(According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".
So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.
But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.
I think PM is fine for Leo - best not to encourage the use of twee dead languages.
D'ye want to let the members of the world's biggest Rangers supporters' club know that they speak a twee dead language?
It is a twee dead language tho. The death spiral of Irish gaelic is long and sad. Compare and contrast with Hebrew, which attempted the same thing, and delivered brilliantly.
Modern Hebrew is an artificial language isn't it, which used the dead ancient Hebrew as a template. Apparently, although they had a living Jewish language to hand in Yiddish, the founders of Israel decided not to utilize it - it was considered too eastern European and a bit low brow.
Yes, modern Hebrew was practically created from scratch. Many were skeptical that it could or should work.
Yet it is now a safely established language, the first language of Israel, a tongue spoken by 7-9m people. An incredible achievement - and done in the face of English, Arabic, and Yiddish as rivals
I think it's pretty weird to blame modern day Britons for the decision of Henry II to give responsibility for taking/holding Ireland to John Lackland.
Yesterday everyone here was united condemning the ridiculous Leave.EU poster that referenced Merkel and WWII. It was clearly, and rightly, seen as ridiculous to cling to grudges of WWII, which ended less than a century ago.
Yet some think it's clever, or wise, or witty, to hark back to the doings of the Angevins in the 12th century. As if that's remotely relevant to or the responsibility of anyone around today.
Why not go back one more century and attack the Normans for the Harrying of the North? Or a century further back and attack the Scandinavians for Viking naughtiness?
Well said.
There is a relevance to knowing the history, long and short term, but people pick and choose when to make it ok to focus so heavily on it, usually for political advantage.
The key thing is perception in Ireland. In my experience there is a strong difference in the minds of Irish people between English/British people (many of whom they know, are related to, and deal with on a daily basis) and the British Government. Talking of 1169 and all that is all very well but the subsequent 8 centuries, through Cromwell and the Famine, up to, including and beyond Bloody Sunday (which resulted in the burning down of the U.K. Embassy) has left an intractable subconscious mistrust of our government there. Whatever the political realities they also regard the 6 counties as part of the “land” to which they beyond, whatever State it belongs to.
So they are not blaming English or British people. History, however, has resulted in a stereotype of the Government that is as deeply ingrained, if not more, than the perceptions of the German Government here (as we saw yesterday) that may be equally invalid. It is that lack of trust in the Government, which has let them down time and time again over many centuries, that has led to the demand for the backstop. Whether that is “fair” to us as a people, or not, is somewhat irrelevant. We are negotiating with them and we have to understand that perspective and come to an accommodation with it if we want a deal.
Part of the underlying problem with the ROI / NI issue - but which never gets talked about and the Irish Government has never apologised for - is the awful way Irish Protestants in the south were treated in the years following independence, often hounded out of their homes and jobs, and in some cases, suffering worse. And I say that as a Catholic with two Irish parents.
I am beginning to wonder if a few pound on another referendum would be a good investment. The odds are still good but I see it as increasingly likely. Johnson seems to be doing OK at neutralising the threat of having to ask for an extension so a Labour policy to force a second referendum rather than a general election seems to have logic. The idea was force Johnson into a delay and then get an election when he was seen as weak. But if that does not happen forcing a referendum with May's deal (it is still the only deal available) or Remain as the two options will probably rip the Tories apart. People will need to campaign for options they voted against in the HoC and there would be a considerable risk that Remain would win. Holding a general election two weeks after the referendum would probably see the Tories in disarray. Yes there would be a risk to some Labour MPs but they would have to argue that the HoC is broken and asking the people is that only possible solution.
I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.
And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.
It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.
I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.
Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.
Your chickens will finish all your kitchen scraps not sure what you'll do with the pig (singular).
Bacon, lots of lovely pork and the blood used for sanguinaccio, a delicious Neapolitan chocolate cake!
Ah yes of course that makes sense it just sounded like "I intend having a pig" that it was some kind of pet.
One can, I believe, still get some of the war-time books of advice on keeping chickens and pigs for those very purposes. I recall going to a Citizens Advice area meeting where the speaker spoke at length, and very patronisingly of East Anglian Pig Clubs; four or five families kept and fed a pig, which was then butchered and the meat divided up. Some of the meat was sold to buy a piglet and the process repeated. It was very interesting, but the patronising attitude of the speaker irritated me, as that was the sort of thing some of my forebears might well have been involved in.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
In short: we are very possibly headed for political violence.
Great.
Worth pointing out the journalist is at the saner end of the Remainer spectrum.
I notice that german chancellors office has said they wont comment on private conversations re yesterdays spat. I think we can take that she said basically what was leaked.
Oh, definitely. She would deny it if she could, the rest of the EU is incredulous. But she can't deny it. Why? Because she said it, or close to it, and she cannot be sure it was not recorded by the Brits. Indeed, it surely was.
Yes exactly. Varadkar can say what he likes about what he said to Boris on the margins because it wasn't recorded but Merkel cannot be sure. Newsflash, foreigners lie as much as British PMs. They are politicians, hence they lie.
Should we assume that it means she accepts it as true? Isn't this the same line the government makes about not discussing leaks? The German Chancellor believes commenting on such a conversation would be bad precedent to set. That seems like a usual politician talking point from the official mouthpiece. All the other spinning has been about how this certainly wasn't the case. Yet we except our government's spin, and approach "foreign" spin with more cynicism?
My Occam's razor question is does this sound like Merkel and is our current government a trustworthy source on these things? On both those counts I defer towards not trusting the spin coming from No 10.
Looks like the #peoplesvote march picked the perfect day, hundreds of thousands marching on the day of the Saturday urgent Brexit session of parliament.
I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.
And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.
It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.
I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.
Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.
Your chickens will finish all your kitchen scraps not sure what you'll do with the pig (singular).
Bacon, lots of lovely pork and the blood used for sanguinaccio, a delicious Neapolitan chocolate cake!
Ah yes of course that makes sense it just sounded like "I intend having a pig" that it was some kind of pet.
One can, I believe, still get some of the war-time books of advice on keeping chickens and pigs for those very purposes. I recall going to a Citizens Advice area meeting where the speaker spoke at length, and very patronisingly of East Anglian Pig Clubs; four or five families kept and fed a pig, which was then butchered and the meat divided up. Some of the meat was sold to buy a piglet and the process repeated. It was very interesting, but the patronising attitude of the speaker irritated me, as that was the sort of thing some of my forebears might well have been involved in.
Wasn't there a "thing" not so long ago of keeping Vietnamese pot-bellied pigs as pets...
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Piece says Remain currently lead 53% to 47%.
Not a great deal in it and given what happened in the last referendum campaign a 52%/48% finish for either side could easily be the outcome.
If you are a non lawyer as I am the Inner House ruling is only 6 pages long, very clearly written and intelligible to the lay person. It's worth a read for the legal ' backstop ' they've created, the tone used and the hints given. It's a very well crafted piece of writing.
I think it's pretty weird to blame modern day Britons for the decision of Henry II to give responsibility for taking/holding Ireland to John Lackland.
Yesterday everyone here was united condemning the ridiculous Leave.EU poster that referenced Merkel and WWII. It was clearly, and rightly, seen as ridiculous to cling to grudges of WWII, which ended less than a century ago.
Yet some think it's clever, or wise, or witty, to hark back to the doings of the Angevins in the 12th century. As if that's remotely relevant to or the responsibility of anyone around today.
Why not go back one more century and attack the Normans for the Harrying of the North? Or a century further back and attack the Scandinavians for Viking naughtiness?
Well said.
There is a relevance to knowing the history, long and short term, but people pick and choose when to make it ok to focus so heavily on it, usually for political advantage.
The key thing is perception in Ireland. In my experience there is a strong difference in the minds of Irish people between English/British people (many of whom they know, are related to, and deal with on a daily basis) and the British Government. Talking of 1169 and all that is all very well but the subsequent 8 centuries, through Cromwell and the Famine, up to, including and beyond Bloody Sunday (which resulted in the burning down of the U.K. Embassy) has left an intractable subconscious mistrust of our government there. Whatever the political realities they also regard the 6 counties as part of the “land” to which they beyond, whatever State it belongs to.
So they are not blaming English or British people. History, however, has resulted in a stereotype of the Government that is as deeply ingrained, if not more, than the perceptions of the German Government here (as we saw yesterday) that may be equally invalid. It is that lack of trust in the Government, which has let them down time and time again over many centuries, that has led to the demand for the backstop. Whether that is “fair” to us as a people, or not, is somewhat irrelevant. We are negotiating with them and we have to understand that perspective and come to an accommodation with it if we want a deal.
