I see our Brexit supporting friends have gone loopy again and have decided anyone who thinks the most extreme course of action is stupid are unpatriotic. Well I have the opportunity to embrace that in May by voting for the SNP for the first time, and I’m not sure the attitudes above are helping to change my mind.
I think I mentioned this previously but it was nervous middle class Scots who won the first IndyRef for No. However, middle Scotland only aligns economically with Middle England, it has a different set of social values (prudence dear child, prudence) and being told that your Presbyterian cultural mores are unpatriotic is an unimaginably stupid strategy. What makes me laugh is that Gove and even Johnson (belatedly) understand this, which is why we’ve had less “Britain r Best” rhetoric from them over this and more “We’ll be okay if we can’t reach a deal with our neighbours and we will do everything we can to avoid the worst outcomes”. For all that I find their arguments to be wrong headed the less heated leavers on here like Phillip get this too for the most part.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that an increasingly crucial section of the electorate is the sceptical middle, people who are neither Unionists or Nationalists, Leavers or Remainers or necessarily capital L & C Labour or Conservative. Of course the extremes get more bandwidth, particularly in British tabloids and social media, but the sleeping giant of the SM may be awakening, particularly on an 'I've just about had enough of your stupid shit'* level.
*Stupid shit = Trump, Farage, Johnston, Brexit, fish, Britain is best etc
Why do you not add Salmon and Sturgeon to that list? I mean I am in favour of Scottish Independence and support both of them on that front but undoubtedly they are in the same crowd, taping into the same arguments as some of the people you list.
On fishing after no deal, isn't the delirium on the side of the EU fleets that think it's okay to continue to illegally fish in UK territorial waters without expecting a reaction from the UK government to protect its territory.
We keep being told brexit means brexit by the EU and no cherry picking or whatever phraseology they want to use, well it works both ways and on the 1st of January if they drive us to no deal it means no fishing rights for EU fleets and the UK government will set the rules on sustainable fishing in UK territorial water. If EU fleets don't want to operate under those rules then they are going to have to learn the hard way that fishing in UK territorial water will be impossible.
I see our Brexit supporting friends have gone loopy again and have decided anyone who thinks the most extreme course of action is stupid are unpatriotic. Well I have the opportunity to embrace that in May by voting for the SNP for the first time, and I’m not sure the attitudes above are helping to change my mind.
I think I mentioned this previously but it was nervous middle class Scots who won the first IndyRef for No. However, middle Scotland only aligns economically with Middle England, it has a different set of social values (prudence dear child, prudence) and being told that your Presbyterian cultural mores are unpatriotic is an unimaginably stupid strategy. What makes me laugh is that Gove and even Johnson (belatedly) understand this, which is why we’ve had less “Britain r Best” rhetoric from them over this and more “We’ll be okay if we can’t reach a deal with our neighbours and we will do everything we can to avoid the worst outcomes”. For all that I find their arguments to be wrong headed the less heated leavers on here like Phillip get this too for the most part.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that an increasingly crucial section of the electorate is the sceptical middle, people who are neither Unionists or Nationalists, Leavers or Remainers or necessarily capital L & C Labour or Conservative. Of course the extremes get more bandwidth, particularly in British tabloids and social media, but the sleeping giant of the SM may be awakening, particularly on an 'I've just about had enough of your stupid shit'* level.
*Stupid shit = Trump, Farage, Johnston, Brexit, fish, Britain is best etc
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?
No not all others. Just as not all of us agree why should all of them?
Of the 6 former PMs three are Liberals and two of those three backed Brexit. Turnbull is the exception amongst the Liberals.
In Australia, the Conservatives call themselves Liberals, officially. They are not Liberals at all. This is very confusing for some of our PB Tories.
There's no confusion I think everyone knows that. Not least as I said someone who grew up there.
Though as a supporter of liberal economics the Liberals downunder or the Conservatives in the UK are for many the intellectual descendents of that school of thought. There is a reason the old Liberal Party split in two and many old school Liberals joined the Conservatives.
