(Perhaps he's like William Hague: feeble as party leader, but growing into a serious figure afterwards?)
Ambition in politicians is a poison. When it's drawn out they become much more likeable, and/or impressive.
I’m not sure if it’s my Brexit derangement syndrome talking but Michael Portillo seems to have gone full circle and is back to his former dislikable self.
Being likeable to everyone means getting nothing done, politicians like Thatcher, Attlee and Churchill who got things done were not afraid to make enemies on the way
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
Which of the ‘main leave pledges’ does no deal respect?
Replacing free movement with a points system, regaining power from European Courts, reclaiming money from the EU, doing our own trade deals etc
You personally don’t favour any of those things though, right? You did vote remain after all.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
up. Is that any better?
No. Both are an aftont to democracy.
ging us into civil war?
3. Don't panic Corporal Jones.
For once, I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic.
The mood is ghastly. The commons reflected this. We teeter on the edge.
Do I think there will be full on civil war? No. But could there be quite widespread civil unrest, up to and including the murder of MPs? Yes. Totally.
That’s quite bad enough, for me to quail and seek any other way out.
The problem with this is that these threats of violence are coming heavly from one side. Bending primarily to threats from one side of a 50:50 nationwide split, rather than seeking mediation, is an extemely dangerous path to go down.
They really aren’t coming from just one side. Here’s an ex Irish pm essentially threatening Boris with assassination. Today.
That's rhetoric for international politics, however. Domestically, some Brexiters are threatening violence, and some Remainers are threatening economic chaos and collapse. The two aren't equivalent.
No, you don’t get to do that. Bruton’s remarks were wildly irresponsible, and he’s an ex PM., not some drunken nobody on Facebook. See also Philip Pullman calling for Boris to be hung, the remainer rapper with the decapitated Boris effigy. Etc
Both sides are horribly guilty.
I would start to become more convinced of things like this if I heard of a concerted pattern of death threats to Brexiters such as those experienced by many Remainer MP's. So far I've heard of nothing like this, and given the politically charged atmosphere would have expected to if there were any substantial patterns of intimidation to the other side. The fact that we've heard of nothing, or very little, like this so far, would suggest that, at least on any relative scale, it isn't there.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
It would be a decent compromise that reflects the narrowness of the vote, while respecting the result of the vote. That extremist neobrexiteers like yourself oppose it is more evidence that it’s the wise path.
No it wouldn't, it would mean we would still be in the EU in every respect bar leaving the CFP and CAP, which is precisely why it is as far as most diehard Remainers were willing to go as it ensures Brexit basically changes nothing
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
up. Is that any better?
No. Both are an aftont to democracy.
ging us into civil war?
1. The economy wont be destroyed. Will it take a hit, yes, but destroyed? Clearly no. Hyperbole
2. Have you any concept of what full on civil conflict looks like? I do, in two different countries, there isn't going to be a civil war or anything within a thousand miles of it.
3. Don't panic Corporal Jones.
For once, I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic.
The mood is ghastly. The commons reflected this. We teeter on the edge.
Do I think there will be full on civil war? No. But could there be quite widespread civil unrest, up to and including the murder of MPs? Yes. Totally.
That’s quite bad enough, for me to quail and seek any other way out.
The problem with this is that these threats of violence are coming heavly from one side. Bending primarily to threats from one side of a 50:50 nationwide split, rather than seeking mediation, is an extemely dangerous path to go down.
They really aren’t coming from just one side. Here’s an ex Irish pm essentially threatening Boris with assassination. Today.
That's rhetoric for international politics, however. Domestically, some Brexiters are threatening violence, and some Remainers are threatening economic chaos and collapse. The two aren't equivalent.
No, you don’t get to do that. Bruton’s remarks were wildly irresponsible, and he’s an ex PM., not some drunken nobody on Facebook. See also Philip Pullman calling for Boris to be hung, the remainer rapper with the decapitated Boris effigy. Etc
Both sides are horribly guilty.
I would hope that Philip Pullman would at least call for Boris Johnson to be hanged.
I suspect the £2.585 billion of goodwill they had in their last accounts might turn out to be not worth that much after all.
Goodwill is an intangible asset associated with the purchase of one company by another. Specifically, goodwill is recorded in a situation in which the purchase price is higher than the sum of the fair value of all identifiable tangible and intangible assets purchased in the acquisition and the liabilities assumed in the process. The value of a company’s brand name, solid customer base, good customer relations, good employee relations, and any patents or proprietary technology represent some examples of goodwill.
Ie, nothing you can sell. And not something you can really value. But Accountants do love to try. Convert everything into monetary value. What could possibly go wrong?
In fact, read the description again. You've paid MORE for something you know isn't worth that. Get shut of it from your balance sheet.
It's the main advantage FRS102 has over IFRS. Amortisation.
Impairing all of the goodwill immediately would have left Thomas Cook in negative equity. Which err was the truth ! But credit rating agencies prefer the polite accounting fictions are used.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
The ballot paper said "Leave" or " Remain". The EEA is outside the EU therefore it is Leave.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
Which of the ‘main leave pledges’ does no deal respect?
Replacing free movement with a points system, regaining power from European Courts, reclaiming money from the EU, doing our own trade deals etc
You personally don’t favour any of those things though, right? You did vote remain after all.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
Options:
Remain a member of the European Union Leave the European Union
Any outcome that matches that text is legitimate. This wasn't a general election, where there's some expectation a manifesto will be implemented.
What do leavers actually get with leave? Something of more value than everything being trashed getting there?
Take back control to our own Parliament? A huge brexit money dividend? Our courts throwing out everybody politicians want thrown out? A lot less immigration?
Even if we hard brexit we will be right back in again in less than how many years?
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
The ballot paper said "Leave" or " Remain". The EEA is outside the EU therefore it is Leave.
It is not my fault if you do not like it.
Argue all you like. It respects the result.
No it does not, the official Leave campaign, Vote Leave, produced a manifesto and they won the referendum with a mandate to implement that manifesto.
Otherwise you may as well say a party which wins a general election and is allowed to form a government but not implement its manifesto respects the result when it blatantly does not
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
Which of the ‘main leave pledges’ does no deal respect?
"There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."
As an aside, all US free trade deals contain restrictions on entering into Free Trade Deals with "non market economies" (which is defined by the US). So, it effectively bars you from both having an FTA with the US and with China.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
Which of the ‘main leave pledges’ does no deal respect?
Replacing free movement with a points system, regaining power from European Courts, reclaiming money from the EU, doing our own trade deals etc
You personally don’t favour any of those things though, right? You did vote remain after all.
I also respect democracy
So you're saying if Labour win the next election you'll become a Labour supporter?
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
It would be a decent compromise that reflects the narrowness of the vote, while respecting the result of the vote. That extremist neobrexiteers like yourself oppose it is more evidence that it’s the wise path.
No it wouldn't, it would mean we would still be in the EU in every respect bar leaving the CFP and CAP, which is precisely why it is as far as most diehard Remainers were willing to go as it ensures Brexit basically changes nothing
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
It would be a decent compromise that reflects the narrowness of the vote, while respecting the result of the vote. That extremist neobrexiteers like yourself oppose it is more evidence that it’s the wise path.
No it wouldn't, it would mean we would still be in the EU in every respect bar leaving the CFP and CAP, which is precisely why it is as far as most diehard Remainers were willing to go as it ensures Brexit basically changes nothing
That's not true.
