The PCP, however, deserves excoriating for backing the likes of Boris Johnson, a man unfit to be in Cabinet and a proven incompetent, to succeed May.
Not sure about that. We needed someone with electoral appeal to resolve the logjam and defeat Corbyn, whose election would have done many times more damage than even the worst no-deal scenario.
You really certain about that last clause?
Well, he’s right. Corbyn had absolutely every single one of Johnson’s faults - cronyism, pseudo-principles, arrogance, a sense of his own brilliance, an inability to deal with criticism or talk to those he disagrees with - and is a great deal stupider.
On the other hand, he doesn't demonstrate the sociopathy to other people at an emotional level that Johnson sometimes demonstrates.
Even if that were relevant - which it isn’t, given Churchill and Lloyd George both had the same fault - I’m not sure I agree. He treated his wives just as badly as Johnson did - arguably, worse, because Johnson never made his family bankrupt and homeless AFAIK.
I can't agree with that. Johnson has demonstrated sociopathy from his teenage years, after the trauma of absent parenting and a peripatetic childhood, through the whole of the rest of his life.
Undoubtedly. But so has Corbyn, albeit for rather different reasons.
Again, we'll have to agree to differ. I don't think Corbyn has demonstrated that to anything like the same extent.
Well, we can agree to differ, although it won’t alter the facts.
However, I would be willing to agree that Corbyn is better at fooling people into thinking differently and therefore has not *demonstrated* it to the same extent. He was never brutally exposed in the way Johnson has been, partly because he was never remotely as important or famous and partly because by all accounts he can actually make the effort to be charming in person in a way Johnson can’t. But at bottom they are pretty similar characters.
And while I consider Johnson to be, to put it mildly, no intellectual, Corbyn really does not have it upstairs.
they manged to lose what should have been an easy win.
OK, what should they have done that they didn't do to convince the Little Englanders that staying in was better than BoZo's sunlit uplands?
To start with could have tried making positive arguments for what was good with the EU. Given some sunlit European uplands.
Simply saying life will be shit under Brexit doesn't work for those of us who aren't afraid of Brexit.
But the Tories - who took charge of the Remain campaign - are good only at negative campaigning.
Firstly it is a pathetic excuse to say the Tories took charge of the Remain campaign. Why did others allow that? Why did others not form a different campaign? Boris, Gove etc took charge of the Vote Leave campaign did Farage let them stop him from campaigning or did he fight his own campaign?
Secondly what is all the talk about sunlit uplands if not Tories making a positive case of how the future could be?
The reason that Labour did not participate actively in the Remain campaign was that it was led by Corbyn, whose politics never changed from the hard left euroscepticism of the early eighties.
The PCP, however, deserves excoriating for backing the likes of Boris Johnson, a man unfit to be in Cabinet and a proven incompetent, to succeed May.
Not sure about that. We needed someone with electoral appeal to resolve the logjam and defeat Corbyn, whose election would have done many times more damage than even the worst no-deal scenario.
You really certain about that last clause?
Well, he’s right. Corbyn had absolutely every single one of Johnson’s faults - cronyism, pseudo-principles, arrogance, a sense of his own brilliance, an inability to deal with criticism or talk to those he disagrees with - and is a great deal stupider.
On the other hand, he doesn't demonstrate the sociopathy to other people at an emotional level that Johnson sometimes demonstrates.
I don't think that's right, either. Bozo is very good at the 'first five minutes' interactions with random members of the public; I have been by his side and watched him doing it. But I don't see much evidence from his career or life story that he is very good at relating emotionally to other people. I suggest that much of his character is an act behind which he hides himself from others. Hence his lack of real political friends.
Edit/ actually perhaps I replied too quickly. Did you mean sociopathy? If so, maybe you have a point.
Someone had to think up that statement. Someone else had to type it up. Someone then posted it. Various people will likely have reviewed it before that happened. And they still all decided 'that's perfect, send it out'.
They aren't going through the motions of defiance out of fear of Trump. They really believe what they are saying and doing.
Where are the moderate voters in the US, and how do they keep backing parties where the mainstream are now so extreme?
Without giving it a huge amount of thought or analysis here's my starter for 10:
1. Democratic accountability. Our politicians have used the EU to do things they couldn't sell at home. 2. Control of our own laws. Having laws imposed on this country by QMV is unacceptable. 3. Laws and policies that are applicable to our situation here in the UK. 4. For example we can spend our money on agricultural/conservation policies relevant to what we do here, not what is needed around the Med. 5. Control of migration. Although there were economic benefits to cheap labour being imported and under cutting wages and Trade Unions there was a heavy price to pay in social costs and cohesion. 6. Control of our own resources, eg fish. 7. The ability to make long term state led investments in the industries of the future (subject to any LPF agreement) if we think that desirable. 8. Control of our money, as a net contributor to the EU we were not able to determine where our taxpayers contributions went. 9. The lack of a platform for the likes of Farage. Seriously, the European Parliament is a joke of an institution and our contribution has been one of the less funny parts. 10. The requirement for our political class to focus on the day job, not spending/wasting their time at Council of Ministers meetings.
You might argue that there is some duplication and overlap here. I wouldn't disagree. Boris's "control of our laws, control of our borders and control of our money" sums it up better in many respects.
The PCP, however, deserves excoriating for backing the likes of Boris Johnson, a man unfit to be in Cabinet and a proven incompetent, to succeed May.
Not sure about that. We needed someone with electoral appeal to resolve the logjam and defeat Corbyn, whose election would have done many times more damage than even the worst no-deal scenario.
You really certain about that last clause?
Well, he’s right. Corbyn had absolutely every single one of Johnson’s faults - cronyism, pseudo-principles, arrogance, a sense of his own brilliance, an inability to deal with criticism or talk to those he disagrees with - and is a great deal stupider.
Edit - and his shadow cabinet were no better. The only ones in it with decent brains were Macdonnell, who is an even bigger knob than Corbyn, Starmer and Rayner.
I am with you all the way until your final assertion in paragraph one. Either I am underestimating Corbyn, or you are over estimating Johnson.
It is also debatable that McDonnell is a bigger knob than Corbyn, Starmer and Rayner. They are all unwaveringly stupid human beings, who have inadvertently furnished us with both a Johnson landslide, and hence his ability to impose upon us the daftest of Brexit outcomes.
Tomorrow will be a year and a day since Boris won his election.
One year ago today the Tories won their biggest majority since Thatcher's 1987 win under Boris and their biggest voteshare since 1979, let us not forget what a great and historic election result Boris won last year, it was a triumph only Thatcher and Macmillan in 1959 have exceeded amongst postwar Tory leaders
1. The EU has been an institution central to peace on the continent of Europe. In this respect it has achieved its principal purpose. 2. In the modern world only by standing together and having common standards can we hope for those standards to become world standards. 3. The greatest success of the EU has been the establishment of democracies in former Soviet Europe. The UK should play a part in protecting that legacy. 4. The creation of a Single Market, a British led idea, gives businesses the best chance of achieving growth to the point that they can compete on the world stage. 5. Freedom of movement, although a pain for the UK, has had a massive impact on the quality of many, many lives and has boosted UK growth. 6. It is in our interests to contribute to the catch up of eastern Europe and to create more consumers for tomorrow. 7. The US is a less reliable friend than we like to think. 8. The EU social policies have helped us improve many standards in this country, especially in relation to work and maternity. 9. Pollution is not a one country problem and does not recognise boundaries. 10. The UK contribution, respecting the rule of law and demanding a lack of corruption has generally been good for the EU.
The same criticism applies. Better together might sum it up best.
1) Blue passports (though personally I like the burgundy ones); 2) Have to admit I’m struggling now. 3) Err. I give up.
Why is it seen by some as a badge of honour to have such a total lack of intellectual flexibility and political empathy not to see the pros and cons of both sides of an argument?
OK. Let’s have your list of 10. Go on ...
I am not here to do your thinking for you after five years of increasingly tedious debate on this. Try and engage your brain, put yourself in the shoes of people who have very different lives (without judgement) and see what you come up with. Perhaps you could start with the impact of free movement from lower income countries on non-skilled wages.
OK. I’ll be generous and view your last sentence as reason 1). Against it, I would argue that ending FOM will make it more difficult for a lot of businesses that employ British people as well to continue functioning, but I can see that there is at least an argument to be had. Could we now have reasons 2-10 please.
I think you’ve proven pretty conclusively that indeed you lack the qualities I mentioned. Did you never write an essay or take a side in a debate that was contrary to your own held belief? It’s a useful exercise. You should try it without prejudice. On an issue such as this it may even make you a more pleasant person to the half of people who disagree with you.
This is just irrelevant guff. The point is that we remainers can see the cons clearly enough. It’s the pros we’re having difficulty with. Credit to DavidL, he’s had a go. All I’m asking for is your list of 10.
Lol. You just continue to make my point for me. You should be asking me for my list of 10 reasons why it was a good idea to stay in the EU.
Don't forget folks. As we slide towards no deal. The no deal that the PM assured us absolutely wouldn't happen. His ministers and assorted parrots will start skwarking about the brilliant Australia style deal we would now enjoy.
The government hired a trade adviser. The former Prime Minister of Australia. Who says the Australia EU deal is shit.
So we get to enjoy government ministers. Robert Jenrick. Nadine Dorries. That level of intellect. Telling us why the former Prime Minister of Australia, hired by them for his expert opinions - is wrong about the Australia deal.
If you are a minister and your salary and political career mandates you saying such things I can almost - *almost* - understand it. What motivation though for the parrots. Who aren't taking the shilling. Repeating that the Australia style deal branded shit by the former Australian PM and now British trade expert is fantastic.
The PCP, however, deserves excoriating for backing the likes of Boris Johnson, a man unfit to be in Cabinet and a proven incompetent, to succeed May.
Not sure about that. We needed someone with electoral appeal to resolve the logjam and defeat Corbyn, whose election would have done many times more damage than even the worst no-deal scenario.
You really certain about that last clause?
Well, he’s right. Corbyn had absolutely every single one of Johnson’s faults - cronyism, pseudo-principles, arrogance, a sense of his own brilliance, an inability to deal with criticism or talk to those he disagrees with - and is a great deal stupider.
Edit - and his shadow cabinet were no better. The only ones in it with decent brains were Macdonnell, who is an even bigger knob than Corbyn, Starmer and Rayner.
True, though my experience has always been that clever nasty people do more damage than stupid nasty people.
The PCP, however, deserves excoriating for backing the likes of Boris Johnson, a man unfit to be in Cabinet and a proven incompetent, to succeed May.
Not sure about that. We needed someone with electoral appeal to resolve the logjam and defeat Corbyn, whose election would have done many times more damage than even the worst no-deal scenario.
You really certain about that last clause?
Well, he’s right. Corbyn had absolutely every single one of Johnson’s faults - cronyism, pseudo-principles, arrogance, a sense of his own brilliance, an inability to deal with criticism or talk to those he disagrees with - and is a great deal stupider.
On the other hand, he doesn't demonstrate the sociopathy to other people at an emotional level that Johnson sometimes demonstrates.
I don't think that's right, either. Bozo is very good at the 'first five minutes' interactions with random members of the public; I have been by his side and watched him doing it. But I don't see much evidence from his career or life story that he is very good at relating emotionally to other people. I suggest that much of his character is an act behind which he hides himself from others. Hence his lack of real political friends.
Edit/ actually perhaps I replied too quickly. Did you mean sociopathy? If so, maybe you have a point.
Yup, this is partly what I was saying. I would actually go further than that and say he seems to have some very fundamental emotional and relational issues.
they manged to lose what should have been an easy win.
OK, what should they have done that they didn't do to convince the Little Englanders that staying in was better than BoZo's sunlit uplands?
To start with could have tried making positive arguments for what was good with the EU. Given some sunlit European uplands.
Simply saying life will be shit under Brexit doesn't work for those of us who aren't afraid of Brexit.
You're right. The list of culprits is long and it certainly includes remainers, like me, who failed to make the case for remaining adequately.
True, though it's hard to win a campaign against "we can have our cake and eat it".