Part of the underlying problem with the ROI / NI issue - but which never gets talked about and the Irish Government has never apologised for - is the awful way Irish Protestants in the south were treated in the years following independence, often hounded out of their homes and jobs, and in some cases, suffering worse. And I say that as a Catholic with two Irish parents.
True, and the tales add fuel to the Unionist fire.
There are other categories - for example: 4. Would not vote for a party led by either Corbyn or Johnson. Full stop.
A not insignificant number.
Yes, for sure.
The categories only apply to those voters who are are broadly in the moderate centre ground of politics and who also wish to embrace the tactical element of a pre Brexit GE - in which case they must weight up their hostility to Corbyn against their hostility to Brexit, and see which is the stronger.
And even then it's only relevant if their seat is a Con/Lab marginal.
In short: we are very possibly headed for political violence.
Great.
Worth pointing out the journalist is at the saner end of the Remainer spectrum.
I notice that german chancellors office has said they wont comment on private conversations re yesterdays spat. I think we can take that she said basically what was leaked.
Oh, definitely. She would deny it if she could, the rest of the EU is incredulous. But she can't deny it. Why? Because she said it, or close to it, and she cannot be sure it was not recorded by the Brits. Indeed, it surely was.
Yes exactly. Varadkar can say what he likes about what he said to Boris on the margins because it wasn't recorded but Merkel cannot be sure. Newsflash, foreigners lie as much as British PMs. They are politicians, hence they lie.
Should we assume that it means she accepts it as true? Isn't this the same line the government makes about not discussing leaks? The German Chancellor believes commenting on such a conversation would be bad precedent to set. That seems like a usual politician talking point from the official mouthpiece. All the other spinning has been about how this certainly wasn't the case. Yet we except our government's spin, and approach "foreign" spin with more cynicism?
My Occam's razor question is does this sound like Merkel and is our current government a trustworthy source on these things? On both those counts I defer towards not trusting the spin coming from No 10.
I wouldn't trust this government if they told me grass was green.
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.
There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.
Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.
We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
The decision not to eat parts of a dead animal is often made for ethical reasons. Because you are happy to eat meat, it does not mean this is not an ethical issue.
It’s a choice.
Fundamentally there are no ethical issues.
Have you never wondered what sort of life that piece of meet had? How it lived, how it died? I have loved eating meat all my life, but even I used to get the odd pang of guilt when factory farming cruelty has been highlighted in the media. I've stopped eating meat on health grounds ultimately, but the ethical side of it is a bonus for me. As you say, it's a choice, and people shouldn't be vilified or judged on their preferred diet. Unless you're a Tory, as eating babies is bad.
I stopped eating chicken when Sainsbury's withdrew the higher welfare option.
There are other categories - for example: 4. Would not vote for a party led by either Corbyn or Johnson. Full stop.
A not insignificant number.
Yes, for sure.
The categories only apply to those voters who are are broadly in the moderate centre ground of politics and who also wish to embrace the tactical element of a pre Brexit GE - in which case they must weight up their hostility to Corbyn against their hostility to Brexit, and see which is the stronger.
And even then it's only relevant if their seat is a Con/Lab marginal.
[talking about making Corbyn PM...] "apply to those voters who are broadly in the moderate centre ground of politics..."
I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.
And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.
It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.
I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.
Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.
Your chickens will finish all your kitchen scraps not sure what you'll do with the pig (singular).
Bacon, lots of lovely pork and the blood used for sanguinaccio, a delicious Neapolitan chocolate cake!
Ah yes of course that makes sense it just sounded like "I intend having a pig" that it was some kind of pet.
One can, I believe, still get some of the war-time books of advice on keeping chickens and pigs for those very purposes. I recall going to a Citizens Advice area meeting where the speaker spoke at length, and very patronisingly of East Anglian Pig Clubs; four or five families kept and fed a pig, which was then butchered and the meat divided up. Some of the meat was sold to buy a piglet and the process repeated. It was very interesting, but the patronising attitude of the speaker irritated me, as that was the sort of thing some of my forebears might well have been involved in.
Wasn't there a "thing" not so long ago of keeping Vietnamese pot-bellied pigs as pets...
The stories of wealthy middle class families conned into buying miniature piglets as pets, only for them to grow up to become full sized pigs soon put a stop to that.
I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.
And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.
It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.
I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.
Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.
Your chickens will finish all your kitchen scraps not sure what you'll do with the pig (singular).
Bacon, lots of lovely pork and the blood used for sanguinaccio, a delicious Neapolitan chocolate cake!
Ah yes of course that makes sense it just sounded like "I intend having a pig" that it was some kind of pet.
One can, I believe, still get some of the war-time books of advice on keeping chickens and pigs for those very purposes. I recall going to a Citizens Advice area meeting where the speaker spoke at length, and very patronisingly of East Anglian Pig Clubs; four or five families kept and fed a pig, which was then butchered and the meat divided up. Some of the meat was sold to buy a piglet and the process repeated. It was very interesting, but the patronising attitude of the speaker irritated me, as that was the sort of thing some of my forebears might well have been involved in.
Wasn't there a "thing" not so long ago of keeping Vietnamese pot-bellied pigs as pets...
Seem to recall. Pork in Vietnam tastes good, so there might have been an ulterior motive. Pigs live about 15 years, so there's quite a commitment.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Piece says Remain currently lead 53% to 47%.
Not a great deal in it and given what happened in the last referendum campaign a 52%/48% finish for either side could easily be the outcome.
Sure. It's merely a hunch. Probably worthless.
I just get the sense people have had waaaaay more than enough. If Brexit could be magicked away, most would eagerly accept it, and a Remain vote in a new referendum would SEEM to do that.
We are staring into the abyss - potential political violence! - and we are flinching at what we see.
In short: we are very possibly headed for political violence.
Great.
Worth pointing out the journalist is at the saner end of the Remainer spectrum.
I notice that german chancellors office has said they wont comment on private conversations re yesterdays spat. I think we can take that she said basically what was leaked.
Oh, definitely. She would deny it if she could, the rest of the EU is incredulous. But she can't deny it. Why? Because she said it, or close to it, and she cannot be sure it was not recorded by the Brits. Indeed, it surely was.
Yes exactly. Varadkar can say what he likes about what he said to Boris on the margins because it wasn't recorded but Merkel cannot be sure. Newsflash, foreigners lie as much as British PMs. They are politicians, hence they lie.
Should we assume that it means she accepts it as true? Isn't this the same line the government makes about not discussing leaks? The German Chancellor believes commenting on such a conversation would be bad precedent to set. That seems like a usual politician talking point from the official mouthpiece. All the other spinning has been about how this certainly wasn't the case. Yet we except our government's spin, and approach "foreign" spin with more cynicism?
My Occam's razor question is does this sound like Merkel and is our current government a trustworthy source on these things? On both those counts I defer towards not trusting the spin coming from No 10.
Valid question but experience tells me I can no more trust German and Irish politicians than the current crop in number 10. We have no idea of the public Merkel versus the private phone call Merkel. The stated Germano-Irish position versus what they demand behind the scenes etc
There is a relevance to knowing the history, long and short term, but people pick and choose when to make it ok to focus so heavily on it, usually for political advantage.
The key thing is perception in Ireland. In my experience there is a strong difference in the minds of Irish people between English/British people (many of whom they know, are related to, and deal with on a daily basis) and the British Government. Talking of 1169 and all that is all very well but the subsequent 8 centuries, through Cromwell and the Famine, up to, including and beyond Bloody Sunday (which resulted in the burning down of the U.K. Embassy) has left an intractable subconscious mistrust of our government there. Whatever the political realities they also regard the 6 counties as part of the “land” to which they beyond, whatever State it belongs to.
So they are not blaming English or British people. History, however, has resulted in a stereotype of the Government that is as deeply ingrained, if not more, than the perceptions of the German Government here (as we saw yesterday) that may be equally invalid. It is that lack of trust in the Government, which has let them down time and time again over many centuries, that has led to the demand for the backstop. Whether that is “fair” to us as a people, or not, is somewhat irrelevant. We are negotiating with them and we have to understand that perspective and come to an accommodation with it if we want a deal.
Part of the underlying problem with the ROI / NI issue - but which never gets talked about and the Irish Government has never apologised for - is the awful way Irish Protestants in the south were treated in the years following independence, often hounded out of their homes and jobs, and in some cases, suffering worse. And I say that as a Catholic with two Irish parents.
