Well if you could cut your articles in half to make basically the same points it would help matters too
When you are editor then you can give me instructions. OGH publishes them because he likes them.
Perhaps you could offer us a header so that we can see the quality of your writing and thought.
I give plenty of my writing on here already, a header would not really add much if you want to do one that is up to you but you made the first insult so don't be surprised if it was returned
You insulted me some time ago and refused to retract despite me asking you to do so. You did it again at the time of the VE celebrations this year. I have simply bided my time for the right opportunity.
I don’t consider your opinion on my headers an insult.
Comments below the line are not remotely comparable to constructing and writing an argument capable of being read by someone with an attention span longer than a gnat.
No doubt an article from you on opinion polls would be of interest to some.
Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland. I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.
That the government stated openly that the plan is to flout international law "in a specific and limited way" in order to pursue the national interest at the potential expense of Brussels (last bit not said but implied and will no doubt be briefed) imo tells us what is really going on here.
It's yet another piece of tedious "We are Millwall aka the People's government and we don't care" jingo confected quite deliberately to wind up effete Remainy liberals and get their own side, the Salt of the Earth Leavers. pumped up and loving "Boris" and the Brexit all over again. Perhaps Cummings & Co were worried that passions were cooling. They don't want that obviously. If that happens, more people might notice other things, none of which speak well of the government they elected so recently.
Yep. So this is what I think is happening. PR and nothing else. They're feeding the fish. It won't change the Brexit outcome by one iota. No Deal is still a Not Happening event. There will still be major late compromise from us that ensures continuing close alignment with the EU and no border in Ireland (thus one in the Irish Sea) after 1 Jan 2021. But the Gang decided they needed a fresh dose of the Old Familiar right now. It's tedious for the rest of us but they know it works.
So, given that, I'm not playing. I'm not outraged. I'm not even interested.
The actual issue isn't that important - it's the impact on our global reputation that is important - and in 1 sentence this afternoon a Government minister destroyed it.
It's a feature of the internet age that what actually happens is not nearly as important as what is memorable.
So, it's still possible that, by the time the text of the Bill is published, it won't contain anything that breaches our existing treaty commitments, or if it does, that the government will be defeated in the Commons, and so we will never, in fact, break our existing treaty commitment. And yet, "we will break the law in a specific and limited way," may well be remembered as part of the fifteen second summary of Brexit. Fabulous.
And the ultimate irony is that the apex of this government is people who have a talent for summing up their case in a soundbite that, if it tells the truth, certainly doesn't tell the whole truth.
Now they're being run over by their own bus. Heart of stone etc...
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
The government has to shed either Tory remainer or core Brexiter support over the next few months depending on its Brexit policy, and then deal with the fallout of the end of the furlough scheme at the same time.
Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland. I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.
Probably a touch preoccupied given that she has just given birth?
So even Government ministers worry about this action.
Yet they do nothing, cowardice
They don’t worry about legality. So they’ll fold.
The only Tory MP who today, both inside and outside Parliament, spoke with any shred of integrity and understanding was Sir Bob Neill.
I would almost add Mrs May to that list of one.
Thank goodness she's not PM anymore.
As you know, I am not a Conservative, but I would happily agree to another 25 years of a Mrs May Government over another 25 days of the Dangerous Brothers (Johnson and Cummings).
That kind of says it all doesn't it?
What it says is despite not approving of Mrs May, she is preferable to Johnson. I am scared stiff as to what Johnson is doing to my country.
Whereas I'm delighted. Considering we have opposing POVs on politics that's quite reasonable.
Boris is shaping up to be the best PM since Thatcher.
Where is this parallel universe of which you speak?
The Labour narrative of the next five years is going to be to attempt to do what the Tories did from 2008, 2008 onwards was Labour crashed the car, Labour is going to try incompetence is holding Britain back
Being at capacity means it is on the verge of collapse? A bit of a stretch!
It means it is unable to cope with a further increase in demand. Yes.
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland. I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.
Someone hinted that before the holiday, but then there was the obligatory on holiday together pic
Oh we're up to first strike on a non nuclear nation already? It's sad what the party has turned into. Hopefully they'll be cleared away once Boris falls and takes that c*** Dom with him.
No we are up to defending British territory no matter what the cost, if you would hand the Falklands over to Argentina without a fight we are better off as a party without you anyway.
If Starmer drops all of the culture war woke stuff I think I'd be comfortable voting for him. As it stands I don't think I could vote for a party or leader that will allow biological men into women only spaces.
I think the real problem is that so many people are losing the will to live that there is very little incentive to comply with anti-coronavirus guidance.
The Observer did ask a pertinent question. If the virus remains free despite national lockdown, how can less draconian measures work?
The Labour narrative of the next five years is going to be to attempt to do what the Tories did from 2008, 2008 onwards was Labour crashed the car, Labour is going to try incompetence is holding Britain back
Being at capacity means it is on the verge of collapse? A bit of a stretch!
It means it is unable to cope with a further increase in demand. Yes.
But collapse implies it will cease functioning. I don't think that's the case here.
They may well have done but Washington stayed neutral for a reason as both Thatcher's UK and Argentina were key allies, Reagan was also slightly scared of Thatcher so she would have not ruled it out until the islands were returned and Reagan would not have been able to do anything about it
Washington's neutrality was, if memory serves, quite nuanced. Reagan was supportive of Thatcher but there were others in the administration who feared damaging relations across the whole of Latin America by taking too strong a pro-British stance.
The "Bolivian Option" or indeed any diplomatic solution might well have found favour in Washington.
There's also the rumour as to whether Chile was prepared to go to war with Argentina at the same time as to further weaken Buenos Aires and the junta.
Cyclefree, I do apologise. I have only just seen HYUFD's earlier insult. You can say what you like!
