called "Call Guardian'. Guy ..... heavy South Asian accent ...... knew my name. I think he was trying to sign me up to some protection racket. His number's on my 'Call Protect' now. 01296 is Aylesbury.
For many years, I have received an occasional from a withheld number. A lady (it is always a lady), says, “I’m told you woz in an accident?”
I keep wondering if the “woz” is scripted somehow.
When I get those phone calls I always say 'yes, it was awful I lost both my legs and i'm in a coma...' and then wait for what they say.
Mr. Boy, voting to leave the EU then thrice against a deal puts someone in a less than rational position when they complain about leaving with no deal, which is what they've voted for on multiple occasions.
What's so bad about the deal, from a pro-EU MP's perspective? Even those bonkers enough to want the customs union have it on the table within the bounds of the political declaration.
They're just too partisan, whether that's anti-Conservative nodding dog Labour MPs, or ideologically pro-EU Lib Dems.
The ERG gets derided for being thick, but at least they voted for what they actually want.
That's pure sophistry on your part. The only moment of leverage that MPs have in the negotiations is in witholding support for the deal. They were right to use that leverage to seek a compromise deal rather than May's hard Brexit. What you are saying is that that leverage is illusory because the government will leave with no deal rather than compromise. That may be right (I am not wholly convinced they are that mad or stupid, but frankly who knows these days). But the choice to leave with no deal is the government's, and you cannot pin the blame elsewhere no matter how much you want to deflect it from the Tories.
That's nonsense, as is easily proved by the fact that Labour Party refused to back even just the Withdrawal Agreement in isolation, despite the fact that the cosy jobs-friendly Labour cuddly-toy version of Brexit would still require exactly that same Withdrawal Agreement to be signed. So, yes, you can absolutely blame Labour, who voted for Article 50 and then played cynical party political games to make it impossible to deliver, by teaming up with the ERG. Even now, they have the effrontery to say they won't back any deal agreed by Boris, purely because it would be a Conservative deal.
With apologies ... Boris has only got one ball The other is in the Albert Hall Rees Mogg is somewhat similar But poor old Javid has no balls at all
Given that he has 4 children (all with his wife unlike his boss) I am not finding this an entirely convincing line.
Mr. Gate, it isn't victim-blaming. MPs chose to vote as they wished. They voted down a deal on three occasions, having voted to leave the EU.
Mr. Boy, they tried a tactic and it failed. I'm sure the ERG et al would be complaining had it succeeded and the choice we faced now was a deal or remain, rather than no deal being the default.
It's quite straightforward that opposing the only deal on the table, with Article 50 triggered, means the UK is on course for leaving without a deal. It turns out voting in ways contrary to your desires means you might not get what you want. Gosh.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Did he not foresee this might happen when he said no deal was a million to one and he could get us a deal?
Perhaps he did and knew no deal was a million to one because if no one else blocks it, then ultimately he will.
Or perhaps the great leader is not particularly good at thinking.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Spot on.
Behave in a calamitously stupid and dishonest way, then try to blame everyone else in sight.
Spot on for Boris Johnson, anyhow.
I think you're both missing the point. You diehard remainers with your court challenges and rallies are causing real damage to our country.
Please desist.
I am reluctantly supporting leaving with any pretty much any deal. Pray tell how that is a diehard remainer?
The Ante's been upped. If your not willing to concede to no-deal then you are now a diehard remainer.
Matching words with reality was never a strong point of the leave campaign. So the only people who are not diehard remainers are those who actually voted against leaving (because they want no deal)? What a weird world.
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
That was certainly Roddy Dunlop's first and primary point in Edinburgh. He pointed out that there was no precedent for any prorogation being challenged in the Courts ever (I think he was discounting the Civil War as a precedent). O'Neill is implicitly accepting that but claiming that analogous orders in council have been challenged successfully in the Courts. An example was a case brought by the Barclay brothers against an order in the Channel Islands which they successfully contended was not ECHR compliant.
The hurdles the petitioners have to get over are numerous. They include:
Is this justiciable? If it is, what was the motivation of the PM and is that relevant? Is the Court allowed/entitled to reach a view on that? What are the "lawful" parameters of the PM/Monarch's discretion on this? Has Parliament in fact been prevented from debating either Brexit or a VoNC as a result of the order?
My guess is that whilst not closing the door in all and every circumstance the last point means that the answer to the first point in this particular case is no.
That ECHR judgement sounds interesting. Our (literally) medieval assumptions in our constitution (such as it is) vs. a more modern concept of codified, absolute individual rights.
We are going to have to think about all this later on with cool heads and a level of grown up consensus. Assuming that’s ever possible again....
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Utter twaddle. The EU can work out perfectly well what is going in Parliament. They have long since assumed that through misplaced bravado and stupidity we will blunder into a No Deal exit. They are furious at our lack of good faith and failure to understand that it is our red lines which have led us to being offered a WA on these terms and have been told expressly by Johnson's envoy, David Frost, that the whole of the WA, not just the backstop are now up for grabs.
"The deal we need" betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of what negotiation is about.
The UK is behaving like a child shouting "I want, I want".
As has been stated before, change the red lines and we get a different agreement. We could leave the EU and stay in the Single Market, for instance. That is quite as compatible with the referendum result as as No Deal exit. After all, haven't we been told - endlessly - by Leavers that what was said during the campaign doesn't matter and cannot be treated as a guide to what sort of Leave we should have?
There - I've solved Brexit. We stay in the SM and hey presto NI issue solved.
Where do I collect my fee?
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than an obvious reality. We are divided amongst ourselves. We are weak as a result. The EU still has a good chance of having the UK not leaving at all but to continue paying into the pot at the current rate despite losing our share of EU goodies such as the EIB and the medicine regulator. In these circumstances it is remarkable that May's deal is as favourable as it was.
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true. They agreed, for example, to extend the backstop from NI to the whole of the UK when the DUP objected despite that giving us "free" and unlimited access to the SM. As Richard says they have played with a reasonably straight bat.
With apologies ... Boris has only got one ball The other is in the Albert Hall Rees Mogg is somewhat similar But poor old Javid has no balls at all
Given that he has 4 children (all with his wife unlike his boss) I am not finding this an entirely convincing line.
It could be an issue of timing, since it is only recently that Cummings has turned him into a eunuch!
Mr. Boy, voting to leave the EU then thrice against a deal puts someone in a less than rational position when they complain about leaving with no deal, which is what they've voted for on multiple occasions.
What's so bad about the deal, from a pro-EU MP's perspective? Even those bonkers enough to want the customs union have it on the table within the bounds of the political declaration.
They're just too partisan, whether that's anti-Conservative nodding dog Labour MPs, or ideologically pro-EU Lib Dems.
The ERG gets derided for being thick, but at least they voted for what they actually want.
You are an extreme partisan like HYUFD.
Just like the HYUFD never mentions the ERG when criticizing "Remainer MPs" and Corbyn MPs, you similarly criticize the "nodding dog Labour MPs or pure EU Lib Dems" but forget to mention the Tory Remainer MPs.
To be fair, how many Tory Remainer MPs have a Remainer attitude is a moot point. We all thought Nicky Morgan, Amber Rudd, Matt Hancock were Remainers until the lure of the Ministerial Car was too much to ignore.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Utter twaddle. The EU can work out perfectly well what is going in Parliament. They have long since assumed that through misplaced bravado and stupidity we will blunder into a No Deal exit. They are furious at our lack of good faith and failure to understand that it is our red lines which have led us to being offered a WA on these terms and have been told expressly by Johnson's envoy, David Frost, that the whole of the WA, not just the backstop are now up for grabs.
"The deal we need" betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of what negotiation is about.
The UK is behaving like a child shouting "I want, I want".
As has been stated before, change the red lines and we get a different agreement. We could leave the EU and stay in the Single Market, for instance. That is quite as compatible with the referendum result as as No Deal exit. After all, haven't we been told - endlessly - by Leavers that what was said during the campaign doesn't matter and cannot be treated as a guide to what sort of Leave we should have?
There - I've solved Brexit. We stay in the SM and hey presto NI issue solved.
Where do I collect my fee?
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than an obvious reality. We are divided amongst ourselves. We are weak as a result. The EU still has a good chance of having the UK not leaving at all but to continue paying into the pot at the current rate despite losing our share of EU goodies such as the EIB and the medicine regulator. In these circumstances it is remarkable that May's deal is as favourable as it was.
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true. They agreed, for example, to extend the backstop from NI to the whole of the UK when the DUP objected despite that giving us "free" and unlimited access to the SM. As Richard says they have played with a reasonably straight bat.
They agreed an extension without an agreed purpose after months saying they wouldn't.
They agreed to reopen negotiations after months saying they wouldn't.