The irony is that if the Six Counties has joined the state they would have formed a parliamentary bloc in the Dail that could have prevented Ireland becoming, as you say, a cold house for Protestants almost as much as NI was a cold house for Catholics. That being said the Irish Senate was essentially established to give them a voice, and a Protestant President in Erskine Childers.
Looks like the Scottish court has said they won't compel the PM in advance to write The Letter, but the appellants can come back in a couple of weeks if he hasn't. Someone with a better understanding of these things help out here?
They’ve delayed the judgement on whether to issue an order and also on the nobile officium until the 21st October .
If Bozo doesn’t ask for an extension or tries to obstruct the Act then he’s toast on that day . The court will provide remedy then .
And because he’s given written undertakings to obey the law then he’s in serious trouble if he doesn’t .
Which makes the likely timeline No deal can be agreed Extension requested Election called Tories stand on a leave immediately platform (with fig leaf of accept Boris offer or immediate no deal exit)
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Piece says Remain currently lead 53% to 47%.
Not a great deal in it and given what happened in the last referendum campaign a 52%/48% finish for either side could easily be the outcome.
Sure. It's merely a hunch. Probably worthless.
I just get the sense people have had waaaaay more than enough. If Brexit could be magicked away, most would eagerly accept it, and a Remain vote in a new referendum would SEEM to do that.
We are staring into the abyss - potential political violence! - and we are flinching at what we see.
It is a good point. Remain in a second referendum does make everything go away and it's back to arguing about the tax status of Jaffa Cakes.
And as for the we must leave first crowd perhaps this last three years has "honoured" the first referendum result and the political mess and hence second referendum was all that could ever have been achieved by a leave vote then.
Looks like the Scottish court has said they won't compel the PM in advance to write The Letter, but the appellants can come back in a couple of weeks if he hasn't. Someone with a better understanding of these things help out here?
They’ve delayed the judgement on whether to issue an order and also on the nobile officium until the 21st October .
If Bozo doesn’t ask for an extension or tries to obstruct the Act then he’s toast on that day . The court will provide remedy then .
And because he’s given written undertakings to obey the law then he’s in serious trouble if he doesn’t .
Which makes the likely timeline No deal can be agreed Extension requested Election called Tories stand on a leave immediately platform (with fig leaf of accept Boris offer or immediate no deal exit)
How will he get a GE?
By tabling a motion demanding one.
Without the fig leaf of saying that an extension is needed first how are MPs going to reject that?
Looks like the Scottish court has said they won't compel the PM in advance to write The Letter, but the appellants can come back in a couple of weeks if he hasn't. Someone with a better understanding of these things help out here?
They’ve delayed the judgement on whether to issue an order and also on the nobile officium until the 21st October .
If Bozo doesn’t ask for an extension or tries to obstruct the Act then he’s toast on that day . The court will provide remedy then .
And because he’s given written undertakings to obey the law then he’s in serious trouble if he doesn’t .
Which makes the likely timeline No deal can be agreed Extension requested Election called Tories stand on a leave immediately platform (with fig leaf of accept Boris offer or immediate no deal exit)
How will he get a GE?
Once extension is requested there is no reason for the LDs and SNP to block, and hence no way to stop it. They want an election as both will gain seats
Looks like the #peoplesvote march picked the perfect day, hundreds of thousands marching on the day of the Saturday urgent Brexit session of parliament.
How will #peoplesvote march when #extinctionrebellion are already blocking the roads?
Looks like the #peoplesvote march picked the perfect day, hundreds of thousands marching on the day of the Saturday urgent Brexit session of parliament.
How will #peoplevote march when #extinctionrebellion are already blocking the roads?
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Piece says Remain currently lead 53% to 47%.
Not a great deal in it and given what happened in the last referendum campaign a 52%/48% finish for either side could easily be the outcome.
Sure. It's merely a hunch. Probably worthless.
I just get the sense people have had waaaaay more than enough. If Brexit could be magicked away, most would eagerly accept it, and a Remain vote in a new referendum would SEEM to do that.
We are staring into the abyss - potential political violence! - and we are flinching at what we see.
It is a good point. Remain in a second referendum does make everything go away and it's back to arguing about the tax status of Jaffa Cakes.
And as for the we must leave first crowd perhaps this last three years has "honoured" the first referendum result and the political mess and hence second referendum was all that could ever have been achieved.
One thing the crazy Lib Dem Revoke policy has done is move the Brexit Overton window Remainwards. From being a fringe position, 2nd referendum now seems like the sensible, moderate option, between Revoke and No Deal.
Hilary Benn was arguing precisely that way on Newsnight last night.
Looks like the Scottish court has said they won't compel the PM in advance to write The Letter, but the appellants can come back in a couple of weeks if he hasn't. Someone with a better understanding of these things help out here?
They’ve delayed the judgement on whether to issue an order and also on the nobile officium until the 21st October .
If Bozo doesn’t ask for an extension or tries to obstruct the Act then he’s toast on that day . The court will provide remedy then .
And because he’s given written undertakings to obey the law then he’s in serious trouble if he doesn’t .
Which makes the likely timeline No deal can be agreed Extension requested Election called Tories stand on a leave immediately platform (with fig leaf of accept Boris offer or immediate no deal exit)
How will he get a GE?
Once extension is requested there is no reason for the LDs and SNP to block, and hence no way to stop it. They want an election as both will gain seats
LDs may lose seats!
They might gain seats relative to last election, but lose defectors.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
Putting to one side the stream of consciousness from Dominic Cummings (sorry - "a Downing Street source"), does anyone realistically see an Oct 31 outcome other than extension now?
Deal Boris isn't going anywhere.
Benn Act feels fairly tight.
The Commons majority for avoiding No Deal seems firm enough, even if there's not one for anything beyond forcing extension.
I guess the only other possibility is Deal May.. but I don't really see a way through for that given how comprehensively it's been trashed.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Piece says Remain currently lead 53% to 47%.
Not a great deal in it and given what happened in the last referendum campaign a 52%/48% finish for either side could easily be the outcome.
Sure. It's merely a hunch. Probably worthless.
I just get the sense people have had waaaaay more than enough. If Brexit could be magicked away, most would eagerly accept it, and a Remain vote in a new referendum would SEEM to do that.
We are staring into the abyss - potential political violence! - and we are flinching at what we see.
It is a good point. Remain in a second referendum does make everything go away and it's back to arguing about the tax status of Jaffa Cakes.
And as for the we must leave first crowd perhaps this last three years has "honoured" the first referendum result and the political mess and hence second referendum was all that could ever have been achieved by a leave vote then.
In no way does Remain in a second referendum make it all go away. Particularly if Leave decide to boycott it which I think is highly likely. An illigitimate vote will be treated with the same contempt that Remoaners used wirh regard to the original vote.
Putting to one side the stream of consciousness from Dominic Cummings (sorry - "a Downing Street source"), does anyone realistically see an Oct 31 outcome other than extension now?
Deal Boris isn't going anywhere.
Benn Act feels fairly tight.
The Commons majority for avoiding No Deal seems firm enough, even if there's not one for anything beyond forcing extension.
I guess the only other possibility is Deal May.. but I don't really see a way through for that given how comprehensively it's been trashed.
Looks like the #peoplesvote march picked the perfect day, hundreds of thousands marching on the day of the Saturday urgent Brexit session of parliament.
How will #peoplevote march when #extinctionrebellion are already blocking the roads?
It will be like the end scene of Jurassic Park
Add in Mormons, Moonies, Jehovahs Winess, Church of Scientology and Hare Krishna and it'll be pandemonium.
If you are a non lawyer as I am the Inner House ruling is only 6 pages long, very clearly written and intelligible to the lay person. It's worth a read for the legal ' backstop ' they've created, the tone used and the hints given. It's a very well crafted piece of writing.
Many thanks. Indeed, especiaolly the final para -
"6[12] The court will for these reasons continue consideration of the reclaiming motion and the petition to the nobile officiumuntil Monday, 21October, by which time the position ought to be significantly clearer.At that time the court will expect to be addressed on the factsas they then present themselves."
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Piece says Remain currently lead 53% to 47%.
Not a great deal in it and given what happened in the last referendum campaign a 52%/48% finish for either side could easily be the outcome.
Sure. It's merely a hunch. Probably worthless.
I just get the sense people have had waaaaay more than enough. If Brexit could be magicked away, most would eagerly accept it, and a Remain vote in a new referendum would SEEM to do that.
