It certainly makes mine, thank you. The adult Hague is pretty impressive, but this is so cringey, just like Greta. Maybe she will be amazing when she grows up, let us hope so.
Imagine a 16 yo was wheeled out to give a view on new cancer treatment or surgical techniques.
They would be laughed off stage if they hadn’t a degree in medicine or any experience.
Shows climate panic is a religion - hence not subject to normal rules of rigour.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.
Utter tosh.
She's an activist trying to get across how her generation feel about your generation's science denial. Sixteen year old kids may not know everything we know, but that hardly makes their concerns about their future invalid.
Name another pressure group that has resorted to putting up a disturbed yoof as the face of a campaign of fear ?
It’s wrong.
Are you saying all autistic people are “disturbed” and should not be listened to, or just young autistic people?
He has never negotiated in good faith, and he's not going to start now.
#ThingsIHateAboutThe21stCentury, Part 76
73. ... 74. People who think "The Last Jedi" is in any sense good 75. People who say "Are you alright?" when they mean "Can I help you" 76. People who use the phrases "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" wrongly 77. Vaping 78. ...
He has never negotiated in good faith, and he's not going to start now.
We left the club, it didn't leave us. It had no obligation to negotiate at all.
What an astoundingly childish attitude to take, thank goodness the EU are more adult than that. As the EU themselves continually state it is in everyone's interest to find a deal. I'm amazed you think so little of them you'd advance the point of view they have have no obligation to negotiate as though negotiation is a favour to us, when the whole point of a negotiation is its in their interests too and they say so.
While I go along with this in general, the context is a failed Brexit policy. Do we accept half a failure? Maybe we do, but the point is, the compromise isn't just the midpoint between two positions where both sides get more than half of what they want.
The main problem has been that Leave won by a very small margin, but it's most vociferous supporters subsequently behaved if they won with 92% of the vote, rather than the more measly 52% . If they had been more magnanimous in victory it would have been a better outcome
des need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
"Magnanimous in defeat"? What an absurd comment that can only come from a Leaver who has belatedly seen his preferred outcome slip away. It has nothing to do with the dynamics of 2016.
The EEA Leavers skulked behind the anti-immigration mob, hoping to swoop in afterwards to get what they wanted by positioning themselves in the fulcrum. What they hadn't appreciated was that the manner of victory was as important as the victory itself, and a Brexit that did not deal with immigration concerns was an entirely invalid Brexit.
Of course, a Brexit that deals with immigration concerns leads us to the wretched point we now are at. But that was the inevitable consequence of falling in behind xenophobic lies.
I voted Remain, accepted CU/SM as a second preference that respected democracy and still want to Rejoin. But you are such a headbanging Remainer you see anyone not in your absolutist position as being a Leaver.
Your attitudes betray your not-very-convincing act. You'd do better being honest about your (pretty obvious) position. You discredit it with your deceit.
Yes, those terrible attitudes about wanting compromise and ownership from all involved! I must be one of the enemy!
Everything not very mysteriously comes back to an EEA Leave position, a position occupied by no one except a few Leavers who leeched off the anti-immigration sentiment that won the referendum and constantly sought to insert their preferred policy position on a nation, almost none of whose citizens actually wanted it.
It certainly makes mine, thank you. The adult Hague is pretty impressive, but this is so cringey, just like Greta. Maybe she will be amazing when she grows up, let us hope so.
That was my thinking too.
Her arguments are simplistic and naive, but that's perfectly understandable in a 16 year old. If she stays in the biz though, she may acquire an understanding of it that turns her into a formidable campaigner, rather as Hague did.
ACT I: a cold, wet island L: let's do a Brexit R: that's a bad idea L: but it'll be great, and painless R: well probably not, see ther— L: PROJECT FEAR! R: but economists— L: Project Fear! Special Interests! No experts, Out Out Out!
ACT II: handcart, interior L: WE WON, HA HA! Get over it losers! R: Oh christ, ok, what's the plan? L: We don't tip our hand to Fritz, remoaner. Whose side are you on?! R: Uh.. so I have an idea for this compromise where we leave but we— L: Leave means leave! R: Ok, but in order to preserve the Good Fr— L: Leave doesn't mean that R: But you j— L: WE ALL KNEW WHAT WE WERE VOTING FOR R: Did we aye? Ok, you tell us then [years go by] R: Helloo? L: Here we go [clutches ball of paper] R: Can.. can I see? L: Enemy of the people! We. Don't. Tip. Our. Hand. To. Fritz. R: But I'm not Fr— L: Scrap that [throws the ball of paper at a judge, pulls a creased sheet of paper out of a pocket] R: That looks like it's blank L: Leave means leave! R: Ok, we'll vote on it L: Oh, so now you hate democracy?
ACT III: Westminster L: Ok, now we vote! R: We don't like it. L: we like it and we don't like it. R: You lost the vote L: Saboteurs! We vote again! R: You lost again... half of your own people are agains— L: We vote again! R: Ok, you're nil from three, can we PLEAS— L: New PM! R: Ok, so let's— B: Prorogue! R: I... what? Can you even do that? L: Of course, parliament was blocking democracy R: You know what... L: Leave means leave! R: .. ok, screw it, let's revoke L: THAT'S NOT RIGHT, WHY WON'T YOU COMPROMISE
Imagine a 16 yo was wheeled out to give a view on new cancer treatment or surgical techniques.
They would be laughed off stage if they hadn’t a degree in medicine or any experience.
Shows climate panic is a religion - hence not subject to normal rules of rigour.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.
Utter tosh.
She's an activist trying to get across how her generation feel about your generation's science denial. Sixteen year old kids may not know everything we know, but that hardly makes their concerns about their future invalid.