Mr. Gate, it isn't victim-blaming. MPs chose to vote as they wished. They voted down a deal on three occasions, having voted to leave the EU.
Mr. Boy, they tried a tactic and it failed. I'm sure the ERG et al would be complaining had it succeeded and the choice we faced now was a deal or remain, rather than no deal being the default.
It's quite straightforward that opposing the only deal on the table, with Article 50 triggered, means the UK is on course for leaving without a deal. It turns out voting in ways contrary to your desires means you might not get what you want. Gosh.
Except there is no need to leave without a deal as we can revoke Article 50 at any time. It is a choice. Not a choice Remainers or soft leavers have made. A choice that the current government has made.
Javid has been emasculated and humiliated. I genuinely cannot believe he has not resigned.
He will not give up the dosh and the fancy cars for something as small as emasculation and humiliation. Best paid clerks in the country.
Don't think the dosh comes into it. By all accounts, the Saj took a massive paycut to go into politics. I'd be very surprised if he gave up the chancellorship - after all, after PM, its the job everyone wants, particularly for a financier like him.
He will make a packet once he leaves though, meanwhile he lives high on the hog at our expense and some bellend can overrule him at the drop of a hat
One way of looking at it. BTW the Woodford Reserve has arrived. What a nice bottle. Hope the contents are a match.
With apologies ... Boris has only got one ball The other is in the Albert Hall Rees Mogg is somewhat similar But poor old Javid has no balls at all
Given that he has 4 children (all with his wife unlike his boss) I am not finding this an entirely convincing line.
Balls as in 'bravery or courage' is a generally accepted usage.
Mr. Boy, voting to leave the EU then thrice against a deal puts someone in a less than rational position when they complain about leaving with no deal, which is what they've voted for on multiple occasions.
What's so bad about the deal, from a pro-EU MP's perspective? Even those bonkers enough to want the customs union have it on the table within the bounds of the political declaration.
They're just too partisan, whether that's anti-Conservative nodding dog Labour MPs, or ideologically pro-EU Lib Dems.
The ERG gets derided for being thick, but at least they voted for what they actually want.
That's pure sophistry on your part. The only moment of leverage that MPs have in the negotiations is in witholding support for the deal. They were right to use that leverage to seek a compromise deal rather than May's hard Brexit. What you are saying is that that leverage is illusory because the government will leave with no deal rather than compromise. That may be right (I am not wholly convinced they are that mad or stupid, but frankly who knows these days). But the choice to leave with no deal is the government's, and you cannot pin the blame elsewhere no matter how much you want to deflect it from the Tories.
That's nonsense, as is easily proved by the fact that Labour Party refused to back even just the Withdrawal Agreement in isolation, despite the fact that the cosy jobs-friendly Labour cuddly-toy version of Brexit would still require exactly that same Withdrawal Agreement to be signed. So, yes, you can absolutely blame Labour, who voted for Article 50 and then played cynical party political games to make it impossible to deliver, by teaming up with the ERG. Even now, they have the effrontery to say they won't back any deal agreed by Boris, purely because it would be a Conservative deal.
Why should Labour support a WA that *could* deliver the kind of Brexit they want if they know that in reality it *won't*? Tory divisions gave them a veto over the WA which they used to try to get the Tories to offer a genuine compromise on Brexit. I don't view that as game playing, they were trying to deliver a better form of Brexit in the national interest. The Tories could have compromised because in a free vote I am sure Labour's version of Brexit would pass. But they refused, because their party would have been broken by it. So one the one hand you have Labour trying to deliver a compromise, versus the Tories who insisted on their version of Brexit even though it didn't enjoy enough support on their own side to pass. And who even now could avoid no deal but are refusing to bend. So yes absolutely it is their fault and not Labour's.
It seems to be slowly dawning on Steve Barclay that the reality of taking back control is being more dependent on the goodwill of others.
There is a small bit of me that still thinks that eventually when Brexit meets Reality the morons that make up our government are going to realise that EFTA is where they should have been heading from day 1.
Mr. Boy, voting to leave the EU then thrice against a deal puts someone in a less than rational position when they complain about leaving with no deal, which is what they've voted for on multiple occasions.
What's so bad about the deal, from a pro-EU MP's perspective? Even those bonkers enough to want the customs union have it on the table within the bounds of the political declaration.
They're just too partisan, whether that's anti-Conservative nodding dog Labour MPs, or ideologically pro-EU Lib Dems.
The ERG gets derided for being thick, but at least they voted for what they actually want.
You are an extreme partisan like HYUFD.
Just like the HYUFD never mentions the ERG when criticizing "Remainer MPs" and Corbyn MPs, you similarly criticize the "nodding dog Labour MPs or pure EU Lib Dems" but forget to mention the Tory Remainer MPs.
To be fair, how many Tory Remainer MPs have a Remainer attitude is a moot point. We all thought Nicky Morgan, Amber Rudd, Matt Hancock were Remainers until the lure of the Ministerial Car was too much to ignore.
Nicky Morgan (and goodness knows I've been a strong critic) has played a constructive role in the Alternative Arrangements Commission despite supportimg remain, and should be commended for it. Obviously you feel sniping and plotting from the sidelines is a more beneficial approach.
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
That was certainly Roddy Dunlop's first and primary point in Edinburgh. He pointed out that there was no precedent for any prorogation being challenged in the Courts ever (I think he was discounting the Civil War as a precedent). O'Neill is implicitly accepting that but claiming that analogous orders in council have been challenged successfully in the Courts. An example was a case brought by the Barclay brothers against an order in the Channel Islands which they successfully contended was not ECHR compliant.
The hurdles the petitioners have to get over are numerous. They include:
Is this justiciable? If it is, what was the motivation of the PM and is that relevant? Is the Court allowed/entitled to reach a view on that? What are the "lawful" parameters of the PM/Monarch's discretion on this? Has Parliament in fact been prevented from debating either Brexit or a VoNC as a result of the order?
My guess is that whilst not closing the door in all and every circumstance the last point means that the answer to the first point in this particular case is no.
That ECHR judgement sounds interesting. Our (literally) medieval assumptions in our constitution (such as it is) vs. a more modern concept of codified, absolute individual rights.
We are going to have to think about all this later on with cool heads and a level of grown up consensus. Assuming that’s ever possible again....
Any chance of a couple of sentence plain english summary for us non-lawyers? I'm afraid I found the article completely impenetrable
LoL. The short version is that Jersey really didn't appreciate the Supreme Court arrogating jurisdiction to determine its laws for it driving a coach and horses through their own rather cosy legal system. Mr Dunlop QC argued it wasn't a case about Orders in Council at all but jurisdiction. I think that is a little disingenuous but he has a point.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Utter twaddle. The EU can work out perfectly well what is going in Parliament. They have long since assumed that through misplaced bravado and stupidity we will blunder into a No Deal exit. They are furious at our lack of good faith and failure to understand that it is our red lines which have led us to being offered a WA on these terms and have been told expressly by Johnson's envoy, David Frost, that the whole of the WA, not just the backstop are now up for grabs.
"The deal we need" betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of what negotiation is about.
The UK is behaving like a child shouting "I want, I want".
As has been stated before, change the red lines and we get a different agreement. We could leave the EU and stay in the Single Market, for instance. That is quite as compatible with the referendum result as as No Deal exit. After all, haven't we been told - endlessly - by Leavers that what was said during the campaign doesn't matter and cannot be treated as a guide to what sort of Leave we should have?
There - I've solved Brexit. We stay in the SM and hey presto NI issue solved.
Where do I collect my fee?
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true. They agreed, for example, to extend the backstop from NI to the whole of the UK when the DUP objected despite that giving us "free" and unlimited access to the SM. As Richard says they have played with a reasonably straight bat.
But, importantly they held to the principle of the backstop. They gave no ground on it remaining fixed.
Current talks are purely about the PD, there is no re-opening of the WA, as has been repeated many times. I see Bozo has dropped his requirements on the backstop going to re-open talks though.
Just had a 'nuisance' call from an 01296 number; someone purporting to represent a firm called "Call Guardian'. Guy ..... heavy South Asian accent ...... knew my name. I think he was trying to sign me up to some protection racket. His number's on my 'Call Protect' now. 01296 is Aylesbury.
For many years, I have received an occasional from a withheld number. A lady (it is always a lady), says, “I’m told you woz in an accident?”
I keep wondering if the “woz” is scripted somehow.
When I get those phone calls I always say 'yes, it was awful I lost both my legs and i'm in a coma...' and then wait for what they say.
LOL.
“And then I died...it was terrible! And the funeral was quite poorly attended.”
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than an obvious reality. We are divided amongst ourselves. We are weak as a result. The EU still has a good chance of having the UK not leaving at all but to continue paying into the pot at the current rate despite losing our share of EU goodies such as the EIB and the medicine regulator. In these circumstances it is remarkable that May's deal is as favourable as it was.