He can say what he likes but if I am insulted I will respond, ever and always
But when you mischaracterise others and are asked twice - as I did to you earlier this year - to apologise and withdraw your incorrect and insulting remarks, you did not have the good grace or good manners to do so.
So tough - you’re now getting from me what you richly deserve for those earlier insults.
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
Whatever people have done in the past or will do in the future, as mentioned by many posters on here today, when it comes to international law this is not done openly or as a point of pride. This posture belongs to a Trumpian politics that may be short-lived, leaving Britain isolated.
The Labour narrative of the next five years is going to be to attempt to do what the Tories did from 2008, 2008 onwards was Labour crashed the car, Labour is going to try incompetence is holding Britain back
Being at capacity means it is on the verge of collapse? A bit of a stretch!
It means it is unable to cope with a further increase in demand. Yes.
But collapse implies it will cease functioning. I don't think that's the case here.
If someone with symptoms can't get a test that could result in whole schools being closed for an extra day
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.
That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
I think the real problem is that so many people are losing the will to live that there is very little incentive to comply with anti-coronavirus guidance.
The Observer did ask a pertinent question. If the virus remains free despite national lockdown, how can less draconian measures work?
Well if you could cut your articles in half to make basically the same points it would help matters too
When you are editor then you can give me instructions. OGH publishes them because he likes them.
Perhaps you could offer us a header so that we can see the quality of your writing and thought.
I give plenty of my writing on here already, a header would not really add much if you want to do one that is up to you but you made the first insult so don't be surprised if it was returned
You insulted me some time ago and refused to retract despite me asking you to do so. You did it again at the time of the VE celebrations this year. I have simply bided my time for the right opportunity.
I don’t consider your opinion on my headers an insult.
Comments below the line are not remotely comparable to constructing and writing an argument capable of being read by someone with an attention span longer than a gnat.
No doubt an article from you on opinion polls would be of interest to some.
I have never personally insulted you to my knowledge at all, you may disagree with what I have posted but that is not the same thing or my opinion of your views on an issue but that is not the same thing either.
I have too much to do in terms of work and being branch party chairman and in my personal life to research and write lots of article headers here, if you wish to do so fine but posts is all I will do
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
Whatever people have done in the past or will do in the future, as mentioned by many posters on here today, when it comes to international law this is not done openly or as a point of pride. This posture belongs to a Trumpian politics that may be short-lived, leaving Britain isolated.
The whole world can see this is a part of Brexit. Any country that has undergone its own independence will have had far bigger ructions than this.
The French cheerfully disregard the rules they've signed up to whenever they want. Do you honestly think that if the French were in our position they wouldn't do the exact same thing?
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Friendly advice:
When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.
Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.
Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.
However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
It clearly wasn't a deterrent as it didn't deter them.
Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
As I said it was a military junta, we defeated them militarily.
Would Thatcher have sent a submarine to nuke Buenos Aires if the task force had failed and Argentine refused to withdraw from the Falklands? Who knows. However I suspect she would have kept them guessing and not ruled it out to maximise the chances of liberating the islands
The QTWAIN to end all QTWAINs.
Thatcher was a proper Tory, she put defending our nation and its citizens, including overseas above all else, unlike some on the left she would not role over and allow our nation's territory to be lost no matter what the cost.
Had Thatcher lost the Falklands War she may well have lost the 1983 election which would also have been in the back of her mind
Apart from the Hong Kong Chines, who she withdrew full nationality from, and agreed to had over entiterly to the PRC.
Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland. I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.
Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
Whatever people have done in the past or will do in the future, as mentioned by many posters on here today, when it comes to international law this is not done openly or as a point of pride. This posture belongs to a Trumpian politics that may be short-lived, leaving Britain isolated.
The whole world can see this is a part of Brexit. Any country that has undergone its own independence will have had far bigger ructions than this.
The French cheerfully disregard the rules they've signed up to whenever they want. Do you honestly think that if the French were in our position they wouldn't do the exact same thing?
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Friendly advice:
When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.
Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.
Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.
However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
It clearly wasn't a deterrent as it didn't deter them.
Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
As I said it was a military junta, we defeated them militarily.
Would Thatcher have sent a submarine to nuke Buenos Aires if the task force had failed and Argentine refused to withdraw from the Falklands? Who knows. However I suspect she would have kept them guessing and not ruled it out to maximise the chances of liberating the islands
The QTWAIN to end all QTWAINs.
Thatcher was a proper Tory, she put defending our nation and its citizens, including overseas above all else, unlike some on the left she would not role over and allow our nation's territory to be lost no matter what the cost.
Had Thatcher lost the Falklands War she may well have lost the 1983 election which would also have been in the back of her mind
Apart from the Hong Kong Chines, who she withdrew full nationality from, and agreed to had over entiterly to the PRC.
Hong Kong was held on a lease and she respected the terms of that lease, China was also a nuclear power like the UK which goes back to my original point
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Friendly advice:
When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.
Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.
Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.
However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
It clearly wasn't a deterrent as it didn't deter them.
Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
As I said it was a military junta, we defeated them militarily.
Would Thatcher have sent a submarine to nuke Buenos Aires if the task force had failed and Argentine refused to withdraw from the Falklands? Who knows. However I suspect she would have kept them guessing and not ruled it out to maximise the chances of liberating the islands
The QTWAIN to end all QTWAINs.
Thatcher was a proper Tory, she put defending our nation and its citizens, including overseas above all else, unlike some on the left she would not role over and allow our nation's territory to be lost no matter what the cost.
Had Thatcher lost the Falklands War she may well have lost the 1983 election which would also have been in the back of her mind
Apart from the Hong Kong Chines, who she withdrew full nationality from, and agreed to had over entiterly to the PRC.