Still not convinced somebody who is on the autism spectrum is the best advocate to win over those who need to be won over.
Imagine a 16 yo was wheeled out to give a view on new cancer treatment or surgical techniques.
They would be laughed off stage if they hadn’t a degree in medicine or any experience.
Shows climate panic is a religion - hence not subject to normal rules of rigour.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.
Ms Thunberg is literally saying please listen to those who are experts in this area.
That is not being religious.
Yes, but the experts are only experts in a particular area - and often a narrow one. Policy has too be made looking over a vast swathe of areas.
For instance, how do you trade off the speed of cutting carbon emissions and any job losses that may come from that? Or harm done to the economy by fast moves?
This is not to say do nothing, but it is saying that the experts she wants us to listen to may weight things differently, and have their own biases. A government should look at things in total.
The experts are scientists whose whole training is to question, experiment and check things. Climate change is an existential threat which we could take actions to slow down and hopefully reverse. The later we leave it the more it will cost, even if it remains possible. Some actions that could be taken will increase employment while also fighting climate change.
Imagine a 16 yo was wheeled out to give a view on new cancer treatment or surgical techniques.
They would be laughed off stage if they hadn’t a degree in medicine or any experience.
Shows climate panic is a religion - hence not subject to normal rules of rigour.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.
Utter tosh.
She's an activist trying to get across how her generation feel about your generation's science denial. Sixteen year old kids may not know everything we know, but that hardly makes their concerns about their future invalid.
Name another pressure group that has resorted to putting up a disturbed yoof as the face of a campaign of fear ?
It’s wrong.
Are you saying all autistic people are “disturbed” and should not be listened to, or just young autistic people?
Just in the interest of accuracy: I gather that she is not autistic. Asperger's is a different - or at least milder - thing. But your point stands.
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
While I go along with this in general, the context is a failed Brexit policy. Do we accept half a failure? Maybe we do, but the point is, the compromise isn't just the midpoint between two positions where both sides get more than half of what they want.
The main problem has been that Leave won by a very small margin, but it's most vociferous supporters subsequently behaved if they won with 92% of the vote, rather than the more measly 52% . If they had been more magnanimous in victory it would have been a better outcome
Yes, that's correct. Equally had Remainers been more magnanimous in defeat it would have been a better outcome. But from the beginning, they refused to even accept a BINO solution, much less one that addressed the concerns of Leavers.
Now both sides need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
"Magnanimous in defeat"? What an absurd comment that can only come from a Leaver who has belatedly seen his preferred outcome slip away. It has nothing to do with the dynamics of 2016.
The EEA Leavers skulked behind the anti-immigration mob, hoping to swoop in afterwards to get what they wanted by positioning themselves in the fulcrum. What they hadn't appreciated was that the manner of victory was as important as the victory itself, and a Brexit that did not deal with immigration concerns was an entirely invalid Brexit.
Of course, a Brexit that deals with immigration concerns leads us to the wretched point we now are at. But that was the inevitable consequence of falling in behind xenophobic lies.
Certainly EEA can only really be an option in about 10 years time once EU migration has been brought under control
There could have been some more control of immigration last century if governmentof of both parties had wanted it.
He has never negotiated in good faith, and he's not going to start now.
We left the club, it didn't leave us. It had no obligation to negotiate at all.
It had no obligation. Of course not. But it could have at least tried to convince us , as a nation, to stay. Or even pretend to try. I'm not talking about convincing the politicians - but the people. Would it have been so hard for Juncker to have reached out to the British people directly after the vote to acknowledge the EU isn't perfect but that if we stay the UK and the EU will work together with all Member States to make the EU something the British could be proud of? .
Try getting out of a SKY contract after it expires. You're showered with goodies to make you feel loved. A bit of love from the EU could have worked.
While I go along with this in general, the context is a failed Brexit policy. Do we accept half a failure? Maybe we do, but the point is, the compromise isn't just the midpoint between two positions where both sides get more than half of what they want.
The main problem has been that Leave won by a very small margin, but it's most vociferous supporters subsequently behaved if they won with 92% of the vote, rather than the more measly 52% . If they had been more magnanimous in victory it would have been a better outcome
des need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
"Magnanimous in defeat"? What an absurd comment that can only come from a Leaver who has belatedly seen his preferred outcome slip away. It has nothing to do with the dynamics of 2016.
The EEA Leavers skulked behind the anti-immigration mob, hoping to swoop in afterwards to get what they wanted by positioning themselves in the fulcrum. What they hadn't appreciated was that the manner of victory was as important as the victory itself, and a Brexit that did not deal with immigration concerns was an entirely invalid Brexit.
Of course, a Brexit that deals with immigration concerns leads us to the wretched point we now are at. But that was the inevitable consequence of falling in behind xenophobic lies.
I voted Remain, accepted CU/SM as a second preference that respected democracy and still want to Rejoin. But you are such a headbanging Remainer you see anyone not in your absolutist position as being a Leaver.
Your attitudes betray your not-very-convincing act. You'd do better being honest about your (pretty obvious) position. You discredit it with your deceit.
Yes, those terrible attitudes about wanting compromise and ownership from all involved! I must be one of the enemy!
Everything not very mysteriously comes back to an EEA Leave position, a position occupied by no one except a few Leavers who leeched off the anti-immigration sentiment that won the referendum and constantly sought to insert their preferred policy position on a nation, almost none of whose citizens actually wanted it.
Except I also backed CU membership, which is completely contrary to the EEA Leavers, who wanted lots of bilateral trade deals. EEA + CU is the closest we get to Remain while respecting democracy.
This week Labour has almost certainly ensured the Tories win a majority at the next general election and that, quite possibly, the LibDems come second in the popular vote.