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true. They agreed, for example, to extend the backstop from NI to the whole of the UK when the DUP objected despite that giving us "free" and unlimited access to the SM. As Richard says they have played with a reasonably straight bat.
They agreed an extension without an agreed purpose after months saying they wouldn't.
They agreed to reopen negotiations after months saying they wouldn't.
There are lots of examples and that degree of flexibility is to the EU's credit.
Why should Labour support a WA that *could* deliver the kind of Brexit they want if they know that in reality it *won't*? Tory divisions gave them a veto over the WA which they used to try to get the Tories to offer a genuine compromise on Brexit. I don't view that as game playing, they were trying to deliver a better form of Brexit in the national interest. The Tories could have compromised because in a free vote I am sure Labour's version of Brexit would pass. But they refused, because their party would have been broken by it. So one the one hand you have Labour trying to deliver a compromise, versus the Tories who insisted on their version of Brexit even though it didn't enjoy enough support on their own side to pass. And who even now could avoid no deal but are refusing to bend. So yes absolutely it is their fault and not Labour's.
Don't be absurd, there was no way they were going to vote for any deal. Quite apart from anything else May's proposals were indistinguishable from theirs, inasmuch as theirs weren't total nonsense. ("All the benefits of the Single Market").
The plain fact is that Labour teamed up with the ERG to wreck the only smooth transition available, having previously voted for Article 50. That's all you need to know, the rest is spin.
With apologies ... Boris has only got one ball The other is in the Albert Hall Rees Mogg is somewhat similar But poor old Javid has no balls at all
Given that he has 4 children (all with his wife unlike his boss) I am not finding this an entirely convincing line.
Balls as in 'bravery or courage' is a generally accepted usage.
It seems to be slowly dawning on Steve Barclay that the reality of taking back control is being more dependent on the goodwill of others.
There is a small bit of me that still thinks that eventually when Brexit meets Reality the morons that make up our government are going to realise that EFTA is where they should have been heading from day 1.
EFTA requires free movement and thus does not respect what working class Leave voters voted for.
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Utter twaddle. The EU can work out perfectly well what is going in Parliament. They have long since assumed that through misplaced bravado and stupidity we will blunder into a No Deal exit. They are furious at our lack of good faith and failure to understand that it is our red lines which have led us to being offered a WA on these terms and have been told expressly by Johnson's envoy, David Frost, that the whole of the WA, not just the backstop are now up for grabs.
"The deal we need" betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of what negotiation is about.
The UK is behaving like a child shouting "I want, I want".
As has been stated before, change the red lines and we get a different agreement. We could leave the EU and stay in the Single Market, for instance. That is quite as compatible with the referendum result as as No Deal exit. After all, haven't we been told - endlessly - by Leavers that what was said during the campaign doesn't matter and cannot be treated as a guide to what sort of Leave we should have?
There - I've solved Brexit. We stay in the SM and hey presto NI issue solved.
Where do I collect my fee?
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true. They agreed, for example, to extend the backstop from NI to the whole of the UK when the DUP objected despite that giving us "free" and unlimited access to the SM. As Richard says they have played with a reasonably straight bat.
But, importantly they held to the principle of the backstop. They gave no ground on it remaining fixed.
Current talks are purely about the PD, there is no re-opening of the WA, as has been repeated many times. I see Bozo has dropped his requirements on the backstop going to re-open talks though.
No they are not. No it isn't being repeated, or you wouldn't need to be offering your 'take'. Remainers need to cling to the EU's imagined intransigence because Boris negotiating a successful deal is their worst nightmare.
Just had a 'nuisance' call from an 01296 number; someone purporting to represent a firm called "Call Guardian'. Guy ..... heavy South Asian accent ...... knew my name. I think he was trying to sign me up to some protection racket. His number's on my 'Call Protect' now. 01296 is Aylesbury.
I assume you have you blocked it.
I had calls from 01287 numbers in the last few days. Both scams and both blocked. I also have BT protect and when you report it it adds to BT database and helps them to take further blocking action so you will not receive similar calls again
Of course. As I posted upthread/earlier somewhere anyway, I now get calls purporting to come from BT indicating that as a result of my persistent blocking I've missed a warning call and my internet/landline is about to be blocked. B****x
Sadly another scam. I did speak to BT some months ago about the scam calls and they were very interested and helpful
What other advice did they give? PM me if necessary.
To make sure each number is blocked and added to the list. They said they will keep an eye on my phone line and to be fair I have received fewer scams and their own blocked list to my phone grows without my input
Mr. Boy, voting to leave the EU then thrice against a deal puts someone in a less than rational position when they complain about leaving with no deal, which is what they've voted for on multiple occasions.
What's so bad about the deal, from a pro-EU MP's perspective? Even those bonkers enough to want the customs union have it on the table within the bounds of the political declaration.
They're just too partisan, whether that's anti-Conservative nodding dog Labour MPs, or ideologically pro-EU Lib Dems.
The ERG gets derided for being thick, but at least they voted for what they actually want.
You are an extreme partisan like HYUFD.
Just like the HYUFD never mentions the ERG when criticizing "Remainer MPs" and Corbyn MPs, you similarly criticize the "nodding dog Labour MPs or pure EU Lib Dems" but forget to mention the Tory Remainer MPs.
To be fair, how many Tory Remainer MPs have a Remainer attitude is a moot point. We all thought Nicky Morgan, Amber Rudd, Matt Hancock were Remainers until the lure of the Ministerial Car was too much to ignore.
I think putting MD in the same box as HYUFD in terms of being partisan is just a tad unfair to put it mildly.
It seems to be slowly dawning on Steve Barclay that the reality of taking back control is being more dependent on the goodwill of others.
There is a small bit of me that still thinks that eventually when Brexit meets Reality the morons that make up our government are going to realise that EFTA is where they should have been heading from day 1.
EFTA requires free movement and thus does not respect what working class Leave voters voted for.
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
I love the way you know what every Leave support wants, as though every aspect of Brexit can be deduced from a single binary choice.
That said I'm pretty fucking sure that most Leavers don't want the Brexit secretary suddently discovering the needs of the car industry about 9 weeks before we crash out.
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true. They agreed, for example, to extend the backstop from NI to the whole of the UK when the DUP objected despite that giving us "free" and unlimited access to the SM. As Richard says they have played with a reasonably straight bat.
But, importantly they held to the principle of the backstop. They gave no ground on it remaining fixed.
Current talks are purely about the PD, there is no re-opening of the WA, as has been repeated many times. I see Bozo has dropped his requirements on the backstop going to re-open talks though.
He hasn't. He claimed today to have the shape of a deal with Merkel and Macron although there was a lot of work still to do. Whether he will get anywhere is another story. For me the backstop only comes out when an agreed replacement is found and implemented from day 1 making it redundant. That's quite an ask but not impossible.
Mr. Boy, voting to leave the EU then thrice against a deal puts someone in a less than rational position when they complain about leaving with no deal, which is what they've voted for on multiple occasions.
What's so bad about the deal, from a pro-EU MP's perspective? Even those bonkers enough to want the customs union have it on the table within the bounds of the political declaration.
They're just too partisan, whether that's anti-Conservative nodding dog Labour MPs, or ideologically pro-EU Lib Dems.
The ERG gets derided for being thick, but at least they voted for what they actually want.
You are an extreme partisan like HYUFD.
Just like the HYUFD never mentions the ERG when criticizing "Remainer MPs" and Corbyn MPs, you similarly criticize the "nodding dog Labour MPs or pure EU Lib Dems" but forget to mention the Tory Remainer MPs.
To be fair, how many Tory Remainer MPs have a Remainer attitude is a moot point. We all thought Nicky Morgan, Amber Rudd, Matt Hancock were Remainers until the lure of the Ministerial Car was too much to ignore.
As opposed to the 'extreme partisan' diehard Remainers and Corbynites on here of course
It seems to be slowly dawning on Steve Barclay that the reality of taking back control is being more dependent on the goodwill of others.
Steve Barclays looks as if he as all the intelligence of a mildly retarded Labrador.
PB is gettting less woke at last! Time was when any post referring to a 'tard', (leftard being the one I remember) was seized on with righteous indignation, Now they just pass on through.
Mr. Boy, voting to leave the EU then thrice against a deal puts someone in a less than rational position when they complain about leaving with no deal, which is what they've voted for on multiple occasions.
What's so bad about the deal, from a pro-EU MP's perspective? Even those bonkers enough to want the customs union have it on the table within the bounds of the political declaration.
They're just too partisan, whether that's anti-Conservative nodding dog Labour MPs, or ideologically pro-EU Lib Dems.