It also removes the UK from the ECJ's jurisdiction, and puts us under the much more limited EFTA Court. From a governance point of view, that's a major difference.
Walk down the High Street tomorrow and see how many people are talking about Brexit - my guess would be zero.
That's not to say people don't care about it and in a poll people would mention it as an important issue facing the country - but I don't believe for one minute that most people are particularly worked up about it.
Yes, obsessives and political anoraks are - but they are a very small % of the overall population.
Impairing all of the goodwill immediately would have left Thomas Cook in negative equity. Which err was the truth ! But credit rating agencies prefer the polite accounting fictions are used.
I doubt it. I think that the first thing they do in their analysis is take out goodwill and similar 'assets'. Moody's for example had Thomas Cook as 'Caa2' ("poor quality and very high credit risk") with a negative outlook back in May.
Having said that, it does beggar belief that Thomas Cook was still trading at all with that balance sheet.
I suspect the £2.585 billion of goodwill they had in their last accounts might turn out to be not worth that much after all.
Goodwill is an intangible asset associated with the purchase of one company by another. Specifically, goodwill is recorded in a situation in which the purchase price is higher than the sum of the fair value of all identifiable tangible and intangible assets purchased in the acquisition and the liabilities assumed in the process. The value of a company’s brand name, solid customer base, good customer relations, good employee relations, and any patents or proprietary technology represent some examples of goodwill.
Ie, nothing you can sell. And not something you can really value. But Accountants do love to try. Convert everything into monetary value. What could possibly go wrong?
In fact, read the description again. You've paid MORE for something you know isn't worth that. Get shut of it from your balance sheet.
It's the main advantage FRS102 has over IFRS. Amortisation.
Goodwill is created when one company buys another for more than the net value of its physical assets. (Most companies are worth more than the net value of their physical assets.)
Yeah, hes such a labour stooge after writing labour is crap for at least 8 years, and just hours ago was criticising Corbyn. Not even you can believe him being the son of an ex labour mp trumps his hundreds of articles criticising labour and Corbyn.
I suspect the £2.585 billion of goodwill they had in their last accounts might turn out to be not worth that much after all.
Goodwill is an intangible asset associated with the purchase of one company by another. Specifically, goodwill is recorded in a situation in which the purchase price is higher than the sum of the fair value of all identifiable tangible and intangible assets purchased in the acquisition and the liabilities assumed in the process. The value of a company’s brand name, solid customer base, good customer relations, good employee relations, and any patents or proprietary technology represent some examples of goodwill.
Ie, nothing you can sell. And not something you can really value. But Accountants do love to try. Convert everything into monetary value. What could possibly go wrong?
In fact, read the description again. You've paid MORE for something you know isn't worth that. Get shut of it from your balance sheet.
It's the main advantage FRS102 has over IFRS. Amortisation.
Goodwill is created when one company buys another for more than the net value of its physical assets. (Most companies are worth more than the net value of their physical assets.)
It's a strictly going concern value though. If a company goes pop it's normally pretty hard to realise.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worh history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
up. Is that any better?
No. Both are an aftont to democracy.
ging us into civil war?
3. Don't panic Corporal Jones.
For once, I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic.
The mood is ghastly. The commons reflected this. We teeter on the edge.
Do I think there will be full on civil war? No. But could there be quite widespread civil unrest, up to and including the murder of MPs? Yes. Totally.
That’s quite bad enough, for me to quail and seek any other way out.
The ptemely dangerous path to go down.
They really aren’t coming from just one side. Here’s an ex Irish pm essentially threatening Boris with assassination. Today.
That's rhetoric for international politics, however. Domestically, some Brexiters are threatening violence, and some Remainers are threatening economic chaos and collapse. The two aren't equivalent.
No, you rapper with the decapitated Boris effigy. Etc
Both sides are horribly guilty.
I would start to become more convinced of things like this if I heard of a concerted pattern of death threats to Brexiters such as those experienced by many Remainer MP's. So far I've heard of nothing like this, and given the politically charged atmosphere would have expected to if there were any substantial patterns of intimidation to the other side. The fact that we've heard of nothing, or very little, like this so far, would suggest that, at least on any relative scale, it isn't there.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
Which of the ‘main leave pledges’ does no deal respect?
Replacing free movement with a points system, regaining power from European Courts, reclaiming money from the EU, doing our own trade deals etc
You personally don’t favour any of those things though, right? You did vote remain after all.
I also respect democracy
So you're saying if Labour win the next election you'll become a Labour supporter?
No but if Labour won I would not refuse to allow them to form a government, I would try and beat them at the subsequent election
Lots of pearls being clutched tonight - because the opposition had a terrible day.
I think it dawned on them tonight how badly they have played the long game.
No. People are rightly appalled at the sight of a Prime Minister using inflammatory language without any regard for its consequences and doubling down on this even when female MPs point out the risks he is taking, risks which turned real 3 years ago when a young female MP was brutally murdered.
You can call that pearl clutching if you want. Others are deeply dismayed at the lack of a moral compass in the PM.
Some people = remainers.
Calling it a surrender bill isn’t inflammatory IMHO.
A rapper with a fake decapitated Boris head on stage praised by the Guardian on the other hand...
Calling it a surrender bill is inaccurate. First it's a law not a bill. Second, we are not at war. Third, we are not surrendering to anyone.
The risks from far-right terrorism are at their highest for years. The security and police services have made this clear. As PM Johnson will have been made aware of the nature of the threat and the factors giving rise to it. A responsible politician would seek to do everything possible to dampen down such a threat not use inflammatory language himself, not attack those who raise the risk of attacks on MPs, not insult the friends of a murdered MP by dismissing their concerns.
No it does not, the official Leave campaign, Vote Leave, produced a manifesto and they won the referendum with a mandate to implement that manifesto.
Otherwise you may as well say a party which wins a general election and is allowed to form a government but not implement its manifesto respects the result when it blatantly does not
Who cares what the official Leave campaign's manifesto said? The question asked in the voting booth was Leave or Remain. That is what we voted on. There were no options for offical Leave campaign or the unofficial Leave campaign or for various flavours of Remain.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
It would be a decent compromise that reflects the narrowness of the vote, while respecting the result of the vote. That extremist neobrexiteers like yourself oppose it is more evidence that it’s the wise path.
No it wouldn't, it would mean we would still be in the EU in every respect bar leaving the CFP and CAP, which is precisely why it is as far as most diehard Remainers were willing to go as it ensures Brexit basically changes nothing
That's not true.
It also removes the UK from the ECJ's jurisdiction, and puts us under the much more limited EFTA Court. From a governance point of view, that's a major difference.
The EFTA Court is still a European court that enforces EU law relating to the single market
Is there the possibility of the GLA referring him to the police...? They’ve demanded answers in two weeks
I followed the links and I really can't see any great conspiracy there; looks much like a lot of seminars pushing 'hi-tech innovation' and angel/early-stage financing to me. Most of them are froth, but that's the nature of tiny wannabe companies trying to raise their profiles and attract investment. Only a tiny proportion come to anything.
I think the suggestion is that he may have been blackmailed into providing money/contacts/a forum for this woman's far-right contacts as a result of his relationship with her.
Difficult to know whether there is any substance to this. Could Boris really be open to blackmail given that he was pretty open about his serial adultery?
I would have thought the issue to be investigated is whether there was an actual or potential conflict of interest and whether the expenditure of taxpayers' money on this woman's company was properly justified and reasonable.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
It would be a decent compromise that reflects the narrowness of the vote, while respecting the result of the vote. That extremist neobrexiteers like yourself oppose it is more evidence that it’s the wise path.
