The way that you can tell the Brexit wars aren’t over is by looking at the government’s actions. It is determined to implement the most damaging destructive trade agreement with the EU because it is still whipping up Leavers’ hatred of the EU rather than looking for a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with.
The way that you can tell the Brexit wars aren’t over is by looking at your posts....
You’d get a better idea by looking at your posts. You exuberantly cheer on every assault on British civic structures in the name of Brexit. It remains your unfathomable obsession, your paramount principle by which all actions must be judged. Leavers remain Leavers and still have no interest in constructing a forward-looking vision for Britain rather than one defined by hatred of the EU.
OK, here's a challenge. Start putting forward some positive proposals to implement "a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with". Because your contributions to the debate have been utterly devoid of such to date.
This is your mad idea. I am not going to waste my time trying to make it work. That’s your job. And so far Leavers haven’t shown the least flicker of recognition of the mess that they have made of it.
The way that you can tell the Brexit wars aren’t over is by looking at the government’s actions. It is determined to implement the most damaging destructive trade agreement with the EU because it is still whipping up Leavers’ hatred of the EU rather than looking for a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with.
The way that you can tell the Brexit wars aren’t over is by looking at your posts....
You’d get a better idea by looking at your posts. You exuberantly cheer on every assault on British civic structures in the name of Brexit. It remains your unfathomable obsession, your paramount principle by which all actions must be judged. Leavers remain Leavers and still have no interest in constructing a forward-looking vision for Britain rather than one defined by hatred of the EU.
OK, here's a challenge. Start putting forward some positive proposals to implement "a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with". Because your contributions to the debate have been utterly devoid of such to date.
This is your mad idea. I am not going to waste my time trying to make it work. That’s your job. And so far Leavers haven’t shown the least flicker of recognition of the mess that they have made of it.
The way that you can tell the Brexit wars aren’t over is by looking at the government’s actions. It is determined to implement the most damaging destructive trade agreement with the EU because it is still whipping up Leavers’ hatred of the EU rather than looking for a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with.
The way that you can tell the Brexit wars aren’t over is by looking at your posts....
You’d get a better idea by looking at your posts. You exuberantly cheer on every assault on British civic structures in the name of Brexit. It remains your unfathomable obsession, your paramount principle by which all actions must be judged. Leavers remain Leavers and still have no interest in constructing a forward-looking vision for Britain rather than one defined by hatred of the EU.
OK, here's a challenge. Start putting forward some positive proposals to implement "a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with". Because your contributions to the debate have been utterly devoid of such to date.
This is your mad idea. I am not going to waste my time trying to make it work. That’s your job. And so far Leavers haven’t shown the least flicker of recognition of the mess that they have made of it.
Thank you.
The case for the prosecution rests.
What case? You’re clueless what you want and how to secure a stable settlement. I have better things to do with my time than get past your nihilistic hatred of the EU to conjure up some positive ideas that won’t appal you. If you want Brexit to be a success, you’ll have to start doing some thinking for yourself. There’s a first time for everything.
The way that you can tell the Brexit wars aren’t over is by looking at the government’s actions. It is determined to implement the most damaging destructive trade agreement with the EU because it is still whipping up Leavers’ hatred of the EU rather than looking for a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with.
The way that you can tell the Brexit wars aren’t over is by looking at your posts....
You’d get a better idea by looking at your posts. You exuberantly cheer on every assault on British civic structures in the name of Brexit. It remains your unfathomable obsession, your paramount principle by which all actions must be judged. Leavers remain Leavers and still have no interest in constructing a forward-looking vision for Britain rather than one defined by hatred of the EU.
OK, here's a challenge. Start putting forward some positive proposals to implement "a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with". Because your contributions to the debate have been utterly devoid of such to date.
This is your mad idea. I am not going to waste my time trying to make it work. That’s your job. And so far Leavers haven’t shown the least flicker of recognition of the mess that they have made of it.
Thank you.
The case for the prosecution rests.
What case? You’re clueless what you want and how to secure a stable settlement. I have better things to do with my time than get past your nihilistic hatred of the EU to conjure up some positive ideas that won’t appal you. If you want Brexit to be a success, you’ll have to start doing some thinking for yourself. There’s a first time for everything.
You have spent three and a half years saying that the Leavers had to move towards the Remainers. The UK just remaining was your sole contribution as to how that movement might have been made.
And now, when offered a chance to say how you would make that contribution, you decline. The only sane way to view your contribution is that you have never had any interest whatsoever in finding common ground.
You have spent three and a half years saying that the Leavers had to move towards the Remainers. The UK just remaining was your sole contribution as to how that movement might have been made.
And now, when offered a chance to say how you would make that contribution, you decline. The only sane way to view your contribution is that you have never had any interest whatsoever in finding common ground.
If Brexit is to endure, it will need to establish at least a sullen consensus that it is bearable. That is nowhere on the horizon, in large part because Leavers are still having daily two minutes hates against whichever Remain figure is currently doing something not wholly obliging and defining themselves constantly against compromise, whatever that day’s suggested compromise might be. It’s striking how little criticism even the most absurd Leaver conspiracies have on here from self-described moderate Leavers. It shouldn’t need Remainers to laugh to scorn the idea that there’s a Remainer plot to steal Big Ben’s bongs.
Where is the Brexit Reconstruction? When Brexit is unravelled, that absence is what historians will note as the primary cause.
Now I think that unravelling is a necessary next step for the country, albeit one that will waste time that Britain can ill-afford given its many current weaknesses. But if you want Brexit to succeed, you really ought to give that some serious thought.
The way that you can tell the Brexit wars aren’t over is by looking at the government’s actions. It is determined to implement the most damaging destructive trade agreement with the EU because it is still whipping up Leavers’ hatred of the EU rather than looking for a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with.
The way that you can tell the Brexit wars aren’t over is by looking at your posts....
You’d get a better idea by looking at your posts. You exuberantly cheer on every assault on British civic structures in the name of Brexit. It remains your unfathomable obsession, your paramount principle by which all actions must be judged. Leavers remain Leavers and still have no interest in constructing a forward-looking vision for Britain rather than one defined by hatred of the EU.
OK, here's a challenge. Start putting forward some positive proposals to implement "a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with". Because your contributions to the debate have been utterly devoid of such to date.
This is your mad idea. I am not going to waste my time trying to make it work. That’s your job. And so far Leavers haven’t shown the least flicker of recognition of the mess that they have made of it.
Thank you.
The case for the prosecution rests.
What case? You’re clueless what you want and how to secure a stable settlement. I have better things to do with my time than get past your nihilistic hatred of the EU to conjure up some positive ideas that won’t appal you. If you want Brexit to be a success, you’ll have to start doing some thinking for yourself. There’s a first time for everything.
You have spent three and a half years saying that the Leavers had to move towards the Remainers. The UK just remaining was your sole contribution as to how that movement might have been made.
And now, when offered a chance to say how you would make that contribution, you decline. The only sane way to view your contribution is that you have never had any interest whatsoever in finding common ground.
TBH I don't think there is much common ground to be found, unless we end up in some sort of Free Trade Area like Norway, and, just at the moment, that doesn't look likely. Although of course, with Boris at the helm almost anything has to be possible.
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Because they didn't, in practice, want to vote for anything that meant we might actually leave.
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Because they thought that if they blocked it, we would never leave. An incredibly costly misjudgment from everyone’s point of view.