The ERG gets derided for being thick, but at least they voted for what they actually want.
You are an extreme partisan like HYUFD.
Just like the HYUFD never mentions the ERG when criticizing "Remainer MPs" and Corbyn MPs, you similarly criticize the "nodding dog Labour MPs or pure EU Lib Dems" but forget to mention the Tory Remainer MPs.
To be fair, how many Tory Remainer MPs have a Remainer attitude is a moot point. We all thought Nicky Morgan, Amber Rudd, Matt Hancock were Remainers until the lure of the Ministerial Car was too much to ignore.
I think putting MD in the same box as HYUFD in terms of being partisan is just a tad unfair to put it mildly.
HYUFD who said Back Boris as next leader, while the self appointed judges judged him the biggest betting lay ever?
It seems to be slowly dawning on Steve Barclay that the reality of taking back control is being more dependent on the goodwill of others.
Steve Barclays looks as if he as all the intelligence of a mildly retarded Labrador.
PB is gettting less woke at last! Time was when any post referring to a 'tard', (leftard being the one I remember) was seized on with righteous indignation, Now they just pass on through.
Sign O'The Times
Gardenwalker can't be boorish or racist, even when he's saying Welsh people live in mud huts - did you not realise he supports remain?
It seems to be slowly dawning on Steve Barclay that the reality of taking back control is being more dependent on the goodwill of others.
There is a small bit of me that still thinks that eventually when Brexit meets Reality the morons that make up our government are going to realise that EFTA is where they should have been heading from day 1.
EFTA requires free movement and thus does not respect what working class Leave voters voted for.
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
You can no more.make that claim than the Remainers can claim we did not vote for No Deal. Both claims are false. Anything that means we Leave the EU, even in ways you and I might not like, respects the referendum result.
But along with Rudd, those who explicitly ruled out prorogation include the Saj. On Thursday night, the chancellor had his special adviser summoned to Downing Street by Dominic Cummings, then fired and escorted from the premises. Did the Saj watch manfully through the net curtains of No 11? Will he be the first to punch his own reflection in the bathroom mirror because he just can’t face himself? Or will it be culture secretary Nicky Morgan, whose former prorogation verdict – “clearly a mad suggestion” – should double as her LinkedIn biography?
Mr. Boy, voting to leave the EU then thrice against a deal puts someone in a less than rational position when they complain about leaving with no deal, which is what they've voted for on multiple occasions.
What's so bad about the deal, from a pro-EU MP's perspective? Even those bonkers enough to want the customs union have it on the table within the bounds of the political declaration.
They're just too partisan, whether that's anti-Conservative nodding dog Labour MPs, or ideologically pro-EU Lib Dems.
The ERG gets derided for being thick, but at least they voted for what they actually want.
You are an extreme partisan like HYUFD.
Just like the HYUFD never mentions the ERG when criticizing "Remainer MPs" and Corbyn MPs, you similarly criticize the "nodding dog Labour MPs or pure EU Lib Dems" but forget to mention the Tory Remainer MPs.
To be fair, how many Tory Remainer MPs have a Remainer attitude is a moot point. We all thought Nicky Morgan, Amber Rudd, Matt Hancock were Remainers until the lure of the Ministerial Car was too much to ignore.
I think putting MD in the same box as HYUFD in terms of being partisan is just a tad unfair to put it mildly.
Morris Dancer is the authentic voice of man-in-pub-who-reads-too-much-Mail.
But you can imagine having a drink and a laugh about non political things.
HYUFD on the other hand is the guy in the corner, obscurely dressed in a Union Jack hat and an Iain Duncan Smith t-shirt, muttering sub-samples under his breath. Avoid.
It seems to be slowly dawning on Steve Barclay that the reality of taking back control is being more dependent on the goodwill of others.
There is a small bit of me that still thinks that eventually when Brexit meets Reality the morons that make up our government are going to realise that EFTA is where they should have been heading from day 1.
EFTA requires free movement and thus does not respect what working class Leave voters voted for.
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
What does “after EU migration has been brought under control mean”? Why will it take a decade? And why would rejoining not mean it was “out of control again?
It seems to be slowly dawning on Steve Barclay that the reality of taking back control is being more dependent on the goodwill of others.
There is a small bit of me that still thinks that eventually when Brexit meets Reality the morons that make up our government are going to realise that EFTA is where they should have been heading from day 1.
EFTA requires free movement and thus does not respect what working class Leave voters voted for.
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
You can no more.make that claim than the Remainers can claim we did not vote for No Deal. Both claims are false. Anything that means we Leave the EU, even in ways you and I might not like, respects the referendum result.
Well said. You are one of the few remaining Leavers who doesn't claim that Leave means exactly what they alone want and nothing else.
Utter twaddle. The EU can work out perfectly well what is going in Parliament. They have long since assumed that through misplaced bravado and stupidity we will blunder into a No Deal exit. They are furious at our lack of good faith and failure to understand that it is our red lines which have led us to being offered a WA on these terms and have been told expressly by Johnson's envoy, David Frost, that the whole of the WA, not just the backstop are now up for grabs.
"The deal we need" betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of what negotiation is about.
The UK is behaving like a child shouting "I want, I want".
As has been stated before, change the red lines and we get a different agreement. We could leave the EU and stay in the Single Market, for instance. That is quite as compatible with the referendum result as as No Deal exit. After all, haven't we been told - endlessly - by Leavers that what was said during the campaign doesn't matter and cannot be treated as a guide to what sort of Leave we should have?
There - I've solved Brexit. We stay in the SM and hey presto NI issue solved.
Where do I collect my fee?
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true. They agreed, for example, to extend the backstop from NI to the whole of the UK when the DUP objected despite that giving us "free" and unlimited access to the SM. As Richard says they have played with a reasonably straight bat.
But, importantly they held to the principle of the backstop. They gave no ground on it remaining fixed.
Current talks are purely about the PD, there is no re-opening of the WA, as has been repeated many times. I see Bozo has dropped his requirements on the backstop going to re-open talks though.
No they are not. No it isn't being repeated, or you wouldn't need to be offering your 'take'. Remainers need to cling to the EU's imagined intransigence because Boris negotiating a successful deal is their worst nightmare.
As one of @HYUFD's 'diehard Remainers' I'd be very happy if the EU blinked and say dropped the backstop, if that meant we could avoid a No Deal crash.
It seems to be slowly dawning on Steve Barclay that the reality of taking back control is being more dependent on the goodwill of others.
There is a small bit of me that still thinks that eventually when Brexit meets Reality the morons that make up our government are going to realise that EFTA is where they should have been heading from day 1.
EFTA requires free movement and thus does not respect what working class Leave voters voted for.
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
You can no more.make that claim than the Remainers can claim we did not vote for No Deal. Both claims are false. Anything that means we Leave the EU, even in ways you and I might not like, respects the referendum result.
Would EFTA have meant FOM with automatic in (and out of) work benefits?
Mr. Boy, voting to leave the EU then thrice against a deal puts someone in a less than rational position when they complain about leaving with no deal, which is what they've voted for on multiple occasions.
What's so bad about the deal, from a pro-EU MP's perspective? Even those bonkers enough to want the customs union have it on the table within the bounds of the political declaration.
They're just too partisan, whether that's anti-Conservative nodding dog Labour MPs, or ideologically pro-EU Lib Dems.
The ERG gets derided for being thick, but at least they voted for what they actually want.
You are an extreme partisan like HYUFD.
Just like the HYUFD never mentions the ERG when criticizing "Remainer MPs" and Corbyn MPs, you similarly criticize the "nodding dog Labour MPs or pure EU Lib Dems" but forget to mention the Tory Remainer MPs.
To be fair, how many Tory Remainer MPs have a Remainer attitude is a moot point. We all thought Nicky Morgan, Amber Rudd, Matt Hancock were Remainers until the lure of the Ministerial Car was too much to ignore.
I think putting MD in the same box as HYUFD in terms of being partisan is just a tad unfair to put it mildly.
HYUFD who said Back Boris as next leader, while the self appointed judges judged him the biggest betting lay ever?
I was defending MD, not criticizing HYUFD, but I don't even think HYUFD would claim he wasn't partisan. In fact I'm sure he is proud of it.
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than an obvious reality. We are divided amongst ourselves. We are weak as a result. The EU still has a good chance of having the UK not leaving at all but to continue paying into the pot at the current rate despite losing our share of EU goodies such as the EIB and the medicine regulator. In these circumstances it is remarkable that May's deal is as favourable as it was.
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true. They agreed, for example, to extend the backstop from NI to the whole of the UK when the DUP objected despite that giving us "free" and unlimited access to the SM. As Richard says they have played with a reasonably straight bat.
They agreed an extension without an agreed purpose after months saying they wouldn't.