Shouldn't have been. Remain made the mistake of thinking that just because something was effing stupid people wouldn't vote for it, and it was therefore not necessary to point out what was stupid about it.
No, and I was very critical of the Remain campaign at the time, we spent a lot of time pointing out the stupidity of Brexit. What we did not do was point out the wisdom and good sense of remaining at the heart of Europe. The campaign was far too negative.
The year after the Syrian migration crisis was what swung it, with a lot of people expecting a further mass refugee crisis that Spring and Summer*. I think Remain would have won if the referendum was held in 2017.
*indeed that was why Cameron's renegotiation was so perfunctory. The rest of the EU were trying to ensure no repeat, and a common policy, not deal with our Faragists.
Remain assumed every Brexiter was a Little Englander, a racist and a xenophobe. Most of us are far from that, indeed I normally travel in several EU countries a year, enjoying the local culture etc rather than sitting on the beach, demanding fish and chips and getting pissed*. Had the Remain campaign made an effort to tell me how many free trade deals the EU was likely to conclude in the next couple of years it might have swayed my vote.
The PCP, however, deserves excoriating for backing the likes of Boris Johnson, a man unfit to be in Cabinet and a proven incompetent, to succeed May.
Not sure about that. We needed someone with electoral appeal to resolve the logjam and defeat Corbyn, whose election would have done many times more damage than even the worst no-deal scenario.
You really certain about that last clause?
Well, he’s right. Corbyn had absolutely every single one of Johnson’s faults - cronyism, pseudo-principles, arrogance, a sense of his own brilliance, an inability to deal with criticism or talk to those he disagrees with - and is a great deal stupider.
Edit - and his shadow cabinet were no better. The only ones in it with decent brains were Macdonnell, who is an even bigger knob than Corbyn, Starmer and Rayner.
I am with you all the way until your final assertion in paragraph one. Either I am underestimating Corbyn, or you are over estimating Johnson.
It is also debatable that McDonnell is a bigger knob than Corbyn, Starmer and Rayner. They are all unwaveringly stupid human beings, who have inadvertently furnished us with both a Johnson landslide, and hence his ability to impose upon us the daftest of Brexit outcomes.
Now there I must disagree. Knowing what I know about Macdonnell, and which I will not repeat here out of respect for OGH, I’ve no hesitation in saying he’s the vilest human being in Parliament.
But there’s no doubt he’s very bright.
Equally, John Redwood, which is loathsome in different ways, probably has the highest actual IQ in Parliament. Ability is no guarantee of sense.
Even if we are fuelling up 4 boats to patrol our fishing grounds, to publicly announce it does seem to be unproductively antagonistic. Or is that the plan.
This thread so far poses more questions than it answers.
Does Boris really believe in Brexit?
The rest of the Parris article provides the answer.
BoZo tapped into English exceptionalism to win. The Little Englanders voted for him, and he is intent on keeping them onside. Pike's comments about the vaccine illustrate this sentiment is alive and well among the Brexiteers in cabinet.
It was English exceptionalism that made Johnson’s career as a Brussels-bashing newspaper columnist. He saw early what so many on my side of the argument have been slow to understand. Tens of millions of people in Britain really believe that we British are much, much better than the rest and that, since the Second World War, history has been selling us short. They have persuaded themselves that it is the European Union that has shackled us and that, unbound, we shall leap.
Quel surprise - Matthew Parris continues to peddle the same arguments which lost the referendum 4 years ago - based on blaming the voters for not despising their own country like all right thinking middle class chatterers.
Does it really have to be pointed out that saying that the UK, like France and Germany, is as an economically-developed democracy, and hence a desirable place to live, is not despising one’s own country?
Not at all but he doesn't say that - nor did the remain campaign. He denigrates the fact that millions of voters have pride in their country and prefer to govern themselves than be governed afar from Europe. I was happy to vote remain but like many am less than fond of the way the EU operates. I have lived in Spain for many years and the attitudes of many Spanish to central government in both Spain and the EU are very similar. It is the way lots of people think. For a multitude of reasons - not least an inept and patronising campaign - the vote in 2016 was lost. We need to move one from blaming 'gullible' voters and dealing with the consequences. The plain fact is that many on the liberal, left centre are to put it mildly unconvincing when selling their version of what the UK should be - the last one to do so effectively was T. Blair and it didn't end well.
Tony Blair might have been an exceptionalist: This country is a blessed nation. The British are special. The world knows it; in our innermost thoughts, we know it. This is the greatest nation on Earth.
Theres nothing particularly exceptional about exceptionalism. It's become a buzzword that gets trotted out to dismiss a side as egregiously bad for what is very common cliche and sentiment. Its crap, in other words.
Without giving it a huge amount of thought or analysis here's my starter for 10:
1. Democratic accountability. Our politicians have used the EU to do things they couldn't sell at home. 2. Control of our own laws. Having laws imposed on this country by QMV is unacceptable. 3. Laws and policies that are applicable to our situation here in the UK. 4. For example we can spend our money on agricultural/conservation policies relevant to what we do here, not what is needed around the Med. 5. Control of migration. Although there were economic benefits to cheap labour being imported and under cutting wages and Trade Unions there was a heavy price to pay in social costs and cohesion. 6. Control of our own resources, eg fish. 7. The ability to make long term state led investments in the industries of the future (subject to any LPF agreement) if we think that desirable. 8. Control of our money, as a net contributor to the EU we were not able to determine where our taxpayers contributions went. 9. The lack of a platform for the likes of Farage. Seriously, the European Parliament is a joke of an institution and our contribution has been one of the less funny parts. 10. The requirement for our political class to focus on the day job, not spending/wasting their time at Council of Ministers meetings.
You might argue that there is some duplication and overlap here. I wouldn't disagree. Boris's "control of our laws, control of our borders and control of our money" sums it up better in many respects.
We`ve been beavering away similarly.
I had to dig deep but here goes;
1. Control of our borders means we have more control on our population size 2. Saving to the Exchequer 3. Ability to diverge from EU regulations in various areas 4. Jumping off a project which is heading in the direction of a homogeneous super-state 5. Easier to retain national identity 6. Retaining our own currency is assured 7. Removing corporate ability to fill new jobs from EU workers 8. Better chance of decent wages for lower paid British workers in industries which were vulnerable to the above 9. Ability to enter into trade deals with other countries without there needed into be a EU-wide deal 10. Removing the ability for laws to be made outside of our elected parliament
(And I didn`t need to mention fish, so I win.)
On the basis of what Brexit has already cost the Exchequer, I think you need to scratch 2. and perhaps replace it with 'cheap and plentiful supplies of mackerel'.
If you are a minister and your salary and political career mandates you saying such things I can almost - *almost* - understand it. What motivation though for the parrots. Who aren't taking the shilling. Repeating that the Australia style deal branded shit by the former Australian PM and now British trade expert is fantastic.
English exceptionalism
The convicts couldn't make the deal work, but with BoZo at the helm exactly the same deal will be fantastic
Don't forget folks. As we slide towards no deal. The no deal that the PM assured us absolutely wouldn't happen. His ministers and assorted parrots will start skwarking about the brilliant Australia style deal we would now enjoy.
The government hired a trade adviser. The former Prime Minister of Australia. Who says the Australia EU deal is shit.
So we get to enjoy government ministers. Robert Jenrick. Nadine Dorries. That level of intellect. Telling us why the former Prime Minister of Australia, hired by them for his expert opinions - is wrong about the Australia deal.
If you are a minister and your salary and political career mandates you saying such things I can almost - *almost* - understand it. What motivation though for the parrots. Who aren't taking the shilling. Repeating that the Australia style deal branded shit by the former Australian PM and now British trade expert is fantastic.
Former Australian PM Abbott is the UK trade adviser not Turnbull, the former is pro Brexit not the latter
Without giving it a huge amount of thought or analysis here's my starter for 10:
1. Democratic accountability. Our politicians have used the EU to do things they couldn't sell at home. 2. Control of our own laws. Having laws imposed on this country by QMV is unacceptable. 3. Laws and policies that are applicable to our situation here in the UK. 4. For example we can spend our money on agricultural/conservation policies relevant to what we do here, not what is needed around the Med. 5. Control of migration. Although there were economic benefits to cheap labour being imported and under cutting wages and Trade Unions there was a heavy price to pay in social costs and cohesion. 6. Control of our own resources, eg fish. 7. The ability to make long term state led investments in the industries of the future (subject to any LPF agreement) if we think that desirable. 8. Control of our money, as a net contributor to the EU we were not able to determine where our taxpayers contributions went. 9. The lack of a platform for the likes of Farage. Seriously, the European Parliament is a joke of an institution and our contribution has been one of the less funny parts. 10. The requirement for our political class to focus on the day job, not spending/wasting their time at Council of Ministers meetings.
You might argue that there is some duplication and overlap here. I wouldn't disagree. Boris's "control of our laws, control of our borders and control of our money" sums it up better in many respects.
Brilliant response to a stupid challenge.
Brilliant, in the sense that it takes one or two ideas and spreads them out to make the ten items, even using an example of the third point to count as the fourth.
Not so brilliant, in reality. 1. is hampered by our so-called democracy being flawed, with no real accountability and many of our politicians sitting with jobs for life in safe seats. 2. and 3. will be hampered by the practical reality of being Mexico or Canada to the US and having to follow many of the rules and standards of the massive trading block next door, 5. is hampered by our continuing need for people to do low paid jobs that Brits dislike, and to keep the NHS and care sectors going, 6. will be of little use if we won't eat them and can't sell them, 7. wasn't a practical obstacle as a member, 8 will be negated by the economic consequences actually reducing the amount of money to spend, 9 might actually be a fair point, and in practice 10 wasn't really a real 'thing'; we'll be distracted by politicians and officials having to reinvent countless wheels that the EU has already.
Though at that time we had the Royal Navy supporting illegal fishing by British trawlers.
At that time we supported freedom of the seas, and the right for British trawlers to fish where they had been doing so for centuries.
Fishermen have been quite adventurous over the centuries, with Europeans fishing Newfoundland significantly from the early 16th Century.
I think the fever dreams of Brexitmania see the UK as Iceland. Expect an increase in smoked fish, mutton and seabirds in the British diet as we have to make the most of what’s available. Still, perhaps there’ll be a flowering of Yookaynoir.
Benefits of Brexit: 1) No more blaming Brussels (this may continue for some time but surely will eventually end) 2) Opportunity for more policy innovation (two edged sword of course but no doubt EU policy is stuck/glacial in some areas) 3) Hopefully will expose some of the dafter elements of the Tory party as clueless - arguably already has. 4) Get people to pay more attention to politics - i'd argue this has happened. 5) Could strengthen EU/help them get on with their priorities...
Can't get to 10 but arguably 2) could apply to lots of areas like farming, immigration, industrial policy, environment...
Though at that time we had the Royal Navy supporting illegal fishing by British trawlers.
At that time we supported freedom of the seas, and the right for British trawlers to fish where they had been doing so for centuries.
Fishermen have been quite adventurous over the centuries, with Europeans fishing Newfoundland significantly from the early 16th Century.
The Cod Wars were British fishermen trying to invade Icelandic waters, not defend their fishing rights in British waters
Not quite, I'm afraid. British fisherman had been fishing up to about 4 miles of the Icelandic coast for a couple of hundred years. Coastal limits were then extended, first to 12 miles, then to 200. It was the extension to 12 which caused the row, and the main loss of fishing jobs. We, the British, opposed both the 12 mile and the 200 mile extensions for some time, then agreed to it.
1. The EU has been an institution central to peace on the continent of Europe. In this respect it has achieved its principal purpose. 2. In the modern world only by standing together and having common standards can we hope for those standards to become world standards. 3. The greatest success of the EU has been the establishment of democracies in former Soviet Europe. The UK should play a part in protecting that legacy. 4. The creation of a Single Market, a British led idea, gives businesses the best chance of achieving growth to the point that they can compete on the world stage. 5. Freedom of movement, although a pain for the UK, has had a massive impact on the quality of many, many lives and has boosted UK growth. 6. It is in our interests to contribute to the catch up of eastern Europe and to create more consumers for tomorrow. 7. The US is a less reliable friend than we like to think. 8. The EU social policies have helped us improve many standards in this country, especially in relation to work and maternity. 9. Pollution is not a one country problem and does not recognise boundaries. 10. The UK contribution, respecting the rule of law and demanding a lack of corruption has generally been good for the EU.