Hong Kong was held on a lease and she respected the terms of that lease, China was also a nuclear power like the UK which goes back to my original point
Hong Kong was NOT on a lease. The New Territories were on a lease. The island of Hong Kong was granted in perpetuity.
Why on earth are pollsters bothering with Nerw Jersey ?
American presidential polling is filled with many mysteries.
Why do they poll uncompetitive states? Why do they tell us how much more the big number is from the small number? Why do the frequently have laughably tiny sample sizes?
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.
That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
Absolutely contract and civil law we are renowned for. That's not this.
The EU promised to negotiate in good faith and treat us as a sovereign country. They're not. Screw them time to sort out our own future.
If Starmer drops all of the culture war woke stuff I think I'd be comfortable voting for him. As it stands I don't think I could vote for a party or leader that will allow biological men into women only spaces.
I'm not sure how the British govern their toilets, is the PM in charge of them directly? If so it feels like the kind of decision that could be decentralized
Well if you could cut your articles in half to make basically the same points it would help matters too
When you are editor then you can give me instructions. OGH publishes them because he likes them.
Perhaps you could offer us a header so that we can see the quality of your writing and thought.
I give plenty of my writing on here already, a header would not really add much if you want to do one that is up to you but you made the first insult so don't be surprised if it was returned
You insulted me some time ago and refused to retract despite me asking you to do so. You did it again at the time of the VE celebrations this year. I have simply bided my time for the right opportunity.
I don’t consider your opinion on my headers an insult.
Comments below the line are not remotely comparable to constructing and writing an argument capable of being read by someone with an attention span longer than a gnat.
No doubt an article from you on opinion polls would be of interest to some.
I have never personally insulted you to my knowledge at all, you may disagree with what I have posted but that is not the same thing or my opinion of your views on an issue but that is not the same thing either.
I have too much to do in terms of work and being branch party chairman and in my personal life to research and write lots of article headers here, if you wish to do so fine but posts is all I will do
You have. But since I have now responded to my satisfaction, I consider the matter over.
Fair enough re headers. Not everyone has the time or inclination. One small piece of advice: it is very easy to criticise but much harder to do, something you might bear in mind in future.
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Friendly advice:
When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.
Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.
Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.
However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
It clearly wasn't a deterrent as it didn't deter them.
Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
As I said it was a military junta, we defeated them militarily.
Would Thatcher have sent a submarine to nuke Buenos Aires if the task force had failed and Argentine refused to withdraw from the Falklands? Who knows. However I suspect she would have kept them guessing and not ruled it out to maximise the chances of liberating the islands
The QTWAIN to end all QTWAINs.
Thatcher was a proper Tory, she put defending our nation and its citizens, including overseas above all else, unlike some on the left she would not role over and allow our nation's territory to be lost no matter what the cost.
Had Thatcher lost the Falklands War she may well have lost the 1983 election which would also have been in the back of her mind
Apart from the Hong Kong Chines, who she withdrew full nationality from, and agreed to had over entiterly to the PRC.
Hong Kong was held on a lease and she respected the terms of that lease, China was also a nuclear power like the UK which goes back to my original point
Hong Kong was NOT on a lease. The New Territories were on a lease. The island of Hong Kong was granted in perpetuity.
The leased area comprised 92% of Hong Kong territory, retaining the remaining 8% was unviable
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Based on your argument, the will of the Scottish people was not to Brexit. Their desire for a European enclave North of Hadrian's Wall should be granted.
We can have indyref2 in a generation to decide, as Salmond promised in 2014
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.
That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
Absolutely contract and civil law we are renowned for. That's not this.
The EU promised to negotiate in good faith and treat us as a sovereign country. They're not. Screw them time to sort out our own future.
I've not seen any examples of the EU not negotiating in good faith, please point them out.
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
Whatever people have done in the past or will do in the future, as mentioned by many posters on here today, when it comes to international law this is not done openly or as a point of pride. This posture belongs to a Trumpian politics that may be short-lived, leaving Britain isolated.
The whole world can see this is a part of Brexit. Any country that has undergone its own independence will have had far bigger ructions than this.
The French cheerfully disregard the rules they've signed up to whenever they want. Do you honestly think that if the French were in our position they wouldn't do the exact same thing?
Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland. I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.
Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
Well if you could cut your articles in half to make basically the same points it would help matters too
When you are editor then you can give me instructions. OGH publishes them because he likes them.
Perhaps you could offer us a header so that we can see the quality of your writing and thought.
I give plenty of my writing on here already, a header would not really add much if you want to do one that is up to you but you made the first insult so don't be surprised if it was returned
You insulted me some time ago and refused to retract despite me asking you to do so. You did it again at the time of the VE celebrations this year. I have simply bided my time for the right opportunity.
I don’t consider your opinion on my headers an insult.
Comments below the line are not remotely comparable to constructing and writing an argument capable of being read by someone with an attention span longer than a gnat.
No doubt an article from you on opinion polls would be of interest to some.
I have never personally insulted you to my knowledge at all, you may disagree with what I have posted but that is not the same thing or my opinion of your views on an issue but that is not the same thing either.
I have too much to do in terms of work and being branch party chairman and in my personal life to research and write lots of article headers here, if you wish to do so fine but posts is all I will do
You have. But since I have now responded to my satisfaction, I consider the matter over.
Fair enough re headers. Not everyone has the time or inclination. One small piece of advice: it is very easy to criticise but much harder to do, something you might bear in mind in future.
Normally I don't criticise personally unless in response (though I do argue on views) and fair enough for the work you put into headers
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Friendly advice:
When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.
Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.
Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.
However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
It clearly wasn't a deterrent as it didn't deter them.
Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
As I said it was a military junta, we defeated them militarily.
Would Thatcher have sent a submarine to nuke Buenos Aires if the task force had failed and Argentine refused to withdraw from the Falklands? Who knows. However I suspect she would have kept them guessing and not ruled it out to maximise the chances of liberating the islands
The QTWAIN to end all QTWAINs.