No it wouldn't, it would mean we would still be in the EU in every respect bar leaving the CFP and CAP, which is precisely why it is as far as most diehard Remainers were willing to go as it ensures Brexit basically changes nothing
That's not true.
It also removes the UK from the ECJ's jurisdiction, and puts us under the much more limited EFTA Court. From a governance point of view, that's a major difference.
The EFTA Court is still a European court that enforces EU law relating to the single market
Well yes, but it's remit is massively narrower. You couldn't bring a case to the EFTA Court, for example, demanding voting rights for prisoners.
I suspect the £2.585 billion of goodwill they had in their last accounts might turn out to be not worth that much after all.
Goodwill is an intangible asset associated with the purchase of one company by another. Specifically, goodwill is recorded in a situation in which the purchase price is higher than the sum of the fair value of all identifiable tangible and intangible assets purchased in the acquisition and the liabilities assumed in the process. The value of a company’s brand name, solid customer base, good customer relations, good employee relations, and any patents or proprietary technology represent some examples of goodwill.
Ie, nothing you can sell. And not something you can really value. But Accountants do love to try. Convert everything into monetary value. What could possibly go wrong?
In fact, read the description again. You've paid MORE for something you know isn't worth that. Get shut of it from your balance sheet.
It's the main advantage FRS102 has over IFRS. Amortisation.
Goodwill is created when one company buys another for more than the net value of its physical assets. (Most companies are worth more than the net value of their physical assets.)
I suspect the £2.585 billion of goodwill they had in their last accounts might turn out to be not worth that much after all.
Goodwill is an intangible asset associated with the purchase of one company by another. Specifically, goodwill is recorded in a situation in which the purchase price is higher than the sum of the fair value of all identifiable tangible and intangible assets purchased in the acquisition and the liabilities assumed in the process. The value of a company’s brand name, solid customer base, good customer relations, good employee relations, and any patents or proprietary technology represent some examples of goodwill.
Ie, nothing you can sell. And not something you can really value. But Accountants do love to try. Convert everything into monetary value. What could possibly go wrong?
In fact, read the description again. You've paid MORE for something you know isn't worth that. Get shut of it from your balance sheet.
It's the main advantage FRS102 has over IFRS. Amortisation.
Impairing all of the goodwill immediately would have left Thomas Cook in negative equity. Which err was the truth ! But credit rating agencies prefer the polite accounting fictions are used.
Boris doesnt prefer no deal but isn't bluffing about doing it. His party loses power if he doesnt get no deal. He might lose power anyway if no deal is really bad, but hes gone of a deal passes as BXP hoover his support.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
Which of the ‘main leave pledges’ does no deal respect?
Replacing free movement with a points system, regaining power from European Courts, reclaiming money from the EU, doing our own trade deals etc
And was all this on the ballot paper? All I saw was "Leave" or "Remain.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
The ballot paper said "Leave" or " Remain". The EEA is outside the EU therefore it is Leave.
It is not my fault if you do not like it.
Argue all you like. It respects the result.
No it does not, the official Leave campaign, Vote Leave, produced a manifesto and they won the referendum with a mandate to implement that manifesto.
Walk down the High Street tomorrow and see how many people are talking about Brexit - my guess would be zero.
That's not to say people don't care about it and in a poll people would mention it as an important issue facing the country - but I don't believe for one minute that most people are particularly worked up about it.
Yes, obsessives and political anoraks are - but they are a very small % of the overall population.
I'm working away from home a lot at the moment so I have to eat out often. This evening I went to a Wagamama and I was sat in the middle of a long table between a couple of gents to my right and a couple of ladies to my left.
At one point I could hear a conversation about Brexit in both ears. The gents were mostly talking about the Supreme Court judgment. The ladies were talking about Brexit stuff they'd seen on social media and how social media sent people mad. It was surreal.
Now, sure, I am in Remainer London and maybe the rest of the country isn't paying any attention. But it feels damn unusual to me.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
Which of the ‘main leave pledges’ does no deal respect?
Replacing free movement with a points system, regaining power from European Courts, reclaiming money from the EU, doing our own trade deals etc
And was all this on the ballot paper? All I saw was "Leave" or "Remain.
All you see at a general election is the name of the candidate and their party, that party still produces a manifesto it will implement if it wins exactly as Vote Leave did
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
Which of the ‘main leave pledges’ does no deal respect?
Replacing free movement with a points system, regaining power from European Courts, reclaiming money from the EU, doing our own trade deals etc
And was all this on the ballot paper? All I saw was "Leave" or "Remain.
It's great how the vagueness of the ballot paper is used, legitimately in my view, as a defence for option a eg no deal, but does not allow defence of option b eg EEA for some reason.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
The ballot paper said "Leave" or " Remain". The EEA is outside the EU therefore it is Leave.
It is not my fault if you do not like it.
Argue all you like. It respects the result.
No it does not, the official Leave campaign, Vote Leave, produced a manifesto and they won the referendum with a mandate to implement that manifesto.
Otherwise you may as well say a party which wins a general election and is allowed to form a government but not implement its manifesto respects the result when it blatantly does not
And their manifesto, as you call it, ruled out "No Deal". So on your own argument you cannot now claim that No Deal is respecting the referendum result.
If a disorderly withdrawal is consistent with Leave then so is moving to the EEA.
If you listen to the pledges then a disorderly withdrawal has to be ruled out.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
Which of the ‘main leave pledges’ does no deal respect?
Replacing free movement with a points system, regaining power from European Courts, reclaiming money from the EU, doing our own trade deals etc
And was all this on the ballot paper? All I saw was "Leave" or "Remain.
The problem with @HYUFD's position is that the Vote Leave manifesto also said: "There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."
These are certainly three concrete cases, which is more than many on the Brexit side usually solidly reference, which are thoroughly reprehensible, and which deserve credit for raising. I remain to be convinced of a comparable systematic campaign though, for two reasons ; firstly because the death threats to the Remain side have been documented as afflicting large numbers not only of MP's, but also journalists ; and most convincingly of all , because a greater proportion of threats to the other side would tally with and be consistent with the greater proclivity for violent and warlike rhetoric from their opponents.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
Which of the ‘main leave pledges’ does no deal respect?
Replacing free movement with a points system, regaining power from European Courts, reclaiming money from the EU, doing our own trade deals etc
And was all this on the ballot paper? All I saw was "Leave" or "Remain.
It's great how the vagueness of the ballot paper is used, legitimately in my view, as a defence for option a eg no deal, but does not allow defence of option b eg EEA for some reason.
An argument eating itself.
For the Leavers, it is a perfect example of Be careful what you wish for - you might get it
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
Which of the ‘main leave pledges’ does no deal respect?
Replacing free movement with a points system, regaining power from European Courts, reclaiming money from the EU, doing our own trade deals etc
And was all this on the ballot paper? All I saw was "Leave" or "Remain.
The problem with @HYUFD's position is that the Vote Leave manifesto also said: "There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."
These are certainly three concrete cases, which is more than many on the Brexit side usually solidly reference, and which are thoroughly reprehensible. I remain to be convinced, though, for two reasons ; firstly because the death threats to the Remain side have been afflicting significant numbers of not just MP's, but also journalists ; and most convincingly of all , because of a greater proportion of threats to the other side would tally and be consistent with the greater proclivity for violent and warlike rhetoric from their opponents.