We are staring into the abyss - potential political violence! - and we are flinching at what we see.
It is a good point. Remain in a second referendum does make everything go away and it's back to arguing about the tax status of Jaffa Cakes.
And as for the we must leave first crowd perhaps this last three years has "honoured" the first referendum result and the political mess and hence second referendum was all that could ever have been achieved.
One thing the crazy Lib Dem Revoke policy has done is move the Brexit Overton window Remainwards. From being a fringe position, 2nd referendum now seems like the sensible, moderate option, between Revoke and No Deal.
Hilary Benn was arguing precisely that way on Newsnight last night.
That’s why, from a leave perspective, No deal has always had to be on the table. It’s why MPs who wanted to stay all along, despite being elected on a ticket to leave, tried to make it illegal, so the choice was Mays agreement with the EU (which they voted down) or another referendum/revoke
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Piece says Remain currently lead 53% to 47%.
Not a great deal in it and given what happened in the last referendum campaign a 52%/48% finish for either side could easily be the outcome.
Sure. It's merely a hunch. Probably worthless.
I just get the sense people have had waaaaay more than enough. If Brexit could be magicked away, most would eagerly accept it, and a Remain vote in a new referendum would SEEM to do that.
We are staring into the abyss - potential political violence! - and we are flinching at what we see.
It is a good point. Remain in a second referendum does make everything go away and it's back to arguing about the tax status of Jaffa Cakes.
And as for the we must leave first crowd perhaps this last three years has "honoured" the first referendum result and the political mess and hence second referendum was all that could ever have been achieved by a leave vote then.
In no way does Remain in a second referendum make it all go away. Particularly if Leave decide to boycott it which I think is highly likely. An illigitimate vote will be treated with the same contempt that Remoaners used wirh regard to the original vote.
Nah Richard it would be the purest form of democracy. Asking the very same people - not, say, the French - what they think about a pressing issue.
Not my first choice but absolutely democratic. If leavers boycott it (why?) then so be it.
I notice that german chancellors office has said they wont comment on private conversations re yesterdays spat. I think we can take that she said basically what was leaked.
What do you take it that she said, over and above that any Deal by 31 Oct must have the backstop?
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
How do we get to a 2nd referendum, though? I just can't see Corbyn getting enough votes.
Here's a great thread on the insanity of just one of his policies.
Looks like the #peoplesvote march picked the perfect day, hundreds of thousands marching on the day of the Saturday urgent Brexit session of parliament.
How will #peoplesvote march when #extinctionrebellion are already blocking the roads?
People's Vote had to move the date back by a week as they'd clashed it with a Great Ormond Street fundraiser in Regents Park. Folk were furious as many had already booked travel etc. Maybe now it will end with an Alien vs Predator style finale between Centrist Dads and Swampies for the future of Britain ?
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
How do we get to a 2nd referendum, though? I just can't see Corbyn getting enough votes.
Here's a great thread on the insanity of just one of his policies.
Looks like the #peoplesvote march picked the perfect day, hundreds of thousands marching on the day of the Saturday urgent Brexit session of parliament.
How will #peoplesvote march when #extinctionrebellion are already blocking the roads?
People's Vote had to move the date back by a week as they'd clashed it with a Great Ormond Street fundraiser in Regents Park. Folk were furious as many had already booked travel etc. Maybe now it will end with an Alien vs Predator style finale between Centrist Dads and Swampies for the future of Britain ?
All sorted by Greta riding in on a Unicorn farting rainbows
The bottom line is that the Good Friday Agreement means Britain has no right to take Northern Ireland out of the EU in anything but name. The only way to do it would be to renege on the treaty commitments Britain made under the GFA. Not a single political party has the guts to say this.
It is not a particularly shameful position to be in. Every country has treaty commitments. But basically both Leave and Remain lied about this to the electorate in 2016.
Putting to one side the stream of consciousness from Dominic Cummings (sorry - "a Downing Street source"), does anyone realistically see an Oct 31 outcome other than extension now?
Deal Boris isn't going anywhere.
Benn Act feels fairly tight.
The Commons majority for avoiding No Deal seems firm enough, even if there's not one for anything beyond forcing extension.
I guess the only other possibility is Deal May.. but I don't really see a way through for that given how comprehensively it's been trashed.
Britain Trump will get Deal May passed.
The subsequent LibDem PEB with all the clips of him saying what a shitfest it was would be a joy to behold
Ultra safe Labour seat. Conservatives and Lib Dems have both been distant second places in recent years. Labour MP who is well liked, hasn't hit any controversy, and is in tune with the constituency in general policy and on Brexit. No danger whatsoever of an upset, so no reason for me to vote tactically.
Free to vote your conscience. Good news.
However, I will keep you as a spiritual (1) - since when you are watching that exit poll, of the feasible non-dreamworld outcomes I'm guessing you will be hoping to see Jezza's mug rather than BoJo's at the front of the screen.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
How do we get to a 2nd referendum, though? I just can't see Corbyn getting enough votes.
Here's a great thread on the insanity of just one of his policies.
"1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn. 2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum. 3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit."
What if one`s priority is to protect the Union?
Then you are screwed.
1) PM Corbyn requires the SNP so a referendum. 2) PM Corbyn requires the SNP so a referendum. 3) Any deal requires treating NI differently which will result in additional pressure for a Scottish Referendum.
Basically unless we revoke the chances are Scotland will want to leave.
How about...... possibly a revolutionary idea...... asking the people of N. Ireland, possibly county by county:
Leave the EU under whatever conditions rUK achieves..... customs posts, whatever
Or
Remain in the EU as part of the RoI.
If as HYUFD has suggested, Antrim still votes to stay in the UK then treat it like Gibraltar.
Comedy - What if Fermanagh, (London)Derry and Down voted to stay? Three enclaves?
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
How do we get to a 2nd referendum, though? I just can't see Corbyn getting enough votes.
Here's a great thread on the insanity of just one of his policies.
Putting to one side the stream of consciousness from Dominic Cummings (sorry - "a Downing Street source"), does anyone realistically see an Oct 31 outcome other than extension now?
Deal Boris isn't going anywhere.
Benn Act feels fairly tight.
The Commons majority for avoiding No Deal seems firm enough, even if there's not one for anything beyond forcing extension.
I guess the only other possibility is Deal May.. but I don't really see a way through for that given how comprehensively it's been trashed.
Britain Trump will get Deal May passed.
The subsequent LibDem PEB with all the clips of him saying what a shitfest it was would be a joy to behold
Well he did eventually vote for it. Needs must and all that...
Looks like the #peoplesvote march picked the perfect day, hundreds of thousands marching on the day of the Saturday urgent Brexit session of parliament.
How will #peoplesvote march when #extinctionrebellion are already blocking the roads?
People's Vote had to move the date back by a week as they'd clashed it with a Great Ormond Street fundraiser in Regents Park. Folk were furious as many had already booked travel etc. Maybe now it will end with an Alien vs Predator style finale between Centrist Dads and Swampies for the future of Britain ?
I suspect there's sufficient crossover between both groups to just get a few double-sided banners in and Bob's your uncle..
The bottom line is that the Good Friday Agreement means Britain has no right to take Northern Ireland out of the EU in anything but name. The only way to do it would be to renege on the treaty commitments Britain made under the GFA. Not a single political party has the guts to say this.
It is not a particularly shameful position to be in. Every country has treaty commitments. But basically both Leave and Remain lied about this to the electorate in 2016.
Surely not Remain. I well remember this being discussed well before the 2016 vote - quite apart from what was in the media, I pointed it out to a keen Brexiter (married to an Irish lady), and a friend of mine had a chat with someone of diplomatic experience who noted that Brexit was an a priori breach of that international treaty.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Oh we'd be out I expect. But that's not the primary plan. The primary plan is to be stopped by a combination of the remain parliament opposition and the courts.
OK. Well he is going to be stopped, so if that was the plan it's working.
TBF, I think you are a (3) regardless if I read you right.
By which I mean you would take No Deal under Boris as a better option than anything under Jez.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
How do we get to a 2nd referendum, though? I just can't see Corbyn getting enough votes.
Here's a great thread on the insanity of just one of his policies.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Anyone who thinks May's deal is remain is too dumb to vote hence it would be no loss.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
We would be looking on yesterdays LeaveEU advert as a reminder of more civil times
Putting to one side the stream of consciousness from Dominic Cummings (sorry - "a Downing Street source"), does anyone realistically see an Oct 31 outcome other than extension now?
Deal Boris isn't going anywhere.