I said at the time, that deal, or no deal. It wasn’t that deal, and the timescales we are now set on means an eventual no deal is likelier than ever.
OK, here's a challenge. Start putting forward some positive proposals to implement "a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with". Because your contributions to the debate have been utterly devoid of such to date.
In that case, why aren't we implementing May's Deal as a starter for ten? It may be full of contradictions, but that's Brexit. Unlike Johnson's rhetoric, it's grounded in reality and aims to get the most out of the EU, given constraints.
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Because they didn't, in practice, want to vote for anything that meant we might actually leave.
There was no point voting for a deal that Leavers hated. It would lack all legitimacy.
Now when Brexit fails, at least there will be one less hiding place for Leavers.
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Because they thought they might get no Brexit and a second referendum. The Spartans refused to accept the reasonable compromise on offer also. It was high stakes. Could have ended up either way.
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Because they didn't, in practice, want to vote for anything that meant we might actually leave.
There was no point voting for a deal that Leavers hated. It would lack all legitimacy.
Now when Brexit fails, at least there will be one less hiding place for Leavers.
The sight of the ultra-remainers wanking themselves silly over every job loss, and desperately looking for the most negative spin possible on any news story or government statistic for the next few years, is going to be most unedifying.
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Because they didn't, in practice, want to vote for anything that meant we might actually leave.
There was no point voting for a deal that Leavers hated. It would lack all legitimacy.
Now when Brexit fails, at least there will be one less hiding place for Leavers.
The sight of the ultra-remainers wanking themselves silly over every job loss, and desperately looking for the most negative spin possible on any news story or government statistic for the next few years, is going to be most unedifying.
Leavers are hugging themselves with glee at the prospect of anaemic growth for the foreseeable future after a period since the referendum result of underperformance against all Britain’s peers. That’s pretty unedifying.
Still, it’s progress of a sorts from the period when Leavers were urging a disorderly Brexit risking medical shortages safe from a distance of 5000 miles.
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Because they didn't, in practice, want to vote for anything that meant we might actually leave.
There was no point voting for a deal that Leavers hated. It would lack all legitimacy.
Now when Brexit fails, at least there will be one less hiding place for Leavers.
The sight of the ultra-remainers wanking themselves silly over every job loss, and desperately looking for the most negative spin possible on any news story or government statistic for the next few years, is going to be most unedifying.
This stuff annoys me. We voted not to have the job losses in the first place. We're the good guys in this.
It appears that, despite all the negative stories we read every day, life for average people on Earth is getting considerably better.
Example stats:
"The proportion of the world population in extreme poverty, i.e. those who consume less than $1.90 a day, adjusted for local prices, declined from 36% in 1990 to 10% in 2015."
"As recently as 1990, measles caused over 22 deaths per 100,000 people globally. Thanks to the measles vaccine and rising global vaccination rates, that figure fell to just over 1 per 100,000 people by 2016."
"In sub-Saharan Africa, the infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births fell from 82.2 in 2001, to 51.7 in 2015. This is a decline of more than 37%."
Shush... what about the bedroom tax and people on universal credit earning bonuses from their employers meaning they earn enough to need the UC a bit less. That’s the real tragedy of the world....
Mr. Meeks, if it had gone to a referendum that would've been eminently winnable for Remain.
The fact that some Leavers disliked the deal a lot would've been a significant asset.
There weren’t the votes in Parliament for a referendum then. By the time that there might have been, things had moved on.
The actual end result is not the worst possible outcome. The real damage was done on the way, when Leavers decisively concluded that Brexit was more important than Parliamentary democracy and were prepared to jettison it for Brexit. The damage from that is going to continue to unfold. Ironically, Leavers may well see themselves as the good guys next time, not realising that they have established the precedent.
I passed Dehenna Davison on my way home through the House of Parliament this evening and she smiled at me and gave me THE EYE...
"Security? Dehenna here. He's back again. He keeps looking at me strange every time I see him. It's beginning to worry me. Can you check his clearance? Thanks"
To be fair, I think she just gave me a cursory look up from her phone as she was walking by with a brief smile, and then went back down to it again.
But, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
There’s a whole series of new Tory mps who are outside of the stuffy old bloke mould. Young people with kids and active social media accounts. This will come with problems, but opportunities that the government and the whips should take advantage of.
OK, here's a challenge. Start putting forward some positive proposals to implement "a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with". Because your contributions to the debate have been utterly devoid of such to date.
In that case, why aren't we implementing May's Deal as a starter for ten? It may be full of contradictions, but that's Brexit. Unlike Johnson's rhetoric, it's grounded in reality and aims to get the most out of the EU, given constraints.
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Because they didn't, in practice, want to vote for anything that meant we might actually leave.
There was no point voting for a deal that Leavers hated. It would lack all legitimacy.
Now when Brexit fails, at least there will be one less hiding place for Leavers.
But it won’t fail. At worst we will be very slightly worse off in a decade’s time, and in best case slightly better off. It will neither be the dystopia claimed by remainers or the utopia promised by leavers.
OK, here's a challenge. Start putting forward some positive proposals to implement "a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with". Because your contributions to the debate have been utterly devoid of such to date.
In that case, why aren't we implementing May's Deal as a starter for ten? It may be full of contradictions, but that's Brexit. Unlike Johnson's rhetoric, it's grounded in reality and aims to get the most out of the EU, given constraints.
Ask 250 Labour MPs.
Many of them now ex-MPs.
That was then. Johnson also voted against May's Deal. I am asking why the Johnson government isn't implementing it now, if he wants a modus vivendi? Your original comment/challenge.
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Because they didn't, in practice, want to vote for anything that meant we might actually leave.
There was no point voting for a deal that Leavers hated. It would lack all legitimacy.
Now when Brexit fails, at least there will be one less hiding place for Leavers.
If there was no point in voting for/implementing a deal that leavers hated, and leavers would hate all deals that would satisfy remainers, then what would be the point in those implementing Brexit trying to reach common ground?
Basically your position appears to be that the country was doomed at the moment it voted “leave” on the back of the campaign that leave fought. Because at the point Leave had to be implemented, and in a way that aligned with the campaign.
That’s fine, but why post endlessly about it if the die was cast at that point? You don’t offer any alternative solutions because you don’t seem to believe there are/were any.
You can tell how afraid the right wing of the new Tory establishment is of Kier Starmer. They are very worried. They so want Nandy of Lightweight-Bailey. They know this is the only way Bozo will win again - face another unelectable easy opponent.
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Because they didn't, in practice, want to vote for anything that meant we might actually leave.
There was no point voting for a deal that Leavers hated. It would lack all legitimacy.
Now when Brexit fails, at least there will be one less hiding place for Leavers.
If there was no point in voting for/implementing a deal that leavers hated, and leavers would hate all deals that would satisfy remainers, then what would be the point in those implementing Brexit trying to reach common ground?
Basically your position appears to be that the country was doomed at the moment it voted “leave” on the back of the campaign that leave fought. Because at the point Leave had to be implemented, and in a way that aligned with the campaign.
That’s fine, but why post endlessly about it if the die was cast at that point? You don’t offer any alternative solutions because you don’t seem to believe there are/were any.
Since the election, the government has announced that it is looking to diverge still further from the EU. This is a post-election choice and one that shows that Leavers remain on their Vathek-like quest to discover the furthest reaches of hell.
Far from seeking a consensus, the government is going out of its way to grind into the dust the noses of anyone who wants a constructive working relationship with the EU.