They agreed to reopen negotiations after months saying they wouldn't.
There are lots of examples and that degree of flexibility is to the EU's credit.
It is indeed and it is why I remain hopeful they will be flexible enough to fudge a solution that removes the backstop and gets the WDA through Parliament.
They're trying to be as stern as they can until they accept its not getting them anywhere, then moving as much as they have to only. Pretty solid negotiating technique.
Mr. Boy, voting to leave the EU then thrice against a deal puts someone in a less than rational position when they complain about leaving with no deal, which is what they've voted for on multiple occasions.
What's so bad about the deal, from a pro-EU MP's perspective? Even those bonkers enough to want the customs union have it on the table within the bounds of the political declaration.
They're just too partisan, whether that's anti-Conservative nodding dog Labour MPs, or ideologically pro-EU Lib Dems.
The ERG gets derided for being thick, but at least they voted for what they actually want.
You are an extreme partisan like HYUFD.
Just like the HYUFD never mentions the ERG when criticizing "Remainer MPs" and Corbyn MPs, you similarly criticize the "nodding dog Labour MPs or pure EU Lib Dems" but forget to mention the Tory Remainer MPs.
To be fair, how many Tory Remainer MPs have a Remainer attitude is a moot point. We all thought Nicky Morgan, Amber Rudd, Matt Hancock were Remainers until the lure of the Ministerial Car was too much to ignore.
I think putting MD in the same box as HYUFD in terms of being partisan is just a tad unfair to put it mildly.
Morris Dancer is the authentic voice of man-in-pub-who-reads-too-much-Mail.
But you can imagine having a drink and a laugh about non political things.
HYUFD on the other hand is the guy in the corner, obscurely dressed in a Union Jack hat and an Iain Duncan Smith t-shirt, muttering sub-samples under his breath. Avoid.
Dominic Cummings vs Jeremy Corbyn. Not much of a contest in terms of intellect is it.
Whilst this is undoubtedly true it doesn't mean that Cummings is not a maniac.
Ted Bundy was quite intelligent.
Apparently so. I don't know Cummings at all but he strikes me as an iconoclast more interested in forcing change than all the tedious consequences of that change foreseen and unforeseen. Such people can be very useful but need to be under strict control. I am not sure he is.
It seems to be slowly dawning on Steve Barclay that the reality of taking back control is being more dependent on the goodwill of others.
There is a small bit of me that still thinks that eventually when Brexit meets Reality the morons that make up our government are going to realise that EFTA is where they should have been heading from day 1.
EFTA requires free movement and thus does not respect what working class Leave voters voted for.
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
What does “after EU migration has been brought under control mean”? Why will it take a decade? And why would rejoining not mean it was “out of control again?
Replacing free movement from the EU with the points system Boris wants introduced and doing something to redress the failure of the Blair government to introduce transition controls from 2004 to 2011 on free movement from Eastern Europe
Is this a real tweet or a spoof ...? Note, having trouble cutting and pasting.
'The car industry’s ‘just in time’ supply chains rely on fluid cross-Channel trade routes. >1,100 trucks filled with car parts cross seamlessly from EU into UK each day. We need to start talks now on how we make sure this flow continues if we leave without a deal.'
Mr. Boy, voting to leave the EU then thrice against a deal puts someone in a less than rational position when they complain about leaving with no deal, which is what they've voted for on multiple occasions.
What's so bad about the deal, from a pro-EU MP's perspective? Even those bonkers enough to want the customs union have it on the table within the bounds of the political declaration.
They're just too partisan, whether that's anti-Conservative nodding dog Labour MPs, or ideologically pro-EU Lib Dems.
The ERG gets derided for being thick, but at least they voted for what they actually want.
You are an extreme partisan like HYUFD.
Just like the HYUFD never mentions the ERG when criticizing "Remainer MPs" and Corbyn MPs, you similarly criticize the "nodding dog Labour MPs or pure EU Lib Dems" but forget to mention the Tory Remainer MPs.
To be fair, how many Tory Remainer MPs have a Remainer attitude is a moot point. We all thought Nicky Morgan, Amber Rudd, Matt Hancock were Remainers until the lure of the Ministerial Car was too much to ignore.
I think putting MD in the same box as HYUFD in terms of being partisan is just a tad unfair to put it mildly.
HYUFD who said Back Boris as next leader, while the self appointed judges judged him the biggest betting lay ever?
I was defending MD, not criticizing HYUFD, but I don't even think HYUFD would claim he wasn't partisan. In fact I'm sure he is proud of it.
Mr. Boy, voting to leave the EU then thrice against a deal puts someone in a less than rational position when they complain about leaving with no deal, which is what they've voted for on multiple occasions.
What's so bad about the deal, from a pro-EU MP's perspective? Even those bonkers enough to want the customs union have it on the table within the bounds of the political declaration.
They're just too partisan, whether that's anti-Conservative nodding dog Labour MPs, or ideologically pro-EU Lib Dems.
The ERG gets derided for being thick, but at least they voted for what they actually want.
You are an extreme partisan like HYUFD.
Just like the HYUFD never mentions the ERG when criticizing "Remainer MPs" and Corbyn MPs, you similarly criticize the "nodding dog Labour MPs or pure EU Lib Dems" but forget to mention the Tory Remainer MPs.
To be fair, how many Tory Remainer MPs have a Remainer attitude is a moot point. We all thought Nicky Morgan, Amber Rudd, Matt Hancock were Remainers until the lure of the Ministerial Car was too much to ignore.
I think putting MD in the same box as HYUFD in terms of being partisan is just a tad unfair to put it mildly.
HYUFD who said Back Boris as next leader, while the self appointed judges judged him the biggest betting lay ever?
I was defending MD, not criticizing HYUFD, but I don't even think HYUFD would claim he wasn't partisan. In fact I'm sure he is proud of it.
Sorry you are right, I didn't read what you wrote properly. Apologies
@HYUFD doesn’t know anything about the working class and why some of them voted for Brexit. It’s all just a convenient excuse to impose his own prejudices on others.
Is this a real tweet or a spoof ...? Note, having trouble cutting and pasting.
'The car industry’s ‘just in time’ supply chains rely on fluid cross-Channel trade routes. >1,100 trucks filled with car parts cross seamlessly from EU into UK each day. We need to start talks now on how we make sure this flow continues if we leave without a deal.'
It seems to be slowly dawning on Steve Barclay that the reality of taking back control is being more dependent on the goodwill of others.
There is a small bit of me that still thinks that eventually when Brexit meets Reality the morons that make up our government are going to realise that EFTA is where they should have been heading from day 1.
EFTA requires free movement and thus does not respect what working class Leave voters voted for.
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
What does “after EU migration has been brought under control mean”? Why will it take a decade? And why would rejoining not mean it was “out of control again?
Replacing free movement from the EU with the points system Boris wants introduced and doing something to redress the failure of the Blair government to introduce transition controls from 2004 to 2011 on free movement from Eastern Europe
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true. They agreed, for example, to extend the backstop from NI to the whole of the UK when the DUP objected despite that giving us "free" and unlimited access to the SM. As Richard says they have played with a reasonably straight bat.
But, importantly they held to the principle of the backstop. They gave no ground on it remaining fixed.
Current talks are purely about the PD, there is no re-opening of the WA, as has been repeated many times. I see Bozo has dropped his requirements on the backstop going to re-open talks though.
No they are not. No it isn't being repeated, or you wouldn't need to be offering your 'take'. Remainers need to cling to the EU's imagined intransigence because Boris negotiating a successful deal is their worst nightmare.
As one of @HYUFD's 'diehard Remainers' I'd be very happy if the EU blinked and say dropped the backstop, if that meant we could avoid a No Deal crash.
I just don't see why they would blink though.
Because we give them an alternative that meets the backstop's objective. Let's suppose, hypothetically, we offered some adjudicating body which could review whether any regulatory change was compatible or incompatible with the SM with an option of either side serving notice terminating our access to the SM if it was deemed incompatible. That would do it.
Is this a real tweet or a spoof ...? Note, having trouble cutting and pasting.
'The car industry’s ‘just in time’ supply chains rely on fluid cross-Channel trade routes. >1,100 trucks filled with car parts cross seamlessly from EU into UK each day. We need to start talks now on how we make sure this flow continues if we leave without a deal.'
It seems to be slowly dawning on Steve Barclay that the reality of taking back control is being more dependent on the goodwill of others.
There is a small bit of me that still thinks that eventually when Brexit meets Reality the morons that make up our government are going to realise that EFTA is where they should have been heading from day 1.
EFTA requires free movement and thus does not respect what working class Leave voters voted for.
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
You can no more.make that claim than the Remainers can claim we did not vote for No Deal. Both claims are false. Anything that means we Leave the EU, even in ways you and I might not like, respects the referendum result.