Benn Act feels fairly tight.
The Commons majority for avoiding No Deal seems firm enough, even if there's not one for anything beyond forcing extension.
I guess the only other possibility is Deal May.. but I don't really see a way through for that given how comprehensively it's been trashed.
If Johnson is true to his word - of being prepared to metaphorically die in a ditch to ensure Brexit happens by October 31st - then it is still possible that he will achieve this end.
He might have to break the law, defy the Sovereign, or arrange for a couple of dozen anti-no-deal MPs to be "accidentally" kettled by police somewhere, but the time is tight enough that it might be achieved, even if it did subsequently lead to lifetime imprisonment for misconduct in public office.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
How do we get to a 2nd referendum, though? I just can't see Corbyn getting enough votes.
Here's a great thread on the insanity of just one of his policies.
Blimey.That thread is something. Jezza wants 5x current wind capacity. That is 100% of our energy requirements apparently.
I guess in the age of Trump and Johnson, Labour feels it can say any old stuff.
For once I don't disagree with Corbyn there! I want that too. In fact I'd like to see a 6x current wind capacity increase.
Capacity doesn't equal generation, generation will often be below capacity and if generation is above demand then we can export our overproduction to France etc - plus as our transport network switches from fossil fuels to electricity the demand will increase anyway.
However the way to go ahead with that is to continue with what we're doing already not nationalisation. We've seen wind generation surge in recent years at ever falling costs, we should continue that good work. If we can sustainably generate more than 100% of our current demand via wind why shouldn't we?
Ultimately if we are generating even more cheap and green energy than we need then we can look at competitively increasing manufactoring or other energy-intensive industries using this energy.
The bottom line is that the Good Friday Agreement means Britain has no right to take Northern Ireland out of the EU in anything but name. The only way to do it would be to renege on the treaty commitments Britain made under the GFA. Not a single political party has the guts to say this.
It is not a particularly shameful position to be in. Every country has treaty commitments. But basically both Leave and Remain lied about this to the electorate in 2016.
Surely not Remain. I well remember this being discussed well before the 2016 vote - quite apart from what was in the media, I pointed it out to a keen Brexiter (married to an Irish lady), and a friend of mine had a chat with someone of diplomatic experience who noted that Brexit was an a priori breach of that international treaty.
Ireland was almost entirely unmentioned by both sides, including Remain
Have a look at the Remain campaign. Or see these summaries
Incidentally, how bad was the Remain campaign? It always astonishes. Even their name, Britain Stronger in Europe. Awkward, clumsy, offputting, and reduces to an acronym that means mad cow disease.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Anyone who thinks May's deal is remain is too dumb to vote hence it would be no loss.
I'd have gone for May's Deal on both V2 and MV3 but now Merkel has said May's deal is actually the annexation of Northern Ireland its difficult to see many Leavers (or Remainers) being able to support it.
Mr. Tweed, pro-EU MPs need to decide whether they want a deal or a referendum. Otherwise they're just procrastinating.
[Ironically, giving us more time to prepare for no deal and reducing its impact].
Pro-EU MPs who have the luxury of not being in government have the fig-leaf of 'preventing a damaging Tory Brexit'.
It may not be very principled or decisive.. but HMS Principled and HMS Decisive have long since sailed.
Two outcomes of the next election seem to me to be achievable: - Tory Majority/full steam to No Deal. - No Tory Majority/strong possibility of a coalition for a referendum.
While both of those remain live options, and desirable for those proposing them, a Deal they've all trashed remains a sub-optimal choice.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
We would be looking on yesterdays LeaveEU advert as a reminder of more civil times
Why would asking the very same people who voted last time be such an outrage?
If we got the Hungarians in to vote on our behalf maybe but it would be asking the same people.
The bottom line is that the Good Friday Agreement means Britain has no right to take Northern Ireland out of the EU in anything but name. The only way to do it would be to renege on the treaty commitments Britain made under the GFA. Not a single political party has the guts to say this.
It is not a particularly shameful position to be in. Every country has treaty commitments. But basically both Leave and Remain lied about this to the electorate in 2016.
Surely not Remain. I well remember this being discussed well before the 2016 vote - quite apart from what was in the media, I pointed it out to a keen Brexiter (married to an Irish lady), and a friend of mine had a chat with someone of diplomatic experience who noted that Brexit was an a priori breach of that international treaty.
Ireland was almost entirely unmentioned by both sides, including Remain
Have a look at the Remain campaign. Or see these summaries
Incidentally, how bad was the Remain campaign? It always astonishes. Even their name, Britain Stronger in Europe. Awkward, clumsy, offputting, and reduces to an acronym that means mad cow disease.
What do you mean "was"? The Remain campaign has not been interrupted by the mere fact they lost the referendum
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Anyone who thinks May's deal is remain is too dumb to vote hence it would be no loss.
I'd have gone for May's Deal on both V2 and MV3 but now Merkel has said May's deal is actually the annexation of Northern Ireland its difficult to see many Leavers (or Remainers) being able to support it.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Anyone who thinks May's deal is remain is too dumb to vote hence it would be no loss.
I'd have gone for May's Deal on both V2 and MV3 but now Merkel has said May's deal is actually the annexation of Northern Ireland its difficult to see many Leavers (or Remainers) being able to support it.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
How do we get to a 2nd referendum, though? I just can't see Corbyn getting enough votes.
Here's a great thread on the insanity of just one of his policies.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Anyone who thinks May's deal is remain is too dumb to vote hence it would be no loss.
I'd have gone for May's Deal on both V2 and MV3 but now Merkel has said May's deal is actually the annexation of Northern Ireland its difficult to see many Leavers (or Remainers) being able to support it.
The bottom line is that the Good Friday Agreement means Britain has no right to take Northern Ireland out of the EU in anything but name. The only way to do it would be to renege on the treaty commitments Britain made under the GFA. Not a single political party has the guts to say this.
It is not a particularly shameful position to be in. Every country has treaty commitments. But basically both Leave and Remain lied about this to the electorate in 2016.
Surely not Remain. I well remember this being discussed well before the 2016 vote - quite apart from what was in the media, I pointed it out to a keen Brexiter (married to an Irish lady), and a friend of mine had a chat with someone of diplomatic experience who noted that Brexit was an a priori breach of that international treaty.
I am glad to hear that.
What I recall said on the Remain side is that a British departure from the EU would mess up relations in Ireland and could bring back the Troubles, but if it was clearly said that Brexit (except if it were to leave Northern Ireland within both CU and SM) would be a breach of British treaty commitments under the GFA then I take back that part of what I wrote. Unfortunately everything is so toxified now that this simple fact may remain buried under a mountain of "process" considerations (to put it politely). The Leave side, including this disgracefully piss-taking government, prefers to blame the Germans rather than say "Let's Renege on the GFA - It's Worth It".
The bottom line is that the Good Friday Agreement means Britain has no right to take Northern Ireland out of the EU in anything but name. The only way to do it would be to renege on the treaty commitments Britain made under the GFA. Not a single political party has the guts to say this.
It is not a particularly shameful position to be in. Every country has treaty commitments. But basically both Leave and Remain lied about this to the electorate in 2016.
Surely not Remain. I well remember this being discussed well before the 2016 vote - quite apart from what was in the media, I pointed it out to a keen Brexiter (married to an Irish lady), and a friend of mine had a chat with someone of diplomatic experience who noted that Brexit was an a priori breach of that international treaty.
Ireland was almost entirely unmentioned by both sides, including Remain
Have a look at the Remain campaign. Or see these summaries
Incidentally, how bad was the Remain campaign? It always astonishes. Even their name, Britain Stronger in Europe. Awkward, clumsy, offputting, and reduces to an acronym that means mad cow disease.
Thanks. That does surprise me, even if we are restricting ourselves to the official remain campaign. It was so obviously a major stumbling block even in 2015. Even if we allow ourselves to consider the wider debate, it's odd if it really did not feature in debate by 'both sides' official or not. Maybe Scottish political discourse is simply more likely to consider the Irish situation than might be the case in London or England.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Anyone who thinks May's deal is remain is too dumb to vote hence it would be no loss.
I'd have gone for May's Deal on both V2 and MV3 but now Merkel has said May's deal is actually the annexation of Northern Ireland its difficult to see many Leavers (or Remainers) being able to support it.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Anyone who thinks May's deal is remain is too dumb to vote hence it would be no loss.
I'd have gone for May's Deal on both V2 and MV3 but now Merkel has said May's deal is actually the annexation of Northern Ireland its difficult to see many Leavers (or Remainers) being able to support it.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Anyone who thinks May's deal is remain is too dumb to vote hence it would be no loss.