OK, here's a challenge. Start putting forward some positive proposals to implement "a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with". Because your contributions to the debate have been utterly devoid of such to date.
In that case, why aren't we implementing May's Deal as a starter for ten? It may be full of contradictions, but that's Brexit. Unlike Johnson's rhetoric, it's grounded in reality and aims to get the most out of the EU, given constraints.
Ask 250 Labour MPs.
Many of them now ex-MPs.
That was then. Johnson also voted against May's Deal. I am asking why the Johnson government isn't implementing it now, if he wants a modus vivendi? Your original comment/challenge.
We have had an intervening general election since then.
Labour tried to be smart-arses over Brexit, embarrassing the minority Government for political advantage. It went spectacularly wrong.
If they could wind the clock back, most Labour MPs would support May's deal. Or at least, do as some of us suggested - abstain on it. Leave on May's Deal, 100 % owned by the Tories. With all the carnage in Tory ranks that would have brought about.
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Because they didn't, in practice, want to vote for anything that meant we might actually leave.
There was no point voting for a deal that Leavers hated. It would lack all legitimacy.
Now when Brexit fails, at least there will be one less hiding place for Leavers.
If there was no point in voting for/implementing a deal that leavers hated, and leavers would hate all deals that would satisfy remainers, then what would be the point in those implementing Brexit trying to reach common ground?
Basically your position appears to be that the country was doomed at the moment it voted “leave” on the back of the campaign that leave fought. Because at the point Leave had to be implemented, and in a way that aligned with the campaign.
That’s fine, but why post endlessly about it if the die was cast at that point? You don’t offer any alternative solutions because you don’t seem to believe there are/were any.
I am not Alastair and have different views on things. I think I can answer the question however. I always expected the mistaken decision to leave the EU to be carried through. A mistake doesn't stop being a mistake simply because you have decided to go ahead with it.
You can tell how afraid the right wing of the new Tory establishment is of Kier Starmer. They are very worried. They so want Nandy of Lightweight-Bailey. They know this is the only way Bozo will win again - face another unelectable easy opponent.
SKS is nothing to be scared of. He's boring and conceited. Admittedly he's several steps up on Corbyn in terms of credibility, intelligence, baggage etc but even Labour would not be so stupid as to elect someone so patently unfit again. But he's no Tony Blair, nothing like it.
OK, here's a challenge. Start putting forward some positive proposals to implement "a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with". Because your contributions to the debate have been utterly devoid of such to date.
In that case, why aren't we implementing May's Deal as a starter for ten? It may be full of contradictions, but that's Brexit. Unlike Johnson's rhetoric, it's grounded in reality and aims to get the most out of the EU, given constraints.
Ask 250 Labour MPs.
Many of them now ex-MPs.
That was then. Johnson also voted against May's Deal. I am asking why the Johnson government isn't implementing it now, if he wants a modus vivendi? Your original comment/challenge.
We have had an intervening general election since then.
Labour tried to be smart-arses over Brexit, embarrassing the minority Government for political advantage. It went spectacularly wrong.
If they could wind the clock back, most Labour MPs would support May's deal. Or at least, do as some of us suggested - abstain on it. Leave on May's Deal, 100 % owned by the Tories. With all the carnage in Tory ranks that would have brought about.
Labour were rank amateurs over Brexit.
You made a challenge about a modus vivendi. I am pointing out there is a ready made modus vivendi. Johnson clearly isn't interested in a modus vivendi, rightly or wrongly. Which takes us back to Alastair's point, why should Remainers engage?
You can tell how afraid the right wing of the new Tory establishment is of Kier Starmer. They are very worried. They so want Nandy of Lightweight-Bailey. They know this is the only way Bozo will win again - face another unelectable easy opponent.
SKS is nothing to be scared of. He's boring and conceited. Admittedly he's several steps up on Corbyn in terms of credibility, intelligence, baggage etc but even Labour would not be so stupid as to elect someone so patently unfit again. But he's no Tony Blair, nothing like it.
OK, here's a challenge. Start putting forward some positive proposals to implement "a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with". Because your contributions to the debate have been utterly devoid of such to date.
In that case, why aren't we implementing May's Deal as a starter for ten? It may be full of contradictions, but that's Brexit. Unlike Johnson's rhetoric, it's grounded in reality and aims to get the most out of the EU, given constraints.
Ask 250 Labour MPs.
Many of them now ex-MPs.
That was then. Johnson also voted against May's Deal. I am asking why the Johnson government isn't implementing it now, if he wants a modus vivendi? Your original comment/challenge.
We have had an intervening general election since then.
Labour tried to be smart-arses over Brexit, embarrassing the minority Government for political advantage. It went spectacularly wrong.
If they could wind the clock back, most Labour MPs would support May's deal. Or at least, do as some of us suggested - abstain on it. Leave on May's Deal, 100 % owned by the Tories. With all the carnage in Tory ranks that would have brought about.
Labour were rank amateurs over Brexit.
You made a challenge about a modus vivendi. I am pointing out there is a ready made modus vivendi. Johnson clearly isn't interested in a modus vivendi, rightly or wrongly. Which takes us back to Alastair's point, why should Remainers engage?
That was not a ready made modus vivendi because Parliament objected to it and May didn't go to the country to get backing for it. Johnson's deal is far better and did go to the country to get backing for it.
You can tell how afraid the right wing of the new Tory establishment is of Kier Starmer. They are very worried. They so want Nandy of Lightweight-Bailey. They know this is the only way Bozo will win again - face another unelectable easy opponent.
SKS is nothing to be scared of. He's boring and conceited. Admittedly he's several steps up on Corbyn in terms of credibility, intelligence, baggage etc but even Labour would not be so stupid as to elect someone so patently unfit again. But he's no Tony Blair, nothing like it.
He's maybe a Kinnock.
More of an Attlee. A quiet but effective leader who will depose the mock-Churchillian PM.
OK, here's a challenge. Start putting forward some positive proposals to implement "a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with". Because your contributions to the debate have been utterly devoid of such to date.
In that case, why aren't we implementing May's Deal as a starter for ten? It may be full of contradictions, but that's Brexit. Unlike Johnson's rhetoric, it's grounded in reality and aims to get the most out of the EU, given constraints.
Ask 250 Labour MPs.
Many of them now ex-MPs.
That was then. Johnson also voted against May's Deal. I am asking why the Johnson government isn't implementing it now, if he wants a modus vivendi? Your original comment/challenge.
We have had an intervening general election since then.
Labour tried to be smart-arses over Brexit, embarrassing the minority Government for political advantage. It went spectacularly wrong.
If they could wind the clock back, most Labour MPs would support May's deal. Or at least, do as some of us suggested - abstain on it. Leave on May's Deal, 100 % owned by the Tories. With all the carnage in Tory ranks that would have brought about.
Labour were rank amateurs over Brexit.
Everything you say about Labour, could be said about Boris.
You can tell how afraid the right wing of the new Tory establishment is of Kier Starmer. They are very worried. They so want Nandy of Lightweight-Bailey. They know this is the only way Bozo will win again - face another unelectable easy opponent.
SKS is nothing to be scared of. He's boring and conceited. Admittedly he's several steps up on Corbyn in terms of credibility, intelligence, baggage etc but even Labour would not be so stupid as to elect someone so patently unfit again. But he's no Tony Blair, nothing like it.
He's maybe a Kinnock.
Which may be enough for Labour. They “only” need to win back 30-40 seats at the next election to make the Tories a minority again.