He has never negotiated in good faith, and he's not going to start now.
#ThingsIHateAboutThe21stCentury, Part 76
73. ... 74. People who think "The Last Jedi" is in any sense good 75. People who say "Are you alright?" when they mean "Can I help you" 76. People who use the phrases "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" wrongly 77. Vaping 78. ...
Are you alright hun?
79. People who use the phrase "Are you alright hun?" 80. People who talk on trains 81. ...
He has never negotiated in good faith, and he's not going to start now.
We left the club, it didn't leave us. It had no obligation to negotiate at all.
Actually, that's untrue. Under Article 50(2):
"A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
Imagine a 16 yo was wheeled out to give a view on new cancer treatment or surgical techniques.
They would be laughed off stage if they hadn’t a degree in medicine or any experience.
Shows climate panic is a religion - hence not subject to normal rules of rigour.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.
Utter tosh.
She's an activist trying to get across how her generation feel about your generation's science denial. Sixteen year old kids may not know everything we know, but that hardly makes their concerns about their future invalid.
Name another pressure group that has resorted to putting up a disturbed yoof as the face of a campaign of fear ?
It’s wrong.
Are you saying all autistic people are “disturbed” and should not be listened to, or just young autistic people?
Just in the interest of accuracy: I gather that she is not autistic. Asperger's is a different - or at least milder - thing. But your point stands.
IIRC, Asperger's no longer exists as a separate category: it's been subsumed into a wider spectrum of disorders. Happy to be contradicted if wrong.
Imagine a 16 yo was wheeled out to give a view on new cancer treatment or surgical techniques.
They would be laughed off stage if they hadn’t a degree in medicine or any experience.
Shows climate panic is a religion - hence not subject to normal rules of rigour.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.
Ms Thunberg is literally saying please listen to those who are experts in this area.
That is not being religious.
Yes, but the experts are only experts in a particular area - and often a narrow one. Policy has too be made looking over a vast swathe of areas.
For instance, how do you trade off the speed of cutting carbon emissions and any job losses that may come from that? Or harm done to the economy by fast moves?
This is not to say do nothing, but it is saying that the experts she wants us to listen to may weight things differently, and have their own biases. A government should look at things in total.
I do not remember hearing her say "please listen to one meteorologist".
What she seems to be doing very well is saying to the politicians: This problem is too big to ignore, it is your responsibility to start taking this seriously. Now.
The main problem has been that Leave won by a very small margin, but it's most vociferous supporters subsequently behaved if they won with 92% of the vote, rather than the more measly 52% . If they had been more magnanimous in victory it would have been a better outcome
des need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
"Magnanimous in defeat"? What an absurd comment that can only come from a Leaver who has belatedly seen his preferred outcome slip away. It has nothing to do with the dynamics of 2016.
The EEA Leavers skulked behind the anti-immigration mob, hoping to swoop in afterwards to get what they wanted by positioning themselves in the fulcrum. What they hadn't appreciated was that the manner of victory was as important as the victory itself, and a Brexit that did not deal with immigration concerns was an entirely invalid Brexit.
Of course, a Brexit that deals with immigration concerns leads us to the wretched point we now are at. But that was the inevitable consequence of falling in behind xenophobic lies.
I voted Remain, accepted CU/SM as a second preference that respected democracy and still want to Rejoin. But you are such a headbanging Remainer you see anyone not in your absolutist position as being a Leaver.
Your attitudes betray your not-very-convincing act. You'd do better being honest about your (pretty obvious) position. You discredit it with your deceit.
Yes, those terrible attitudes about wanting compromise and ownership from all involved! I must be one of the enemy!
Everything not very mysteriously comes back to an EEA Leave position, a position occupied by no one except a few Leavers who leeched off the anti-immigration sentiment that won the referendum and constantly sought to insert their preferred policy position on a nation, almost none of whose citizens actually wanted it.
Except I also backed CU membership, which is completely contrary to the EEA Leavers, who wanted lots of bilateral trade deals. EEA + CU is the closest we get to Remain while respecting democracy.
It doesn't respect democracy at all. The referendum was fought and won on an anti-immigration prospectus. To fail to honour that is to fail to honour the vote.
He has never negotiated in good faith, and he's not going to start now.
We left the club, it didn't leave us. It had no obligation to negotiate at all.
It had no obligation. Of course not. But it could have at least tried to convince us , as a nation, to stay. Or even pretend to try. I'm not talking about convincing the politicians - but the people. Would it have been so hard for Juncker to have reached out to the British people directly after the vote to acknowledge the EU isn't perfect but that if we stay the UK and the EU will work together with all Member States to make the EU something the British could be proud of? .
Try getting out of a SKY contract after it expires. You're showered with goodies to make you feel loved. A bit of love from the EU could have worked.
The EU itself has much to answer for, but the 'love' would have been more valuable before the Referendum rather than after, when it may have been justifiably regarded as an attempt to interfere in our domestic politics.
Imagine a 16 yo was wheeled out to give a view on new cancer treatment or surgical techniques.
They would be laughed off stage if they hadn’t a degree in medicine or any experience.
Shows climate panic is a religion - hence not subject to normal rules of rigour.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.
Utter tosh.
She's an activist trying to get across how her generation feel about your generation's science denial. Sixteen year old kids may not know everything we know, but that hardly makes their concerns about their future invalid.
Still not convinced somebody who is on the autism spectrum is the best advocate to win over those who need to be won over.
Plus she has the dead eyes of a shark.
We are all on the "autism (sic) spectrum".
I find her irritating, and as I mentioned earlier I think her parents are showing very bad parenting, but your comment is really very unpleasant.