Thatcher was a proper Tory, she put defending our nation and its citizens, including overseas above all else, unlike some on the left she would not role over and allow our nation's territory to be lost no matter what the cost.
Had Thatcher lost the Falklands War she may well have lost the 1983 election which would also have been in the back of her mind
Apart from the Hong Kong Chines, who she withdrew full nationality from, and agreed to had over entiterly to the PRC.
I don’t think people in HK ever had full British nationality....
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
Whatever people have done in the past or will do in the future, as mentioned by many posters on here today, when it comes to international law this is not done openly or as a point of pride. This posture belongs to a Trumpian politics that may be short-lived, leaving Britain isolated.
The whole world can see this is a part of Brexit. Any country that has undergone its own independence will have had far bigger ructions than this.
The French cheerfully disregard the rules they've signed up to whenever they want. Do you honestly think that if the French were in our position they wouldn't do the exact same thing?
Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland. I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.
Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland. I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.
Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
There are rumours on twitter, but probably always are.
I would have thought babyfather wouldn't be up to the usual at present.
On the other hand, it is well recognised that a man who married his mistress creates a job vacancy.
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
Whatever people have done in the past or will do in the future, as mentioned by many posters on here today, when it comes to international law this is not done openly or as a point of pride. This posture belongs to a Trumpian politics that may be short-lived, leaving Britain isolated.
The whole world can see this is a part of Brexit. Any country that has undergone its own independence will have had far bigger ructions than this.
The French cheerfully disregard the rules they've signed up to whenever they want. Do you honestly think that if the French were in our position they wouldn't do the exact same thing?
When Slovakia and the Czech Republic broke away from each other to become independent, did they announce that they would break their agreements and international law?
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.
That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
Absolutely contract and civil law we are renowned for. That's not this.
The EU promised to negotiate in good faith and treat us as a sovereign country. They're not. Screw them time to sort out our own future.
I've not seen any examples of the EU not negotiating in good faith, please point them out.
The EU not recognising UK Sovereignty over State Aid or Fishing in the way it does for other countries like Norway or Canada.
I note that any time this comes up nobody attempts to defend this as good faith instead it's simply "the EU is bigger so can do what it likes".
Well if the EU isn't going to negotiate in good faith we can do what we like too.
If Starmer drops all of the culture war woke stuff I think I'd be comfortable voting for him. As it stands I don't think I could vote for a party or leader that will allow biological men into women only spaces.
I'm not sure how the British govern their toilets, is the PM in charge of them directly? If so it feels like the kind of decision that could be decentralized
It's part of the gender recognition act, Labour are in favour of self identification which would allow biological males into women's spaces without a recognised gender recognition certificate or operation. It's woke bullshit.
Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland. I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.
Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
There are rumours on twitter, but probably always are.
I would have thought babyfather wouldn't be up to the usual at present.
On the other hand, it is well recognised that a man who married his mistress creates a job vacancy.
Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland. I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.
Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
Really? Goodness - that didn’t last long.
By the way, how are you doing these days @Cyclefree? I seem to recall you were very down with the whole lockdown thing. Life a little better now hopefully?
Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland. I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.
Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
Really? Goodness - that didn’t last long.
I have been waiting to quote Sir Cliff on this matter for a while.
As embarrassing as Boris's antics are, I didn't think they'd gain any traction. Now I'm not so sure. Brexit is one thing, but I wonder if there's something deep in the British psyche that demands that we always play fair when dealing with the rest of the world. This swaggering disregard for convention and 'my word is my bond' doesn't seem like us. Boris and Dom may have horribly misjudged this.
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.
That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
Absolutely contract and civil law we are renowned for. That's not this.
The EU promised to negotiate in good faith and treat us as a sovereign country. They're not. Screw them time to sort out our own future.
I've not seen any examples of the EU not negotiating in good faith, please point them out.
The EU not recognising UK Sovereignty over State Aid or Fishing in the way it does for other countries like Norway or Canada.
I note that any time this comes up nobody attempts to defend this as good faith instead it's simply "the EU is bigger so can do what it likes".
Well if the EU isn't going to negotiate in good faith we can do what we like too.
That definitely doesn't count. The EU are negotiating, I think they're negotiating badly, but ultimately that's their prerogative. It's not bad faith, if it was the government would have taken it to arbitration as a breech of the treaty. They haven't so it isn't.
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
Whatever people have done in the past or will do in the future, as mentioned by many posters on here today, when it comes to international law this is not done openly or as a point of pride. This posture belongs to a Trumpian politics that may be short-lived, leaving Britain isolated.
The whole world can see this is a part of Brexit. Any country that has undergone its own independence will have had far bigger ructions than this.
The French cheerfully disregard the rules they've signed up to whenever they want. Do you honestly think that if the French were in our position they wouldn't do the exact same thing?
When Slovakia and the Czech Republic broke away from each other to become independent, did they announce that they would break their agreements and international law?
Well it kills another argument against Scottish Independence. That they would have to take on their fair share of assets and liabilities (including national debt) post independence.
But then of course as usual you presumably have no problem with that, being a supporter of Scottish Independence. The fact that the current UK govt would is a matter of supreme indifference to you. They're basically your useful idiots.
Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland. I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.
Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
Really? Goodness - that didn’t last long.
I have been waiting to quote Sir Cliff on this matter for a while.
"Carrie doesn't live here anymore".
When a man marries his mistress, he creates a job vacancy.
As embarrassing as Boris's antics are, I didn't think they'd gain any traction. Now I'm not so sure. Brexit is one thing, but I wonder if there's something deep in the British psyche that demands that we always play fair when dealing with the rest of the world. This swaggering disregard for convention and 'my word is my bond' doesn't seem like us. Boris and Dom may have horribly misjudged this.