But none of the candidates look like an outright election winner for Labour.
OK, here's a challenge. Start putting forward some positive proposals to implement "a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with". Because your contributions to the debate have been utterly devoid of such to date.
In that case, why aren't we implementing May's Deal as a starter for ten? It may be full of contradictions, but that's Brexit. Unlike Johnson's rhetoric, it's grounded in reality and aims to get the most out of the EU, given constraints.
Ask 250 Labour MPs.
Many of them now ex-MPs.
That was then. Johnson also voted against May's Deal. I am asking why the Johnson government isn't implementing it now, if he wants a modus vivendi? Your original comment/challenge.
We have had an intervening general election since then.
Labour tried to be smart-arses over Brexit, embarrassing the minority Government for political advantage. It went spectacularly wrong.
If they could wind the clock back, most Labour MPs would support May's deal. Or at least, do as some of us suggested - abstain on it. Leave on May's Deal, 100 % owned by the Tories. With all the carnage in Tory ranks that would have brought about.
Labour were rank amateurs over Brexit.
You made a challenge about a modus vivendi. I am pointing out there is a ready made modus vivendi. Johnson clearly isn't interested in a modus vivendi, rightly or wrongly. Which takes us back to Alastair's point, why should Remainers engage?
That was not a ready made modus vivendi because Parliament objected to it and May didn't go to the country to get backing for it. Johnson's deal is far better and did go to the country to get backing for it.
As Mark points out, I think, the context for those votes in parliament was Remainer MPs thinking they could avoid leaving (or possibly a softer Brexit) and Leaver MPs holding out for something more Brexity. There were also partisan calculations including Johnson manoeuvring to replace May. None of those apply now. Johnson isn't interested in a modus vivendi with Remainers, who are half the country.
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Because they didn't, in practice, want to vote for anything that meant we might actually leave.
There was no point voting for a deal that Leavers hated. It would lack all legitimacy.
Now when Brexit fails, at least there will be one less hiding place for Leavers.
The sight of the ultra-remainers wanking themselves silly over every job loss, and desperately looking for the most negative spin possible on any news story or government statistic for the next few years, is going to be most unedifying.
Bit like Unionists 2011-2014 (and still to some extent).
OK, here's a challenge. Start putting forward some positive proposals to implement "a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with". Because your contributions to the debate have been utterly devoid of such to date.
In that case, why aren't we implementing May's Deal as a starter for ten? It may be full of contradictions, but that's Brexit. Unlike Johnson's rhetoric, it's grounded in reality and aims to get the most out of the EU, given constraints.
Ask 250 Labour MPs.
Many of them now ex-MPs.
That was then. Johnson also voted against May's Deal. I am asking why the Johnson government isn't implementing it now, if he wants a modus vivendi? Your original comment/challenge.
We have had an intervening general election since then.
Labour tried to be smart-arses over Brexit, embarrassing the minority Government for political advantage. It went spectacularly wrong.
If they could wind the clock back, most Labour MPs would support May's deal. Or at least, do as some of us suggested - abstain on it. Leave on May's Deal, 100 % owned by the Tories. With all the carnage in Tory ranks that would have brought about.
Labour were rank amateurs over Brexit.
You made a challenge about a modus vivendi. I am pointing out there is a ready made modus vivendi. Johnson clearly isn't interested in a modus vivendi, rightly or wrongly. Which takes us back to Alastair's point, why should Remainers engage?
That was not a ready made modus vivendi because Parliament objected to it and May didn't go to the country to get backing for it. Johnson's deal is far better and did go to the country to get backing for it.
As Mark points out, I think, the context for those votes in parliament was Remainer MPs thinking they could avoid leaving (or possibly a softer Brexit) and Leaver MPs holding out for something more Brexity. There were also partisan calculations including Johnson manoeuvring to replace May. None of those apply now. Johnson isn't interested in a modus vivendi with Remainers, who are half the country.
I thought Remainer MPs were right up for voting Mays deal, but saw that the ERG didnt like it, so voted against. Applauded for doing so on here, it seemed rather childish to me
You can tell how afraid the right wing of the new Tory establishment is of Kier Starmer. They are very worried. They so want Nandy of Lightweight-Bailey. They know this is the only way Bozo will win again - face another unelectable easy opponent.
SKS is nothing to be scared of. He's boring and conceited. Admittedly he's several steps up on Corbyn in terms of credibility, intelligence, baggage etc but even Labour would not be so stupid as to elect someone so patently unfit again. But he's no Tony Blair, nothing like it.
Starmer is apparently honest, hardworking and somewhat competent up against a prime minister who is absolutely none of those things. Unfortunately, it probably isn't enough.
You can tell how afraid the right wing of the new Tory establishment is of Kier Starmer. They are very worried. They so want Nandy of Lightweight-Bailey. They know this is the only way Bozo will win again - face another unelectable easy opponent.
SKS is nothing to be scared of. He's boring and conceited. Admittedly he's several steps up on Corbyn in terms of credibility, intelligence, baggage etc but even Labour would not be so stupid as to elect someone so patently unfit again. But he's no Tony Blair, nothing like it.
He’s a barrister. Conceited is a key part of the job spec. Pomposity and a belief that one in cleverer than anyone in the room comes with the territory.
You can tell how afraid the right wing of the new Tory establishment is of Kier Starmer. They are very worried. They so want Nandy of Lightweight-Bailey. They know this is the only way Bozo will win again - face another unelectable easy opponent.
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Because they didn't, in practice, want to vote for anything that meant we might actually leave.
There was no point voting for a deal that Leavers hated. It would lack all legitimacy.
Now when Brexit fails, at least there will be one less hiding place for Leavers.
If there was no point in voting for/implementing a deal that leavers hated, and leavers would hate all deals that would satisfy remainers, then what would be the point in those implementing Brexit trying to reach common ground?
Basically your position appears to be that the country was doomed at the moment it voted “leave” on the back of the campaign that leave fought. Because at the point Leave had to be implemented, and in a way that aligned with the campaign.
That’s fine, but why post endlessly about it if the die was cast at that point? You don’t offer any alternative solutions because you don’t seem to believe there are/were any.
Since the election, the government has announced that it is looking to diverge still further from the EU. This is a post-election choice and one that shows that Leavers remain on their Vathek-like quest to discover the furthest reaches of hell.
Far from seeking a consensus, the government is going out of its way to grind into the dust the noses of anyone who wants a constructive working relationship with the EU.
Well I think you are wrong that Johnson doesn’t want a “constructive working relationship” with the EU. Whether he wants one with “Remainers” (if the “die hard” variety is another matter!). But what he doesn’t want is a course of action that can be portrayed as dancing to the EU’s tune, or a course of action where the terms of engagement are defined by the EU. And would therefore prefer to set minimal negotiating objectives (publicly at least) whilst floating the idea of the U.K. pursuing an alternative course (and one which, contrary to public pronouncements) the EU do see as a potential threat that they may ultimately be prepared to shift stances to prevent.
In the short term this will probably mean a pretty basic trade deal by the end of the year, but such a deal would not preclude further developments in the future in the basis of mutual beneficence once the base position is finally established.
OK, here's a challenge. Start putting forward some positive proposals to implement "a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with". Because your contributions to the debate have been utterly devoid of such to date.
In that case, why aren't we implementing May's Deal as a starter for ten? It may be full of contradictions, but that's Brexit. Unlike Johnson's rhetoric, it's grounded in reality and aims to get the most out of the EU, given constraints.