The same criticism applies. Better together might sum it up best.
It is mildly disconcerting to someone who voted Remain to admit that the list of reasons to Leave has strength compared to reason to stay, at least by number.
However, your reasons to remain numbers 1, 4 and 9 are, for me, so massive that that these dwarf reasons to leave though the latter benefits may be more numerous.
Someone had to think up that statement. Someone else had to type it up. Someone then posted it. Various people will likely have reviewed it before that happened. And they still all decided 'that's perfect, send it out'.
They aren't going through the motions of defiance out of fear of Trump. They really believe what they are saying and doing.
Where are the moderate voters in the US, and how do they keep backing parties where the mainstream are now so extreme?
Moderate voters voted 64% for Biden, he would not have won without them but Conservatives make up 38% of the US electorate and they voted 85% for Trump
they manged to lose what should have been an easy win.
OK, what should they have done that they didn't do to convince the Little Englanders that staying in was better than BoZo's sunlit uplands?
To start with could have tried making positive arguments for what was good with the EU. Given some sunlit European uplands.
Simply saying life will be shit under Brexit doesn't work for those of us who aren't afraid of Brexit.
But the Tories - who took charge of the Remain campaign - are good only at negative campaigning.
Firstly it is a pathetic excuse to say the Tories took charge of the Remain campaign. Why did others allow that? Why did others not form a different campaign? Boris, Gove etc took charge of the Vote Leave campaign did Farage let them stop him from campaigning or did he fight his own campaign?
Secondly what is all the talk about sunlit uplands if not Tories making a positive case of how the future could be?
The reason that Labour did not participate actively in the Remain campaign was that it was led by Corbyn, whose politics never changed from the hard left euroscepticism of the early eighties.
Though at that time we had the Royal Navy supporting illegal fishing by British trawlers.
At that time we supported freedom of the seas, and the right for British trawlers to fish where they had been doing so for centuries.
Fishermen have been quite adventurous over the centuries, with Europeans fishing Newfoundland significantly from the early 16th Century.
The Cod Wars were British fishermen trying to invade Icelandic waters, not defend their fishing rights in British waters
Not quite, I'm afraid. British fisherman had been fishing up to about 4 miles of the Icelandic coast for a couple of hundred years. Coastal limits were then extended, first to 12 miles, then to 200. It was the extension to 12 which caused the row, and the main loss of fishing jobs. We, the British, opposed both the 12 mile and the 200 mile extensions for some time, then agreed to it.
So it was a dispute over the extent of Icelandic fishing waters, still not defending British fishing waters
they manged to lose what should have been an easy win.
OK, what should they have done that they didn't do to convince the Little Englanders that staying in was better than BoZo's sunlit uplands?
To start with could have tried making positive arguments for what was good with the EU. Given some sunlit European uplands.
Simply saying life will be shit under Brexit doesn't work for those of us who aren't afraid of Brexit.
It's easy to win a referendum by blaming people's problems on the EU, promising sunlit uplands if we left and dismissing any downside as "Project Fear".
It's a bit of a stretch to go from the reality, which is a couple of offshore patrol vessels being used to patrol offshore - as has happened for centuries - to this and the stuff quoted today. Just normal stuff.
The Irish Govt sorted themselves out fairly quickly.
Quite interesting that the Irish Fishermen say their real fear is the fishing grounds being looted by Eu fleets when they are the only coastal state left.
"“If we continue the path we’re heading, we’re going to be slaughtered,” Kelly says.
Don't forget folks. As we slide towards no deal. The no deal that the PM assured us absolutely wouldn't happen. His ministers and assorted parrots will start skwarking about the brilliant Australia style deal we would now enjoy.
The government hired a trade adviser. The former Prime Minister of Australia. Who says the Australia EU deal is shit.
So we get to enjoy government ministers. Robert Jenrick. Nadine Dorries. That level of intellect. Telling us why the former Prime Minister of Australia, hired by them for his expert opinions - is wrong about the Australia deal.
If you are a minister and your salary and political career mandates you saying such things I can almost - *almost* - understand it. What motivation though for the parrots. Who aren't taking the shilling. Repeating that the Australia style deal branded shit by the former Australian PM and now British trade expert is fantastic.
You might want to get your facts checked.
Tony Abbott, the former Prime Minister who has been hired as a trade advisor, is not the former PM who stood against him that says the deal was shit.
Mixing them up together is like suggesting that Blair and Corbyn are the same person. So none of what you said is accurate. 🤦🏻♂️
they manged to lose what should have been an easy win.
OK, what should they have done that they didn't do to convince the Little Englanders that staying in was better than BoZo's sunlit uplands?
To start with could have tried making positive arguments for what was good with the EU. Given some sunlit European uplands.
Simply saying life will be shit under Brexit doesn't work for those of us who aren't afraid of Brexit.
But the Tories - who took charge of the Remain campaign - are good only at negative campaigning.
Boris isn't. You may think he's talking crap some/most of the time but he is a very positive campaigner. Its partly why he won London, the referendum, the leadership, the election...
How’s the campaign for getting a great deal from the EU going?
British exceptionalism is the best exceptionalism in the world.
You jest, but the genuine argument against it appears to be that the British are exceptionally exceptional, in a bad way, as opposed to exceptionalism being very common.
1. The EU has been an institution central to peace on the continent of Europe. In this respect it has achieved its principal purpose. 2. In the modern world only by standing together and having common standards can we hope for those standards to become world standards. 3. The greatest success of the EU has been the establishment of democracies in former Soviet Europe. The UK should play a part in protecting that legacy. 4. The creation of a Single Market, a British led idea, gives businesses the best chance of achieving growth to the point that they can compete on the world stage. 5. Freedom of movement, although a pain for the UK, has had a massive impact on the quality of many, many lives and has boosted UK growth. 6. It is in our interests to contribute to the catch up of eastern Europe and to create more consumers for tomorrow. 7. The US is a less reliable friend than we like to think. 8. The EU social policies have helped us improve many standards in this country, especially in relation to work and maternity. 9. Pollution is not a one country problem and does not recognise boundaries. 10. The UK contribution, respecting the rule of law and demanding a lack of corruption has generally been good for the EU.
The same criticism applies. Better together might sum it up best.
It`s deeply depressing that DavidL`s 10 Reasons to Remain v 10 Reasons to Leave on their own encapsulate a far better debate than we had in 2016.
1. The EU has been an institution central to peace on the continent of Europe. In this respect it has achieved its principal purpose. 2. In the modern world only by standing together and having common standards can we hope for those standards to become world standards. 3. The greatest success of the EU has been the establishment of democracies in former Soviet Europe. The UK should play a part in protecting that legacy. 4. The creation of a Single Market, a British led idea, gives businesses the best chance of achieving growth to the point that they can compete on the world stage. 5. Freedom of movement, although a pain for the UK, has had a massive impact on the quality of many, many lives and has boosted UK growth. 6. It is in our interests to contribute to the catch up of eastern Europe and to create more consumers for tomorrow. 7. The US is a less reliable friend than we like to think. 8. The EU social policies have helped us improve many standards in this country, especially in relation to work and maternity. 9. Pollution is not a one country problem and does not recognise boundaries. 10. The UK contribution, respecting the rule of law and demanding a lack of corruption has generally been good for the EU.
The same criticism applies. Better together might sum it up best.
It is mildly disconcerting to someone who voted Remain to admit that the list of reasons to Leave has strength compared to reason to stay, at least by number.
However, your reasons to remain numbers 1, 4 and 9 are, for me, so massive that that these dwarf reasons to leave though the latter benefits may be more numerous.
I genuinely found the balance difficult. I don't really understand how people on either side of the argument can be so dogmatic about it. If Cameron had got an emergency break on EU immigration I think that I would have voted the other way. I doubt I am alone in that but maybe I am since most people have more interesting things to think about!
The PCP, however, deserves excoriating for backing the likes of Boris Johnson, a man unfit to be in Cabinet and a proven incompetent, to succeed May.
Not sure about that. We needed someone with electoral appeal to resolve the logjam and defeat Corbyn, whose election would have done many times more damage than even the worst no-deal scenario.
You really certain about that last clause?
Well, he’s right. Corbyn had absolutely every single one of Johnson’s faults - cronyism, pseudo-principles, arrogance, a sense of his own brilliance, an inability to deal with criticism or talk to those he disagrees with - and is a great deal stupider.
Edit - and his shadow cabinet were no better. The only ones in it with decent brains were Macdonnell, who is an even bigger knob than Corbyn, Starmer and Rayner.
I am with you all the way until your final assertion in paragraph one. Either I am underestimating Corbyn, or you are over estimating Johnson.
It is also debatable that McDonnell is a bigger knob than Corbyn, Starmer and Rayner. They are all unwaveringly stupid human beings, who have inadvertently furnished us with both a Johnson landslide, and hence his ability to impose upon us the daftest of Brexit outcomes.
Now there I must disagree. Knowing what I know about Macdonnell, and which I will not repeat here out of respect for OGH, I’ve no hesitation in saying he’s the vilest human being in Parliament.
But there’s no doubt he’s very bright.
Equally, John Redwood, which is loathsome in different ways, probably has the highest actual IQ in Parliament. Ability is no guarantee of sense.
You are changing the rules. You said McDonnell was an "even bigger knob than Corbyn, Starmer and Rayner". I am contesting for the reasons outlined that they are equal "knobs". You did not imply that McDonnell is more morally repugnant than Corbyn, Starmer and Rayner, in that case I would have given you a 2 out of 3!
1. The EU has been an institution central to peace on the continent of Europe. In this respect it has achieved its principal purpose. 2. In the modern world only by standing together and having common standards can we hope for those standards to become world standards. 3. The greatest success of the EU has been the establishment of democracies in former Soviet Europe. The UK should play a part in protecting that legacy. 4. The creation of a Single Market, a British led idea, gives businesses the best chance of achieving growth to the point that they can compete on the world stage. 5. Freedom of movement, although a pain for the UK, has had a massive impact on the quality of many, many lives and has boosted UK growth. 6. It is in our interests to contribute to the catch up of eastern Europe and to create more consumers for tomorrow. 7. The US is a less reliable friend than we like to think. 8. The EU social policies have helped us improve many standards in this country, especially in relation to work and maternity. 9. Pollution is not a one country problem and does not recognise boundaries. 10. The UK contribution, respecting the rule of law and demanding a lack of corruption has generally been good for the EU.
The same criticism applies. Better together might sum it up best.
It is mildly disconcerting to someone who voted Remain to admit that the list of reasons to Leave has strength compared to reason to stay, at least by number.
However, your reasons to remain numbers 1, 4 and 9 are, for me, so massive that that these dwarf reasons to leave though the latter benefits may be more numerous.
I genuinely found the balance difficult. I don't really understand how people on either side of the argument can be so dogmatic about it. If Cameron had got an emergency break on EU immigration I think that I would have voted the other way. I doubt I am alone in that but maybe I am since most people have more interesting things to think about!
+1 Completely agree.
I found it difficult to decide, though in the end admitted to myself that voting Leave chiefly of the grounds of spite against Cameron for holding the bloody stupid referendum in the first place was not a good reason.
Without giving it a huge amount of thought or analysis here's my starter for 10:
1. Democratic accountability. Our politicians have used the EU to do things they couldn't sell at home. 2. Control of our own laws. Having laws imposed on this country by QMV is unacceptable. 3. Laws and policies that are applicable to our situation here in the UK. 4. For example we can spend our money on agricultural/conservation policies relevant to what we do here, not what is needed around the Med. 5. Control of migration. Although there were economic benefits to cheap labour being imported and under cutting wages and Trade Unions there was a heavy price to pay in social costs and cohesion. 6. Control of our own resources, eg fish. 7. The ability to make long term state led investments in the industries of the future (subject to any LPF agreement) if we think that desirable. 8. Control of our money, as a net contributor to the EU we were not able to determine where our taxpayers contributions went. 9. The lack of a platform for the likes of Farage. Seriously, the European Parliament is a joke of an institution and our contribution has been one of the less funny parts. 10. The requirement for our political class to focus on the day job, not spending/wasting their time at Council of Ministers meetings.