Fair play is why the Cummings road trip so damaged BoZo
And proved they don't give a fuck what the public think
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.
That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
Absolutely contract and civil law we are renowned for. That's not this.
The EU promised to negotiate in good faith and treat us as a sovereign country. They're not. Screw them time to sort out our own future.
I've not seen any examples of the EU not negotiating in good faith, please point them out.
The EU not recognising UK Sovereignty over State Aid or Fishing in the way it does for other countries like Norway or Canada.
I note that any time this comes up nobody attempts to defend this as good faith instead it's simply "the EU is bigger so can do what it likes".
Well if the EU isn't going to negotiate in good faith we can do what we like too.
That definitely doesn't count. The EU are negotiating, I think they're negotiating badly, but ultimately that's their prerogative. It's not bad faith, if it was the government would have taken it to arbitration as a breech of the treaty. They haven't so it isn't.
They're negotiating in bad faith and there isn't time to arbitrate this the transition deal expires 31/12.
If they're not going to negotiate in good faith we need to put in place alternative solutions. This is a good start.
And if they're breaching the treaty and if we are then we can all arbitrate all of it next year. In the mean time solutions are needed before then.
Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland. I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.
Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
There are rumours on twitter, but probably always are.
I would have thought babyfather wouldn't be up to the usual at present.
On the other hand, it is well recognised that a man who married his mistress creates a job vacancy.
They should just advise against all non-essential travel again at this point. I doubt that would have stopped a second wave as the virus was never fully eliminated, but it would have helped reduce the number of clusters.
If Starmer drops all of the culture war woke stuff I think I'd be comfortable voting for him. As it stands I don't think I could vote for a party or leader that will allow biological men into women only spaces.
I'm not sure how the British govern their toilets, is the PM in charge of them directly? If so it feels like the kind of decision that could be decentralized
It's part of the gender recognition act, Labour are in favour of self identification which would allow biological males into women's spaces without a recognised gender recognition certificate or operation. It's woke bullshit.
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Friendly advice:
When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.
Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.
Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.
However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
It clearly wasn't a deterrent as it didn't deter them.
Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
As I said it was a military junta, we defeated them militarily.
Would Thatcher have sent a submarine to nuke Buenos Aires if the task force had failed and Argentine refused to withdraw from the Falklands? Who knows. However I suspect she would have kept them guessing and not ruled it out to maximise the chances of liberating the islands
The QTWAIN to end all QTWAINs.
Thatcher was a proper Tory, she put defending our nation and its citizens, including overseas above all else, unlike some on the left she would not role over and allow our nation's territory to be lost no matter what the cost.
Had Thatcher lost the Falklands War she may well have lost the 1983 election which would also have been in the back of her mind
Apart from the Hong Kong Chines, who she withdrew full nationality from, and agreed to had over entiterly to the PRC.
I don’t think people in HK ever had full British nationality....
They had nationality, but not right to abode. The dependent territory status was created in the 1981 act. This status applied to the Falkland Islanders at the time* of the Falklands war, and to HK in 1986.
*full citizenship was restored a year after the war for Falkland Islanders.
Well if you could cut your articles in half to make basically the same points it would help matters too
When you are editor then you can give me instructions. OGH publishes them because he likes them.
Perhaps you could offer us a header so that we can see the quality of your writing and thought.
I give plenty of my writing on here already, a header would not really add much if you want to do one that is up to you but you made the first insult so don't be surprised if it was returned
You insulted me some time ago and refused to retract despite me asking you to do so. You did it again at the time of the VE celebrations this year. I have simply bided my time for the right opportunity.
I don’t consider your opinion on my headers an insult.
Comments below the line are not remotely comparable to constructing and writing an argument capable of being read by someone with an attention span longer than a gnat.
No doubt an article from you on opinion polls would be of interest to some.
I have never personally insulted you to my knowledge at all, you may disagree with what I have posted but that is not the same thing or my opinion of your views on an issue but that is not the same thing either.
I have too much to do in terms of work and being branch party chairman and in my personal life to research and write lots of article headers here, if you wish to do so fine but posts is all I will do
You have. But since I have now responded to my satisfaction, I consider the matter over.
Fair enough re headers. Not everyone has the time or inclination. One small piece of advice: it is very easy to criticise but much harder to do, something you might bear in mind in future.
"You may abuse a tragedy, though you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables." Samuel Johnson
To publish anything is to invite criticism, surely? That is rather the point. And most of your headers seem to be about how irredeemably awful something or other is, so I would have thought a sauce for the goose argument applied.
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.
That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
Absolutely contract and civil law we are renowned for. That's not this.
The EU promised to negotiate in good faith and treat us as a sovereign country. They're not. Screw them time to sort out our own future.
I've not seen any examples of the EU not negotiating in good faith, please point them out.
The EU not recognising UK Sovereignty over State Aid or Fishing in the way it does for other countries like Norway or Canada.
I note that any time this comes up nobody attempts to defend this as good faith instead it's simply "the EU is bigger so can do what it likes".
Well if the EU isn't going to negotiate in good faith we can do what we like too.
That definitely doesn't count. The EU are negotiating, I think they're negotiating badly, but ultimately that's their prerogative. It's not bad faith, if it was the government would have taken it to arbitration as a breech of the treaty. They haven't so it isn't.
They're negotiating in bad faith and there isn't time to arbitrate this the transition deal expires 31/12.
If they're not going to negotiate in good faith we need to put in place alternative solutions. This is a good start.
After today neither party is negotiating in good faith
Fuck them for shitting on this country’s reputation.
One of the reasons this country attracts so much business is our strong rule of law and an independent judiciary that can and does overrule the government when it breaks the law/acts ultra vires.