This week Labour has almost certainly ensured the Tories win a majority at the next general election and that, quite possibly, the LibDems come second in the popular vote.
And quite possibly that the next non Tory government will be led by a LD not Labour PM
This week Labour has almost certainly ensured the Tories win a majority at the next general election and that, quite possibly, the LibDems come second in the popular vote.
Looks that way. This week has been best conference the LibDems have had in years.
Wow. We've got the Lib Dems prepared to overturn the largest mandate in British political history without another referendum, Labour prepared to seize private property and 'redistribute' it how they see fit, the Tories prepared to countenance economic damage and food and medicine shortages in pursuit of no-deal (with barely a scrap of a proposal how to replace the backstop). Oh and the brexit party... which only has one policy.
Undiplomatic, maybe. Succinct and troubling summary of international relations at the moment. Yeah, kinda.
Perhaps she has looked at two of the last three Foreign Secretaries and decided differently!
Agree it makes no sense for Labour to demand an internationalist US president.
Not sure there has been a leader of the free world or a need for such a figure head since the end of the Soviet Union. Obama was probably the closest where people in other countries would have recognised him as a leader.
Regardless of Trump the next generation is very likely to face a very different set of global power dynamics than "free world" vs "communism".
As well as leader of the free world, the US president also gets almost universally defined as the most powerful person on the planet. I am not sure he is in the top 10. Putin and Xi Jinping are surely more powerful, probably someone like Zuckerberg is as well.
The dynamics are going to be “liberal democratic societies” vs “authoritarian illiberal” ones. The fact that China and Russia think that tomorrow belongs to them (witness Putin’s recent attack on liberalism and what has come out today about China’s treatment of the Uighurs) is very troubling.
I wish we did have far-sighted leaders in the West who articulated, demonstrated and stood up for the best of Western values.
I think that is partly right. The dynamics will be far more complex and fluid than in the Cold War. Environmental, atheist vs religious, Islamic v Christian, haves vs have nots will all provide tensions of a similar scale to liberal vs illiberal. It is probably a lot further away but its not impossible biotech or robotics are also at the centre of global tensions for the next generation.
With so many competing impacts, countries and even groups within countries wont sit clearly on one side of a dominant global power struggle looking for a single leader, as we did in the Cold War. It would still be great to have far sighted persuasive Western leaders but if they do come along we shouldnt expect them to always be on our side, but should view them as a powerful friend not our leader vs others.
Trump welcomed Modi to a big Houston rally at the weekend suggesting a new US and Indian alliance to take on China and Russia
This week Labour has almost certainly ensured the Tories win a majority at the next general election and that, quite possibly, the LibDems come second in the popular vote.
Just rejoice at that news....
It's the only way you are going to get your Party back. Albeit, as a museum piece.
Imagine a 16 yo was wheeled out to give a view on new cancer treatment or surgical techniques.
They would be laughed off stage if they hadn’t a degree in medicine or any experience.
Shows climate panic is a religion - hence not subject to normal rules of rigour.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.
Utter tosh.
She's an activist trying to get across how her generation feel about your generation's science denial. Sixteen year old kids may not know everything we know, but that hardly makes their concerns about their future invalid.
Name another pressure group that has resorted to putting up a disturbed yoof as the face of a campaign of fear ?
It’s wrong.
Are you saying all autistic people are “disturbed” and should not be listened to, or just young autistic people?
Just in the interest of accuracy: I gather that she is not autistic. Asperger's is a different - or at least milder - thing. But your point stands.
IIRC, Asperger's no longer exists as a separate category: it's been subsumed into a wider spectrum of disorders. Happy to be contradicted if wrong.
I find precocious child activists pushed along by probable pushy parents as highly unappealing. Supercilious piousness in adults is pretty hard to stomach, but in a 16 year old....
Jealousy is such a terrible thing.
It is indeed. I wish one of my boys had her ponytails! has anyone seen the parents? They may well be delightful perhaps?
I dunno anything about her parents. All I know is that whatever she's trying to achieve it's probably no to be "appealing" to you.
I am all in favour of what she purports to be trying to achieve, and if she is successful good luck to her. I still find pushy children with pushy parents highly irritating.
Why is it, by the way, that males are assertive and forceful, but females are pushy and bossy? Never quite got my head around that.
Because men (and therefore society) have always used langauge as a way of keeping women in a socially inferior place. Bear in mind that until the turn of the 20th Century, women were regarded as "chattels". As late as 1980 barstaff could legally refuse to serve women alcohol.
My own mother had trouble getting her name on the deeds of her first house because in the 1970s that was regarded as a man's responsibility.
It rankles to know that just because you are born without a willy (and for no other reason) in large parts of the world you are worth less than cars or property. 200 years ago, it was not all that different around these parts...
Woa, I know I am anon, so maybe it doesn't matter, but my views are being completely misrepresented (deliberately by the other poster) here. I did not use the word "bossy". I used the word "pushy" and as I said previously I have met many many pushy fathers.
I am not getting at anyone here. Just talking about how language can be used to elevate or oppress. Women have been (are still?) generally viewed as inferior and it shows in the legacy of our language.
Imagine a 16 yo was wheeled out to give a view on new cancer treatment or surgical techniques.
They would be laughed off stage if they hadn’t a degree in medicine or any experience.
Shows climate panic is a religion - hence not subject to normal rules of rigour.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.
Ms Thunberg is literally saying please listen to those who are experts in this area.
That is not being religious.
Yes, but the experts are only experts in a particular area - and often a narrow one. Policy has too be made looking over a vast swathe of areas.
For instance, how do you trade off the speed of cutting carbon emissions and any job losses that may come from that? Or harm done to the economy by fast moves?