You might argue that there is some duplication and overlap here. I wouldn't disagree. Boris's "control of our laws, control of our borders and control of our money" sums it up better in many respects.
Tomorrow will be a year and a day since Boris won his election.
One year ago today the Tories won their biggest majority since Thatcher's 1987 win under Boris and their biggest voteshare since 1979, let us not forget what a great and historic election result Boris won last year, it was a triumph only Thatcher and Macmillan in 1959 have exceeded amongst postwar Tory leaders
What is there to celebrate the only gainer was Johnson and his mates who have made fortunes which even they did not expect, they now are waiting for their brexit payoffs.
1. The EU has been an institution central to peace on the continent of Europe. In this respect it has achieved its principal purpose. 2. In the modern world only by standing together and having common standards can we hope for those standards to become world standards. 3. The greatest success of the EU has been the establishment of democracies in former Soviet Europe. The UK should play a part in protecting that legacy. 4. The creation of a Single Market, a British led idea, gives businesses the best chance of achieving growth to the point that they can compete on the world stage. 5. Freedom of movement, although a pain for the UK, has had a massive impact on the quality of many, many lives and has boosted UK growth. 6. It is in our interests to contribute to the catch up of eastern Europe and to create more consumers for tomorrow. 7. The US is a less reliable friend than we like to think. 8. The EU social policies have helped us improve many standards in this country, especially in relation to work and maternity. 9. Pollution is not a one country problem and does not recognise boundaries. 10. The UK contribution, respecting the rule of law and demanding a lack of corruption has generally been good for the EU.
The same criticism applies. Better together might sum it up best.
It is mildly disconcerting to someone who voted Remain to admit that the list of reasons to Leave has strength compared to reason to stay, at least by number.
However, your reasons to remain numbers 1, 4 and 9 are, for me, so massive that that these dwarf reasons to leave though the latter benefits may be more numerous.
As a child of the cold War, it is no 6 that is my greatest regret in leaving. I recall being in Riga thinking how wonderful it was that 20 years ago Latvia was Soviet occupied territory and now it had joined the community of free nations and was even part of the EU
Without giving it a huge amount of thought or analysis here's my starter for 10:
1. Democratic accountability. Our politicians have used the EU to do things they couldn't sell at home. 2. Control of our own laws. Having laws imposed on this country by QMV is unacceptable. 3. Laws and policies that are applicable to our situation here in the UK. 4. For example we can spend our money on agricultural/conservation policies relevant to what we do here, not what is needed around the Med. 5. Control of migration. Although there were economic benefits to cheap labour being imported and under cutting wages and Trade Unions there was a heavy price to pay in social costs and cohesion. 6. Control of our own resources, eg fish. 7. The ability to make long term state led investments in the industries of the future (subject to any LPF agreement) if we think that desirable. 8. Control of our money, as a net contributor to the EU we were not able to determine where our taxpayers contributions went. 9. The lack of a platform for the likes of Farage. Seriously, the European Parliament is a joke of an institution and our contribution has been one of the less funny parts. 10. The requirement for our political class to focus on the day job, not spending/wasting their time at Council of Ministers meetings.
You might argue that there is some duplication and overlap here. I wouldn't disagree. Boris's "control of our laws, control of our borders and control of our money" sums it up better in many respects.
Brilliant response to a stupid challenge.
Brilliant, in the sense that it takes one or two ideas and spreads them out to make the ten items, even using an example of the third point to count as the fourth.
Not so brilliant, in reality. 1. is hampered by our so-called democracy being flawed, with no real accountability and many of our politicians sitting with jobs for life in safe seats. 2. and 3. will be hampered by the practical reality of being Mexico or Canada to the US and having to follow many of the rules and standards of the massive trading block next door, 5. is hampered by our continuing need for people to do low paid jobs that Brits dislike, and to keep the NHS and care sectors going, 6. will be of little use if we won't eat them and can't sell them, 7. wasn't a practical obstacle as a member, 8 will be negated by the economic consequences actually reducing the amount of money to spend, 9 might actually be a fair point, and in practice 10 wasn't really a real 'thing'; we'll be distracted by politicians and officials having to reinvent countless wheels that the EU has already.
Oi, its not often I get accused of being brilliant, especially before my second cup of coffee. Don't knock it.
Really? I didn't think your zeal for ideological purity was quite at Trotskyist levels.
To the extent that FPTP works, it is by having broad tent parties. Impose such strict ideological purity onto them and it becomes an absurdity.
The Trotskyists were the ones who were purged (including Bronstein himself). You mean Stalinist.
Presumably if theyd won the Trotsktists would have purged the Stalinists I suppose. Not that Trotsky was cuddly, but perhaps a mite less purging overall.
It's a bit of a stretch to go from the reality, which is a couple of offshore patrol vessels being used to patrol offshore - as has happened for centuries - to this and the stuff quoted today. Just normal stuff.
The Irish Govt sorted themselves out fairly quickly.
Quite interesting that the Irish Fishermen say their real fear is the fishing grounds being looted by Eu fleets when they are the only coastal state left.
"“If we continue the path we’re heading, we’re going to be slaughtered,” Kelly says.
Though at that time we had the Royal Navy supporting illegal fishing by British trawlers.
At that time we supported freedom of the seas, and the right for British trawlers to fish where they had been doing so for centuries.
Fishermen have been quite adventurous over the centuries, with Europeans fishing Newfoundland significantly from the early 16th Century.
The Cod Wars were British fishermen trying to invade Icelandic waters, not defend their fishing rights in British waters
Not quite, I'm afraid. British fisherman had been fishing up to about 4 miles of the Icelandic coast for a couple of hundred years. Coastal limits were then extended, first to 12 miles, then to 200. It was the extension to 12 which caused the row, and the main loss of fishing jobs. We, the British, opposed both the 12 mile and the 200 mile extensions for some time, then agreed to it.
So it was a dispute over the extent of Icelandic fishing waters, still not defending British fishing waters
It was defending traditional British fishing waters.
Without giving it a huge amount of thought or analysis here's my starter for 10:
1. Democratic accountability. Our politicians have used the EU to do things they couldn't sell at home. 2. Control of our own laws. Having laws imposed on this country by QMV is unacceptable. 3. Laws and policies that are applicable to our situation here in the UK. 4. For example we can spend our money on agricultural/conservation policies relevant to what we do here, not what is needed around the Med. 5. Control of migration. Although there were economic benefits to cheap labour being imported and under cutting wages and Trade Unions there was a heavy price to pay in social costs and cohesion. 6. Control of our own resources, eg fish. 7. The ability to make long term state led investments in the industries of the future (subject to any LPF agreement) if we think that desirable. 8. Control of our money, as a net contributor to the EU we were not able to determine where our taxpayers contributions went. 9. The lack of a platform for the likes of Farage. Seriously, the European Parliament is a joke of an institution and our contribution has been one of the less funny parts. 10. The requirement for our political class to focus on the day job, not spending/wasting their time at Council of Ministers meetings.
You might argue that there is some duplication and overlap here. I wouldn't disagree. Boris's "control of our laws, control of our borders and control of our money" sums it up better in many respects.
1. The EU has been an institution central to peace on the continent of Europe. In this respect it has achieved its principal purpose. 2. In the modern world only by standing together and having common standards can we hope for those standards to become world standards. 3. The greatest success of the EU has been the establishment of democracies in former Soviet Europe. The UK should play a part in protecting that legacy. 4. The creation of a Single Market, a British led idea, gives businesses the best chance of achieving growth to the point that they can compete on the world stage. 5. Freedom of movement, although a pain for the UK, has had a massive impact on the quality of many, many lives and has boosted UK growth. 6. It is in our interests to contribute to the catch up of eastern Europe and to create more consumers for tomorrow. 7. The US is a less reliable friend than we like to think. 8. The EU social policies have helped us improve many standards in this country, especially in relation to work and maternity. 9. Pollution is not a one country problem and does not recognise boundaries. 10. The UK contribution, respecting the rule of law and demanding a lack of corruption has generally been good for the EU.
The same criticism applies. Better together might sum it up best.
It is mildly disconcerting to someone who voted Remain to admit that the list of reasons to Leave has strength compared to reason to stay, at least by number.
However, your reasons to remain numbers 1, 4 and 9 are, for me, so massive that that these dwarf reasons to leave though the latter benefits may be more numerous.
I genuinely found the balance difficult. I don't really understand how people on either side of the argument can be so dogmatic about it. If Cameron had got an emergency break on EU immigration I think that I would have voted the other way. I doubt I am alone in that but maybe I am since most people have more interesting things to think about!
The dogmatism on both sides was emotional. I understood the emotion on the leave side but never understood it on the remain side. For me it was a pragmatic decision. Better to be in the tent pissing out, as it were ...
1. The EU has been an institution central to peace on the continent of Europe. In this respect it has achieved its principal purpose. 2. In the modern world only by standing together and having common standards can we hope for those standards to become world standards. 3. The greatest success of the EU has been the establishment of democracies in former Soviet Europe. The UK should play a part in protecting that legacy. 4. The creation of a Single Market, a British led idea, gives businesses the best chance of achieving growth to the point that they can compete on the world stage. 5. Freedom of movement, although a pain for the UK, has had a massive impact on the quality of many, many lives and has boosted UK growth. 6. It is in our interests to contribute to the catch up of eastern Europe and to create more consumers for tomorrow. 7. The US is a less reliable friend than we like to think. 8. The EU social policies have helped us improve many standards in this country, especially in relation to work and maternity. 9. Pollution is not a one country problem and does not recognise boundaries. 10. The UK contribution, respecting the rule of law and demanding a lack of corruption has generally been good for the EU.
The same criticism applies. Better together might sum it up best.
It is mildly disconcerting to someone who voted Remain to admit that the list of reasons to Leave has strength compared to reason to stay, at least by number.
However, your reasons to remain numbers 1, 4 and 9 are, for me, so massive that that these dwarf reasons to leave though the latter benefits may be more numerous.
I genuinely found the balance difficult. I don't really understand how people on either side of the argument can be so dogmatic about it. If Cameron had got an emergency break on EU immigration I think that I would have voted the other way. I doubt I am alone in that but maybe I am since most people have more interesting things to think about!
This may sound strange but I agree (minus the immigration brake, more niche but I wanted some protection from the Eurozone QMVing us as our brake).
I may come across as hard-line here but I'm not, I could have voted either way. I just think if we are going to leave to take back control of our laws then we need to take back control of our laws - or it was all bloody pointless and we shouldn't have bothered.
Don't forget folks. As we slide towards no deal. The no deal that the PM assured us absolutely wouldn't happen. His ministers and assorted parrots will start skwarking about the brilliant Australia style deal we would now enjoy.
The government hired a trade adviser. The former Prime Minister of Australia. Who says the Australia EU deal is shit.
So we get to enjoy government ministers. Robert Jenrick. Nadine Dorries. That level of intellect. Telling us why the former Prime Minister of Australia, hired by them for his expert opinions - is wrong about the Australia deal.
If you are a minister and your salary and political career mandates you saying such things I can almost - *almost* - understand it. What motivation though for the parrots. Who aren't taking the shilling. Repeating that the Australia style deal branded shit by the former Australian PM and now British trade expert is fantastic.
Former Australian PM Abbott is the UK trade adviser not Turnbull, the former is pro Brexit not the latter
I appreciate your correction.
OK, set aside the trade advisor bit. And frankly set aside the pro-Brexit bit. I don't care what views the former PM of Australia has when giving his opinion about the effects of Australia's EU trade deal on Australia.
What you are saying is that you value more the opinion of Nadine fucking Dorries about the merits of the Australian EU trade deal in Australia than you do the opinion of the former PM of Australia. One person hasn't a clue what she is talking about. The other ran the country in question.
So of course parrots like you have to reframe the argument as to their opinions about Brexit. Because you sound like an absolute spanner.