I'd have gone for May's Deal on both V2 and MV3 but now Merkel has said May's deal is actually the annexation of Northern Ireland its difficult to see many Leavers (or Remainers) being able to support it.
I always thought that was the plan and couldn't back even MV3.
Its not refreshing in this instance to have been shown to be right.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Anyone who thinks May's deal is remain is too dumb to vote hence it would be no loss.
I'd have gone for May's Deal on both V2 and MV3 but now Merkel has said May's deal is actually the annexation of Northern Ireland its difficult to see many Leavers (or Remainers) being able to support it.
You have no idea what Merkel said.
If she didn't say it, she could do Remainers a huge favour by categorically denying it. Yet she hasn't. One is forced to conclude she did say it, or something close.
It's like the Juncker/Selmayr leak about the Whitehall dinner. HMG went ballistic and said they didn't recognise the preice words blah blah, but did they categorically deny the central allegation of the leak? No. Because it was true.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Anyone who thinks May's deal is remain is too dumb to vote hence it would be no loss.
I'd have gone for May's Deal on both V2 and MV3 but now Merkel has said May's deal is actually the annexation of Northern Ireland its difficult to see many Leavers (or Remainers) being able to support it.
You have no idea what Merkel said.
LOL! Yes we do!
No you don't. Show me the transcript.
Don't need a transcript to have an "idea" what Merkel said.
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
It's also a tasty and beloved source of protein.
How does a source of protein become 'beloved'?
When you are diabetic it becomes beloved very quickly. A vegetarian diet is good but it is lacking in things like protein and heavy in terms of carbs. Which for a diabetic is quite bad.
Looks like the #peoplesvote march picked the perfect day, hundreds of thousands marching on the day of the Saturday urgent Brexit session of parliament.
How will #peoplesvote march when #extinctionrebellion are already blocking the roads?
It will be the perfect storm.
I suspect that XR and #peoplesvote have enough in common to find a way.
I am rather looking forward to it. Mrs Foxy has a new Beuret for the occasion.
The bottom line is that the Good Friday Agreement means Britain has no right to take Northern Ireland out of the EU in anything but name. The only way to do it would be to renege on the treaty commitments Britain made under the GFA. Not a single political party has the guts to say this.
It is not a particularly shameful position to be in. Every country has treaty commitments. But basically both Leave and Remain lied about this to the electorate in 2016.
Surely not Remain. I well remember this being discussed well before the 2016 vote - quite apart from what was in the media, I pointed it out to a keen Brexiter (married to an Irish lady), and a friend of mine had a chat with someone of diplomatic experience who noted that Brexit was an a priori breach of that international treaty.
Ireland was almost entirely unmentioned by both sides, including Remain
Have a look at the Remain campaign. Or see these summaries
Incidentally, how bad was the Remain campaign? It always astonishes. Even their name, Britain Stronger in Europe. Awkward, clumsy, offputting, and reduces to an acronym that means mad cow disease.
What do you mean "was"? The Remain campaign has not been interrupted by the mere fact they lost the referendum
You haven't answered my question posed above. What is the problem with a referendum asking the same people who voted last time?
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
We would be looking on yesterdays LeaveEU advert as a reminder of more civil times
Why would asking the very same people who voted last time be such an outrage?
If we got the Hungarians in to vote on our behalf maybe but it would be asking the same people.
Having a referendum billed as a once in a generation vote, where the final choice would be that of people, not politicians, then having politicians whose side lost delay for three years, not implement the result, then have another referendum is so manifestly wrong, I am surprised anyone supports it.
But we are now at the stage where the husband beats his wife so regularly that the kids think it is normal
The bottom line is that the Good Friday Agreement means Britain has no right to take Northern Ireland out of the EU in anything but name. The only way to do it would be to renege on the treaty commitments Britain made under the GFA. Not a single political party has the guts to say this.
It is not a particularly shameful position to be in. Every country has treaty commitments. But basically both Leave and Remain lied about this to the electorate in 2016.
Surely not Remain. I well remember this being discussed well before the 2016 vote - quite apart from what was in the media, I pointed it out to a keen Brexiter (married to an Irish lady), and a friend of mine had a chat with someone of diplomatic experience who noted that Brexit was an a priori breach of that international treaty.
I am glad to hear that.
What I recall said on the Remain side is that a British departure from the EU would mess up relations in Ireland and could bring back the Troubles, but if it was clearly said that Brexit would be a breach of British treaty commitments under the GFA then I take back that part of what I wrote. Unfortunately everything is so toxified now that this simple fact may remain buried under a mountain of "process" considerations (to put it politely). The Leave side, including this disgracefully piss-taking government, prefers to blame the Germans rather than say "Let's Renege on the GFA - It's Worth It".
Me too, though as Byronic makes clear there is a difference between official campaigns and wider debate.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Anyone who thinks May's deal is remain is too dumb to vote hence it would be no loss.
I'd have gone for May's Deal on both V2 and MV3 but now Merkel has said May's deal is actually the annexation of Northern Ireland its difficult to see many Leavers (or Remainers) being able to support it.
You have no idea what Merkel said.
LOL! Yes we do!
No you don't. Show me the transcript.
Don't need a transcript to have an "idea" what Merkel said.
Oh. So now it's an "idea". Yours presumably. Well perhaps you will be amazed to hear that your idea means absolutely fuck all in the scheme of things.
The bottom line is that the Good Friday Agreement means Britain has no right to take Northern Ireland out of the EU in anything but name. The only way to do it would be to renege on the treaty commitments Britain made under the GFA. Not a single political party has the guts to say this.
It is not a particularly shameful position to be in. Every country has treaty commitments. But basically both Leave and Remain lied about this to the electorate in 2016.
Surely not Remain. I well remember this being discussed well before the 2016 vote - quite apart from what was in the media, I pointed it out to a keen Brexiter (married to an Irish lady), and a friend of mine had a chat with someone of diplomatic experience who noted that Brexit was an a priori breach of that international treaty.
I am glad to hear that.
What I recall said on the Remain side is that a British departure from the EU would mess up relations in Ireland and could bring back the Troubles, but if it was clearly said that Brexit (except if it were to leave Northern Ireland within both CU and SM) would be a breach of British treaty commitments under the GFA then I take back that part of what I wrote. Unfortunately everything is so toxified now that this simple fact may remain buried under a mountain of "process" considerations (to put it politely). The Leave side, including this disgracefully piss-taking government, prefers to blame the Germans rather than say "Let's Renege on the GFA - It's Worth It".
A no deal Brexit, let alone a deal Brexit, does not renege on the GFA though.
Hence all this amorphous bullshit about "the spirit of the GFA".
The GFA is a matter of law. If it was getting breached then we would be seeing court cases to enforce the law.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
We would be looking on yesterdays LeaveEU advert as a reminder of more civil times
Why would asking the very same people who voted last time be such an outrage?
Brexiteers think it would be an outrage because they might lose.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Anyone who thinks May's deal is remain is too dumb to vote hence it would be no loss.
I'd have gone for May's Deal on both V2 and MV3 but now Merkel has said May's deal is actually the annexation of Northern Ireland its difficult to see many Leavers (or Remainers) being able to support it.
You have no idea what Merkel said.
LOL! Yes we do!
No you don't. Show me the transcript.
Don't need a transcript to have an "idea" what Merkel said.
Oh. So now it's an "idea". Yours presumably. Well perhaps you will be amazed to hear that your idea means absolutely fuck all in the scheme of things.
That was your word not mine, hence why I put it in quotation marks.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Anyone who thinks May's deal is remain is too dumb to vote hence it would be no loss.
I'd have gone for May's Deal on both V2 and MV3 but now Merkel has said May's deal is actually the annexation of Northern Ireland its difficult to see many Leavers (or Remainers) being able to support it.
You have no idea what Merkel said.
If she hasn't said it she'd have denied it.
You have no idea of that either.
You're scraping the barrel here. She's been accused of effectively telling the Birish Prime Minister that the only was the UK can leave the EU is if we allow Northern Ireland to be annexed.
Even the EU/ROI seems shocked by what she's supposed to have said.
You seriously think if she hadn't said it she and those close to her wouldn't be "cliarifying" what she actually did say?
[talking about making Corbyn PM...] "apply to those voters who are broadly in the moderate centre ground of politics..."