Ask 250 Labour MPs.
Many of them now ex-MPs.
That was then. Johnson also voted against May's Deal. I am asking why the Johnson government isn't implementing it now, if he wants a modus vivendi? Your original comment/challenge.
We have had an intervening general election since then.
Labour tried to be smart-arses over Brexit, embarrassing the minority Government for political advantage. It went spectacularly wrong.
If they could wind the clock back, most Labour MPs would support May's deal. Or at least, do as some of us suggested - abstain on it. Leave on May's Deal, 100 % owned by the Tories. With all the carnage in Tory ranks that would have brought about.
Labour were rank amateurs over Brexit.
Everything you say about Labour, could be said about Boris.
Even the "went spectacularly wrong" bit? Seems to me as though Johnson has played this perfectly ever since May was elected leader. And I say that as someone who voted for Hunt because I thought (and still think) that Johnson is unsuited to be PM.
Mike OGH is going to be a happy bunny this morning.
Man United 0 - 2 Burnley
Please don’t! You’ll trigger endless whinging posts from the spoilt, cosseted PB Man Utd Not From Manchester Brigade, calling for OGS’s head.
Try this suckers: SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL CLUB.
TBH, if you're local club is Southend it must be very difficult just now. Pb-ers who actually look at them results and the tables will know what I mean!
You can tell how afraid the right wing of the new Tory establishment is of Kier Starmer. They are very worried. They so want Nandy of Lightweight-Bailey. They know this is the only way Bozo will win again - face another unelectable easy opponent.
You can tell how afraid the right wing of the new Tory establishment is of Kier Starmer. They are very worried. They so want Nandy of Lightweight-Bailey. They know this is the only way Bozo will win again - face another unelectable easy opponent.
SKS is nothing to be scared of. He's boring and conceited. Admittedly he's several steps up on Corbyn in terms of credibility, intelligence, baggage etc but even Labour would not be so stupid as to elect someone so patently unfit again. But he's no Tony Blair, nothing like it.
Starmer is apparently honest, hardworking and somewhat competent up against a prime minister who is absolutely none of those things. Unfortunately, it probably isn't enough.
Starmer's big problem, and it applies equally to any other Labour leader is that they have a 40 or so seat handicap due to Slab vanishing into the mist.
You can tell how afraid the right wing of the new Tory establishment is of Kier Starmer. They are very worried. They so want Nandy of Lightweight-Bailey. They know this is the only way Bozo will win again - face another unelectable easy opponent.
SKS is nothing to be scared of. He's boring and conceited. Admittedly he's several steps up on Corbyn in terms of credibility, intelligence, baggage etc but even Labour would not be so stupid as to elect someone so patently unfit again. But he's no Tony Blair, nothing like it.
No reason to view him as "conceited". Recycle that into "competent". As for "boring", I suggest that you're trying too hard to find a perjorative alternative to "serious".
Competent and serious will start to look quite attractive after the public tire of five more years of government by the same party, this time led by a flamboyant charlatan. The past Labour leader that Starmer most reminds me of is John Smith, who turned out to be a very effective LOTO.
So yes, I agree with Nigel Wasforemain that Guido et al are scraping the empty barrel in going after Starmer because they fear that he will be effective.
You can tell how afraid the right wing of the new Tory establishment is of Kier Starmer. They are very worried. They so want Nandy of Lightweight-Bailey. They know this is the only way Bozo will win again - face another unelectable easy opponent.
SKS is nothing to be scared of. He's boring and conceited. Admittedly he's several steps up on Corbyn in terms of credibility, intelligence, baggage etc but even Labour would not be so stupid as to elect someone so patently unfit again. But he's no Tony Blair, nothing like it.
Starmer is apparently honest, hardworking and somewhat competent up against a prime minister who is absolutely none of those things. Unfortunately, it probably isn't enough.
Starmer's big problem, and it applies equally to any other Labour leader is that they have a 40 or so seat handicap due to Slab vanishing into the mist.
I agree. Johnson's advantage is structural. While Leavers (shorthand term) all go for the Tories and Remainers are split between several parties, the Tories will win a plurality based electoral system. It makes no difference that it's lead by someone who is utterly dishonest and incompetent.
You can tell how afraid the right wing of the new Tory establishment is of Kier Starmer. They are very worried. They so want Nandy of Lightweight-Bailey. They know this is the only way Bozo will win again - face another unelectable easy opponent.
SKS is nothing to be scared of. He's boring and conceited. Admittedly he's several steps up on Corbyn in terms of credibility, intelligence, baggage etc but even Labour would not be so stupid as to elect someone so patently unfit again. But he's no Tony Blair, nothing like it.
No reason to view him as "conceited". Recycle that into "competent". As for "boring", I suggest that you're trying too hard to find a perjorative alternative to "serious".
Competent and serious will start to look quite attractive after the public tire of five more years of government by the same party, this time led by a flamboyant charlatan. The past Labour leader that Starmer most reminds me of is John Smith, who turned out to be a very effective LOTO.
So yes, I agree with Nigel Wasforemain that Guido et al are scraping the empty barrel in going after Starmer because they fear that he will be effective.
I think most of what you say is right, except that they're going after him because they think the contest is almost over already and they may as well start treating him as the new leader.
They thought Corbyn was going to be useless. They were right. Didn't stop them attacking him; they just waited till after he'd won.
You can tell how afraid the right wing of the new Tory establishment is of Kier Starmer. They are very worried. They so want Nandy of Lightweight-Bailey. They know this is the only way Bozo will win again - face another unelectable easy opponent.
SKS is nothing to be scared of. He's boring and conceited. Admittedly he's several steps up on Corbyn in terms of credibility, intelligence, baggage etc but even Labour would not be so stupid as to elect someone so patently unfit again. But he's no Tony Blair, nothing like it.
No reason to view him as "conceited". Recycle that into "competent". As for "boring", I suggest that you're trying too hard to find a perjorative alternative to "serious".
Competent and serious will start to look quite attractive after the public tire of five more years of government by the same party, this time led by a flamboyant charlatan. The past Labour leader that Starmer most reminds me of is John Smith, who turned out to be a very effective LOTO.
So yes, I agree with Nigel Wasforemain that Guido et al are scraping the empty barrel in going after Starmer because they fear that he will be effective.
Naah, Guido goes after people because that's what he does; this idiot cunning "he says he's shit, but that's because he thinks he's a genius" stuff aspires to sound sophisticated, but comes across more like that episode where Spongebob and Patrick decide that today is Opposites Day.
I saw RLB being interviewed on BBC news last night, where she mentioned she likes Netflix and Chinese takeaway on a Friday night. She also tried a joke that people seem to expect her to do something like paragliding instead.
I can only assume her team have worked out that she can develop a USP there as Nandy isn't cracking too many jokes and Keir is somewhat lacking in the charisma stakes.
No reason to doubt what she does on a Friday night - and it did make her mildly more normal/ human/likeable - but it wouldn't have made me any more inclined to vote for her.
It will be the contacts that Momentum built up with the 2016 campaign that they are calling, that is more than just the Momentum membership.
However, the only real advantage gained from that is in terms of securing nominations, and even in such terms they are failing pretty spectacularly. RLB secured another 0 out of 5 CLP nominations last night, and has just 5 out of 27 now.
I saw RLB being interviewed on BBC news last night, where she mentioned she likes Netflix and Chinese takeaway on a Friday night. She also tried a joke that people seem to expect her to do something like paragliding instead.