I dunno - feels like we're conducting the whole tone of brexit the same way we did 4 years ago. Like - not a single lesson has been learned at all. Nada.
Though at that time we had the Royal Navy supporting illegal fishing by British trawlers.
At that time we supported freedom of the seas, and the right for British trawlers to fish where they had been doing so for centuries.
Fishermen have been quite adventurous over the centuries, with Europeans fishing Newfoundland significantly from the early 16th Century.
The Cod Wars were British fishermen trying to invade Icelandic waters, not defend their fishing rights in British waters
Not quite, I'm afraid. British fisherman had been fishing up to about 4 miles of the Icelandic coast for a couple of hundred years. Coastal limits were then extended, first to 12 miles, then to 200. It was the extension to 12 which caused the row, and the main loss of fishing jobs. We, the British, opposed both the 12 mile and the 200 mile extensions for some time, then agreed to it.
So it was a dispute over the extent of Icelandic fishing waters, still not defending British fishing waters
It was defending traditional British fishing waters.
Cod Wars were British Fishermen trying to continue their traditional practices when the legal extent of Icelandic waters changed.
Which is what the EU is trying to do now, by trying enforce by a putative agreement what they cannot enforce by law.
Don't forget folks. As we slide towards no deal. The no deal that the PM assured us absolutely wouldn't happen. His ministers and assorted parrots will start skwarking about the brilliant Australia style deal we would now enjoy.
The government hired a trade adviser. The former Prime Minister of Australia. Who says the Australia EU deal is shit.
So we get to enjoy government ministers. Robert Jenrick. Nadine Dorries. That level of intellect. Telling us why the former Prime Minister of Australia, hired by them for his expert opinions - is wrong about the Australia deal.
If you are a minister and your salary and political career mandates you saying such things I can almost - *almost* - understand it. What motivation though for the parrots. Who aren't taking the shilling. Repeating that the Australia style deal branded shit by the former Australian PM and now British trade expert is fantastic.
You might want to get your facts checked.
Tony Abbott, the former Prime Minister who has been hired as a trade advisor, is not the former PM who stood against him that says the deal was shit.
Mixing them up together is like suggesting that Blair and Corbyn are the same person. So none of what you said is accurate. 🤦🏻♂️
Have thanked HYUFD for correcting my confusion.
You remain the same parroty stupidity as HYUFD. Either the former Prime Minister of Australia has more authority on the effects of the Australia - EU trade deal on Australia than Robert fucking Jenrick or he doesn't.
Personally I think the expert here is the guy who ran the country in question. Paid lackeys with no brain like Jenrick get paid to suggest the former PM of Australia is wrong about the effects of the Australian trade deal on Australia.
It's a bit of a stretch to go from the reality, which is a couple of offshore patrol vessels being used to patrol offshore - as has happened for centuries - to this and the stuff quoted today. Just normal stuff.
The Irish Govt sorted themselves out fairly quickly.
Quite interesting that the Irish Fishermen say their real fear is the fishing grounds being looted by Eu fleets when they are the only coastal state left.
"“If we continue the path we’re heading, we’re going to be slaughtered,” Kelly says.
1. The EU has been an institution central to peace on the continent of Europe. In this respect it has achieved its principal purpose. 2. In the modern world only by standing together and having common standards can we hope for those standards to become world standards. 3. The greatest success of the EU has been the establishment of democracies in former Soviet Europe. The UK should play a part in protecting that legacy. 4. The creation of a Single Market, a British led idea, gives businesses the best chance of achieving growth to the point that they can compete on the world stage. 5. Freedom of movement, although a pain for the UK, has had a massive impact on the quality of many, many lives and has boosted UK growth. 6. It is in our interests to contribute to the catch up of eastern Europe and to create more consumers for tomorrow. 7. The US is a less reliable friend than we like to think. 8. The EU social policies have helped us improve many standards in this country, especially in relation to work and maternity. 9. Pollution is not a one country problem and does not recognise boundaries. 10. The UK contribution, respecting the rule of law and demanding a lack of corruption has generally been good for the EU.
The same criticism applies. Better together might sum it up best.
It`s deeply depressing that DavidL`s 10 Reasons to Remain v 10 Reasons to Leave on their own encapsulate a far better debate than we had in 2016.
Some of these were actually raised by the Remain campaign. But in the heat of a referendum campaign, they were no match for resentment, nationalism, over-confidence, and the simple desire to take an unusual opportunity to disrupt . In that context, "remain" was incredibly flat-footed. More effective might have been something that emphasised modernity, and the possibility of change and exchange.
Even if we are fuelling up 4 boats to patrol our fishing grounds, to publicly announce it does seem to be unproductively antagonistic. Or is that the plan.
I think it's just reminding the French that if there's no deal, they will have access to our waters from 1 January, and maybe they should accept one that accepts our right to sell access to our territorial waters.
1. The EU has been an institution central to peace on the continent of Europe. In this respect it has achieved its principal purpose. 2. In the modern world only by standing together and having common standards can we hope for those standards to become world standards. 3. The greatest success of the EU has been the establishment of democracies in former Soviet Europe. The UK should play a part in protecting that legacy. 4. The creation of a Single Market, a British led idea, gives businesses the best chance of achieving growth to the point that they can compete on the world stage. 5. Freedom of movement, although a pain for the UK, has had a massive impact on the quality of many, many lives and has boosted UK growth. 6. It is in our interests to contribute to the catch up of eastern Europe and to create more consumers for tomorrow. 7. The US is a less reliable friend than we like to think. 8. The EU social policies have helped us improve many standards in this country, especially in relation to work and maternity. 9. Pollution is not a one country problem and does not recognise boundaries. 10. The UK contribution, respecting the rule of law and demanding a lack of corruption has generally been good for the EU.
The same criticism applies. Better together might sum it up best.
It`s deeply depressing that DavidL`s 10 Reasons to Remain v 10 Reasons to Leave on their own encapsulate a far better debate than we had in 2016.
Some of these were actually raised by the Remain campaign. But in the heat of a referendum campaign, they were no match for resentment, nationalism, over-confidence, and the simple desire to take an unusual opportunity to disrupt . In that context, "remain" was incredibly flat-footed. More effective might have been something that emphasised modernity, and the possibility of change and exchange.
Good post, "an unusual opportunity to disrupt", yes there is a lot in that.
1. The EU has been an institution central to peace on the continent of Europe. In this respect it has achieved its principal purpose. 2. In the modern world only by standing together and having common standards can we hope for those standards to become world standards. 3. The greatest success of the EU has been the establishment of democracies in former Soviet Europe. The UK should play a part in protecting that legacy. 4. The creation of a Single Market, a British led idea, gives businesses the best chance of achieving growth to the point that they can compete on the world stage. 5. Freedom of movement, although a pain for the UK, has had a massive impact on the quality of many, many lives and has boosted UK growth. 6. It is in our interests to contribute to the catch up of eastern Europe and to create more consumers for tomorrow. 7. The US is a less reliable friend than we like to think. 8. The EU social policies have helped us improve many standards in this country, especially in relation to work and maternity. 9. Pollution is not a one country problem and does not recognise boundaries. 10. The UK contribution, respecting the rule of law and demanding a lack of corruption has generally been good for the EU.
The same criticism applies. Better together might sum it up best.
It is mildly disconcerting to someone who voted Remain to admit that the list of reasons to Leave has strength compared to reason to stay, at least by number.
However, your reasons to remain numbers 1, 4 and 9 are, for me, so massive that that these dwarf reasons to leave though the latter benefits may be more numerous.
I genuinely found the balance difficult. I don't really understand how people on either side of the argument can be so dogmatic about it. If Cameron had got an emergency break on EU immigration I think that I would have voted the other way. I doubt I am alone in that but maybe I am since most people have more interesting things to think about!
The dogmatism on both sides was emotional. I understood the emotion on the leave side but never understood it on the remain side. For me it was a pragmatic decision. Better to be in the tent pissing out, as it were ...
Most didn't get emotional until after the vote. It might have helped if more had felt that strongly in advance of it.
Have just said something similar about local Tory MP Simon Clarke on twitter. Clarke has (a) won a referendum, (b) won election to parliament, (c) won reelection with a big majority and (d) dumped his wife and baby for some Westminster hottie. And yet despite all of these victories is foaming at the mouth angry.
Someone had to think up that statement. Someone else had to type it up. Someone then posted it. Various people will likely have reviewed it before that happened. And they still all decided 'that's perfect, send it out'.
They aren't going through the motions of defiance out of fear of Trump. They really believe what they are saying and doing.
Where are the moderate voters in the US, and how do they keep backing parties where the mainstream are now so extreme?
Texas GOP has been openly using QAnon phrases the whole election cycle.
Just read a book called 'Vicious Games' by Rebecca Cassidy which is all about the way the gambling industry has changed in recent decades and New Labour and John Majors role in it. Shame the late Tessa Jowell did not become Labours first female leader
Don't forget folks. As we slide towards no deal. The no deal that the PM assured us absolutely wouldn't happen. His ministers and assorted parrots will start skwarking about the brilliant Australia style deal we would now enjoy.
The government hired a trade adviser. The former Prime Minister of Australia. Who says the Australia EU deal is shit.
So we get to enjoy government ministers. Robert Jenrick. Nadine Dorries. That level of intellect. Telling us why the former Prime Minister of Australia, hired by them for his expert opinions - is wrong about the Australia deal.
If you are a minister and your salary and political career mandates you saying such things I can almost - *almost* - understand it. What motivation though for the parrots. Who aren't taking the shilling. Repeating that the Australia style deal branded shit by the former Australian PM and now British trade expert is fantastic.
Former Australian PM Abbott is the UK trade adviser not Turnbull, the former is pro Brexit not the latter
The trouble with former Australian PMs is that there's so many of them. They've currently got seven living ones. We've tried to compete recently, but still only got five.
"[Grimsby] MP Lia Nici is bullish over the impending prospect of not securing a deal and many of her constituents agree. The threat of increased tariffs, a sinking pound and European travel restrictions are dwarfed by the intoxicating prospect of walking away."
Don't forget folks. As we slide towards no deal. The no deal that the PM assured us absolutely wouldn't happen. His ministers and assorted parrots will start skwarking about the brilliant Australia style deal we would now enjoy.
The government hired a trade adviser. The former Prime Minister of Australia. Who says the Australia EU deal is shit.
So we get to enjoy government ministers. Robert Jenrick. Nadine Dorries. That level of intellect. Telling us why the former Prime Minister of Australia, hired by them for his expert opinions - is wrong about the Australia deal.
If you are a minister and your salary and political career mandates you saying such things I can almost - *almost* - understand it. What motivation though for the parrots. Who aren't taking the shilling. Repeating that the Australia style deal branded shit by the former Australian PM and now British trade expert is fantastic.
You might want to get your facts checked.
Tony Abbott, the former Prime Minister who has been hired as a trade advisor, is not the former PM who stood against him that says the deal was shit.
Mixing them up together is like suggesting that Blair and Corbyn are the same person. So none of what you said is accurate. 🤦🏻♂️
Have thanked HYUFD for correcting my confusion.
You remain the same parroty stupidity as HYUFD. Either the former Prime Minister of Australia has more authority on the effects of the Australia - EU trade deal on Australia than Robert fucking Jenrick or he doesn't.
Personally I think the expert here is the guy who ran the country in question. Paid lackeys with no brain like Jenrick get paid to suggest the former PM of Australia is wrong about the effects of the Australian trade deal on Australia.
What do you get?
I grew up and did my High School years in Australia so I have a fair understanding of Australia. But no I don't claim to know more than former Australian PMs on the matter ... But the former Australian PM I respect the most is not Turnbull. Nor for that matter is it Abbott either.
The former Australian PM I have the most respect for is John Howard. Who BTW backed Brexit.
Edit: PS Howard ran the country longer and more successfully than any PM since. He is one of Australia's best ever PMs. So why should I respect Turnbull more than Howard?