This is not to say do nothing, but it is saying that the experts she wants us to listen to may weight things differently, and have their own biases. A government should look at things in total.
The experts are scientists whose whole training is to question, experiment and check things. Climate change is an existential threat which we could take actions to slow down and hopefully reverse. The later we leave it the more it will cost, even if it remains possible. Some actions that could be taken will increase employment while also fighting climate change.
Indeed, they are experts, and some actions will increase employment and improve the economy, especially in the long term.
However, some actions will have exactly the opposite effects. Politicians will have to trade such factors off against the need to tackle climate change. Scientists and campaigners will not.
I don't know what you do for a living, but would you be happy to lose your job in the name of climate change? Your childrens'? If not, why should other people suffer?
Imagine a 16 yo was wheeled out to give a view on new cancer treatment or surgical techniques.
They would be laughed off stage if they hadn’t a degree in medicine or any experience.
Shows climate panic is a religion - hence not subject to normal rules of rigour.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.
Utter tosh.
She's an activist trying to get across how her generation feel about your generation's science denial. Sixteen year old kids may not know everything we know, but that hardly makes their concerns about their future invalid.
Still not convinced somebody who is on the autism spectrum is the best advocate to win over those who need to be won over.
Plus she has the dead eyes of a shark.
We are all on the "autism (sic) spectrum".
I find her irritating, and as I mentioned earlier I think her parents are showing very bad parenting, but your comment is really very unpleasant.
He has never negotiated in good faith, and he's not going to start now.
We left the club, it didn't leave us. It had no obligation to negotiate at all.
Actually, that's untrue. Under Article 50(2):
"A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
Correct, but if you just tear up your membership card in the way we did, you're fortunate if the other side negotiate generously, so it amounts to much the same thing.
Imagine a 16 yo was wheeled out to give a view on new cancer treatment or surgical techniques.
They would be laughed off stage if they hadn’t a degree in medicine or any experience.
Shows climate panic is a religion - hence not subject to normal rules of rigour.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.
Utter tosh.
She's an activist trying to get across how her generation feel about your generation's science denial. Sixteen year old kids may not know everything we know, but that hardly makes their concerns about their future invalid.
Still not convinced somebody who is on the autism spectrum is the best advocate to win over those who need to be won over.
Plus she has the dead eyes of a shark.
We are all on the "autism (sic) spectrum".
I find her irritating, and as I mentioned earlier I think her parents are showing very bad parenting, but your comment is really very unpleasant.
Really? She considers her autism a "superpower". I just don't think it is one that helps her make her case.
Imagine a 16 yo was wheeled out to give a view on new cancer treatment or surgical techniques.
They would be laughed off stage if they hadn’t a degree in medicine or any experience.
Shows climate panic is a religion - hence not subject to normal rules of rigour.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.
Utter tosh.
She's an activist trying to get across how her generation feel about your generation's science denial. Sixteen year old kids may not know everything we know, but that hardly makes their concerns about their future invalid.
Still not convinced somebody who is on the autism spectrum is the best advocate to win over those who need to be won over.
Plus she has the dead eyes of a shark.
We are all on the "autism (sic) spectrum".
I find her irritating, and as I mentioned earlier I think her parents are showing very bad parenting, but your comment is really very unpleasant.
He has never negotiated in good faith, and he's not going to start now.
We left the club, it didn't leave us. It had no obligation to negotiate at all.
Actually, that's untrue. Under Article 50(2):
"A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
Correct, but if you just tear up your membership card in the way we did, you're fortunate if the other side negotiate generously, so it amounts to much the same thing.
The EU has throughout been shortsighted in how it has sought to establish its future long term relationship with Britain. It has a substantial responsibility for this failure, which is likely to prove a thorn in its side for the foreseeable future, however things develop.
Wow. We've got the Lib Dems prepared to overturn the largest mandate in British political history without another referendum, Labour prepared to seize private property and 'redistribute' it how they see fit, the Tories prepared to countenance economic damage and food and medicine shortages in pursuit of no-deal (with barely a scrap of a proposal how to replace the backstop). Oh and the brexit party... which only has one policy.
What an absolute shower.
I will not be able to vote at the next General Election.
I am hoping no-one tries to canvass me from any political party, as my iron self-control will give way.
An exact quote from her: "I have Aspergers and that means I’m sometimes a bit different from the norm. And - given the right circumstances- being different is a superpower"
I have some issues with this. She might find it a superpower in the right circumstances, but others may find it an absolute curse at all times. She does not speak for everyone with Aspergers (yet alone everyone who is 'different'), just as she does not speak for all children.
It's also the sort of line that, if given by a politician, would get groans from the audience and criticism from people who now seem to support it.
Overall, I am warming to Greta. I massively prefer her to the plane-taking luvvies & rock stars who lecture us about climate change.
But, what she should not be doing is telling kids to go on strike from school.
She should be telling kids to learn as much physics & engineering & science as possible.
That is far more likely to lead to a solution than remonstrating with politicians.
I very much agree with your points about working to find the solutions - that is where the effort should be
But as far as Greta - I can't shake the feeling that she is being used and manipulated by others for their own ends. I do not doubt her own sincerity and determination to make a difference - but what she has started is being taken over by some very extreme political groups. And that is dangerous - for the cause as a whole and for her as an individual.
An exact quote from her: "I have Aspergers and that means I’m sometimes a bit different from the norm. And - given the right circumstances- being different is a superpower"
I have some issues with this. She might find it a superpower in the right circumstances, but others may find it an absolute curse at all times. She does not speak for everyone with Aspergers (yet alone everyone who is 'different'), just as she does not speak for all children.