Well said. You are one of the few remaining Leavers who doesn't claim that Leave means exactly what they alone want and nothing else.
Completely agree. Lots of things were said in the campaign, but none of them have a formal role in our politics. The vote was to Leave the EU, nothing more, nothing less.
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true. They agreed, for example, to extend the backstop from NI to the whole of the UK when the DUP objected despite that giving us "free" and unlimited access to the SM. As Richard says they have played with a reasonably straight bat.
But, importantly they held to the principle of the backstop. They gave no ground on it remaining fixed.
Current talks are purely about the PD, there is no re-opening of the WA, as has been repeated many times. I see Bozo has dropped his requirements on the backstop going to re-open talks though.
No they are not. No it isn't being repeated, or you wouldn't need to be offering your 'take'. Remainers need to cling to the EU's imagined intransigence because Boris negotiating a successful deal is their worst nightmare.
As one of @HYUFD's 'diehard Remainers' I'd be very happy if the EU blinked and say dropped the backstop, if that meant we could avoid a No Deal crash.
I just don't see why they would blink though.
Because we give them an alternative that meets the backstop's objective. Let's suppose, hypothetically, we offered some adjudicating body which could review whether any regulatory change was compatible or incompatible with the SM with an option of either side serving notice terminating our access to the SM if it was deemed incompatible. That would do it.
Don't be silly. If you terminate access to the SM then you need a hard border. Your proposal would come nowhere near meeting the objective of the backstop.
It seems to be slowly dawning on Steve Barclay that the reality of taking back control is being more dependent on the goodwill of others.
There is a small bit of me that still thinks that eventually when Brexit meets Reality the morons that make up our government are going to realise that EFTA is where they should have been heading from day 1.
EFTA requires free movement and thus does not respect what working class Leave voters voted for.
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
You can no more.make that claim than the Remainers can claim we did not vote for No Deal. Both claims are false. Anything that means we Leave the EU, even in ways you and I might not like, respects the referendum result.
Well said. You are one of the few remaining Leavers who doesn't claim that Leave means exactly what they alone want and nothing else.
Completely agree. Lots of things were said in the campaign, but none of them have a formal role in our politics. The vote was to Leave the EU, nothing more, nothing less.
You can all agree with each other but you're all wrong. The context of the referendum shapes the nature of the advice that the advisory referendum gave. If the advice of that advisory referendum has been falsified by events, then it should be retested.
That can only be assessed by reference to the mandate sought.
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than an obvious reality. We are divided amongst ourselves. We are weak as a result. The EU still has a good chance of having the UK not leaving at all but to continue paying into the pot at the current rate despite losing our share of EU goodies such as the EIB and the medicine regulator. In these circumstances it is remarkable that May's deal is as favourable as it was.
The proximate problems with our negotiating position are that is not well understood, realistic or got broad agreement in the UK. The fundamental problem is that Brexit is crap. This negotiation is about how to make things worse in a managed way. No-one wants to sign up to that.
Is this a real tweet or a spoof ...? Note, having trouble cutting and pasting.
'The car industry’s ‘just in time’ supply chains rely on fluid cross-Channel trade routes. >1,100 trucks filled with car parts cross seamlessly from EU into UK each day. We need to start talks now on how we make sure this flow continues if we leave without a deal.'
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
But, but, but, immigration wasn't on the ballot paper, and the campaigns were irrelevant, right?
It was on the Leave posters and the main reason why many usually non voters turned out and voted Leave.
It shows contempt for democracy to fail to deliver what they voted for
Why is giving them - a minority - what they want more important than giving other minorities what they want?
because it suits the Conservative Party and their new bigoted supporters. That’s all he care about.
Brexit started at what the 52% of the voters want, quickly became what the Tory Leavers alone wanted, and now has become what the ERG wing/UKIP/BP want.
We have now reached the point where we have MPs advocating for No Deal, because to them ANY deal is unacceptable. Which is in my opinion completely fucking nuts.
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true. They agreed, for example, to extend the backstop from NI to the whole of the UK when the DUP objected despite that giving us "free" and unlimited access to the SM. As Richard says they have played with a reasonably straight bat.
But, importantly they held to the principle of the backstop. They gave no ground on it remaining fixed.
Current talks are purely about the PD, there is no re-opening of the WA, as has been repeated many times. I see Bozo has dropped his requirements on the backstop going to re-open talks though.
No they are not. No it isn't being repeated, or you wouldn't need to be offering your 'take'. Remainers need to cling to the EU's imagined intransigence because Boris negotiating a successful deal is their worst nightmare.
As one of @HYUFD's 'diehard Remainers' I'd be very happy if the EU blinked and say dropped the backstop, if that meant we could avoid a No Deal crash.
I just don't see why they would blink though.
Because we give them an alternative that meets the backstop's objective. Let's suppose, hypothetically, we offered some adjudicating body which could review whether any regulatory change was compatible or incompatible with the SM with an option of either side serving notice terminating our access to the SM if it was deemed incompatible. That would do it.
Don't be silly. If you terminate access to the SM then you need a hard border. Your proposal would come nowhere near meeting the objective of the backstop.
A no deal has exactly the same effect. Such an arrangement prevents the imposition of a hard border, possibly (probably) forever. And if it doesn't neither side would be any worse off than we will both be on 1st November.
It does make you think about the basic fact that we all know really, which is that a whole country only functions on the basis of consent and the stories we tell. When is Parliament in session? When one lady says it is and so we all agree to act like it is. Why can it make laws? Because we all agree to believe it can, and consent to following them.
As I said earlier, it will be interesting to find out how efficiently distributed the new Conservative Party coalition is. Likewise with the Liberal Democrats. It could spring a few surprises and therefore good betting opportunities. I hope we get some seat polling soon.
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than an obvious reality. We are divided amongst ourselves. We are weak as a result. The EU still has a good chance of having the UK not leaving at all but to continue paying into the pot at the current rate despite losing our share of EU goodies such as the EIB and the medicine regulator. In these circumstances it is remarkable that May's deal is as favourable as it was.
The proximate problems with our negotiating position are that is not well understood, realistic or got broad agreement in the UK. The fundamental problem is that Brexit is crap. This negotiation is about how to make things worse in a managed way. No-one wants to sign up to that.
Obviously I have a different assessment of the merits of Brexit than you do. But I completely agree that the problem has been the lack of a broad agreement in the UK about what we actually want.
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true. They agreed, for example, to extend the backstop from NI to the whole of the UK when the DUP objected despite that giving us "free" and unlimited access to the SM. As Richard says they have played with a reasonably straight bat.
But, importantly they held to the principle of the backstop. They gave no ground on it remaining fixed.
Current talks are purely about the PD, there is no re-opening of the WA, as has been repeated many times. I see Bozo has dropped his requirements on the backstop going to re-open talks though.
No they are not. No it isn't being repeated, or you wouldn't need to be offering your 'take'. Remainers need to cling to the EU's imagined intransigence because Boris negotiating a successful deal is their worst nightmare.
As one of @HYUFD's 'diehard Remainers' I'd be very happy if the EU blinked and say dropped the backstop, if that meant we could avoid a No Deal crash.
I just don't see why they would blink though.
Because we give them an alternative that meets the backstop's objective. Let's suppose, hypothetically, we offered some adjudicating body which could review whether any regulatory change was compatible or incompatible with the SM with an option of either side serving notice terminating our access to the SM if it was deemed incompatible. That would do it.
Don't be silly. If you terminate access to the SM then you need a hard border. Your proposal would come nowhere near meeting the objective of the backstop.
Correct. The only way not to have a hard border is through Customs Union. In the WA, in the Northern Ireland context, it has a different name though thanks to the DUP it will apply to the whole of the UK. This is a UK red line, BTW.
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true. They agreed, for example, to extend the backstop from NI to the whole of the UK when the DUP objected despite that giving us "free" and unlimited access to the SM. As Richard says they have played with a reasonably straight bat.
But, importantly they held to the principle of the backstop. They gave no ground on it remaining fixed.
Current talks are purely about the PD, there is no re-opening of the WA, as has been repeated many times. I see Bozo has dropped his requirements on the backstop going to re-open talks though.
No they are not. No it isn't being repeated, or you wouldn't need to be offering your 'take'. Remainers need to cling to the EU's imagined intransigence because Boris negotiating a successful deal is their worst nightmare.
As one of @HYUFD's 'diehard Remainers' I'd be very happy if the EU blinked and say dropped the backstop, if that meant we could avoid a No Deal crash.
I just don't see why they would blink though.
Because we give them an alternative that meets the backstop's objective. Let's suppose, hypothetically, we offered some adjudicating body which could review whether any regulatory change was compatible or incompatible with the SM with an option of either side serving notice terminating our access to the SM if it was deemed incompatible. That would do it.