You seem to be forgetting the actual attacks on Brexit supporting candidates in the EU elections...oh how some people laughed at these people being "milkshaked" and comedians joking about throwing battery acid.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
Which of the ‘main leave pledges’ does no deal respect?
Replacing free movement with a points system, regaining power from European Courts, reclaiming money from the EU, doing our own trade deals etc
And was all this on the ballot paper? All I saw was "Leave" or "Remain.
All you see at a general election is the name of the candidate and their party, that party still produces a manifesto it will implement if it wins exactly as Vote Leave did
And as you well know - and as has been pointed out to you several times tonight - that manifesto specifically ruled out No Deal or a disorderly withdrawal as it should more accurately be described.
The problem with @HYUFD's position is that the Vote Leave manifesto also said: "There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."
There was a lot of inconsistency, except I think on one point. None of the advocates for Leave endorsed a no deal exit during the referendum campaign.
And yet somehow it is Rory Stewart, et al, who have lost the Conservative whip.
These are certainly three concrete cases, which is more than many on the Brexit side usually solidly reference, and which are thoroughly reprehensible. I remain to be convinced, though, for two reasons ; firstly because the death threats to the Remain side have been afflicting significant numbers of not just MP's, but also journalists ; and most convincingly of all , because of a greater proportion of threats to the other side would tally and be consistent with the greater proclivity for violent and warlike rhetoric from their opponents.
You seem to be forgetting the actual attacks on Brexit supporting candidates in the EU elections...oh how some people laughed at these people being "milkshaked" and comedians joking about throwing battery acid.
Being milkshaked is not comparable to being killed by a constituent.
You won’t know this Byronic, but Seant won an award for a sex scene with aiii in it. Or was it aiwa
Ah, here tiz
She slips off her coat. Imelda is step-by-step taking her clothes off and Hugh's heart is working so fast he feels endangered, overbuzzed, like a student on too much speed. Stuck with his addiction Hugh watches, obsessing, as Imelda undoes buttons, glancing down he wants everything on the menu, he wants so much to take his time and explore it, slowly.
- What will you have for first course? - you choose for both of us
She smiles across at him. Hugh, with as much composure as he can muster, prepares himself, unfolding his dress shirt, cotton soft between fingers. Her eyes fix upon it as he lowers good linen down from view.
Eventually...
- You mean I have to put all of that in my mouth?
You ordered it! Oh God. yes.
Hopeful, wistful, with mouthful of juice, he watches her little hands at work and he waits for as long as he can; but then he can't: now he goes: down to a rose, smelling the scent of St Malo restaurant on a winter's evening, lost in the thick soft furrier’s samples; lost in the grape of a young Czarina.
Hugh, unable to hold back, slurps through a dish of shell food and considers the fact Imelda is the only woman he enjoys. He considers this: dismisses it. Dangerous, dangerous. Why should he enjoy her and no-one else?
Hugh lays off his tongue and considers the taste. It is, he feels, one of those very nearly disgusting lovely tastes that can so easily tip over into complete disgusting. Like oysters. Olives. Anchovy butter. Like burnt charcoal peppers in oil. Like so much seafood.
But because he loves her, he loves the taste. He would love the taste of blood right now, from a war wound, from scar tissue, from mutilation; ohyes he loves it all, loves the kowtow, yes he loves the taste.
It is time. Now. Yes. Brupt, he turns her over, flips her white body of flesh. It’s so small and compact, and yet has all the necessary features...
Shall I compare thee to a Sony Walkman? thou art more compact and more My own Toshiba, dinky little JVC, Oh sweet Aiwa
- Aiwa - She says, being served barbed sea bass between slimy red-peppers-in-olive-oil - Aiwa, aiwa aiwa aiwa aiwa aiwa aiwa aiwa aiwa aiwaaaaaaaaah
These are certainly three concrete cases, which is more than many on the Brexit side usually solidly reference, and which are thoroughly reprehensible. I remain to be convinced, though, for two reasons ; firstly because the death threats to the Remain side have been afflicting significant numbers of not just MP's, but also journalists ; and most convincingly of all , because of a greater proportion of threats to the other side would tally and be consistent with the greater proclivity for violent and warlike rhetoric from their opponents.
You seem to be forgetting the actual attacks on Brexit supporting candidates in the EU elections...oh how some people laughed at these people being "milkshaked" and comedians joking about throwing battery acid.
Being milkshaked is not comparable to being killed by a constituent.
I didn't say it was, I said they were attacked. And at the time, I bet they had no idea it was just milkshake, it really could have been anything.
There are absolute loons not even "on both sides". We also have for instance Laura K and former Jewish Labour MPs being targeted by Corbynista extremists. Some nutter also attacked Corbyn.
These are certainly three concrete cases, which is more than many on the Brexit side usually solidly reference, and which are thoroughly reprehensible. I remain to be convinced, though, for two reasons ; firstly because the death threats to the Remain side have been afflicting significant numbers of not just MP's, but also journalists ; and most convincingly of all , because of a greater proportion of threats to the other side would tally and be consistent with the greater proclivity for violent and warlike rhetoric from their opponents.
You seem to be forgetting the actual attacks on Brexit supporting candidates in the EU elections...oh how some people laughed at these people being "milkshaked" and comedians joking about throwing battery acid.
Being milkshaked is not comparable to being killed by a constituent.
I didn't say it was, I said they were attacked. And at the time, I bet they had no idea it was just milkshake, it really could have been anything.
There are absolute loons not even "on both sides". We also have for instance Laura K and former Jewish Labour MPs being targeted by Corbynista extremists. Some nutter also attacked Corbyn.
Momentum does indeed attract some extremists, but we musn't forget that parts of the left are also still actually split on Brexit - and so have been crucial to Brexiters as a result - so, arguably, that's not necessarily a leave/remain issue.
Has anyone there yet bothered to point out that one of the treacherous quislings to have voted for the scandalous SurrenderBill was Da Hulksta himself?
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
It would be a decent compromise that reflects the narrowness of the vote, while respecting the result of the vote. That extremist neobrexiteers like yourself oppose it is more evidence that it’s the wise path.
No it wouldn't, it would mean we would still be in the EU in every respect bar leaving the CFP and CAP, which is precisely why it is as far as most diehard Remainers were willing to go as it ensures Brexit basically changes nothing
That's not true.
It also removes the UK from the ECJ's jurisdiction, and puts us under the much more limited EFTA Court. From a governance point of view, that's a major difference.
The EFTA Court is still a European court that enforces EU law relating to the single market
Well yes, but it's remit is massively narrower. You couldn't bring a case to the EFTA Court, for example, demanding voting rights for prisoners.
You wouldn’t be confusing the ECJ and the ECHR, would you?
Has anyone there yet bothered to point out that one of the treacherous quislings to have voted for the scandalous SurrenderBill was Da Hulksta himself?
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
The ballot paper said "Leave" or " Remain". The EEA is outside the EU therefore it is Leave.
It is not my fault if you do not like it.
Argue all you like. It respects the result.
No it does not, the official Leave campaign, Vote Leave, produced a manifesto and they won the referendum with a mandate to implement that manifesto.
Otherwise you may as well say a party which wins a general election and is allowed to form a government but not implement its manifesto respects the result when it blatantly does not
And their manifesto, as you call it, ruled out "No Deal". So on your own argument you cannot now claim that No Deal is respecting the referendum result.
If a disorderly withdrawal is consistent with Leave then so is moving to the EEA.