I can only assume her team have worked out that she can develop a USP there as Nandy isn't cracking too many jokes and Keir is somewhat lacking in the charisma stakes.
No reason to doubt what she does on a Friday night - and it did make her mildly more normal/ human/likeable - but it wouldn't have made me any more inclined to vote for her.
If I had to vote for anyone, and I can't, I would vote for Nandy. She does human.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
I saw RLB being interviewed on BBC news last night, where she mentioned she likes Netflix and Chinese takeaway on a Friday night. She also tried a joke that people seem to expect her to do something like paragliding instead.
I can only assume her team have worked out that she can develop a USP there as Nandy isn't cracking too many jokes and Keir is somewhat lacking in the charisma stakes.
No reason to doubt what she does on a Friday night - and it did make her mildly more normal/ human/likeable - but it wouldn't have made me any more inclined to vote for her.
If I had to vote for anyone, and I can't, I would vote for Nandy. She does human.
I probably would vote for Nandy too. The job of a leader of a party defeated in an election is to rally the troops and start coming up with new ideas. I think Nandy is doing that.
I also thought at the time Ed Milliband was doing well on that score, only to see him, the ideas and the rallying all swept away.
Mike OGH is going to be a happy bunny this morning.
Man United 0 - 2 Burnley
I'm a worried bunny. Just hoping that OGS hangs on long enough to still be failing to work his magic when Wolves return to Old Trafford in a week or so.
The way that you can tell the Brexit wars aren’t over is by looking at the government’s actions. It is determined to implement the most damaging destructive trade agreement with the EU because it is still whipping up Leavers’ hatred of the EU rather than looking for a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with.
The way that you can tell the Brexit wars aren’t over is by looking at your posts....
You’d get a better idea by looking at your posts. You exuberantly cheer on every assault on British civic structures in the name of Brexit. It remains your unfathomable obsession, your paramount principle by which all actions must be judged. Leavers remain Leavers and still have no interest in constructing a forward-looking vision for Britain rather than one defined by hatred of the EU.
OK, here's a challenge. Start putting forward some positive proposals to implement "a sensible modus vivendi that Remainers can live with". Because your contributions to the debate have been utterly devoid of such to date.
This is your mad idea. I am not going to waste my time trying to make it work. That’s your job. And so far Leavers haven’t shown the least flicker of recognition of the mess that they have made of it.
Thank you.
The case for the prosecution rests.
What case? You’re clueless what you want and how to secure a stable settlement. I have better things to do with my time than get past your nihilistic hatred of the EU to conjure up some positive ideas that won’t appal you. If you want Brexit to be a success, you’ll have to start doing some thinking for yourself. There’s a first time for everything.
You have spent three and a half years saying that the Leavers had to move towards the Remainers. The UK just remaining was your sole contribution as to how that movement might have been made.
And now, when offered a chance to say how you would make that contribution, you decline. The only sane way to view your contribution is that you have never had any interest whatsoever in finding common ground.
It really is down to the Brexiteers to make their project work. There will be very little common ground for many years because it has been now been turned into a culture war
I saw RLB being interviewed on BBC news last night, where she mentioned she likes Netflix and Chinese takeaway on a Friday night. She also tried a joke that people seem to expect her to do something like paragliding instead.
I can only assume her team have worked out that she can develop a USP there as Nandy isn't cracking too many jokes and Keir is somewhat lacking in the charisma stakes.
No reason to doubt what she does on a Friday night - and it did make her mildly more normal/ human/likeable - but it wouldn't have made me any more inclined to vote for her.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Because they didn't, in practice, want to vote for anything that meant we might actually leave.
There was no point voting for a deal that Leavers hated. It would lack all legitimacy.
Now when Brexit fails, at least there will be one less hiding place for Leavers.
The sight of the ultra-remainers wanking themselves silly over every job loss, and desperately looking for the most negative spin possible on any news story or government statistic for the next few years, is going to be most unedifying.
The Brexiteers eeked out their win by blaming everything on the EU. What makes you think it won't work in reverse?
Keir Starmer = David Miliband Lisa Nandy = Ed Miliband
Yes? No?
Keir Starmer = Michael Howard, elected after a widely-derided leader who had nonetheless done better than expected at the ballot box (IDS in the locals; JC in 2017) and who was lauded by his supporters as a barrister who could forensically dissect the charlatan prime minister at PMQs.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
As a manufacturer said to the Guardian the other day: divergence for what purpose? CE is inbuilt into their production and quality systems. We are heading towards creating a whole separate CE-style quality system, meaning twin tracks for his business and a load of extra costs.
I think the quote was also about a load of desk-bound ideologues who hadn't a clue about business.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
It seems to me that a stackable Chancellor is vastly preferable to an unsackable one, but somehow your post implies the opposite.
Although, Hammond was incredibly sackable, but (correctly) interred that his boss was too weak to do so. Which might be the worst of both worlds.
Edit: have spotted the typo but am leaving it because I quite like it.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
And one of the leavers upthread said the best case was that we'd be a bit better off in 10 years time. 99.9% of people won't notice any difference whatsoever with our leaving; there will still be "the Man" albeit he will likely reside in the Ministry of Works, rather than Brussels.
And the dolts who are championing the UK's sovereignty should pay more attention to the Saint of Haltemprice and Howden.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
And one of the leavers upthread said the best case was that we'd be a bit better off in 10 years time. 99.9% of people won't notice any difference whatsoever with our leaving; there will still be "the Man" albeit he will likely reside in the Ministry of Works, rather than Brussels.
And the dolts who are championing the UK's sovereignty should pay more attention to the Saint of Haltemprice and Howden.
Yep we take back control at the EU mandated time of 23:00 on January 31st.
The only way most people will notice is if they have to join a different queue when arriving on holiday.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
As a manufacturer said to the Guardian the other day: divergence for what purpose? CE is inbuilt into their production and quality systems. We are heading towards creating a whole separate CE-style quality system, meaning twin tracks for his business and a load of extra costs.
I think the quote was also about a load of desk-bound ideologues who hadn't a clue about business.
It's really not about product standards, it's much more about not having to submit to the the next round of EU social standards which make the bloc internationally uncompetative - things like their massive "fines" on car manufacturers (straight onto the EU central pot), or a compulsory 30 hour working week.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
And one of the leavers upthread said the best case was that we'd be a bit better off in 10 years time. 99.9% of people won't notice any difference whatsoever with our leaving; there will still be "the Man" albeit he will likely reside in the Ministry of Works, rather than Brussels.
And the dolts who are championing the UK's sovereignty should pay more attention to the Saint of Haltemprice and Howden.
You're the dolt making our point for us.
Our sovereignty is valuable by principle. If we can regain our sovereignty and 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then we should do so. The argument for Remaining was not one of principle but one of fear of what happens if we leave - if the fear is 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then that is an unfounded fear.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
And one of the leavers upthread said the best case was that we'd be a bit better off in 10 years time. 99.9% of people won't notice any difference whatsoever with our leaving; there will still be "the Man" albeit he will likely reside in the Ministry of Works, rather than Brussels.
And the dolts who are championing the UK's sovereignty should pay more attention to the Saint of Haltemprice and Howden.
The difference is, we wil have the power to vote out "the man" in Westminster while Brussels is stil a huge undemocratic stitch up.
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Because they didn't, in practice, want to vote for anything that meant we might actually leave.