It's also the sort of line that, if given by a politician, would get groans from the audience and criticism from people who now seem to support it.
It is why I think her parents are being totally irresponsible. She is still a child.
He has never negotiated in good faith, and he's not going to start now.
We left the club, it didn't leave us. It had no obligation to negotiate at all.
Actually, that's untrue. Under Article 50(2):
"A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
So it's untrue as well as childish? Say it ain't so.
I just watched about 60 seconds over it on the Guardian stream - what an utter mess. Whoever is chairing it has no idea what she is doing or how to run an event.
This week Labour has almost certainly ensured the Tories win a majority at the next general election and that, quite possibly, the LibDems come second in the popular vote.
Just rejoice at that news....
It's the only way you are going to get your Party back. Albeit, as a museum piece.
It’s not my party anymore. I would like it to go away ASAP and allow a genuine alternative to the English Nationalist Party to develop.
An exact quote from her: "I have Aspergers and that means I’m sometimes a bit different from the norm. And - given the right circumstances- being different is a superpower"
I have some issues with this. She might find it a superpower in the right circumstances, but others may find it an absolute curse at all times. She does not speak for everyone with Aspergers (yet alone everyone who is 'different'), just as she does not speak for all children.
It's also the sort of line that, if given by a politician, would get groans from the audience and criticism from people who now seem to support it.
Has she claimed to speak for everyone? Everyone with Aspergers? If that is how she chooses to see it, then she should be allowed to say that.
I just watched about 60 seconds over it on the Guardian stream - what an utter mess. Whoever is chairing it has no idea what she is doing or how to run an event.
I seem to recall from a Daily Show piece there was a Democratic Convention where they ran into a bit of trouble because a planned motion was not backed, or at the least it was very close, and after some akward confusion and asking people to voice their support or objection a second time they just called it as approve anyway, since that's what the teleprompter said.
He has never negotiated in good faith, and he's not going to start now.
We left the club, it didn't leave us. It had no obligation to negotiate at all.
Actually, that's untrue. Under Article 50(2):
"A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
So it's untrue as well as childish? Say it ain't so.
Brexit is childish. It is politics for those that believe in fairies at the end of the garden and Father Christmas (he is German by the way - no tears please!)
An exact quote from her: "I have Aspergers and that means I’m sometimes a bit different from the norm. And - given the right circumstances- being different is a superpower"
I have some issues with this. She might find it a superpower in the right circumstances, but others may find it an absolute curse at all times. She does not speak for everyone with Aspergers (yet alone everyone who is 'different'), just as she does not speak for all children.
It's also the sort of line that, if given by a politician, would get groans from the audience and criticism from people who now seem to support it.
Has she claimed to speak for everyone? Everyone with Aspergers? If that is how she chooses to see it, then she should be allowed to say that.
When she says things like: "We (her generation) will never forgive you!" at a summit, then yes, she does claim to be speaking for that generation.
I *think* a motion is made (a request for Conference to adopt a position) and that motion is then amended with amendments and/or combined with other motions. The result is a "composite motion", or "composite" for short.
So over 3 years after the referendum and barely 5 weeks before Britain faces a disorderly withdrawal from the EU Labour have decided that they won’t decide whether they are in favour of Leave or Remain until later.
Is that right?
I suppose after 31 October - if Boris gets his way - it won’t matter anyway. Corbyn won’t campaign to Rejoin. The Lib Dems probably will. But that will be a very long uphill battle and the EU probably won’t want us back for a very long time, if ever.
The only thing that is likely to be as ludicrous and badly managed as the Labour Party Conference is going to be The Boris Party Conference (aka CINO and Brexit Party Lite)
So over 3 years after the referendum and barely 5 weeks before Britain faces a disorderly withdrawal from the EU Labour have decided that they won’t decide whether they are in favour of Leave or Remain until later.
Is that right?
I suppose after 31 October - if Boris gets his way - it won’t matter anyway. Corbyn won’t campaign to Rejoin. The Lib Dems probably will. But that will be a very long uphill battle and the EU probably won’t want us back for a very long time, if ever.
That seems a pretty fair representation of what has just happened at the Labour Party Chaos
An exact quote from her: "I have Aspergers and that means I’m sometimes a bit different from the norm. And - given the right circumstances- being different is a superpower"
I have some issues with this. She might find it a superpower in the right circumstances, but others may find it an absolute curse at all times. She does not speak for everyone with Aspergers (yet alone everyone who is 'different'), just as she does not speak for all children.
It's also the sort of line that, if given by a politician, would get groans from the audience and criticism from people who now seem to support it.
Has she claimed to speak for everyone? Everyone with Aspergers? If that is how she chooses to see it, then she should be allowed to say that.
When she says things like: "We (her generation) will never forgive you!" at a summit, then yes, she does claim to be speaking for that generation.
When in fact, it is probably what she has been told to say by someone of an older generation lol!
Wow. We've got the Lib Dems prepared to overturn the largest mandate in British political history without another referendum, Labour prepared to seize private property and 'redistribute' it how they see fit, the Tories prepared to countenance economic damage and food and medicine shortages in pursuit of no-deal (with barely a scrap of a proposal how to replace the backstop). Oh and the brexit party... which only has one policy.
What an absolute shower.
I will not be able to vote at the next General Election.
I am hoping no-one tries to canvass me from any political party, as my iron self-control will give way.
Why won't you be able to vote? Have you missed the deadline to register.
On the other hand, if you're saying you don't like any of the parties you will still be ABLE to vote; you just intellectually can't
So over 3 years after the referendum and barely 5 weeks before Britain faces a disorderly withdrawal from the EU Labour have decided that they won’t decide whether they are in favour of Leave or Remain until later.