If you listen to the pledges then a disorderly withdrawal has to be ruled out.
Please show me where Vote Leave ever ruled out No Deal?
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
Which of the ‘main leave pledges’ does no deal respect?
Replacing free movement with a points system, regaining power from European Courts, reclaiming money from the EU, doing our own trade deals etc
And was all this on the ballot paper? All I saw was "Leave" or "Remain.
The problem with @HYUFD's position is that the Vote Leave manifesto also said: "There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."
Indeed we will if the EU stop trying to imprison us with the backstop and agree to move towards FTA talks
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
Which of the ‘main leave pledges’ does no deal respect?
Replacing free movement with a points system, regaining power from European Courts, reclaiming money from the EU, doing our own trade deals etc
And was all this on the ballot paper? All I saw was "Leave" or "Remain.
The problem with @HYUFD's position is that the Vote Leave manifesto also said: "There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."
Indeed we will if the EU stop trying to imprison us with the backstop and agree to move towards FTA talks
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
It would be a decent compromise that reflects the narrowness of the vote, while respecting the result of the vote. That extremist neobrexiteers like yourself oppose it is more evidence that it’s the wise path.
No it wouldn't, it would mean we would still be in the EU in every respect bar leaving the CFP and CAP, which is precisely why it is as far as most diehard Remainers were willing to go as it ensures Brexit basically changes nothing
That's not true.
It also removes the UK from the ECJ's jurisdiction, and puts us under the much more limited EFTA Court. From a governance point of view, that's a major difference.
The EFTA Court is still a European court that enforces EU law relating to the single market
Well yes, but it's remit is massively narrower. You couldn't bring a case to the EFTA Court, for example, demanding voting rights for prisoners.
You wouldn’t be confusing the ECJ and the ECHR, would you?
No it wouldn't, it would mean we would still be in the EU in every respect bar leaving the CFP and CAP, which is precisely why it is as far as most diehard Remainers were willing to go as it ensures Brexit basically changes nothing
That's not true.
It also removes the UK from the ECJ's jurisdiction, and puts us under the much more limited EFTA Court. From a governance point of view, that's a major difference.
The EFTA Court is still a European court that enforces EU law relating to the single market
Well yes, but it's remit is massively narrower. You couldn't bring a case to the EFTA Court, for example, demanding voting rights for prisoners.
You wouldn’t be confusing the ECJ and the ECHR, would you?
Au contraire, I am not. There have been two voting rights cases brought to the ECHR, and more recently one to the ECJ.
I believe the ECJ one related to European elections where it’s quite reasonable that European law should have something to say, and they ruled that it was proportionate. Your solution is effectively to disenfranchise the whole population, whether in prison or not.
No it wouldn't, it would mean we would still be in the EU in every respect bar leaving the CFP and CAP, which is precisely why it is as far as most diehard Remainers were willing to go as it ensures Brexit basically changes nothing
That's not true.
It also removes the UK from the ECJ's jurisdiction, and puts us under the much more limited EFTA Court. From a governance point of view, that's a major difference.
The EFTA Court is still a European court that enforces EU law relating to the single market
Well yes, but it's remit is massively narrower. You couldn't bring a case to the EFTA Court, for example, demanding voting rights for prisoners.
You wouldn’t be confusing the ECJ and the ECHR, would you?
Au contraire, I am not. There have been two voting rights cases brought to the ECHR, and more recently one to the ECJ.
I believe the ECJ one related to European elections where it’s quite reasonable that European law should have something to say, and they ruled that it was proportionate. Your solution is effectively to disenfranchise the whole population, whether in prison or not.
That's not true. I would only disenfranchise people who are not part of the Smithson family, and who fall outside an age range
No it wouldn't, it would mean we would still be in the EU in every respect bar leaving the CFP and CAP, which is precisely why it is as far as most diehard Remainers were willing to go as it ensures Brexit basically changes nothing
That's not true.
It also removes the UK from the ECJ's jurisdiction, and puts us under the much more limited EFTA Court. From a governance point of view, that's a major difference.
The EFTA Court is still a European court that enforces EU law relating to the single market
Well yes, but it's remit is massively narrower. You couldn't bring a case to the EFTA Court, for example, demanding voting rights for prisoners.
You wouldn’t be confusing the ECJ and the ECHR, would you?
Au contraire, I am not. There have been two voting rights cases brought to the ECHR, and more recently one to the ECJ.
I believe the ECJ one related to European elections where it’s quite reasonable that European law should have something to say, and they ruled that it was proportionate. Your solution is effectively to disenfranchise the whole population, whether in prison or not.
That's not true. I would only disenfranchise people who are not part of the Smithson family, and who fall outside an age range
I am willing to accept the Smithson Sr dictatorship.
"We will negotiate a new UK-EU Treaty... before the 2020 election."
I guess you could argue that negotiating it and then rejecting it in parliament satisfies that condition.
There are lots of examples of the Vote Leave leaders saying that departure would be on the basis of a deal not in a disorderly way. But facts are only of use to @HYUFD if he can use them to support whichever ludicrous message he has to pump out at any given time. It's both a bit sad and quite funny. Mostly sad, though.
Thomas Cook’s chief executive has revealed the travel company had a balance sheet black hole of more than £3.1bn before its collapse on Monday.
In a witness statement to the high court, Peter Fankhauser also said the company had received seven non-binding offers for parts of its business under a strategic review, all of which were rejected by Thomas Cook’s board and lenders.
The company received five offers for its airline operation and one for a sale of the tour operator from Fosun, Thomas Cook’s largest shareholder. An offer was also received for its Nordic business, “which was followed by a fully financed offer at a later stage”.
Fankhauser added: “Following careful consideration by the board and in consultation with the lenders, the board decided not to pursue any of the bids.
“None of the bids were likely to realise sufficient value and following the disposal of any individual business division, the capital structure of the remaining group was unlikely to be sustainable. It would therefore not have been commercially justifiable.”
"We will negotiate a new UK-EU Treaty... before the 2020 election."
I guess you could argue that negotiating it and then rejecting it in parliament satisfies that condition.
There are lots of examples of the Vote Leave leaders saying that departure would be on the basis of a deal not in a disorderly way. But facts are only of use to @HYUFD if he can use them to support whichever ludicrous message he has to pump out at any given time. It's both a bit sad and quite funny. Mostly sad, though.
And, could potentially be dangerous - not by HYUFD - if used by others
"We will negotiate a new UK-EU Treaty... before the 2020 election."
I guess you could argue that negotiating it and then rejecting it in parliament satisfies that condition.
You missed out the full quote which was 'We will negotiate a new UK-EU Treaty and end the legal supremacy of EU law and the European court before the 2020 election' which the backstop does not do.
Negotiating for a UK EU Treaty without the backstop there agrees with the Vote Leave campaign platform
"We will negotiate a new UK-EU Treaty... before the 2020 election."
I guess you could argue that negotiating it and then rejecting it in parliament satisfies that condition.
You missed out the full quote which was 'We will negotiate a new UK-EU Treaty and end the legal supremacy of EU law and the European court before the 2020 election' which the backstop does not do
That doesn't really change the substance of my point, or of the manifesto. It promised - which you deny - a treaty.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
Which of the ‘main leave pledges’ does no deal respect?
Replacing free movement with a points system, regaining power from European Courts, reclaiming money from the EU, doing our own trade deals etc
And was all this on the ballot paper? All I saw was "Leave" or "Remain.