There was no point voting for a deal that Leavers hated. It would lack all legitimacy.
Now when Brexit fails, at least there will be one less hiding place for Leavers.
The sight of the ultra-remainers wanking themselves silly over every job loss, and desperately looking for the most negative spin possible on any news story or government statistic for the next few years, is going to be most unedifying.
The Brexiteers eeked out their win by blaming everything on the EU. What makes you think it won't work in reverse?
There's something in that but blaming foreigners or some kind of identifiable out-group is atavistically effective in a way that blaming non-membership of an international organization isn't.
It really is down to the Brexiteers to make their project work. There will be very little common ground for many years because it has been now been turned into a culture war
That was what I thought too. But the key fact that I seemed to have missed all these years, despite it staring me in the face, is that Leavers mostly aren't interested in making their project work. The thinking is completely alien to me, so I assumed they would eventually make the compromises.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
And one of the leavers upthread said the best case was that we'd be a bit better off in 10 years time. 99.9% of people won't notice any difference whatsoever with our leaving; there will still be "the Man" albeit he will likely reside in the Ministry of Works, rather than Brussels.
And the dolts who are championing the UK's sovereignty should pay more attention to the Saint of Haltemprice and Howden.
Yep we take back control at the EU mandated time of 23:00 on January 31st.
The only way most people will notice is if they have to join a different queue when arriving on holiday.
This is actually a good point. I don't understand why we're just accepting that we leave at 11pm, purely because most of the EU is an hour ahead of real time. We should stick to our guns and insist that we're still in until midnight GMT. Maybe call some votes during that time or something.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
Saj's only value to Boris is that he shields the prime minister from criticism over Islamophobia. Sack him and Boris will be inundated with complaints about letterboxes and the enquiry he pledged to set up. Saj is secure until a better Muslim turns up. It's like JRM and the Brexiteers.
The question fundamentally changes from remain to "rejoin"; and from leave to "stay out". It'll be interesting to see how the numbers change with the change of question - any pollster asking about "remain" from hereon out should be roundly ignored.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
And one of the leavers upthread said the best case was that we'd be a bit better off in 10 years time. 99.9% of people won't notice any difference whatsoever with our leaving; there will still be "the Man" albeit he will likely reside in the Ministry of Works, rather than Brussels.
And the dolts who are championing the UK's sovereignty should pay more attention to the Saint of Haltemprice and Howden.
You're the dolt making our point for us.
Our sovereignty is valuable by principle. If we can regain our sovereignty and 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then we should do so. The argument for Remaining was not one of principle but one of fear of what happens if we leave - if the fear is 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then that is an unfounded fear.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
And one of the leavers upthread said the best case was that we'd be a bit better off in 10 years time. 99.9% of people won't notice any difference whatsoever with our leaving; there will still be "the Man" albeit he will likely reside in the Ministry of Works, rather than Brussels.
And the dolts who are championing the UK's sovereignty should pay more attention to the Saint of Haltemprice and Howden.
The difference is, we wil have the power to vote out "the man" in Westminster while Brussels is stil a huge undemocratic stitch up.
We always had the power to vote out the man in Brussels. We just did so.
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Because they didn't, in practice, want to vote for anything that meant we might actually leave.
There was no point voting for a deal that Leavers hated. It would lack all legitimacy.
Now when Brexit fails, at least there will be one less hiding place for Leavers.
The sight of the ultra-remainers wanking themselves silly over every job loss, and desperately looking for the most negative spin possible on any news story or government statistic for the next few years, is going to be most unedifying.
Leavers are hugging themselves with glee at the prospect of anaemic growth for the foreseeable future
The IMF’s assessment of the UK prospects over next two year is relatively upbeat.
It predicts that growth will “stabilise” at 1.4% in 2020 and 1% in 2021, weak by UK historical standards but growth none-the-less and stronger growth than the IMF is predicting for Germany, France and Japan.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
And one of the leavers upthread said the best case was that we'd be a bit better off in 10 years time. 99.9% of people won't notice any difference whatsoever with our leaving; there will still be "the Man" albeit he will likely reside in the Ministry of Works, rather than Brussels.
And the dolts who are championing the UK's sovereignty should pay more attention to the Saint of Haltemprice and Howden.
You're the dolt making our point for us.
Our sovereignty is valuable by principle. If we can regain our sovereignty and 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then we should do so. The argument for Remaining was not one of principle but one of fear of what happens if we leave - if the fear is 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then that is an unfounded fear.
So we have to ascertain and enact therwilloftherpeople on an issue which we are quite happy to think is entirely invisible to 99.9% of them?
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
It seems to me that a stackable Chancellor is vastly preferable to an unsackable one, but somehow your post implies the opposite.
Although, Hammond was incredibly sackable, but (correctly) interred that his boss was too weak to do so. Which might be the worst of both worlds.
Edit: have spotted the typo but am leaving it because I quite like it.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
And one of the leavers upthread said the best case was that we'd be a bit better off in 10 years time. 99.9% of people won't notice any difference whatsoever with our leaving; there will still be "the Man" albeit he will likely reside in the Ministry of Works, rather than Brussels.
And the dolts who are championing the UK's sovereignty should pay more attention to the Saint of Haltemprice and Howden.
You're the dolt making our point for us.
Our sovereignty is valuable by principle. If we can regain our sovereignty and 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then we should do so. The argument for Remaining was not one of principle but one of fear of what happens if we leave - if the fear is 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then that is an unfounded fear.
So we have to ascertain and enact therwilloftherpeople on an issue which we are quite happy to think is entirely invisible to 99.9% of them?
I see.
There is always the Union Jack boxer shorts while singing Rule Britannia thing. That accounts for 99.9% of PB Leavers.
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Because they didn't, in practice, want to vote for anything that meant we might actually leave.
There was no point voting for a deal that Leavers hated. It would lack all legitimacy.
Now when Brexit fails, at least there will be one less hiding place for Leavers.
The sight of the ultra-remainers wanking themselves silly over every job loss, and desperately looking for the most negative spin possible on any news story or government statistic for the next few years, is going to be most unedifying.
Leavers are hugging themselves with glee at the prospect of anaemic growth for the foreseeable future
The IMF’s assessment of the UK prospects over next two year is relatively upbeat.
It predicts that growth will “stabilise” at 1.4% in 2020 and 1% in 2021, weak by UK historical standards but growth none-the-less and stronger growth than the IMF is predicting for Germany, France and Japan.
As Mark points out, I think, the context for those votes in parliament was Remainer MPs thinking they could avoid leaving (or possibly a softer Brexit) and Leaver MPs holding out for something more Brexity. There were also partisan calculations including Johnson manoeuvring to replace May. None of those apply now. Johnson isn't interested in a modus vivendi with Remainers, who are half the country.
Johnson is. He is interested in getting it done then we move on. If there is an unpleasant binary division then putting it behind us is the best way to do so. Very few Remainers will actually be bitterly disappointed in the future.
Look at many prior divisions that have been fought - some under recent memory. Take homosexuality for instance - for decades there were arguments over should we legalise homosexuality, let gays serve in the military, allow gays to get married. Tony Blair's government tried to triangulate gay marriage by allowing it but calling it civil partnerships and we continued to argue. David Cameron's government simply legalised it and we moved on. Cameron didn't seek a compromise with those opposed to gay marriage, he legalised it and that's that.
How many people now are still arguing over it? I suspect even many of those (some on here) who got heated arguing against gay marriage might look back at that if anything with a tinge of embarrassment and wonder what all the fuss was about. Because the change didn't affect their life for the worse.