Is that right?
I suppose after 31 October - if Boris gets his way - it won’t matter anyway. Corbyn won’t campaign to Rejoin. The Lib Dems probably will. But that will be a very long uphill battle and the EU probably won’t want us back for a very long time, if ever.
What a useless bunch of ............ fence sitters!
Truly, Labour and the LDs are changing places. It is no longer "parking tanks on the lawn" and rather more about who can fit their backsides to sit on the political fence.
The LDs moved off and Labour jumped on. At least the LDs kept the fence warm for them
He has never negotiated in good faith, and he's not going to start now.
We left the club, it didn't leave us. It had no obligation to negotiate at all.
Actually, that's untrue. Under Article 50(2):
"A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
So it's untrue as well as childish? Say it ain't so.
Brexit is childish. It is politics for those that believe in fairies at the end of the garden and Father Christmas (he is German by the way - no tears please!)
I never said childishness could not be found on the Brexit side as well. But being pouty and childish doesn't make the other side look bad even if they too are pouty and childish.
Wow. We've got the Lib Dems prepared to overturn the largest mandate in British political history without another referendum, Labour prepared to seize private property and 'redistribute' it how they see fit, the Tories prepared to countenance economic damage and food and medicine shortages in pursuit of no-deal (with barely a scrap of a proposal how to replace the backstop). Oh and the brexit party... which only has one policy.
What an absolute shower.
I will not be able to vote at the next General Election.
I am hoping no-one tries to canvass me from any political party, as my iron self-control will give way.
Why won't you be able to vote? Have you missed the deadline to register.
On the other hand, if you're saying you don't like any of the parties you will still be ABLE to vote; you just intellectually can't
I think everyone should vote, even if it is to vote for the least worst candidate, and if that is not possible spoil your ballot to register that you are not part of the "can't be arsed" crowd.
She should be telling kids to learn as much physics & engineering & science as possible.
I get where you're coming from, but the science is settled. It's now a purely political issue. We either do what is right or we do what is easy. I would argue strongly that the experience of striking is incredibly educational. Education is more that just book learning in school. You learn by listening and reading, but you also learn by doing.
I went on strike once. Just before the Iraq war, there was a push to have people go out on a wildcat strike in protest. I was the ringleader of a group of people in my office who all decided we were up for it. We told our bosses in advance what we planned to do, that we weren't protesting against the working conditions but because we were working on a project for the government we had to register a protest. We were told in no uncertain terms that if we did it, we'd be fired. That caused some people to back out. Then the war started, and it happened. We did it. We turned up for work and then walked out.
The bit that taught me a lot was the reaction at work. The strikers went back into work the next day. Nothing happened. Nobody was fired, nobody ever broached the subject, not directly and not obliquely. A couple of the ones who backed out admitted they were ashamed of caving into the pressure and wished they'd taken part after all now they knew it had been safe all along, but I understood why they did it. I think they learned as much as we did from it. From the action and the inaction.
Wow. We've got the Lib Dems prepared to overturn the largest mandate in British political history without another referendum, Labour prepared to seize private property and 'redistribute' it how they see fit, the Tories prepared to countenance economic damage and food and medicine shortages in pursuit of no-deal (with barely a scrap of a proposal how to replace the backstop). Oh and the brexit party... which only has one policy.
What an absolute shower.
I will not be able to vote at the next General Election.
I am hoping no-one tries to canvass me from any political party, as my iron self-control will give way.
Why won't you be able to vote? Have you missed the deadline to register.
On the other hand, if you're saying you don't like any of the parties you will still be ABLE to vote; you just intellectually can't
I think everyone should vote, even if it is to vote for the least worst candidate, and if that is not possible spoil your ballot to register that you are not part of the "can't be arsed" crowd.
The only thing that is likely to be as ludicrous and badly managed as the Labour Party Conference is going to be The Boris Party Conference (aka CINO and Brexit Party Lite)
They tried to get the chaos out the way first. But it's probably going to be a riot. Not lite...well maybe literally.
He has never negotiated in good faith, and he's not going to start now.
We left the club, it didn't leave us. It had no obligation to negotiate at all.
Actually, that's untrue. Under Article 50(2):
"A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
So it's untrue as well as childish? Say it ain't so.
Brexit is childish. It is politics for those that believe in fairies at the end of the garden and Father Christmas (he is German by the way - no tears please!)
I never said childishness could not be found on the Brexit side as well. But being pouty and childish doesn't make the other side look bad even if they too are pouty and childish.
I was referring to the whole philosophy of Brexit - if it can be described as such. It is pointless and trivial. It is at the dark end of childishness, spiteful and mean. In that sense it is not like Father Christmas, not just because St Nick is German, but because he represents generosity and kindness. Brexit is the antithesis to this.
I don’t agree with all the actions of Extinction Rebellion however I pay credit to all those young people who have stood up and tried to make politicians see sense and do more to combat climate change .
The reaction of the right towards Greta Thunberg has been a disgrace , truly reprehensible .
I don’t agree with all the actions of Extinction Rebellion however I pay credit to all those young people who have stood up and tried to make politicians see sense and do more to combat climate change .
The reaction of the right towards Greta Thunberg has been a disgrace , truly reprehensible .
Comments
Her arguments are simplistic and naive, but that's perfectly understandable in a 16 year old. If she stays in the biz though, she may acquire an understanding of it that turns her into a formidable campaigner, rather as Hague did.
ACT I: a cold, wet island
L: let's do a Brexit
R: that's a bad idea
L: but it'll be great, and painless
R: well probably not, see ther—
L: PROJECT FEAR!
R: but economists—
L: Project Fear! Special Interests! No experts, Out Out Out!