The problem with @HYUFD's position is that the Vote Leave manifesto also said: "There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."
Indeed we will if the EU stop trying to imprison us with the backstop and agree to move towards FTA talks
"We will negotiate a new UK-EU Treaty... before the 2020 election."
I guess you could argue that negotiating it and then rejecting it in parliament satisfies that condition.
You missed out the full quote which was 'We will negotiate a new UK-EU Treaty and end the legal supremacy of EU law and the European court before the 2020 election' which the backstop does not do
That doesn't really change the substance of my point, or of the manifesto. It promised - which you deny - a treaty.
It promised a FTA treaty without being subject to EU law and the European court, unlike the backstop
"We will negotiate a new UK-EU Treaty... before the 2020 election."
I guess you could argue that negotiating it and then rejecting it in parliament satisfies that condition.
You missed out the full quote which was 'We will negotiate a new UK-EU Treaty and end the legal supremacy of EU law and the European court before the 2020 election' which the backstop does not do
That doesn't really change the substance of my point, or of the manifesto. It promised - which you deny - a treaty.
It promised a FTA treaty without being subject to EU law and the European court, unlike the backstop
"We will negotiate a new UK-EU Treaty... before the 2020 election."
I guess you could argue that negotiating it and then rejecting it in parliament satisfies that condition.
You missed out the full quote which was 'We will negotiate a new UK-EU Treaty and end the legal supremacy of EU law and the European court before the 2020 election' which the backstop does not do
That doesn't really change the substance of my point, or of the manifesto. It promised - which you deny - a treaty.
It promised a FTA treaty without being subject to EU law and the European court, unlike the backstop
Yes. IT PROMISED A TREATY.
A Treaty that did NOT subject us to EU law and the jurisdiction of the European Court and which enabled us to do our own trade deals unlike the backstop, a Treaty can thus only be negotiated once the backstop is removed on that basis exactly as Boris and Cummings are proposing
Thomas Cook’s chief executive has revealed the travel company had a balance sheet black hole of more than £3.1bn before its collapse on Monday.
In a witness statement to the high court, Peter Fankhauser also said the company had received seven non-binding offers for parts of its business under a strategic review, all of which were rejected by Thomas Cook’s board and lenders.
The company received five offers for its airline operation and one for a sale of the tour operator from Fosun, Thomas Cook’s largest shareholder. An offer was also received for its Nordic business, “which was followed by a fully financed offer at a later stage”.
Fankhauser added: “Following careful consideration by the board and in consultation with the lenders, the board decided not to pursue any of the bids.
“None of the bids were likely to realise sufficient value and following the disposal of any individual business division, the capital structure of the remaining group was unlikely to be sustainable. It would therefore not have been commercially justifiable.”
Sounds like the government made exactly the right decision not to give them £250m.
So they were faced with a difficult situation, but there was the possibility of compromise to mitigate loss. But instead of doing that they ignored the problems and went all-in on the naive hope that it would work out somehow, whereupon they lost everything, lost billions, and hurt many people...
...there's this big red light on my desk marked "metaphor alert" that's flashing frantically. I wonder what could it mean...
A Treaty that did NOT subject us to EU law and the jurisdiction of the European Court and which enabled us to do our own trade deals unlike the backstop, a Treaty can thus only be negotiated once the backstop is removed on that basis exactly as Boris and Cummings are proposing
So out of interest: If I've understood you correctly, you think that the referendum produced a requirement that the Leave manifesto be implemented, and the Leave manifesto specified a treaty that the rest of the EU, as things stand, do not agree to.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that this state of affairs continues, and the EU do not agree to the deal without the backstop. The upshot is then that the referendum result as you understand it cannot be implemented. What do you think should be done if a referendum result cannot be implemented?
Elizabeth Warren at the prices is unattractive for an event so far out. Iowa is not till February and there are several months after that. Keep an eye on the next president market as well, especially if you think Trump is toast over Ukraine but will stand anyway.
Just caught up on some more video of the Common's fireworks. I don't mean this in a derogatory or nasty way. But I do wonder about the mental health of some of the Remain backing questioners. Some of them looked close to breaking point.
There appear to be some pretty mentally ragged people in the House and it's showing forth in the quality of the debate. The government giving them a few weeks off was probably a blessing to some of them, not that they'd dare say it out loud.
MPs are in the eye of the cyclone so their mood is the worst of all but similar feelings are clearly permeating out into society to a greater or lesser degree. Next in the storm are mainstream journalists, with their output on mass sinking deeper into the abyss, due to sleep deprivation and being surrounded by vitriol, rather than spending time at home on things that matter.
And then there's everyone else. There are no doubt plenty on here who if they asked themselves honestly, are letting what is at heart just a debate about the UK's governance model and trading arrangements to unnecessarily darken their mood and sour the standard of their relations.
I'm not as old as some but the General Election is likely to be the most bitterly fought in my lifetime. Let's all stay friends at the end of shall we?
I can understand why some think Revoke (or Revoke after a new Referendum) is the easiest way out of the mess but if you stop and think about that for just a moment, you'll see how much worse things would get. Whether Farage's No Deal achieves the end of acrimony must also be quite open to debate, since none of us know for certain what the exit terms would be and hence how badly any losers might suffer.
No, the government's strategy is the right one. Go all out for a new deal that can form the basis of a compromise and move on. The DUP understand this. The government understands this. At least some on the opposition benches do too. And I think somewhere in there you're seeing the same understanding from EU stakeholders. It'll all be over soon. But it might have to get worse before it gets better.
Just caught up on some more video of the Common's fireworks. I don't mean this in a derogatory or nasty way. But I do wonder about the mental health of some of the Remain backing questioners. Some of them looked close to breaking point.
There appear to be some pretty mentally ragged people in the House and it's showing forth in the quality of the debate. The government giving them a few weeks off was probably a blessing to some of them, not that they'd dare say it out loud.
MPs are in the eye of the cyclone so their mood is the worst of all but similar feelings are clearly permeating out into society to a greater or lesser degree. Next in the storm are mainstream journalists, with their output on mass sinking deeper into the abyss, due to sleep deprivation and being surrounded by vitriol, rather than spending time at home on things that matter.
And then there's everyone else. There are no doubt plenty on here who if they asked themselves honestly, are letting what is at heart just a debate about the UK's governance model and trading arrangements to unnecessarily darken their mood and sour the standard of their relations.
I'm not as old as some but the General Election is likely to be the most bitterly fought in my lifetime. Let's all stay friends at the end of shall we?
I can understand why some think Revoke (or Revoke after a new Referendum) is the easiest way out of the mess but if you stop and think about that for just a moment, you'll see how much worse things would get. Whether Farage's No Deal achieves the end of acrimony must also be quite open to debate, since none of us know for certain what the exit terms would be and hence how badly any losers might suffer.
No, the government's strategy is the right one. Go all out for a new deal that can form the basis of a compromise and move on. The DUP understand this. The government understands this. At least some on the opposition benches do too. And I think somewhere in there you're seeing the same understanding from EU stakeholders. It'll all be over soon. But it might have to get worse before it gets better.
Not a word about the contemptible behaviour of the Prime Minister and an attack on the mental health of Remainers. Contemptible.
Just caught up on some more video of the Common's fireworks. I don't mean this in a derogatory or nasty way. But I do wonder about the mental health of some of the Remain backing questioners. Some of them looked close to breaking point.
There appear to be some pretty mentally ragged people in the House and it's showing forth in the quality of the debate. The government giving them a few weeks off was probably a blessing to some of them, not that they'd dare say it out loud.