But today’s announcement and the plans to castrate the judiciary is going to screw this country so much.
Well done Boris and the Brexiteers.
and
Also good luck to my friends in the UK Debt Management Office who have to sell UK debt with buyers now having to worry if the UK Government will retroactively change the terms.
This is the kind of stuff that will lead to a donor strike and Boris getting canned.
Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland. I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.
Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
Really? Goodness - that didn’t last long.
I have been waiting to quote Sir Cliff on this matter for a while.
"Carrie doesn't live here anymore".
When a man marries his mistress, he creates a job vacancy.
I suspect in this instance, and bearing in mind Johnson's state of health, assuming the news is accurate, the departure might have been more to do with Johnson being an annoying jerk, rather than playing away.
Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland. I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.
Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
Really? Goodness - that didn’t last long.
By the way, how are you doing these days @Cyclefree? I seem to recall you were very down with the whole lockdown thing. Life a little better now hopefully?
I am recovering from a nasty infection which has not helped matters at all. It has distracted me though, bizarrely. I have good days and bad days. But I have some ideas for possible non-work projects which help. And once I can walk again properly, getting out into the fresh air will certainly help.
Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland. I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.
Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
There are rumours on twitter, but probably always are.
I would have thought babyfather wouldn't be up to the usual at present.
On the other hand, it is well recognised that a man who married his mistress creates a job vacancy.
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.
That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
Absolutely contract and civil law we are renowned for. That's not this.
The EU promised to negotiate in good faith and treat us as a sovereign country. They're not. Screw them time to sort out our own future.
I've not seen any examples of the EU not negotiating in good faith, please point them out.
The EU not recognising UK Sovereignty over State Aid or Fishing in the way it does for other countries like Norway or Canada.
I note that any time this comes up nobody attempts to defend this as good faith instead it's simply "the EU is bigger so can do what it likes".
Well if the EU isn't going to negotiate in good faith we can do what we like too.
That definitely doesn't count. The EU are negotiating, I think they're negotiating badly, but ultimately that's their prerogative. It's not bad faith, if it was the government would have taken it to arbitration as a breech of the treaty. They haven't so it isn't.
They're negotiating in bad faith and there isn't time to arbitrate this the transition deal expires 31/12.
If they're not going to negotiate in good faith we need to put in place alternative solutions. This is a good start.
After today neither party is negotiating in good faith
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.
That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
Absolutely contract and civil law we are renowned for. That's not this.
The EU promised to negotiate in good faith and treat us as a sovereign country. They're not. Screw them time to sort out our own future.
I've not seen any examples of the EU not negotiating in good faith, please point them out.
The EU not recognising UK Sovereignty over State Aid or Fishing in the way it does for other countries like Norway or Canada.
I note that any time this comes up nobody attempts to defend this as good faith instead it's simply "the EU is bigger so can do what it likes".
Well if the EU isn't going to negotiate in good faith we can do what we like too.
That definitely doesn't count. The EU are negotiating, I think they're negotiating badly, but ultimately that's their prerogative. It's not bad faith, if it was the government would have taken it to arbitration as a breech of the treaty. They haven't so it isn't.
They're negotiating in bad faith and there isn't time to arbitrate this the transition deal expires 31/12.
If they're not going to negotiate in good faith we need to put in place alternative solutions. This is a good start.
And if they're breaching the treaty and if we are then we can all arbitrate all of it next year. In the mean time solutions are needed before then.
In your opinion the EU aren't negotiating in good faith, can you point to where this is the government's opinion. I don't think you can because they aren't. The EU are negotiating in good faith, it's fair but tough. It will push us both towards no deal but that is a consequence of both sets of red lines.
I think you have a lack of understanding what bad faith negotiating is, bad faith would be saying that the only way we get a trade deal is to give Scotland a referendum because it voted to remain or something along those lines. They are currently offering a high cost option for a trade deal, not an impossible cost trade deal. We think the cost is too high and probably won't sign it.
Fuck them for shitting on this country’s reputation.
One of the reasons this country attracts so much business is our strong rule of law and an independent judiciary that can and does overrule the government when it breaks the law/acts ultra vires.
But today’s announcement and the plans to castrate the judiciary is going to screw this country so much.
Well done Boris and the Brexiteers.
and
Also good luck to my friends in the UK Debt Management Office who have to sell UK debt with buyers now having to worry if the UK Government will retroactively change the terms.
Tory backbench MPs with any conscience at all over what's right and what's wrong will surely vote down this crooked legislation, hopefully leading to Boris' immediate resignation as PM.
Maybe this is an elaborately choreographed way to end up requesting some kind of further transition period. "We wanted to leave with No Deal, but yet again parliament wouldn't let us."
This Government was elected on the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement (as negotiated by Boris) and Boris's Oven Ready Deal.
Starmers only question tomorrow needs to be what is delaying the Oven Ready deal being signed
I'm sure Boris is on top of the details......
He'll probably waffle on about lawyers and not taking any lectures from them.
Should we just let lawyers run the world?
We signed up to an agreement, we are now expected to uphold it. It can't get more simple than that.
If it's in our interest to do so.
If it's not we should if need be renounce it and move on.
The EU aren't honouring their commitments in good faith so I don't care. Maybe next year we can revisit things but the UK government needs to look after the UK, the EU isn't going to do so.
No, international agreements are always a compromise, and we need to uphold the compromise parts as much as the bits we like. Trust in the UK to uphold international agreements and the rule of law is taking a huge dent right now, it wouldn't be an issue if we had already ratified and codified 60 trade deals and signed up to the TPP, but we haven't. Now those trade deals become much more stringent and the enforcement mechanisms and break penalties become harsher. It's also a disaster for the City, we've got a meeting about it tomorrow morning, even I've been told to attend because we need to get a strategy together for reassuring clients that their money isn't at risk from state interference when the questions start to roll in. Our trump card for keeping the City has always been rule of law, the UK is one of very few countries that lives and dies by rule of law, now the government are undoing all of that for absolutely no gain.