LOL
What I'm saying is that Remainers who are both turned off by Corbyn's radical Left politics AND live in a Lab/Con marginal have a tricky decision to make in the polling booth if they wish to embrace the tactical aspect of the GE.
Which prospect do they hate the most, PM Corbyn or Brexit?
Are you LOLing because it's just a blindingly obvious point that doesn't really need making?
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Anyone who thinks May's deal is remain is too dumb to vote hence it would be no loss.
I'd have gone for May's Deal on both V2 and MV3 but now Merkel has said May's deal is actually the annexation of Northern Ireland its difficult to see many Leavers (or Remainers) being able to support it.
You have no idea what Merkel said.
If she didn't say it, she could do Remainers a huge favour by categorically denying it. Yet she hasn't. One is forced to conclude she did say it, or something close.
It's like the Juncker/Selmayr leak about the Whitehall dinner. HMG went ballistic and said they didn't recognise the preice words blah blah, but did they categorically deny the central allegation of the leak? No. Because it was true.
You have no idea what is true and what isn't. She might not want to do anyone a huge favour. Or indeed operate according to what you think are appropriate guidelines.
The bottom line is that the Good Friday Agreement means Britain has no right to take Northern Ireland out of the EU in anything but name. The only way to do it would be to renege on the treaty commitments Britain made under the GFA. Not a single political party has the guts to say this.
It is not a particularly shameful position to be in. Every country has treaty commitments. But basically both Leave and Remain lied about this to the electorate in 2016.
Surely not Remain. I well remember this being discussed well before the 2016 vote - quite apart from what was in the media, I pointed it out to a keen Brexiter (married to an Irish lady), and a friend of mine had a chat with someone of diplomatic experience who noted that Brexit was an a priori breach of that international treaty.
I am glad to hear that.
What I recall said on the Remain side is that a British departure from the EU would mess up relations in Ireland and could bring back the Troubles, but if it was clearly said that Brexit (except if it were to leave Northern Ireland within both CU and SM) would be a breach of British treaty commitments under the GFA then I take back that part of what I wrote. Unfortunately everything is so toxified now that this simple fact may remain buried under a mountain of "process" considerations (to put it politely). The Leave side, including this disgracefully piss-taking government, prefers to blame the Germans rather than say "Let's Renege on the GFA - It's Worth It".
A no deal Brexit, let alone a deal Brexit, does not renege on the GFA though.
Hence all this amorphous bullshit about "the spirit of the GFA".
The GFA is a matter of law. If it was getting breached then we would be seeing court cases to enforce the law.
The bottom line is that the Good Friday Agreement means Britain has no right to take Northern Ireland out of the EU in anything but name. The only way to do it would be to renege on the treaty commitments Britain made under the GFA. Not a single political party has the guts to say this.
It is not a particularly shameful position to be in. Every country has treaty commitments. But basically both Leave and Remain lied about this to the electorate in 2016.
Surely not Remain. I well remember this being discussed well before the 2016 vote - quite apart from what was in the media, I pointed it out to a keen Brexiter (married to an Irish lady), and a friend of mine had a chat with someone of diplomatic experience who noted that Brexit was an a priori breach of that international treaty.
Ireland was almost entirely unmentioned by both sides, including Remain
Have a look at the Remain campaign. Or see these summaries
Incidentally, how bad was the Remain campaign? It always astonishes. Even their name, Britain Stronger in Europe. Awkward, clumsy, offputting, and reduces to an acronym that means mad cow disease.
Thanks. That does surprise me, even if we are restricting ourselves to the official remain campaign. It was so obviously a major stumbling block even in 2015. Even if we allow ourselves to consider the wider debate, it's odd if it really did not feature in debate by 'both sides' official or not. Maybe Scottish political discourse is simply more likely to consider the Irish situation than might be the case in London or England.
Scotland is surely more sensitive to NI issues than the London bubble
I don't think the omission was malign or deliberate. As ever, NI was overlooked. An afterthought. The border just doesn't have any salience in the English mindset. Most people forget we even have a land border "with the EU". The GFA has intensified this attitude.
I remember thinking of Ulster for about 5 seconds before voting, then I ignored the issue.
The bottom line is that the Good Friday Agreement means Britain has no right to take Northern Ireland out of the EU in anything but name. The only way to do it would be to renege on the treaty commitments Britain made under the GFA. Not a single political party has the guts to say this.
It is not a particularly shameful position to be in. Every country has treaty commitments. But basically both Leave and Remain lied about this to the electorate in 2016.
Surely not Remain. I well remember this being discussed well before the 2016 vote - quite apart from what was in the media, I pointed it out to a keen Brexiter (married to an Irish lady), and a friend of mine had a chat with someone of diplomatic experience who noted that Brexit was an a priori breach of that international treaty.
I am glad to hear that.
What I recall said on the Remain side is that a British departure from the EU would mess up relations in Ireland and could bring back the Troubles, but if it was clearly said that Brexit would be a breach of British treaty commitments under the GFA then I take back that part of what I wrote. Unfortunately everything is so toxified now that this simple fact may remain buried under a mountain of "process" considerations (to put it politely). The Leave side, including this disgracefully piss-taking government, prefers to blame the Germans rather than say "Let's Renege on the GFA - It's Worth It".
Me too, though as Byronic makes clear there is a difference between official campaigns and wider debate.
I seem to remember either Osborne or Cam himself or perhaps even Blair pre-ref said that it would endanger the NI peace process.
The bottom line is that the Good Friday Agreement means Britain has no right to take Northern Ireland out of the EU in anything but name. The only way to do it would be to renege on the treaty commitments Britain made under the GFA. Not a single political party has the guts to say this.
It is not a particularly shameful position to be in. Every country has treaty commitments. But basically both Leave and Remain lied about this to the electorate in 2016.
Surely not Remain. I well remember this being discussed well before the 2016 vote - quite apart from what was in the media, I pointed it out to a keen Brexiter (married to an Irish lady), and a friend of mine had a chat with someone of diplomatic experience who noted that Brexit was an a priori breach of that international treaty.
I am glad to hear that.
What I recall said on the Remain side is that a British departure from the EU would mess up relations in Ireland and could bring back the Troubles, but if it was clearly said that Brexit (except if it were to leave Northern Ireland within both CU and SM) would be a breach of British treaty commitments under the GFA then I take back that part of what I wrote. Unfortunately everything is so toxified now that this simple fact may remain buried under a mountain of "process" considerations (to put it politely). The Leave side, including this disgracefully piss-taking government, prefers to blame the Germans rather than say "Let's Renege on the GFA - It's Worth It".
A no deal Brexit, let alone a deal Brexit, does not renege on the GFA though.
Hence all this amorphous bullshit about "the spirit of the GFA".
The GFA is a matter of law. If it was getting breached then we would be seeing court cases to enforce the law.
The GFA rather transcends law, from domestic and international relations on the one hand, to hard men with guns on the other.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
How do we get to a 2nd referendum, though? I just can't see Corbyn getting enough votes.
Here's a great thread on the insanity of just one of his policies.
It's a bit of a partisan rant to be honest. There are some good points, but the effect of those is damped by silliness: https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1181823824356093952 The answer is no, we don't shut down all the other power stations. The generation capacity has to exceed the use capacity for continuity of supply. Plus, if capacity rises above use, there are options for storage or export. There is nothing wrong with wanting to have wind power capacity covering 100% of our domestic electricity needs.
https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1181825158287413248 I love how the parentheses undermine the point of this tweet. But more seriously, it's ok for the public to own a share of the electricity generation capacity of this country. It's a strategic resource, so it's not like 100% free market is ever a suitable solution for this anyway. And where's the consumer choice between one wind farm or another? I don't care whether the turbines are privately or publicly owned. So the government gets some of the revenue from a natural monopoly? So what?
Lastly, the tweeter is from the Centre of Policy Studies. That is one of the most opaque think tanks around. They do not disclose their funding, which means the kind of partisan rant he's tweeted out might actually be a paid-for PR piece trying to discredit a policy that some rich business(person) might like to see squashed (we don't know either way). The CPS has a transparency score of zero -- yes, zero -- with Transparify (https://www.transparify.org/) and should be regarded as an unregulated advertiser rather than a body that analyses policy fairly or campaigns openly on behalf of donors who are happy to not hide in the shadows. The existence of these shady lobbyists masquerading as researchers is highly corrosive to our democracy, and their conclusions should be treated as propaganda.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
How do we get to a 2nd referendum, though? I just can't see Corbyn getting enough votes.
Here's a great thread on the insanity of just one of his policies.