MPs are in the eye of the cyclone so their mood is the worst of all but similar feelings are clearly permeating out into society to a greater or lesser degree. Next in the storm are mainstream journalists, with their output on mass sinking deeper into the abyss, due to sleep deprivation and being surrounded by vitriol, rather than spending time at home on things that matter.
And then there's everyone else. There are no doubt plenty on here who if they asked themselves honestly, are letting what is at heart just a debate about the UK's governance model and trading arrangements to unnecessarily darken their mood and sour the standard of their relations.
I'm not as old as some but the General Election is likely to be the most bitterly fought in my lifetime. Let's all stay friends at the end of shall we?
I can understand why some think Revoke (or Revoke after a new Referendum) is the easiest way out of the mess but if you stop and think about that for just a moment, you'll see how much worse things would get. Whether Farage's No Deal achieves the end of acrimony must also be quite open to debate, since none of us know for certain what the exit terms would be and hence how badly any losers might suffer.
No, the government's strategy is the right one. Go all out for a new deal that can form the basis of a compromise and move on. The DUP understand this. The government understands this. At least some on the opposition benches do too. And I think somewhere in there you're seeing the same understanding from EU stakeholders. It'll all be over soon. But it might have to get worse before it gets better.
Not a word about the contemptible behaviour of the Prime Minister and an attack on the mental health of Remainers. Contemptible.
A shame you cannot take my post in the spirit it was intended. Oh well.
Just caught up on some more video of the Common's fireworks. I don't mean this in a derogatory or nasty way. But I do wonder about the mental health of some of the Remain backing questioners. Some of them looked close to breaking point.
There appear to be some pretty mentally ragged people in the House and it's showing forth in the quality of the debate. The government giving them a few weeks off was probably a blessing to some of them, not that they'd dare say it out loud.
MPs are in the eye of the cyclone so their mood is the worst of all but similar feelings are clearly permeating out into society to a greater or lesser degree. Next in the storm are mainstream journalists, with their output on mass sinking deeper into the abyss, due to sleep deprivation and being surrounded by vitriol, rather than spending time at home on things that matter.
And then there's everyone else. There are no doubt plenty on here who if they asked themselves honestly, are letting what is at heart just a debate about the UK's governance model and trading arrangements to unnecessarily darken their mood and sour the standard of their relations.
I'm not as old as some but the General Election is likely to be the most bitterly fought in my lifetime. Let's all stay friends at the end of shall we?
I can understand why some think Revoke (or Revoke after a new Referendum) is the easiest way out of the mess but if you stop and think about that for just a moment, you'll see how much worse things would get. Whether Farage's No Deal achieves the end of acrimony must also be quite open to debate, since none of us know for certain what the exit terms would be and hence how badly any losers might suffer.
No, the government's strategy is the right one. Go all out for a new deal that can form the basis of a compromise and move on. The DUP understand this. The government understands this. At least some on the opposition benches do too. And I think somewhere in there you're seeing the same understanding from EU stakeholders. It'll all be over soon. But it might have to get worse before it gets better.
Not a word about the contemptible behaviour of the Prime Minister and an attack on the mental health of Remainers. Contemptible.
A shame you cannot take my post in the spirit it was intended. Oh well.
Just caught up on some more video of the Common's fireworks. I don't mean this in a derogatory or nasty way. But I do wonder about the mental health of some of the Remain backing questioners. Some of them looked close to breaking point.
There appear to be some pretty mentally ragged people in the House and it's showing forth in the quality of the debate. The government giving them a few weeks off was probably a blessing to some of them, not that they'd dare say it out loud.
MPs are in the eye of the cyclone so their mood is the worst of all but similar feelings are clearly permeating out into society to a greater or lesser degree. Next in the storm are mainstream journalists, with their output on mass sinking deeper into the abyss, due to sleep deprivation and being surrounded by vitriol, rather than spending time at home on things that matter.
And then there's everyone else. There are no doubt plenty on here who if they asked themselves honestly, are letting what is at heart just a debate about the UK's governance model and trading arrangements to unnecessarily darken their mood and sour the standard of their relations.
I'm not as old as some but the General Election is likely to be the most bitterly fought in my lifetime. Let's all stay friends at the end of shall we?
I can understand why some think Revoke (or Revoke after a new Referendum) is the easiest way out of the mess but if you stop and think about that for just a moment, you'll see how much worse things would get. Whether Farage's No Deal achieves the end of acrimony must also be quite open to debate, since none of us know for certain what the exit terms would be and hence how badly any losers might suffer.
No, the government's strategy is the right one. Go all out for a new deal that can form the basis of a compromise and move on. The DUP understand this. The government understands this. At least some on the opposition benches do too. And I think somewhere in there you're seeing the same understanding from EU stakeholders. It'll all be over soon. But it might have to get worse before it gets better.
Not a word about the contemptible behaviour of the Prime Minister and an attack on the mental health of Remainers. Contemptible.
A shame you cannot take my post in the spirit it was intended. Oh well.
It was a vile spirit.
I am very sorry you see it that way. It was not. But there's no point trying to convince you otherwise.
Comments
Goodnight PB. Manana.
It is not my fault if you do not like it.
Argue all you like. It respects the result.
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
Options:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
Any outcome that matches that text is legitimate. This wasn't a general election, where there's some expectation a manifesto will be implemented.
Take back control to our own Parliament? A huge brexit money dividend? Our courts throwing out everybody politicians want thrown out? A lot less immigration?
Even if we hard brexit we will be right back in again in less than how many years?
Otherwise you may as well say a party which wins a general election and is allowed to form a government but not implement its manifesto respects the result when it blatantly does not
As an aside, all US free trade deals contain restrictions on entering into Free Trade Deals with "non market economies" (which is defined by the US). So, it effectively bars you from both having an FTA with the US and with China.
It also removes the UK from the ECJ's jurisdiction, and puts us under the much more limited EFTA Court. From a governance point of view, that's a major difference.
That's not to say people don't care about it and in a poll people would mention it as an important issue facing the country - but I don't believe for one minute that most people are particularly worked up about it.
Yes, obsessives and political anoraks are - but they are a very small % of the overall population.
Having said that, it does beggar belief that Thomas Cook was still trading at all with that balance sheet.
We may see an actual punch up in parliament soon. When people are are at their most powerless they lash out.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/01/thuggery-abuse-death-threats-unacceptable-everywhere-but-no-one-came-to-my-or-other-brexiteers-defence-when-we-were-victims.html
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/nigel-farage-quit-as-ukip-leader-over-death-threats-against-family-a3288301.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/12/andrea-leadsom-becomes-latest-brexiteer-receive-death-threats/
The risks from far-right terrorism are at their highest for years. The security and police services have made this clear. As PM Johnson will have been made aware of the nature of the threat and the factors giving rise to it. A responsible politician would seek to do everything possible to dampen down such a threat not use inflammatory language himself, not attack those who raise the risk of attacks on MPs, not insult the friends of a murdered MP by dismissing their concerns.
Leave or Remain
That was the choice. EEA = Leave
All his actions have been driven by fear of BXP, no way he expels his BXP mps. I mean ERG mps .
Let’s not go down the rabbit hole (excuse pun) of its ideology, but it’s practicality of meeting funding commitments.
I am right it will hurt her campaign battle for swing votes in the main event.
Joe Cox is though..