Also, what evidence do you have that the EU aren't honouring their side of the bargain?
The irony is that when you look at what the Government is proposing they could probably have tried to present it as purely a necessary move to define what was undefined in the WA pending the failure of negotiations going on(something they are belatedly trying to do). However because of the way they leaked and then communicated the proposals this has become impossible.
They have seen it as an opportunity to stir up their hard Brexit supporters and "threaten" the EU, and it has backfired horribly. And they now can't backtrack.
If Starmer drops all of the culture war woke stuff I think I'd be comfortable voting for him. As it stands I don't think I could vote for a party or leader that will allow biological men into women only spaces.
I'm not sure how the British govern their toilets, is the PM in charge of them directly? If so it feels like the kind of decision that could be decentralized
It's part of the gender recognition act, Labour are in favour of self identification which would allow biological males into women's spaces without a recognised gender recognition certificate or operation. It's woke bullshit.
It's also not accurate. Labour is yet to finalise its policy on this, and as I understand it is waiting to see exactly what the government comes up with. Everything is a bit delayed due to Covid/Brexit etc.
But I'm confident Starmer will steer Labour away from the "woke bullshit" that you see as a key determinant of your vote, so you can be comfortable voting Labour.
Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland. I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.
Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
Really? Goodness - that didn’t last long.
By the way, how are you doing these days @Cyclefree? I seem to recall you were very down with the whole lockdown thing. Life a little better now hopefully?
I am recovering from a nasty infection which has not helped matters at all. It has distracted me though, bizarrely. I have good days and bad days. But I have some ideas for possible non-work projects which help. And once I can walk again properly, getting out into the fresh air will certainly help.
KBO.
Thank you for asking.
Glad to hear there are at least some good days. This year has certainly taken its toll on many of us.
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
Whatever people have done in the past or will do in the future, as mentioned by many posters on here today, when it comes to international law this is not done openly or as a point of pride. This posture belongs to a Trumpian politics that may be short-lived, leaving Britain isolated.
The whole world can see this is a part of Brexit. Any country that has undergone its own independence will have had far bigger ructions than this.
The French cheerfully disregard the rules they've signed up to whenever they want. Do you honestly think that if the French were in our position they wouldn't do the exact same thing?
When Slovakia and the Czech Republic broke away from each other to become independent, did they announce that they would break their agreements and international law?
Actually, the Czechs did violate their breakup agreement with the Slovaks. The two countries agreed that neither would inherit or use the national symbols of Czechoslovakia, but the Czechs decided to keep the Czechoslovak national flag. They claimed not to be in violation of the agreement because they changed the colour tones slightly and used a different length to breadth proportion. The Slovaks didn’t agree and protested, but they decided not to take it further.
So even Government ministers worry about this action.
Yet they do nothing, cowardice
They don’t worry about legality. So they’ll fold.
The only Tory MP who today, both inside and outside Parliament, spoke with any shred of integrity and understanding was Sir Bob Neill.
I would almost add Mrs May to that list of one.
Thank goodness she's not PM anymore.
As you know, I am not a Conservative, but I would happily agree to another 25 years of a Mrs May Government over another 25 days of the Dangerous Brothers (Johnson and Cummings).
That kind of says it all doesn't it?
What it says is despite not approving of Mrs May, she is preferable to Johnson. I am scared stiff as to what Johnson is doing to my country.
Whereas I'm delighted. Considering we have opposing POVs on politics that's quite reasonable.
Boris is shaping up to be the best PM since Thatcher.
Philip - I know you are enjoying this but don't push it too far!
Well if you could cut your articles in half to make basically the same points it would help matters too
When you are editor then you can give me instructions. OGH publishes them because he likes them.
Perhaps you could offer us a header so that we can see the quality of your writing and thought.
I give plenty of my writing on here already, a header would not really add much if you want to do one that is up to you but you made the first insult so don't be surprised if it was returned
You insulted me some time ago and refused to retract despite me asking you to do so. You did it again at the time of the VE celebrations this year. I have simply bided my time for the right opportunity.
I don’t consider your opinion on my headers an insult.
Comments below the line are not remotely comparable to constructing and writing an argument capable of being read by someone with an attention span longer than a gnat.
No doubt an article from you on opinion polls would be of interest to some.
I have never personally insulted you to my knowledge at all, you may disagree with what I have posted but that is not the same thing or my opinion of your views on an issue but that is not the same thing either.
I have too much to do in terms of work and being branch party chairman and in my personal life to research and write lots of article headers here, if you wish to do so fine but posts is all I will do
You have. But since I have now responded to my satisfaction, I consider the matter over.
Fair enough re headers. Not everyone has the time or inclination. One small piece of advice: it is very easy to criticise but much harder to do, something you might bear in mind in future.
"You may abuse a tragedy, though you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables." Samuel Johnson
To publish anything is to invite criticism, surely? That is rather the point. And most of your headers seem to be about how irredeemably awful something or other is, so I would have thought a sauce for the goose argument applied.
Oh I don’t mind criticism in the slightest. Here I write to provoke and stimulate debate.
If Starmer drops all of the culture war woke stuff I think I'd be comfortable voting for him. As it stands I don't think I could vote for a party or leader that will allow biological men into women only spaces.
I'm not sure how the British govern their toilets, is the PM in charge of them directly? If so it feels like the kind of decision that could be decentralized
It's part of the gender recognition act, Labour are in favour of self identification which would allow biological males into women's spaces without a recognised gender recognition certificate or operation. It's woke bullshit.
But which bathroom should Buck Angel use ?