Comments
https://news.sky.com/story/parliament-set-for-historic-saturday-sitting-on-19-october-to-discuss-brexit-11831219
That was one of my predictions. Will my other prediction - that they'd be voting on a deal - come true too?
Yet it is now a safely established language, the first language of Israel, a tongue spoken by 7-9m people. An incredible achievement - and done in the face of English, Arabic, and Yiddish as rivals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language
I recall going to a Citizens Advice area meeting where the speaker spoke at length, and very patronisingly of East Anglian Pig Clubs; four or five families kept and fed a pig, which was then butchered and the meat divided up. Some of the meat was sold to buy a piglet and the process repeated. It was very interesting, but the patronising attitude of the speaker irritated me, as that was the sort of thing some of my forebears might well have been involved in.
My Occam's razor question is does this sound like Merkel and is our current government a trustworthy source on these things? On both those counts I defer towards not trusting the spin coming from No 10.
Not a great deal in it and given what happened in the last referendum campaign a 52%/48% finish for either side could easily be the outcome.
The categories only apply to those voters who are are broadly in the moderate centre ground of politics and who also wish to embrace the tactical element of a pre Brexit GE - in which case they must weight up their hostility to Corbyn against their hostility to Brexit, and see which is the stronger.
And even then it's only relevant if their seat is a Con/Lab marginal.
LOL
I just get the sense people have had waaaaay more than enough. If Brexit could be magicked away, most would eagerly accept it, and a Remain vote in a new referendum would SEEM to do that.
We are staring into the abyss - potential political violence! - and we are flinching at what we see.
And as for the we must leave first crowd perhaps this last three years has "honoured" the first referendum result and the political mess and hence second referendum was all that could ever have been achieved by a leave vote then.
Without the fig leaf of saying that an extension is needed first how are MPs going to reject that?
Hilary Benn was arguing precisely that way on Newsnight last night.
They might gain seats relative to last election, but lose defectors.
Deal Boris isn't going anywhere.
Benn Act feels fairly tight.
The Commons majority for avoiding No Deal seems firm enough, even if there's not one for anything beyond forcing extension.
I guess the only other possibility is Deal May.. but I don't really see a way through for that given how comprehensively it's been trashed.
[Ironically, giving us more time to prepare for no deal and reducing its impact].
"6[12] The court will for these reasons continue consideration of the reclaiming motion and the petition to the nobile officiumuntil Monday, 21October, by which time the position ought to be significantly clearer.At that time the court will expect to be addressed on the factsas they then present themselves."
Not my first choice but absolutely democratic. If leavers boycott it (why?) then so be it.
Here's a great thread on the insanity of just one of his policies.
https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1181819607562276866?s=20
It is not a particularly shameful position to be in. Every country has treaty commitments. But basically both Leave and Remain lied about this to the electorate in 2016.
However, I will keep you as a spiritual (1) - since when you are watching that exit poll, of the feasible non-dreamworld outcomes I'm guessing you will be hoping to see Jezza's mug rather than BoJo's at the front of the screen.
Same as why the labour want to have a nationalized hire car company.
Three enclaves?
I guess in the age of Trump and Johnson, Labour feels it can say any old stuff.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
TBF, I think you are a (3) regardless if I read you right.
By which I mean you would take No Deal under Boris as a better option than anything under Jez.
Plus there is a decent market for exporting green energy into Europe.
Once again it's a policy that only looks stupid until you look at the bigger picture.
He might have to break the law, defy the Sovereign, or arrange for a couple of dozen anti-no-deal MPs to be "accidentally" kettled by police somewhere, but the time is tight enough that it might be achieved, even if it did subsequently lead to lifetime imprisonment for misconduct in public office.
Capacity doesn't equal generation, generation will often be below capacity and if generation is above demand then we can export our overproduction to France etc - plus as our transport network switches from fossil fuels to electricity the demand will increase anyway.
However the way to go ahead with that is to continue with what we're doing already not nationalisation. We've seen wind generation surge in recent years at ever falling costs, we should continue that good work. If we can sustainably generate more than 100% of our current demand via wind why shouldn't we?
Ultimately if we are generating even more cheap and green energy than we need then we can look at competitively increasing manufactoring or other energy-intensive industries using this energy.
Have a look at the Remain campaign. Or see these summaries
https://www.strongerin.co.uk/get_the_facts#eY4pY1EFfXFiEbtO.97
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/24/britain-stronger-in-europe-remain-campaign-boris-johnson
https://www.strongerin.co.uk/leaders_in_all_fields_are_clear_britain_is_stronger_if_we_vote_remain#Ujfoe2Az8LafeYpK.97
Nothing.
Incidentally, how bad was the Remain campaign? It always astonishes. Even their name, Britain Stronger in Europe. Awkward, clumsy, offputting, and reduces to an acronym that means mad cow disease.
It may not be very principled or decisive.. but HMS Principled and HMS Decisive have long since sailed.
Two outcomes of the next election seem to me to be achievable:
- Tory Majority/full steam to No Deal.
- No Tory Majority/strong possibility of a coalition for a referendum.
While both of those remain live options, and desirable for those proposing them, a Deal they've all trashed remains a sub-optimal choice.
If we got the Hungarians in to vote on our behalf maybe but it would be asking the same people.
If she hasn't said it she'd have denied it.
What I recall said on the Remain side is that a British departure from the EU would mess up relations in Ireland and could bring back the Troubles, but if it was clearly said that Brexit (except if it were to leave Northern Ireland within both CU and SM) would be a breach of British treaty commitments under the GFA then I take back that part of what I wrote. Unfortunately everything is so toxified now that this simple fact may remain buried under a mountain of "process" considerations (to put it politely). The Leave side, including this disgracefully piss-taking government, prefers to blame the Germans rather than say "Let's Renege on the GFA - It's Worth It".
Byronic is GPT-2, trained on an exclusive diet of SeanT:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/10/14/can-a-machine-learn-to-write-for-the-new-yorker
Its not refreshing in this instance to have been shown to be right.
It's like the Juncker/Selmayr leak about the Whitehall dinner. HMG went ballistic and said they didn't recognise the preice words blah blah, but did they categorically deny the central allegation of the leak? No. Because it was true.
I suspect that XR and #peoplesvote have enough in common to find a way.
I am rather looking forward to it. Mrs Foxy has a new Beuret for the occasion.
But we are now at the stage where the husband beats his wife so regularly that the kids think it is normal
Hence all this amorphous bullshit about "the spirit of the GFA".
The GFA is a matter of law. If it was getting breached then we would be seeing court cases to enforce the law.
"You have no idea what Merkel said."
Even the EU/ROI seems shocked by what she's supposed to have said.
You seriously think if she hadn't said it she and those close to her wouldn't be "cliarifying" what she actually did say?
Which prospect do they hate the most, PM Corbyn or Brexit?
Are you LOLing because it's just a blindingly obvious point that doesn't really need making?
Imagine, eh?
I don't think the omission was malign or deliberate. As ever, NI was overlooked. An afterthought. The border just doesn't have any salience in the English mindset. Most people forget we even have a land border "with the EU". The GFA has intensified this attitude.
I remember thinking of Ulster for about 5 seconds before voting, then I ignored the issue.
Not any more.
Don't ask me to find the quote that said.
https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1181823824356093952
The answer is no, we don't shut down all the other power stations. The generation capacity has to exceed the use capacity for continuity of supply. Plus, if capacity rises above use, there are options for storage or export. There is nothing wrong with wanting to have wind power capacity covering 100% of our domestic electricity needs.
https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1181825158287413248
I love how the parentheses undermine the point of this tweet. But more seriously, it's ok for the public to own a share of the electricity generation capacity of this country. It's a strategic resource, so it's not like 100% free market is ever a suitable solution for this anyway. And where's the consumer choice between one wind farm or another? I don't care whether the turbines are privately or publicly owned. So the government gets some of the revenue from a natural monopoly? So what?
Lastly, the tweeter is from the Centre of Policy Studies. That is one of the most opaque think tanks around. They do not disclose their funding, which means the kind of partisan rant he's tweeted out might actually be a paid-for PR piece trying to discredit a policy that some rich business(person) might like to see squashed (we don't know either way). The CPS has a transparency score of zero -- yes, zero -- with Transparify (https://www.transparify.org/) and should be regarded as an unregulated advertiser rather than a body that analyses policy fairly or campaigns openly on behalf of donors who are happy to not hide in the shadows.
The existence of these shady lobbyists masquerading as researchers is highly corrosive to our democracy, and their conclusions should be treated as propaganda.