Don't be silly. If you terminate access to the SM then you need a hard border. Your proposal would come nowhere near meeting the objective of the backstop.
A no deal has exactly the same effect. Such an arrangement prevents the imposition of a hard border, possibly (probably) forever. And if it doesn't neither side would be any worse off than we will both be on 1st November.
There is a fundamental difference between a hard border that the EU/Ireland has agreed to, and a hard border that comes about because the UK is delinquent. Such a border would only be a temporary measure until the UK stops behaving like a rogue state or breaks up.
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true. They agreed, for example, to extend the backstop from NI to the whole of the UK when the DUP objected despite that giving us "free" and unlimited access to the SM. As Richard says they have played with a reasonably straight bat.
But, importantly they held to the principle of the backstop. They gave no ground on it remaining fixed.
Current talks are purely about the PD, there is no re-opening of the WA, as has been repeated many times. I see Bozo has dropped his requirements on the backstop going to re-open talks though.
No they are not. No it isn't being repeated, or you wouldn't need to be offering your 'take'. Remainers need to cling to the EU's imagined intransigence because Boris negotiating a successful deal is their worst nightmare.
As one of @HYUFD's 'diehard Remainers' I'd be very happy if the EU blinked and say dropped the backstop, if that meant we could avoid a No Deal crash.
I just don't see why they would blink though.
Because we give them an alternative that meets the backstop's objective. Let's suppose, hypothetically, we offered some adjudicating body which could review whether any regulatory change was compatible or incompatible with the SM with an option of either side serving notice terminating our access to the SM if it was deemed incompatible. That would do it.
Don't be silly. If you terminate access to the SM then you need a hard border. Your proposal would come nowhere near meeting the objective of the backstop.
Correct. The only way not to have a hard border is through Customs Union. In the WA, in the Northern Ireland context, it has a different name though thanks to the DUP it will apply to the whole of the UK. This is a UK red line, BTW.
Or you enforce customs through other means not at the border. That does the trick too.
It seems to be slowly dawning on Steve Barclay that the reality of taking back control is being more dependent on the goodwill of others.
There is a small bit of me that still thinks that eventually when Brexit meets Reality the morons that make up our government are going to realise that EFTA is where they should have been heading from day 1.
EFTA requires free movement and thus does not respect what working class Leave voters voted for.
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
You can no more.make that claim than the Remainers can claim we did not vote for No Deal. Both claims are false. Anything that means we Leave the EU, even in ways you and I might not like, respects the referendum result.
Would EFTA have meant FOM with automatic in (and out of) work benefits?
It would mean freedom of movement but not necessarily the benefits.
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true. They agreed, for example, to extend the backstop from NI to the whole of the UK when the DUP objected despite that giving us "free" and unlimited access to the SM. As Richard says they have played with a reasonably straight bat.
But, importantly they held to the principle of the backstop. They gave no ground on it remaining fixed.
Current talks are purely about the PD, there is no re-opening of the WA, as has been repeated many times. I see Bozo has dropped his requirements on the backstop going to re-open talks though.
No they are not. No it to the EU's imagined intransigence because Boris negotiating a successful deal is their worst nightmare.
As one of @HYUFD's 'diehard Remainers' I'd be very happy if the EU blinked and say dropped the backstop, if that meant we could avoid a No Deal crash.
I just don't see why they would blink though.
Because we give them an alternative that or incompatible with the SM with an option of either side serving notice terminating our access to the SM if it was deemed incompatible. That would do it.
Don't be silly. If you terminate access to the SM then you need a hard border. Your proposal would come nowhere near meeting the objective of the backstop.
A no deal has exactly the same effect. Such an arrangement prevents the imposition of a hard border, possibly (probably) forever. And if it doesn't neither side would be any worse off than we will both be on 1st November.
There is a fundamental difference between a hard border that the EU/Ireland has agreed to, and a hard border that comes about because the UK is delinquent. Such a border would only be a temporary measure until the UK stops behaving like a rogue state or breaks up.
“Rogue State”? Blimey, if the EU states think we’re a rogue state we’ll be kicked out of NATO, the G7, the WTO, and the UN then will we? This is serious.
Alternatively the world will keep on spinning and we’ll all find a way to save everyone’s face.
Or you enforce customs through other means not at the border. That does the trick too.
A customs union is probably simpler and cheaper, certainly for now.
How many voters are going to be genuinely outraged if we stayed in a customs union with the EU? Practically none is my guess, I would be surprised if MPs get many green ink letters about the topic.
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true..
But, importantly they held to the principle of the backstop. They gave no ground on it remaining fixed.
Current talks are purely about the PD, there is no re-opening of the WA, as has been repeated many times. I see Bozo has dropped his requirements on the backstop going to re-open talks though.
No they are not. No it isn't being repeated, or you wouldn't need to be offering your 'take'. Remainers need to cling to the EU's imagined intransigence because Boris negotiating a successful deal is their worst nightmare.
As one of @HYUFD's 'diehard Remainers' I'd be very happy if the EU blinked and say dropped the backstop, if that meant we could avoid a No Deal crash.
I just don't see why they would blink though.
Because we give them an alternative that meets the backstop's objective. Let's suppose, hypothetically, we offered some adjudicating body which could review whether any regulatory change was compatible or incompatible with the SM with an option of either side serving notice terminating our access to the SM if it was deemed incompatible. That would do it.
Don't be silly. If you terminate access to the SM then you need a hard border. Your proposal would come nowhere near meeting the objective of the backstop.
A no deal has exactly the same effect. Such an arrangement prevents the imposition of a hard border, possibly (probably) forever. And if it doesn't neither side would be any worse off than we will both be on 1st November.
There is a fundamental difference between a hard border that the EU/Ireland has agreed to, and a hard border that comes about because the UK is delinquent. Such a border would only be a temporary measure until the UK stops behaving like a rogue state or breaks up.
You are obssessed with the UK breaking up, even actively hoping it does.
No they are not. No it isn't being repeated, or you wouldn't need to be offering your 'take'. Remainers need to cling to the EU's imagined intransigence because Boris negotiating a successful deal is their worst nightmare.
As one of @HYUFD's 'diehard Remainers' I'd be very happy if the EU blinked and say dropped the backstop, if that meant we could avoid a No Deal crash.
I just don't see why they would blink though.
Because we give them an alternative that meets the backstop's objective. Let's suppose, hypothetically, we offered some adjudicating body which could review whether any regulatory change was compatible or incompatible with the SM with an option of either side serving notice terminating our access to the SM if it was deemed incompatible. That would do it.
Don't be silly. If you terminate access to the SM then you need a hard border. Your proposal would come nowhere near meeting the objective of the backstop.
A no deal has exactly the same effect. Such an arrangement prevents the imposition of a hard border, possibly (probably) forever. And if it doesn't neither side would be any worse off than we will both be on 1st November.
There is a fundamental difference between a hard border that the EU/Ireland has agreed to, and a hard border that comes about because the UK is delinquent. Such a border would only be a temporary measure until the UK stops behaving like a rogue state or breaks up.
No, there is no difference at all. In my scenario our MPs would have to decide that some piece of deregulation or the nationalisation of various things by a Corbyn style govrnment or something we agreed with the US was worth losing SM access for. I think faced with the reality of that they would never do it but the right to do it should we feel strongly enough about it shows we are independent.
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true..
But, importantly they held to the principle of the backstop. They gave no ground on it remaining fixed.
Current talks are purely about the PD, there is no re-opening of the WA, as has been repeated many times. I see Bozo has dropped his requirements on the backstop going to re-open talks though.
No they are not. No it isn't being repeated, or you wouldn't need to be offering your 'take'. Remainers need to cling to the EU's imagined intransigence because Boris negotiating a successful deal is their worst nightmare.
As one of @HYUFD's 'diehard Remainers' I'd be very happy if the EU blinked and say dropped the backstop, if that meant we could avoid a No Deal crash.
I just don't see why they would blink though.
Because we give them an alternative that meets the backstop's objective. Let's suppose, hypothetically, we offered some adjudicating body which could review whether any regulatory change was compatible or incompatible with the SM with an option of either side serving notice terminating our access to the SM if it was deemed incompatible. That would do it.
Don't be silly. If you terminate access to the SM then you need a hard border. Your proposal would come nowhere near meeting the objective of the backstop.
A no deal has exactly the same effect. Such an arrangement prevents the imposition of a hard border, possibly (probably) forever. And if it doesn't neither side would be any worse off than we will both be on 1st November.
There is a fundamental difference between a hard border that the EU/Ireland has agreed to, and a hard border that comes about because the UK is delinquent. Such a border would only be a temporary measure until the UK stops behaving like a rogue state or breaks up.