Presumably they think Janet Mock should be using the Mens' loo? Perhaps she has a She-Wee ™....
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.
That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
Absolutely contract and civil law we are renowned for. That's not this.
The EU promised to negotiate in good faith and treat us as a sovereign country. They're not. Screw them time to sort out our own future.
I've not seen any examples of the EU not negotiating in good faith, please point them out.
The EU not recognising UK Sovereignty over State Aid or Fishing in the way it does for other countries like Norway or Canada.
I note that any time this comes up nobody attempts to defend this as good faith instead it's simply "the EU is bigger so can do what it likes".
Well if the EU isn't going to negotiate in good faith we can do what we like too.
That definitely doesn't count. The EU are negotiating, I think they're negotiating badly, but ultimately that's their prerogative. It's not bad faith, if it was the government would have taken it to arbitration as a breech of the treaty. They haven't so it isn't.
They're negotiating in bad faith and there isn't time to arbitrate this the transition deal expires 31/12.
If they're not going to negotiate in good faith we need to put in place alternative solutions. This is a good start.
And if they're breaching the treaty and if we are then we can all arbitrate all of it next year. In the mean time solutions are needed before then.
In your opinion the EU aren't negotiating in good faith, can you point to where this is the government's opinion. I don't think you can because they aren't. The EU are negotiating in good faith, it's fair but tough. It will push us both towards no deal but that is a consequence of both sets of red lines.
I think you have a lack of understanding what bad faith negotiating is, bad faith would be saying that the only way we get a trade deal is to give Scotland a referendum because it voted to remain or something along those lines. They are currently offering a high cost option for a trade deal, not an impossible cost trade deal. We think the cost is too high and probably won't sign it.
It's irrelevant anyway. The provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement was specifically designed for the event that the two sides failed to agree a trade deal. It doesn't become null and void if this happens.
Comments
I don’t consider your opinion on my headers an insult.
Comments below the line are not remotely comparable to constructing and writing an argument capable of being read by someone with an attention span longer than a gnat.
No doubt an article from you on opinion polls would be of interest to some.
I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.
Now they're being run over by their own bus. Heart of stone etc...
The government has to shed either Tory remainer or core Brexiter support over the next few months depending on its Brexit policy, and then deal with the fallout of the end of the furlough scheme at the same time.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1302474938440445952?s=09
The "Bolivian Option" or indeed any diplomatic solution might well have found favour in Washington.
There's also the rumour as to whether Chile was prepared to go to war with Argentina at the same time as to further weaken Buenos Aires and the junta.
So tough - you’re now getting from me what you richly deserve for those earlier insults.
That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
The goal was to save the NHS from being swamped, flatten the sombrero of the peak and stretch things out.
Now hospitals are empty.
But the goal now seems to be zero covid at all costs.
I have too much to do in terms of work and being branch party chairman and in my personal life to research and write lots of article headers here, if you wish to do so fine but posts is all I will do
The French cheerfully disregard the rules they've signed up to whenever they want. Do you honestly think that if the French were in our position they wouldn't do the exact same thing?
As HYUFD point out, he has provided us with more than sufficient evidence.
Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
The only thing Trump should be talking about is the economy. Having him talk on anything else is a negative for him.
Why do they poll uncompetitive states?
Why do they tell us how much more the big number is from the small number?
Why do the frequently have laughably tiny sample sizes?
So many mysteries.
CONSTITUTION 138 (+17)
DEMOCRATIC 358,623 (+21,261)
GREEN 284 (+21)
LIBERTARIAN 1,902 (+227)
REPUBLICAN 112,233 (+8,613)
UNAFFILIATED 215,800 (+15,441)
Grand Total 688,980 (+45,580)
The EU promised to negotiate in good faith and treat us as a sovereign country. They're not. Screw them time to sort out our own future.
Fair enough re headers. Not everyone has the time or inclination. One small piece of advice: it is very easy to criticise but much harder to do, something you might bear in mind in future.
https://twitter.com/s13GES/status/1303427111810719745
I would have thought babyfather wouldn't be up to the usual at present.
On the other hand, it is well recognised that a man who married his mistress creates a job vacancy.
I note that any time this comes up nobody attempts to defend this as good faith instead it's simply "the EU is bigger so can do what it likes".
Well if the EU isn't going to negotiate in good faith we can do what we like too.
"Carrie doesn't live here anymore".
But then of course as usual you presumably have no problem with that, being a supporter of Scottish Independence. The fact that the current UK govt would is a matter of supreme indifference to you. They're basically your useful idiots.
Edit: Apols to @Foxy, I see he beat me to it.
And proved they don't give a fuck what the public think
If they're not going to negotiate in good faith we need to put in place alternative solutions. This is a good start.
And if they're breaching the treaty and if we are then we can all arbitrate all of it next year. In the mean time solutions are needed before then.
*full citizenship was restored a year after the war for Falkland Islanders.
To publish anything is to invite criticism, surely? That is rather the point. And most of your headers seem to be about how irredeemably awful something or other is, so I would have thought a sauce for the goose argument applied.
I want him gone.
KBO.
Thank you for asking.
I think you have a lack of understanding what bad faith negotiating is, bad faith would be saying that the only way we get a trade deal is to give Scotland a referendum because it voted to remain or something along those lines. They are currently offering a high cost option for a trade deal, not an impossible cost trade deal. We think the cost is too high and probably won't sign it.
They have seen it as an opportunity to stir up their hard Brexit supporters and "threaten" the EU, and it has backfired horribly. And they now can't backtrack.
But I'm confident Starmer will steer Labour away from the "woke bullshit" that you see as a key determinant of your vote, so you can be comfortable voting Labour.
No indoors or outdoors, so i guess that means restarting of attending sports and arts in person is now off again.
On my own blog I write very differently.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1303437997195571202