1. The EU has been an institution central to peace on the continent of Europe. In this respect it has achieved its principal purpose. 2. In the modern world only by standing together and having common standards can we hope for those standards to become world standards. 3. The greatest success of the EU has been the establishment of democracies in former Soviet Europe. The UK should play a part in protecting that legacy. 4. The creation of a Single Market, a British led idea, gives businesses the best chance of achieving growth to the point that they can compete on the world stage. 5. Freedom of movement, although a pain for the UK, has had a massive impact on the quality of many, many lives and has boosted UK growth. 6. It is in our interests to contribute to the catch up of eastern Europe and to create more consumers for tomorrow. 7. The US is a less reliable friend than we like to think. 8. The EU social policies have helped us improve many standards in this country, especially in relation to work and maternity. 9. Pollution is not a one country problem and does not recognise boundaries. 10. The UK contribution, respecting the rule of law and demanding a lack of corruption has generally been good for the EU.
The same criticism applies. Better together might sum it up best.
It`s deeply depressing that DavidL`s 10 Reasons to Remain v 10 Reasons to Leave on their own encapsulate a far better debate than we had in 2016.
Some of these were actually raised by the Remain campaign. But in the heat of a referendum campaign, they were no match for resentment, nationalism, over-confidence, and the simple desire to take an unusual opportunity to disrupt . In that context, "remain" was incredibly flat-footed. More effective might have been something that emphasised modernity, and the possibility of change and exchange.
There's also the argument that an entirely different EU could deliver David's 10 points, but there is no path to being able to democratically change its direction.
1. The EU has been an institution central to peace on the continent of Europe. In this respect it has achieved its principal purpose. 2. In the modern world only by standing together and having common standards can we hope for those standards to become world standards. 3. The greatest success of the EU has been the establishment of democracies in former Soviet Europe. The UK should play a part in protecting that legacy. 4. The creation of a Single Market, a British led idea, gives businesses the best chance of achieving growth to the point that they can compete on the world stage. 5. Freedom of movement, although a pain for the UK, has had a massive impact on the quality of many, many lives and has boosted UK growth. 6. It is in our interests to contribute to the catch up of eastern Europe and to create more consumers for tomorrow. 7. The US is a less reliable friend than we like to think. 8. The EU social policies have helped us improve many standards in this country, especially in relation to work and maternity. 9. Pollution is not a one country problem and does not recognise boundaries. 10. The UK contribution, respecting the rule of law and demanding a lack of corruption has generally been good for the EU.
The same criticism applies. Better together might sum it up best.
It`s deeply depressing that DavidL`s 10 Reasons to Remain v 10 Reasons to Leave on their own encapsulate a far better debate than we had in 2016.
Some of these were actually raised by the Remain campaign. But in the heat of a referendum campaign, they were no match for resentment, nationalism, over-confidence, and the simple desire to take an unusual opportunity to disrupt . In that context, "remain" was incredibly flat-footed. More effective might have been something that emphasised modernity, and the possibility of change and exchange.
I dont recall remain doing a very good job of arguing the benefits. Ruth Davison said in a debate something about us getting more out of it than we put in/ we made it work for us, and it came across as novel.
It's a bit of a stretch to go from the reality, which is a couple of offshore patrol vessels being used to patrol offshore - as has happened for centuries - to this and the stuff quoted today. Just normal stuff.
The Irish Govt sorted themselves out fairly quickly.
Quite interesting that the Irish Fishermen say their real fear is the fishing grounds being looted by Eu fleets when they are the only coastal state left.
"“If we continue the path we’re heading, we’re going to be slaughtered,” Kelly says.
The PCP, however, deserves excoriating for backing the likes of Boris Johnson, a man unfit to be in Cabinet and a proven incompetent, to succeed May.
Not sure about that. We needed someone with electoral appeal to resolve the logjam and defeat Corbyn, whose election would have done many times more damage than even the worst no-deal scenario.
You really certain about that last clause?
Well, he’s right. Corbyn had absolutely every single one of Johnson’s faults - cronyism, pseudo-principles, arrogance, a sense of his own brilliance, an inability to deal with criticism or talk to those he disagrees with - and is a great deal stupider.
Edit - and his shadow cabinet were no better. The only ones in it with decent brains were Macdonnell, who is an even bigger knob than Corbyn, Starmer and Rayner.
I am with you all the way until your final assertion in paragraph one. Either I am underestimating Corbyn, or you are over estimating Johnson.
It is also debatable that McDonnell is a bigger knob than Corbyn, Starmer and Rayner. They are all unwaveringly stupid human beings, who have inadvertently furnished us with both a Johnson landslide, and hence his ability to impose upon us the daftest of Brexit outcomes.
Now there I must disagree. Knowing what I know about Macdonnell, and which I will not repeat here out of respect for OGH, I’ve no hesitation in saying he’s the vilest human being in Parliament.
But there’s no doubt he’s very bright.
Equally, John Redwood, which is loathsome in different ways, probably has the highest actual IQ in Parliament. Ability is no guarantee of sense.
You are changing the rules. You said McDonnell was an "even bigger knob than Corbyn, Starmer and Rayner". I am contesting for the reasons outlined that they are equal "knobs". You did not imply that McDonnell is more morally repugnant than Corbyn, Starmer and Rayner, in that case I would have given you a 2 out of 3!
Sorry, i can see what you’re saying, but you’ve misunderstood due to my punctuation choices. Try reading it this way:
‘The only ones in it with decent brains were Macdonnell - who is an even bigger knob than Corbyn - Starmer and Rayner.‘
For the record, I do not think either Starmer or Rayner are stupid or knobs. Whether they have what it takes to undo the damage Corbyn caused is a different question.
Without giving it a huge amount of thought or analysis here's my starter for 10:
1. Democratic accountability. Our politicians have used the EU to do things they couldn't sell at home. 2. Control of our own laws. Having laws imposed on this country by QMV is unacceptable. 3. Laws and policies that are applicable to our situation here in the UK. 4. For example we can spend our money on agricultural/conservation policies relevant to what we do here, not what is needed around the Med. 5. Control of migration. Although there were economic benefits to cheap labour being imported and under cutting wages and Trade Unions there was a heavy price to pay in social costs and cohesion. 6. Control of our own resources, eg fish. 7. The ability to make long term state led investments in the industries of the future (subject to any LPF agreement) if we think that desirable. 8. Control of our money, as a net contributor to the EU we were not able to determine where our taxpayers contributions went. 9. The lack of a platform for the likes of Farage. Seriously, the European Parliament is a joke of an institution and our contribution has been one of the less funny parts. 10. The requirement for our political class to focus on the day job, not spending/wasting their time at Council of Ministers meetings.
You might argue that there is some duplication and overlap here. I wouldn't disagree. Boris's "control of our laws, control of our borders and control of our money" sums it up better in many respects.
'gunboats against the French' is the interesting but, which looks like some hysteric reading out their own bull. But then Dunt is a bit of an hysteric himself.
The PCP, however, deserves excoriating for backing the likes of Boris Johnson, a man unfit to be in Cabinet and a proven incompetent, to succeed May.
Not sure about that. We needed someone with electoral appeal to resolve the logjam and defeat Corbyn, whose election would have done many times more damage than even the worst no-deal scenario.
Admiral Lord West (Labour), former chief of naval staff, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it was "entirely appropriate" for the Royal Navy to protect UK waters, although he said there would need to be parliamentary authority to allow officers to board foreign ships.
The most amazing thing about how the GOP is behaving is the way in 4 years time the entire political establishment and media will memory hole this and once again pretend the GOP is a serious party of government and not fascist racists.
1. The EU has been an institution central to peace on the continent of Europe. In this respect it has achieved its principal purpose. 2. In the modern world only by standing together and having common standards can we hope for those standards to become world standards. 3. The greatest success of the EU has been the establishment of democracies in former Soviet Europe. The UK should play a part in protecting that legacy. 4. The creation of a Single Market, a British led idea, gives businesses the best chance of achieving growth to the point that they can compete on the world stage. 5. Freedom of movement, although a pain for the UK, has had a massive impact on the quality of many, many lives and has boosted UK growth. 6. It is in our interests to contribute to the catch up of eastern Europe and to create more consumers for tomorrow. 7. The US is a less reliable friend than we like to think. 8. The EU social policies have helped us improve many standards in this country, especially in relation to work and maternity. 9. Pollution is not a one country problem and does not recognise boundaries. 10. The UK contribution, respecting the rule of law and demanding a lack of corruption has generally been good for the EU.
The same criticism applies. Better together might sum it up best.
It`s deeply depressing that DavidL`s 10 Reasons to Remain v 10 Reasons to Leave on their own encapsulate a far better debate than we had in 2016.
Some of these were actually raised by the Remain campaign. But in the heat of a referendum campaign, they were no match for resentment, nationalism, over-confidence, and the simple desire to take an unusual opportunity to disrupt . In that context, "remain" was incredibly flat-footed. More effective might have been something that emphasised modernity, and the possibility of change and exchange.
Good post, "an unusual opportunity to disrupt", yes there is a lot in that.
My brother voted Leave as a protest, believing that remain had it in the bag and just wanting to make they they didnt get an overwhelming win. He's regretted it since the day the result was announced, not least because as a restaurant owner he was pretty quickly hit by some of the consequences
Really? I didn't think your zeal for ideological purity was quite at Trotskyist levels.
To the extent that FPTP works, it is by having broad tent parties. Impose such strict ideological purity onto them and it becomes an absurdity.
The Trotskyists were the ones who were purged (including Bronstein himself). You mean Stalinist.
Presumably if theyd won the Trotsktists would have purged the Stalinists I suppose. Not that Trotsky was cuddly, but perhaps a mite less purging overall.
Unlikely. Trotsky was tough, ruthless and cruel but he was an altogether more collegiate figure than Stalin. He was happy to disagree on points of principle and work with whoever he thought was right on a particular issue. That’s why he worked both for and against Kamenev and Zinoviev.
He would probably have sent Stalin off to be party leader in Georgia simply because he didn’t like him, but no more than that.
Also, Trotsky genuinely believed in collective leadership and he would certainly never have arrogated power to himself in the way Stalin did. You would have seen something closer to Brezhnev’s ‘troika.’
Just read a book called 'Vicious Games' by Rebecca Cassidy which is all about the way the gambling industry has changed in recent decades and New Labour and John Majors role in it. Shame the late Tessa Jowell did not become Labours first female leader
It's a bit of a stretch to go from the reality, which is a couple of offshore patrol vessels being used to patrol offshore - as has happened for centuries - to this and the stuff quoted today. Just normal stuff.
The Irish Govt sorted themselves out fairly quickly.
Quite interesting that the Irish Fishermen say their real fear is the fishing grounds being looted by Eu fleets when they are the only coastal state left.
"“If we continue the path we’re heading, we’re going to be slaughtered,” Kelly says.
Scotland has a national police force so it seems quite reasonable that fishery protection sits with it. England doesn't and I'm not quite sure who is in charge.
they manged to lose what should have been an easy win.
OK, what should they have done that they didn't do to convince the Little Englanders that staying in was better than BoZo's sunlit uplands?
To start with could have tried making positive arguments for what was good with the EU. Given some sunlit European uplands.
Simply saying life will be shit under Brexit doesn't work for those of us who aren't afraid of Brexit.
You're right. The list of culprits is long and it certainly includes remainers, like me, who failed to make the case for remaining adequately.
True, though it's hard to win a campaign against "we can have our cake and eat it".
Shouldn't have been. Remain made the mistake of thinking that just because something was effing stupid people wouldn't vote for it, and it was therefore not necessary to point out what was stupid about it.
No, and I was very critical of the Remain campaign at the time, we spent a lot of time pointing out the stupidity of Brexit. What we did not do was point out the wisdom and good sense of remaining at the heart of Europe. The campaign was far too negative.
The year after the Syrian migration crisis was what swung it, with a lot of people expecting a further mass refugee crisis that Spring and Summer*. I think Remain would have won if the referendum was held in 2017.
*indeed that was why Cameron's renegotiation was so perfunctory. The rest of the EU were trying to ensure no repeat, and a common policy, not deal with our Faragists.
Remain assumed every Brexiter was a Little Englander, a racist and a xenophobe. Most of us are far from that, indeed I normally travel in several EU countries a year, enjoying the local culture etc rather than sitting on the beach, demanding fish and chips and getting pissed*. Had the Remain campaign made an effort to tell me how many free trade deals the EU was likely to conclude in the next couple of years it might have swayed my vote.