So too with Brexit. We've had so many cries of the apocalypse - we have literally been told at times that planes won't fly, there'll be no medicines, no food, there'll be no drinking water. Its absurd. We will exit, life will go on and for the vast, vast majority there will be no discernible difference. Even if we diverge it will be over time and we've never fully converged anyway so even that will be hard to tell.
In two weeks time we will be out, life will be going on, and for most people it will in time become a case of "what was all that fuss about".
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Because they didn't, in practice, want to vote for anything that meant we might actually leave.
There was no point voting for a deal that Leavers hated. It would lack all legitimacy.
Now when Brexit fails, at least there will be one less hiding place for Leavers.
The sight of the ultra-remainers wanking themselves silly over every job loss, and desperately looking for the most negative spin possible on any news story or government statistic for the next few years, is going to be most unedifying.
Leavers are hugging themselves with glee at the prospect of anaemic growth for the foreseeable future
The IMF’s assessment of the UK prospects over next two year is relatively upbeat.
It predicts that growth will “stabilise” at 1.4% in 2020 and 1% in 2021, weak by UK historical standards but growth none-the-less and stronger growth than the IMF is predicting for Germany, France and Japan.
"Weak by UK historical standards" is relatively upbeat?
In a global downturn yes it is. We normally go up and down with other countries so if we're growing faster than other countries then yes that is relatively upbeat.
Its like the old joke about the two men and the bear. We might not be running faster than the bear, but relatively we're running faster than the other man.
Comments
https://www.jdwetherspoon.com/news/2020/01/lets-stay-friends
The case for the prosecution rests.
And now, when offered a chance to say how you would make that contribution, you decline. The only sane way to view your contribution is that you have never had any interest whatsoever in finding common ground.
Where is the Brexit Reconstruction? When Brexit is unravelled, that absence is what historians will note as the primary cause.
Now I think that unravelling is a necessary next step for the country, albeit one that will waste time that Britain can ill-afford given its many current weaknesses. But if you want Brexit to succeed, you really ought to give that some serious thought.
Although of course, with Boris at the helm almost anything has to be possible.
The substantive agreement is less clear. Johnson is setting up a lot of problems for the future relationship.
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
I said at the time, that deal, or no deal. It wasn’t that deal, and the timescales we are now set on means an eventual no deal is likelier than ever.
Now when Brexit fails, at least there will be one less hiding place for Leavers.
Still, it’s progress of a sorts from the period when Leavers were urging a disorderly Brexit risking medical shortages safe from a distance of 5000 miles.
The fact that some Leavers disliked the deal a lot would've been a significant asset.
The actual end result is not the worst possible outcome. The real damage was done on the way, when Leavers decisively concluded that Brexit was more important than Parliamentary democracy and were prepared to jettison it for Brexit. The damage from that is going to continue to unfold. Ironically, Leavers may well see themselves as the good guys next time, not realising that they have established the precedent.
Many of them now ex-MPs.
Basically your position appears to be that the country was doomed at the moment it voted “leave” on the back of the campaign that leave fought. Because at the point Leave had to be implemented, and in a way that aligned with the campaign.
That’s fine, but why post endlessly about it if the die was cast at that point? You don’t offer any alternative solutions because you don’t seem to believe there are/were any.
Far from seeking a consensus, the government is going out of its way to grind into the dust the noses of anyone who wants a constructive working relationship with the EU.
Labour tried to be smart-arses over Brexit, embarrassing the minority Government for political advantage. It went spectacularly wrong.
If they could wind the clock back, most Labour MPs would support May's deal. Or at least, do as some of us suggested - abstain on it. Leave on May's Deal, 100 % owned by the Tories. With all the carnage in Tory ranks that would have brought about.
Labour were rank amateurs over Brexit.
But none of the candidates look like an outright election winner for Labour.
Try this suckers: SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL CLUB.
In the short term this will probably mean a pretty basic trade deal by the end of the year, but such a deal would not preclude further developments in the future in the basis of mutual beneficence once the base position is finally established.
But we’ll see...
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1220263340188086272
https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1220268286883045377
Competent and serious will start to look quite attractive after the public tire of five more years of government by the same party, this time led by a flamboyant charlatan. The past Labour leader that Starmer most reminds me of is John Smith, who turned out to be a very effective LOTO.
So yes, I agree with Nigel Wasforemain that Guido et al are scraping the empty barrel in going after Starmer because they fear that he will be effective.
They thought Corbyn was going to be useless. They were right. Didn't stop them attacking him; they just waited till after he'd won.
I can only assume her team have worked out that she can develop a USP there as Nandy isn't cracking too many jokes and Keir is somewhat lacking in the charisma stakes.
No reason to doubt what she does on a Friday night - and it did make her mildly more normal/ human/likeable - but it wouldn't have made me any more inclined to vote for her.
However, the only real advantage gained from that is in terms of securing nominations, and even in such terms they are failing pretty spectacularly. RLB secured another 0 out of 5 CLP nominations last night, and has just 5 out of 27 now.
Lisa Nandy = Ed Miliband
Yes? No?
I also thought at the time Ed Milliband was doing well on that score, only to see him, the ideas and the rallying all swept away.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
The Brexiteers eeked out their win by blaming everything on the EU. What makes you think it won't work in reverse?
I think the quote was also about a load of desk-bound ideologues who hadn't a clue about business.
Although, Hammond was incredibly sackable, but (correctly) interred that his boss was too weak to do so. Which might be the worst of both worlds.
Edit: have spotted the typo but am leaving it because I quite like it.
Further edit: both typos.
And the dolts who are championing the UK's sovereignty should pay more attention to the Saint of Haltemprice and Howden.
The only way most people will notice is if they have to join a different queue when arriving on holiday.
Our sovereignty is valuable by principle. If we can regain our sovereignty and 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then we should do so. The argument for Remaining was not one of principle but one of fear of what happens if we leave - if the fear is 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then that is an unfounded fear.
It predicts that growth will “stabilise” at 1.4% in 2020 and 1% in 2021, weak by UK historical standards but growth none-the-less and stronger growth than the IMF is predicting for Germany, France and Japan.
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-01-20/brexit-international-monetary-fund-forecast-imf-britain-growth/
I see.
Look at many prior divisions that have been fought - some under recent memory. Take homosexuality for instance - for decades there were arguments over should we legalise homosexuality, let gays serve in the military, allow gays to get married. Tony Blair's government tried to triangulate gay marriage by allowing it but calling it civil partnerships and we continued to argue. David Cameron's government simply legalised it and we moved on. Cameron didn't seek a compromise with those opposed to gay marriage, he legalised it and that's that.
How many people now are still arguing over it? I suspect even many of those (some on here) who got heated arguing against gay marriage might look back at that if anything with a tinge of embarrassment and wonder what all the fuss was about. Because the change didn't affect their life for the worse.
So too with Brexit. We've had so many cries of the apocalypse - we have literally been told at times that planes won't fly, there'll be no medicines, no food, there'll be no drinking water. Its absurd. We will exit, life will go on and for the vast, vast majority there will be no discernible difference. Even if we diverge it will be over time and we've never fully converged anyway so even that will be hard to tell.
In two weeks time we will be out, life will be going on, and for most people it will in time become a case of "what was all that fuss about".
Its like the old joke about the two men and the bear. We might not be running faster than the bear, but relatively we're running faster than the other man.