ACT II: handcart, interior
L: WE WON, HA HA! Get over it losers!
R: Oh christ, ok, what's the plan?
L: We don't tip our hand to Fritz, remoaner. Whose side are you on?!
R: Uh.. so I have an idea for this compromise where we leave but we—
L: Leave means leave!
R: Ok, but in order to preserve the Good Fr—
L: Leave doesn't mean that
R: But you j—
L: WE ALL KNEW WHAT WE WERE VOTING FOR
R: Did we aye? Ok, you tell us then
[years go by]
R: Helloo?
L: Here we go [clutches ball of paper]
R: Can.. can I see?
L: Enemy of the people! We. Don't. Tip. Our. Hand. To. Fritz.
R: But I'm not Fr—
L: Scrap that [throws the ball of paper at a judge, pulls a creased sheet of paper out of a pocket]
R: That looks like it's blank
L: Leave means leave!
R: Ok, we'll vote on it
L: Oh, so now you hate democracy?
ACT III: Westminster
L: Ok, now we vote!
R: We don't like it.
L: we like it and we don't like it.
R: You lost the vote
L: Saboteurs! We vote again!
R: You lost again... half of your own people are agains—
L: We vote again!
R: Ok, you're nil from three, can we PLEAS—
L: New PM!
R: Ok, so let's—
B: Prorogue!
R: I... what? Can you even do that?
L: Of course, parliament was blocking democracy
R: You know what...
L: Leave means leave!
R: .. ok, screw it, let's revoke
L: THAT'S NOT RIGHT, WHY WON'T YOU COMPROMISE
Plus she has the dead eyes of a shark.
Some actions that could be taken will increase employment while also fighting climate change.
Try getting out of a SKY contract after it expires. You're showered with goodies to make you feel loved. A bit of love from the EU could have worked.
Have we?
Back to the drawing board. The hunt goes on..........
80. People who talk on trains
81. ...
Starmer thinks he can reform the EU
it will be "influence" next
"A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
Mind you Dave Milliband is 29.
What she seems to be doing very well is saying to the politicians: This problem is too big to ignore, it is your responsibility to start taking this seriously. Now.
It's just what you want.
I find her irritating, and as I mentioned earlier I think her parents are showing very bad parenting, but your comment is really very unpleasant.
What an absolute shower.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1175848677145042944?s=20
It's the only way you are going to get your Party back. Albeit, as a museum piece.
However, some actions will have exactly the opposite effects. Politicians will have to trade such factors off against the need to tackle climate change. Scientists and campaigners will not.
I don't know what you do for a living, but would you be happy to lose your job in the name of climate change? Your childrens'? If not, why should other people suffer?
Now a delegate complaining that people who have come into the hall may not be actual delegates. WTF!
Also, Trump is very Russia-friendly.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/02/greta-thunberg-responds-to-aspergers-critics-its-a-superpower
But, what she should not be doing is telling kids to go on strike from school.
She should be telling kids to learn as much physics & engineering & science as possible.
That is far more likely to lead to a solution than remonstrating with politicians.
I am hoping no-one tries to canvass me from any political party, as my iron self-control will give way.
I am smiling at the very thought.
"I have Aspergers and that means I’m sometimes a bit different from the norm. And - given the right circumstances- being different is a superpower"
I have some issues with this. She might find it a superpower in the right circumstances, but others may find it an absolute curse at all times. She does not speak for everyone with Aspergers (yet alone everyone who is 'different'), just as she does not speak for all children.
It's also the sort of line that, if given by a politician, would get groans from the audience and criticism from people who now seem to support it.
But as far as Greta - I can't shake the feeling that she is being used and manipulated by others for their own ends. I do not doubt her own sincerity and determination to make a difference - but what she has started is being taken over by some very extreme political groups. And that is dangerous - for the cause as a whole and for her as an individual.
We need a proper "Like" button
Wendy Nichols, the chair, seems to be resisting this.
She says whichever way she goes, she will be in trouble.
She is “in my view it was carried”.
Then she corrects herself. She says it was lost....
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1176175780998651904
Is that right?
I suppose after 31 October - if Boris gets his way - it won’t matter anyway. Corbyn won’t campaign to Rejoin. The Lib Dems probably will. But that will be a very long uphill battle and the EU probably won’t want us back for a very long time, if ever.
On the other hand, if you're saying you don't like any of the parties you will still be ABLE to vote; you just intellectually can't
Truly, Labour and the LDs are changing places. It is no longer "parking tanks on the lawn" and rather more about who can fit their backsides to sit on the political fence.
The LDs moved off and Labour jumped on. At least the LDs kept the fence warm for them
I would argue strongly that the experience of striking is incredibly educational. Education is more that just book learning in school. You learn by listening and reading, but you also learn by doing.
I went on strike once. Just before the Iraq war, there was a push to have people go out on a wildcat strike in protest. I was the ringleader of a group of people in my office who all decided we were up for it. We told our bosses in advance what we planned to do, that we weren't protesting against the working conditions but because we were working on a project for the government we had to register a protest. We were told in no uncertain terms that if we did it, we'd be fired. That caused some people to back out. Then the war started, and it happened. We did it. We turned up for work and then walked out.
The bit that taught me a lot was the reaction at work. The strikers went back into work the next day. Nothing happened. Nobody was fired, nobody ever broached the subject, not directly and not obliquely. A couple of the ones who backed out admitted they were ashamed of caving into the pressure and wished they'd taken part after all now they knew it had been safe all along, but I understood why they did it. I think they learned as much as we did from it. From the action and the inaction.
The sexist lite option.
The reaction of the right towards Greta Thunberg has been a disgrace , truly reprehensible .
Heart of stone etc