*Er that does happen of course.
I know. My father enjoyed 3 years working in Paris when Britain was having massive unemployment in the eighties. He has travelled worldwide running sales training, and is fluent in French, Spanish, German and can get by in Italian, Japanese and Russian, as well as social pleasantries a number of other languages. He loves Europe and holidays there every year. Yet has become a fanatical, send in the gunboats Brexiteer. Ironically he won't eat fish unless being forced! He has become quite anti immigrant over the years, though it is Commonwealth immigrants that he dislikes, particularly Muslims. I have never really had a sound reason from him for Brexit, just a bunch of falsehoods about straight bananas etc.
He cannot understand why all three of his children are pro Remain, my brothers far more so than me. None of us discuss it with him anymore, it just causes fights, but Brexit has certainly damaged our relationships. My older brother is planning to retire to Germany, with his German spouse. My other Brother had to choose between redundancy and Eindhoven when his Dutch employer closed its UK establishments 2 years ago, and now works mostly on contract in the USA. There is physical distance as well as emotional distance between us now. Brexit is the worst thing that has happened to our family relationships.
I don't often agree with Dan Hodges, but this is actually an excellent perspective.
He must have cribbed it then.
Update on my cogitations -
If Johnson does choose the ostensible irrationality and national self-harm of No Deal it will mean he judges it to be better for his personal political prospects than any feasible deal - by which I mean any deal other than the unicorn 'cake and eat it" variety that was never going to be available.
This in turn means 2 things. (1) He has become a creature of the headbangers. He doesn't share their ideology but he fears he'd be ousted if he doesn't stay pure. (2) He thinks he can stay on top politically with the public (or enough of it anyway) by continuing to tap into jingoism and xenophobia. Having won his landslide on this basis (he thinks) he believes it remains the way to go.
First, I hope this analysis is wrong and he'll prove it by doing a deal. I still think he will but my certainty has evaporated.
Second, if this analysis is right I hope that HE is wrong. I hope the US election is a sign that this sort of tawdry populism has peaked and that if Johnson and the Tories pursue it they will get their ass handed to them at the next election.
Though at that time we had the Royal Navy supporting illegal fishing by British trawlers.
At that time we supported freedom of the seas, and the right for British trawlers to fish where they had been doing so for centuries.
Fishermen have been quite adventurous over the centuries, with Europeans fishing Newfoundland significantly from the early 16th Century.
I think the fever dreams of Brexitmania see the UK as Iceland. Expect an increase in smoked fish, mutton and seabirds in the British diet as we have to make the most of what’s available. Still, perhaps there’ll be a flowering of Yookaynoir.
Mind, your neighbours up on Lewis have never stopped eating gannet, admittedly after burial in a peat bog for some time to get rid of some of the fishiness.
The PCP, however, deserves excoriating for backing the likes of Boris Johnson, a man unfit to be in Cabinet and a proven incompetent, to succeed May.
Not sure about that. We needed someone with electoral appeal to resolve the logjam and defeat Corbyn, whose election would have done many times more damage than even the worst no-deal scenario.
You really certain about that last clause?
Well, he’s right. Corbyn had absolutely every single one of Johnson’s faults - cronyism, pseudo-principles, arrogance, a sense of his own brilliance, an inability to deal with criticism or talk to those he disagrees with - and is a great deal stupider.
On the other hand, he doesn't demonstrate the sociopathy to other people at an emotional level that Johnson sometimes demonstrates.
I know them both a bit, and hesitate to criticise people personally when I get on with them. Conversely, I think many people are too ready to assess and even psychoanalyse public figures whom they only know from TV. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't make political judgments.
If we're just talking personalities, they are dissimilar in many ways. Just citing positive aspects, Johnson is affable, hearty company, clever and open-minded - a good man to have a drink with. Corbyn is pleasant, unassertive company, lives consistently with his opinions and is unwaveringly calm and personally modest - a good man to have a conversation with. I think the public hostility to each at a personal level is exaggerated, for different reasons, and it's a pity that we all tend to project our political antipathies onto the individuals.
Scotland has a national police force so it seems quite reasonable that fishery protection sits with it. England doesn't and I'm not quite sure who is in charge.
Don't forget folks. As we slide towards no deal. The no deal that the PM assured us absolutely wouldn't happen. His ministers and assorted parrots will start skwarking about the brilliant Australia style deal we would now enjoy.
The government hired a trade adviser. The former Prime Minister of Australia. Who says the Australia EU deal is shit.
So we get to enjoy government ministers. Robert Jenrick. Nadine Dorries. That level of intellect. Telling us why the former Prime Minister of Australia, hired by them for his expert opinions - is wrong about the Australia deal.
If you are a minister and your salary and political career mandates you saying such things I can almost - *almost* - understand it. What motivation though for the parrots. Who aren't taking the shilling. Repeating that the Australia style deal branded shit by the former Australian PM and now British trade expert is fantastic.
You might want to get your facts checked.
Tony Abbott, the former Prime Minister who has been hired as a trade advisor, is not the former PM who stood against him that says the deal was shit.
Mixing them up together is like suggesting that Blair and Corbyn are the same person. So none of what you said is accurate. 🤦🏻♂️
Have thanked HYUFD for correcting my confusion.
You remain the same parroty stupidity as HYUFD. Either the former Prime Minister of Australia has more authority on the effects of the Australia - EU trade deal on Australia than Robert fucking Jenrick or he doesn't.
Personally I think the expert here is the guy who ran the country in question. Paid lackeys with no brain like Jenrick get paid to suggest the former PM of Australia is wrong about the effects of the Australian trade deal on Australia.
What do you get?
I grew up and did my High School years in Australia so I have a fair understanding of Australia. But no I don't claim to know more than former Australian PMs on the matter ... But the former Australian PM I respect the most is not Turnbull. Nor for that matter is it Abbott either.
The former Australian PM I have the most respect for is John Howard. Who BTW backed Brexit.
Edit: PS Howard ran the country longer and more successfully than any PM since. He is one of Australia's best ever PMs. So why should I respect Turnbull more than Howard?
What does Brexit have to do with it? I don't care what any of them think about Brexit. Question is what do any of them think about the Australia - EU trade deal. If Turnbull is an outlier and all the others think its great then ok. Are they?
they manged to lose what should have been an easy win.
OK, what should they have done that they didn't do to convince the Little Englanders that staying in was better than BoZo's sunlit uplands?
To start with could have tried making positive arguments for what was good with the EU. Given some sunlit European uplands.
Simply saying life will be shit under Brexit doesn't work for those of us who aren't afraid of Brexit.
You're right. The list of culprits is long and it certainly includes remainers, like me, who failed to make the case for remaining adequately.
True, though it's hard to win a campaign against "we can have our cake and eat it".
Shouldn't have been. Remain made the mistake of thinking that just because something was effing stupid people wouldn't vote for it, and it was therefore not necessary to point out what was stupid about it.
No, and I was very critical of the Remain campaign at the time, we spent a lot of time pointing out the stupidity of Brexit. What we did not do was point out the wisdom and good sense of remaining at the heart of Europe. The campaign was far too negative.
The year after the Syrian migration crisis was what swung it, with a lot of people expecting a further mass refugee crisis that Spring and Summer*. I think Remain would have won if the referendum was held in 2017.
*indeed that was why Cameron's renegotiation was so perfunctory. The rest of the EU were trying to ensure no repeat, and a common policy, not deal with our Faragists.
Remain assumed every Brexiter was a Little Englander, a racist and a xenophobe. Most of us are far from that, indeed I normally travel in several EU countries a year, enjoying the local culture etc rather than sitting on the beach, demanding fish and chips and getting pissed*. Had the Remain campaign made an effort to tell me how many free trade deals the EU was likely to conclude in the next couple of years it might have swayed my vote.
*Er that does happen of course.
I know. My father enjoyed 3 years working in Paris when Britain was having massive unemployment in the eighties. He has travelled worldwide running sales training, and is fluent in French, Spanish, German and can get by in Italian, Japanese and Russian, as well as social pleasantries a number of other languages. He loves Europe and holidays there every year. Yet has become a fanatical, send in the gunboats Brexiteer. Ironically he won't eat fish unless being forced! He has become quite anti immigrant over the years, though it is Commonwealth immigrants that he dislikes, particularly Muslims. I have never really had a sound reason from him for Brexit, just a bunch of falsehoods about straight bananas etc.
He cannot understand why all three of his children are pro Remain, my brothers far more so than me. None of us discuss it with him anymore, it just causes fights, but Brexit has certainly damaged our relationships. My older brother is planning to retire to Germany, with his German spouse. My other Brother had to choose between redundancy and Eindhoven when his Dutch employer closed its UK establishments 2 years ago, and now works mostly on contract in the USA. There is physical distance as well as emotional distance between us now. Brexit is the worst thing that has happened to our family relationships.
they manged to lose what should have been an easy win.
OK, what should they have done that they didn't do to convince the Little Englanders that staying in was better than BoZo's sunlit uplands?
To start with could have tried making positive arguments for what was good with the EU. Given some sunlit European uplands.
Simply saying life will be shit under Brexit doesn't work for those of us who aren't afraid of Brexit.
You're right. The list of culprits is long and it certainly includes remainers, like me, who failed to make the case for remaining adequately.
True, though it's hard to win a campaign against "we can have our cake and eat it".
Shouldn't have been. Remain made the mistake of thinking that just because something was effing stupid people wouldn't vote for it, and it was therefore not necessary to point out what was stupid about it.
No, and I was very critical of the Remain campaign at the time, we spent a lot of time pointing out the stupidity of Brexit. What we did not do was point out the wisdom and good sense of remaining at the heart of Europe. The campaign was far too negative.
The year after the Syrian migration crisis was what swung it, with a lot of people expecting a further mass refugee crisis that Spring and Summer*. I think Remain would have won if the referendum was held in 2017.
*indeed that was why Cameron's renegotiation was so perfunctory. The rest of the EU were trying to ensure no repeat, and a common policy, not deal with our Faragists.
Remain assumed every Brexiter was a Little Englander, a racist and a xenophobe. Most of us are far from that, indeed I normally travel in several EU countries a year, enjoying the local culture etc rather than sitting on the beach, demanding fish and chips and getting pissed*. Had the Remain campaign made an effort to tell me how many free trade deals the EU was likely to conclude in the next couple of years it might have swayed my vote.
*Er that does happen of course.
I know. My father enjoyed 3 years working in Paris when Britain was having massive unemployment in the eighties. He has travelled worldwide running sales training, and is fluent in French, Spanish, German and can get by in Italian, Japanese and Russian, as well as social pleasantries a number of other languages. He loves Europe and holidays there every year. Yet has become a fanatical, send in the gunboats Brexiteer. Ironically he won't eat fish unless being forced! He has become quite anti immigrant over the years, though it is Commonwealth immigrants that he dislikes, particularly Muslims. I have never really had a sound reason from him for Brexit, just a bunch of falsehoods about straight bananas etc.
He cannot understand why all three of his children are pro Remain, my brothers far more so than me. None of us discuss it with him anymore, it just causes fights, but Brexit has certainly damaged our relationships. My older brother is planning to retire to Germany, with his German spouse. My other Brother had to choose between redundancy and Eindhoven when his Dutch employer closed its UK establishments 2 years ago, and now works mostly on contract in the USA. There is physical distance as well as emotional distance between us now. Brexit is the worst thing that has happened to our family relationships.
I have no idea, but here can be no doubt they are very bitter indeed.
Angriest winners in history.
Not surprising, really. The story of the last five years has been hoping that just this much separation will give enough freedom and opportunity to be worth the hassle.
Dave's deal Norway-ish The May Plan A Canada-ish FTA for goods
They all looked fine from a distance. But on closer examination, none of them stacked up when the costs were weighed against the benefits. And the evil part of the calculation is that each step, each attempt to get more national sovereignty comes at increasing cost. But the win never comes, so now we have the grotesque chaos of a Conservative government spending billions on increasing barriers to free trade. And we're only stopping here because there is nowhere further to go.