I think the suggestion is that he may have been blackmailed into providing money/contacts/a forum for this woman's far-right contacts as a result of his relationship with her.
Difficult to know whether there is any substance to this. Could Boris really be open to blackmail given that he was pretty open about his serial adultery?
I would have thought the issue to be investigated is whether there was an actual or potential conflict of interest and whether the expenditure of taxpayers' money on this woman's company was properly justified and reasonable.
#SurrenderBill
Trending with: #SurrenderAct
At one point I could hear a conversation about Brexit in both ears. The gents were mostly talking about the Supreme Court judgment. The ladies were talking about Brexit stuff they'd seen on social media and how social media sent people mad. It was surreal.
Now, sure, I am in Remainer London and maybe the rest of the country isn't paying any attention. But it feels damn unusual to me.
An argument eating itself.
If a disorderly withdrawal is consistent with Leave then so is moving to the EEA.
If you listen to the pledges then a disorderly withdrawal has to be ruled out.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/01/thuggery-abuse-death-threats-unacceptable-everywhere-but-no-one-came-to-my-or-other-brexiteers-defence-when-we-were-victims.html
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/nigel-farage-quit-as-ukip-leader-over-death-threats-against-family-a3288301.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/12/andrea-leadsom-becomes-latest-brexiteer-receive-death-threats/
>>
These are certainly three concrete cases, which is more than many on the Brexit side usually solidly reference, which are thoroughly reprehensible, and which deserve credit for raising. I remain to be convinced of a comparable systematic campaign though, for two reasons ; firstly because the death threats to the Remain side have been documented as afflicting large numbers not only of MP's, but also journalists ; and most convincingly of all , because a greater proportion of threats to the other side would tally with and be consistent with the greater proclivity for violent and warlike rhetoric from their opponents.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/john-mcdonnell-offers-no-11-to-homeless-wh6gp0jkj?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3QeyhypHaAhNv8vlMnkuMC-B0GngUL97UbtinQ3-oBJs3BwFAQ1bj8d58#Echobox=1569374803
And yet somehow it is Rory Stewart, et al, who have lost the Conservative whip.
Ah, here tiz
She slips off her coat. Imelda is step-by-step taking her clothes off and Hugh's heart is working so fast he feels endangered, overbuzzed, like a student on too much speed. Stuck with his addiction Hugh watches, obsessing, as Imelda undoes buttons, glancing down he wants everything on the menu, he wants so much to take his time and explore it, slowly.
- What will you have for first course?
- you choose for both of us
She smiles across at him. Hugh, with as much composure as he can muster, prepares himself, unfolding his dress shirt, cotton soft between fingers. Her eyes fix upon it as he lowers good linen down from view.
Eventually...
- You mean I have to put all of that in my mouth?
You ordered it! Oh God. yes.
Hopeful, wistful, with mouthful of juice, he watches her little hands at work and he waits for as long as he can; but then he can't: now he goes: down to a rose, smelling the scent of St Malo restaurant on a winter's evening, lost in the thick soft furrier’s samples; lost in the grape of a young Czarina.
Cunni. Cunniling. Cunnilinguling. Cunnilingulingilinguling
Hugh, unable to hold back, slurps through a dish of shell food and considers the fact Imelda is the only woman he enjoys. He considers this: dismisses it. Dangerous, dangerous. Why should he enjoy her and no-one else?
Hugh lays off his tongue and considers the taste. It is, he feels, one of those very nearly disgusting lovely tastes that can so easily tip over into complete disgusting. Like oysters. Olives. Anchovy butter. Like burnt charcoal peppers in oil. Like so much seafood.
But because he loves her, he loves the taste. He would love the taste of blood right now, from a war wound, from scar tissue, from mutilation; ohyes he loves it all, loves the kowtow, yes he loves the taste.
It is time. Now. Yes. Brupt, he turns her over, flips her white body of flesh. It’s so small and compact, and yet has all the necessary features...
Shall I compare thee to a Sony Walkman?
thou art more compact and more
My own Toshiba,
dinky little JVC,
Oh sweet Aiwa
- Aiwa - She says, being served barbed sea bass between slimy red-peppers-in-olive-oil - Aiwa, aiwa aiwa aiwa aiwa aiwa aiwa aiwa aiwa aiwaaaaaaaaah
Watch the reaction of the panel !
https://twitter.com/cliodiaspora/status/1176982099859058689
There are absolute loons not even "on both sides". We also have for instance Laura K and former Jewish Labour MPs being targeted by Corbynista extremists. Some nutter also attacked Corbyn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_v_United_Kingdom_(No_2)
https://twitter.com/michelbarnier/status/1104052380088393733?s=21
It's like a Christian saying, "well, I think the prohibition on muder is fine, but I don't think we need this whole false witness thing."
"We will negotiate a new UK-EU Treaty... before the 2020 election."
I guess you could argue that negotiating it and then rejecting it in parliament satisfies that condition.
In a witness statement to the high court, Peter Fankhauser also said the company had received seven non-binding offers for parts of its business under a strategic review, all of which were rejected by Thomas Cook’s board and lenders.
The company received five offers for its airline operation and one for a sale of the tour operator from Fosun, Thomas Cook’s largest shareholder. An offer was also received for its Nordic business, “which was followed by a fully financed offer at a later stage”.
Fankhauser added: “Following careful consideration by the board and in consultation with the lenders, the board decided not to pursue any of the bids.
“None of the bids were likely to realise sufficient value and following the disposal of any individual business division, the capital structure of the remaining group was unlikely to be sustainable. It would therefore not have been commercially justifiable.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/25/thomas-cook-balance-sheet-deficit-3bn-before-collapse
Sounds like the government made exactly the right decision not to give them £250m.
Negotiating for a UK EU Treaty without the backstop there agrees with the Vote Leave campaign platform
...there's this big red light on my desk marked "metaphor alert" that's flashing frantically. I wonder what could it mean...
For the sake of argument, let's assume that this state of affairs continues, and the EU do not agree to the deal without the backstop. The upshot is then that the referendum result as you understand it cannot be implemented. What do you think should be done if a referendum result cannot be implemented?
There appear to be some pretty mentally ragged people in the House and it's showing forth in the quality of the debate. The government giving them a few weeks off was probably a blessing to some of them, not that they'd dare say it out loud.
MPs are in the eye of the cyclone so their mood is the worst of all but similar feelings are clearly permeating out into society to a greater or lesser degree. Next in the storm are mainstream journalists, with their output on mass sinking deeper into the abyss, due to sleep deprivation and being surrounded by vitriol, rather than spending time at home on things that matter.
And then there's everyone else. There are no doubt plenty on here who if they asked themselves honestly, are letting what is at heart just a debate about the UK's governance model and trading arrangements to unnecessarily darken their mood and sour the standard of their relations.
I'm not as old as some but the General Election is likely to be the most bitterly fought in my lifetime. Let's all stay friends at the end of shall we?
I can understand why some think Revoke (or Revoke after a new Referendum) is the easiest way out of the mess but if you stop and think about that for just a moment, you'll see how much worse things would get. Whether Farage's No Deal achieves the end of acrimony must also be quite open to debate, since none of us know for certain what the exit terms would be and hence how badly any losers might suffer.
No, the government's strategy is the right one. Go all out for a new deal that can form the basis of a compromise and move on. The DUP understand this. The government understands this. At least some on the opposition benches do too. And I think somewhere in there you're seeing the same understanding from EU stakeholders. It'll all be over soon. But it might have to get worse before it gets better.