You are obssessed with the UK breaking up, even actively hoping it does.
I find I've become a bit obsessed with the UK breaking up, Big_G, fearing that it inevitably will if we hard Brexit. It's a prospect I find very depressing tbh.
No they are not. No it isn't being repeated, or you wouldn't need to be offering your 'take'. Remainers need to cling to the EU's imagined intransigence because Boris negotiating a successful deal is their worst nightmare.
As one of @HYUFD's 'diehard Remainers' I'd be very happy if the EU blinked and say dropped the backstop, if that meant we could avoid a No Deal crash.
I just don't see why they would blink though.
Because we give them an alternative that meets the backstop's objective. Let's suppose, hypothetically, we offered some adjudicating body which could review whether any regulatory change was compatible or incompatible with the SM with an option of either side serving notice terminating our access to the SM if it was deemed incompatible. That would do it.
Don't be silly. If you terminate access to the SM then you need a hard border. Your proposal would come nowhere near meeting the objective of the backstop.
A no deal has exactly the same effect. Such an arrangement prevents the imposition of a hard border, possibly (probably) forever. And if it doesn't neither side would be any worse off than we will both be on 1st November.
There is a fundamental difference between a hard border that the EU/Ireland has agreed to, and a hard border that comes about because the UK is delinquent. Such a border would only be a temporary measure until the UK stops behaving like a rogue state or breaks up.
No, there is no difference at all. In my scenario our MPs would have to decide that some piece of deregulation or the nationalisation of various things by a Corbyn style govrnment or something we agreed with the US was worth losing SM access for. I think faced with the reality of that they would never do it but the right to do it should we feel strongly enough about it shows we are independent.
Then the EU would have agreed that the absence of a hard border would permanently depend on the whim of the UK parliament. That is unacceptable.
Or you enforce customs through other means not at the border. That does the trick too.
A customs union is probably simpler and cheaper, certainly for now.
How many voters are going to be genuinely outraged if we stayed in a customs union with the EU? Practically none is my guess, I would be surprised if MPs get many green ink letters about the topic.
They get lots of outrage and plenty of green-ink letters about the backstop, which is the customs union (or as we used to call it, the Common Market), and without paying any fees at all. I think you are making the mistake of assuming that the outrage is related to the facts.
We (the whole country) needs to stay within the customs union until such time as we have found a technological solution to the problems presented by a customs border.
And, so long as we are in the customs union, it is democratically valuable to be able to actually have representation in the EU.
Which is to say, the optimal course is to stay in the EU *until* that technological solution is agreed (perhaps by setting a realistic timeline).
All of this nonsense has been caused by the ridiculous idea that we should leave the EU practically overnight.
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true. They agreed, for example, to extend the backstop from NI to the whole of the UK when the DUP objected despite that giving us "free" and unlimited access to the SM. As Richard says they have played with a reasonably straight bat.
But, importantly they held to the principle of the backstop. They gave no ground on it remaining fixed.
Current talks are purely about the PD, there is no re-opening of the WA, as has been repeated many times. I see Bozo has dropped his requirements on the backstop going to re-open talks though.
No they are not. No it isn't being repeated, or you wouldn't need to be offering your 'take'. Remainers need to cling to the EU's imagined intransigence because Boris negotiating a successful deal is their worst nightmare.
As one of @HYUFD's 'diehard Remainers' I'd be very happy if the EU blinked and say dropped the backstop, if that meant we could avoid a No Deal crash.
I just don't see why they would blink though.
Because we give them an alternative that meets the backstop's objective. Let's suppose, hypothetically, we offered some adjudicating body which could review whether any regulatory change was compatible or incompatible with the SM with an option of either side serving notice terminating our access to the SM if it was deemed incompatible. That would do it.
Don't be silly. If you terminate access to the SM then you need a hard border. Your proposal would come nowhere near meeting the objective of the backstop.
Correct. The only way not to have a hard border is through Customs Union. In the WA, in the Northern Ireland context, it has a different name though thanks to the DUP it will apply to the whole of the UK. This is a UK red line, BTW.
Or you enforce customs through other means not at the border. That does the trick too.
I don't know why we're bothering to argue about it tbh.
After all, Boris has a cunning plan... which I am sure he will share with everyone, er, once he has thought it up.
Or you enforce customs through other means not at the border. That does the trick too.
A customs union is probably simpler and cheaper, certainly for now.
How many voters are going to be genuinely outraged if we stayed in a customs union with the EU? Practically none is my guess, I would be surprised if MPs get many green ink letters about the topic.
A CU on its own does not achieve very much (other than stopping us offering tariff free access to others). The EU is understandably focused on the integrity of the SM which means that goods coming from the UK must be known to comply with EU standards or they need to be checked at the border to see that they do. I think it makes sense for us to stay in the CU initially, as we would under the WA, but I am not so sure it is in our long term interests.
Comments
Mr. Boy, they tried a tactic and it failed. I'm sure the ERG et al would be complaining had it succeeded and the choice we faced now was a deal or remain, rather than no deal being the default.
It's quite straightforward that opposing the only deal on the table, with Article 50 triggered, means the UK is on course for leaving without a deal. It turns out voting in ways contrary to your desires means you might not get what you want. Gosh.
Just like the HYUFD never mentions the ERG when criticizing "Remainer MPs" and Corbyn MPs, you similarly criticize the "nodding dog Labour MPs or pure EU Lib Dems" but forget to mention the Tory Remainer MPs.
To be fair, how many Tory Remainer MPs have a Remainer attitude is a moot point. We all thought Nicky Morgan, Amber Rudd, Matt Hancock were Remainers until the lure of the Ministerial Car was too much to ignore.
They agreed to reopen negotiations after months saying they wouldn't.
To suggest anything else is dishonest.
So one the one hand you have Labour trying to deliver a compromise, versus the Tories who insisted on their version of Brexit even though it didn't enjoy enough support on their own side to pass. And who even now could avoid no deal but are refusing to bend. So yes absolutely it is their fault and not Labour's.
Current talks are purely about the PD, there is no re-opening of the WA, as has been repeated many times. I see Bozo has dropped his requirements on the backstop going to re-open talks though.
It is more likely now the LDs overtake Labour than Labour overtake the Tories on today's poll
“And then I died...it was terrible! And the funeral was quite poorly attended.”
Wong and fellow activist Agnes Chow subsequently released"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/30/hong-kong-pro-democracy-leader-joshua-wong-arrested-says-demosisto
The plain fact is that Labour teamed up with the ERG to wreck the only smooth transition available, having previously voted for Article 50. That's all you need to know, the rest is spin.
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
That said I'm pretty fucking sure that most Leavers don't want the Brexit secretary suddently discovering the needs of the car industry about 9 weeks before we crash out.
Sign O'The Times
It shows contempt for democracy to fail to deliver what they voted for
https://twitter.com/number10staffer
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/30/sajid-javid-dominic-cummings-prorogation-government
But you can imagine having a drink and a laugh about non political things.
HYUFD on the other hand is the guy in the corner, obscurely dressed in a Union Jack hat and an Iain Duncan Smith t-shirt, muttering sub-samples under his breath. Avoid.
I just don't see why they would blink though.
https://twitter.com/milliedilly/status/1167434722743607301
They're trying to be as stern as they can until they accept its not getting them anywhere, then moving as much as they have to only. Pretty solid negotiating technique.
Jim Leavelle has died at the age of 99.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Leavelle
'The car industry’s ‘just in time’ supply chains rely on fluid cross-Channel trade routes. >1,100 trucks filled with car parts cross seamlessly from EU into UK each day. We need to start talks now on how we make sure this flow continues if we leave without a deal.'
From Steve Barclay MP, the link won't work.
No doubt findable on https://twitter.com.
https://twitter.com/SteveBarclay/status/1166765868891725825?s=20
That can only be assessed by reference to the mandate sought.
We have now reached the point where we have MPs advocating for No Deal, because to them ANY deal is unacceptable. Which is in my opinion completely fucking nuts.
Alternatively the world will keep on spinning and we’ll all find a way to save everyone’s face.
How many voters are going to be genuinely outraged if we stayed in a customs union with the EU? Practically none is my guess, I would be surprised if MPs get many green ink letters about the topic.
It is really not that complicated.
We (the whole country) needs to stay within the customs union until such time as we have found a technological solution to the problems presented by a customs border.
And, so long as we are in the customs union, it is democratically valuable to be able to actually have representation in the EU.
Which is to say, the optimal course is to stay in the EU *until* that technological solution is agreed (perhaps by setting a realistic timeline).
All of this nonsense has been caused by the ridiculous idea that we should leave the EU practically overnight.
After all, Boris has a cunning plan... which I am sure he will share with everyone, er, once he has thought it up.