I don't often agree with Dan Hodges, but this is actually an excellent perspective.
He must have cribbed it then.
Update on my cogitations -
If Johnson does choose the ostensible irrationality and national self-harm of No Deal it will mean he judges it to be better for his personal political prospects than any feasible deal - by which I mean any deal other than the unicorn 'cake and eat it" variety that was never going to be available.
This in turn means 2 things. (1) He has become a creature of the headbangers. He doesn't share their ideology but he fears he'd be ousted if he doesn't stay pure. (2) He thinks he can stay on top politically with the public (or enough of it anyway) by continuing to tap into jingoism and xenophobia. Having won his landslide on this basis (he thinks) he believes it remains the way to go.
First, I hope this analysis is wrong and he'll prove it by doing a deal. I still think he will but my certainty has evaporated.
Second, if this analysis is right I hope that HE is wrong. I hope the US election is a sign that this sort of tawdry populism has peaked and that if Johnson and the Tories pursue it they will get their ass handed to them at the next election.
If Johnson does put a trade deal before parliament, and it is shite, what does Starmer do in your opinion?
Is it possible that Johnson does this deliberately, secretly wanting Parliament to vote it down? Then we go No Trade Deal with Starmer having shown that he would have entered into a rubbish deal for the UK.
Comments
However, I would be willing to agree that Corbyn is better at fooling people into thinking differently and therefore has not *demonstrated* it to the same extent. He was never brutally exposed in the way Johnson has been, partly because he was never remotely as important or famous and partly because by all accounts he can actually make the effort to be charming in person in a way Johnson can’t. But at bottom they are pretty similar characters.
And while I consider Johnson to be, to put it mildly, no intellectual, Corbyn really does not have it upstairs.
Edit/ actually perhaps I replied too quickly. Did you mean sociopathy? If so, maybe you have a point.
They aren't going through the motions of defiance out of fear of Trump. They really believe what they are saying and doing.
Where are the moderate voters in the US, and how do they keep backing parties where the mainstream are now so extreme?
It is also debatable that McDonnell is a bigger knob than Corbyn, Starmer and Rayner. They are all unwaveringly stupid human beings, who have inadvertently furnished us with both a Johnson landslide, and hence his ability to impose upon us the daftest of Brexit outcomes.
1. The EU has been an institution central to peace on the continent of Europe. In this respect it has achieved its principal purpose.
2. In the modern world only by standing together and having common standards can we hope for those standards to become world standards.
3. The greatest success of the EU has been the establishment of democracies in former Soviet Europe. The UK should play a part in protecting that legacy.
4. The creation of a Single Market, a British led idea, gives businesses the best chance of achieving growth to the point that they can compete on the world stage.
5. Freedom of movement, although a pain for the UK, has had a massive impact on the quality of many, many lives and has boosted UK growth.
6. It is in our interests to contribute to the catch up of eastern Europe and to create more consumers for tomorrow.
7. The US is a less reliable friend than we like to think.
8. The EU social policies have helped us improve many standards in this country, especially in relation to work and maternity.
9. Pollution is not a one country problem and does not recognise boundaries.
10. The UK contribution, respecting the rule of law and demanding a lack of corruption has generally been good for the EU.
The same criticism applies. Better together might sum it up best.
The government hired a trade adviser. The former Prime Minister of Australia. Who says the Australia EU deal is shit.
So we get to enjoy government ministers. Robert Jenrick. Nadine Dorries. That level of intellect. Telling us why the former Prime Minister of Australia, hired by them for his expert opinions - is wrong about the Australia deal.
If you are a minister and your salary and political career mandates you saying such things I can almost - *almost* - understand it. What motivation though for the parrots. Who aren't taking the shilling. Repeating that the Australia style deal branded shit by the former Australian PM and now British trade expert is fantastic.
*Er that does happen of course.
But there’s no doubt he’s very bright.
Equally, John Redwood, which is loathsome in different ways, probably has the highest actual IQ in Parliament. Ability is no guarantee of sense.
The convicts couldn't make the deal work, but with BoZo at the helm exactly the same deal will be fantastic
obviously...
Not so brilliant, in reality. 1. is hampered by our so-called democracy being flawed, with no real accountability and many of our politicians sitting with jobs for life in safe seats. 2. and 3. will be hampered by the practical reality of being Mexico or Canada to the US and having to follow many of the rules and standards of the massive trading block next door, 5. is hampered by our continuing need for people to do low paid jobs that Brits dislike, and to keep the NHS and care sectors going, 6. will be of little use if we won't eat them and can't sell them, 7. wasn't a practical obstacle as a member, 8 will be negated by the economic consequences actually reducing the amount of money to spend, 9 might actually be a fair point, and in practice 10 wasn't really a real 'thing'; we'll be distracted by politicians and officials having to reinvent countless wheels that the EU has already.
1) No more blaming Brussels (this may continue for some time but surely will eventually end)
2) Opportunity for more policy innovation (two edged sword of course but no doubt EU policy is stuck/glacial in some areas)
3) Hopefully will expose some of the dafter elements of the Tory party as clueless - arguably already has.
4) Get people to pay more attention to politics - i'd argue this has happened.
5) Could strengthen EU/help them get on with their priorities...
Can't get to 10 but arguably 2) could apply to lots of areas like farming, immigration, industrial policy, environment...
We, the British, opposed both the 12 mile and the 200 mile extensions for some time, then agreed to it.
However, your reasons to remain numbers 1, 4 and 9 are, for me, so massive that that these dwarf reasons to leave though the latter benefits may be more numerous.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results
Nothing to do with the Tories.
Delivering it is an entirely different matter.
It's a bit of a stretch to go from the reality, which is a couple of offshore patrol vessels being used to patrol offshore - as has happened for centuries - to this and the stuff quoted today. Just normal stuff.
Has the Daily Mail suddenly become canonical?
For example, here is a couple of Irish equivalent detaining some NI fishing boats recently when they got their side of a mutual agreement in a twist:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47401104
The Irish Govt sorted themselves out fairly quickly.
Quite interesting that the Irish Fishermen say their real fear is the fishing grounds being looted by Eu fleets when they are the only coastal state left.
"“If we continue the path we’re heading, we’re going to be slaughtered,” Kelly says.
“There’s going to be an influx of EU fleets. There are two coastal countries: one is the UK and the other is Ireland. Because of Brexit the one coast country we’ll have left is Ireland.”
https://www.thejournal.ie/northern-irish-boats-voisinage-explainer-4579094-Apr2019/
Tony Abbott, the former Prime Minister who has been hired as a trade advisor, is not the former PM who stood against him that says the deal was shit.
Mixing them up together is like suggesting that Blair and Corbyn are the same person. So none of what you said is accurate. 🤦🏻♂️
I found it difficult to decide, though in the end admitted to myself that voting Leave chiefly of the grounds of spite against Cameron for holding the bloody stupid referendum in the first place was not a good reason.
We should ask Neil Oliver.
I may come across as hard-line here but I'm not, I could have voted either way. I just think if we are going to leave to take back control of our laws then we need to take back control of our laws - or it was all bloody pointless and we shouldn't have bothered.
OK, set aside the trade advisor bit. And frankly set aside the pro-Brexit bit. I don't care what views the former PM of Australia has when giving his opinion about the effects of Australia's EU trade deal on Australia.
What you are saying is that you value more the opinion of Nadine fucking Dorries about the merits of the Australian EU trade deal in Australia than you do the opinion of the former PM of Australia. One person hasn't a clue what she is talking about. The other ran the country in question.
So of course parrots like you have to reframe the argument as to their opinions about Brexit. Because you sound like an absolute spanner.
Which is what the EU is trying to do now, by trying enforce by a putative agreement what they cannot enforce by law.
You remain the same parroty stupidity as HYUFD. Either the former Prime Minister of Australia has more authority on the effects of the Australia - EU trade deal on Australia than Robert fucking Jenrick or he doesn't.
Personally I think the expert here is the guy who ran the country in question. Paid lackeys with no brain like Jenrick get paid to suggest the former PM of Australia is wrong about the effects of the Australian trade deal on Australia.
What do you get?
Why is victory so bitter for these people?
https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1337529164107304961
Their heroine!
Shame the late Tessa Jowell did not become Labours first female leader
https://twitter.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1337692003862241287
Clown.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/12/11/red-wall-stiffen-sinews-ready-embrace-no-deal-brexit/
The former Australian PM I have the most respect for is John Howard. Who BTW backed Brexit.
Edit: PS Howard ran the country longer and more successfully than any PM since. He is one of Australia's best ever PMs. So why should I respect Turnbull more than Howard?
Angriest winners in history.
The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea
‘The only ones in it with decent brains were Macdonnell - who is an even bigger knob than Corbyn - Starmer and Rayner.‘
For the record, I do not think either Starmer or Rayner are stupid or knobs. Whether they have what it takes to undo the damage Corbyn caused is a different question.
'gunboats against the French' is the interesting but, which looks like some hysteric reading out their own bull. But then Dunt is a bit of an hysteric himself.
https://twitter.com/patrickcorrigan/status/1337660941668900864?s=21
He would probably have sent Stalin off to be party leader in Georgia simply because he didn’t like him, but no more than that.
Also, Trotsky genuinely believed in collective leadership and he would certainly never have arrogated power to himself in the way Stalin did. You would have seen something closer to Brezhnev’s ‘troika.’
*Grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
https://twitter.com/ShaanVP/status/1337508110496231425?s=19
The chap who said it can be reached here: hello@thejournal.ie, or by flying signal flags off Drogheda.
He cannot understand why all three of his children are pro Remain, my brothers far more so than me. None of us discuss it with him anymore, it just causes fights, but Brexit has certainly damaged our relationships. My older brother is planning to retire to Germany, with his German spouse. My other Brother had to choose between redundancy and Eindhoven when his Dutch employer closed its UK establishments 2 years ago, and now works mostly on contract in the USA. There is physical distance as well as emotional distance between us now. Brexit is the worst thing that has happened to our family relationships.
Update on my cogitations -
If Johnson does choose the ostensible irrationality and national self-harm of No Deal it will mean he judges it to be better for his personal political prospects than any feasible deal - by which I mean any deal other than the unicorn 'cake and eat it" variety that was never going to be available.
This in turn means 2 things. (1) He has become a creature of the headbangers. He doesn't share their ideology but he fears he'd be ousted if he doesn't stay pure. (2) He thinks he can stay on top politically with the public (or enough of it anyway) by continuing to tap into jingoism and xenophobia. Having won his landslide on this basis (he thinks) he believes it remains the way to go.
First, I hope this analysis is wrong and he'll prove it by doing a deal. I still think he will but my certainty has evaporated.
Second, if this analysis is right I hope that HE is wrong. I hope the US election is a sign that this sort of tawdry populism has peaked and that if Johnson and the Tories pursue it they will get their ass handed to them at the next election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbYqznD0R5M
Mind, your neighbours up on Lewis have never stopped eating gannet, admittedly after burial in a peat bog for some time to get rid of some of the fishiness.
If we're just talking personalities, they are dissimilar in many ways. Just citing positive aspects, Johnson is affable, hearty company, clever and open-minded - a good man to have a drink with. Corbyn is pleasant, unassertive company, lives consistently with his opinions and is unwaveringly calm and personally modest - a good man to have a conversation with. I think the public hostility to each at a personal level is exaggerated, for different reasons, and it's a pity that we all tend to project our political antipathies onto the individuals.
The story of the last five years has been hoping that just this much separation will give enough freedom and opportunity to be worth the hassle.
Dave's deal
Norway-ish
The May Plan
A Canada-ish FTA for goods
They all looked fine from a distance. But on closer examination, none of them stacked up when the costs were weighed against the benefits.
And the evil part of the calculation is that each step, each attempt to get more national sovereignty comes at increasing cost. But the win never comes, so now we have the grotesque chaos of a Conservative government spending billions on increasing barriers to free trade. And we're only stopping here because there is nowhere further to go.
Is it possible that Johnson does this deliberately, secretly wanting Parliament to vote it down? Then we go No Trade Deal with Starmer having shown that he would have entered into a rubbish deal for the UK.
Am I overthinking this?