In soft letters I would rather call myself a liberal than a conservative but right wing liberalism in this country, or as many call it libertarianism, belongs to the Conservative Party. In Australia right wing liberalism belongs in the Liberal Party which is nice and simple.
I see our Brexit supporting friends have gone loopy again and have decided anyone who thinks the most extreme course of action is stupid are unpatriotic. Well I have the opportunity to embrace that in May by voting for the SNP for the first time, and I’m not sure the attitudes above are helping to change my mind.
I think I mentioned this previously but it was nervous middle class Scots who won the first IndyRef for No. However, middle Scotland only aligns economically with Middle England, it has a different set of social values (prudence dear child, prudence) and being told that your Presbyterian cultural mores are unpatriotic is an unimaginably stupid strategy. What makes me laugh is that Gove and even Johnson (belatedly) understand this, which is why we’ve had less “Britain r Best” rhetoric from them over this and more “We’ll be okay if we can’t reach a deal with our neighbours and we will do everything we can to avoid the worst outcomes”. For all that I find their arguments to be wrong headed the less heated leavers on here like Phillip get this too for the most part.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that an increasingly crucial section of the electorate is the sceptical middle, people who are neither Unionists or Nationalists, Leavers or Remainers or necessarily capital L & C Labour or Conservative. Of course the extremes get more bandwidth, particularly in British tabloids and social media, but the sleeping giant of the SM may be awakening, particularly on an 'I've just about had enough of your stupid shit'* level.
*Stupid shit = Trump, Farage, Johnston, Brexit, fish, Britain is best etc
Yep. I have a dream. And that's precisely it.
This squeezed middle will be particularly annoyed if their Ikea kitchens aren't arriving on time, which they already seem to be today as that's happening, let alone their food.
On fishing after no deal, isn't the delirium on the side of the EU fleets that think it's okay to continue to illegally fish in UK territorial waters without expecting a reaction from the UK government to protect its territory.
Can you show us a quote from the EU side saying they will fish illegally and disregard the status of our agreement, or non agreement?
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
I see our Brexit supporting friends have gone loopy again and have decided anyone who thinks the most extreme course of action is stupid are unpatriotic. Well I have the opportunity to embrace that in May by voting for the SNP for the first time, and I’m not sure the attitudes above are helping to change my mind.
I think I mentioned this previously but it was nervous middle class Scots who won the first IndyRef for No. However, middle Scotland only aligns economically with Middle England, it has a different set of social values (prudence dear child, prudence) and being told that your Presbyterian cultural mores are unpatriotic is an unimaginably stupid strategy. What makes me laugh is that Gove and even Johnson (belatedly) understand this, which is why we’ve had less “Britain r Best” rhetoric from them over this and more “We’ll be okay if we can’t reach a deal with our neighbours and we will do everything we can to avoid the worst outcomes”. For all that I find their arguments to be wrong headed the less heated leavers on here like Phillip get this too for the most part.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that an increasingly crucial section of the electorate is the sceptical middle, people who are neither Unionists or Nationalists, Leavers or Remainers or necessarily capital L & C Labour or Conservative. Of course the extremes get more bandwidth, particularly in British tabloids and social media, but the sleeping giant of the SM may be awakening, particularly on an 'I've just about had enough of your stupid shit'* level.
*Stupid shit = Trump, Farage, Johnston, Brexit, fish, Britain is best etc
Why do you not add Salmon and Sturgeon to that list? I mean I am in favour of Scottish Independence and support both of them on that front but undoubtedly they are in the same crowd, taping into the same arguments as some of the people you list.
Salmond absolutely. Hopeless man, big reason I was put off from Yes last time. Sturgeon is a different kettle of fish. Every time I see someone banging on about her doing something evil and separatist it’s usually just something that a sensible regional leader elsewhere would do (disallowing travel from English T3 for instance) or everyone else ended up doing anyway. She doesn’t fit in the Trump vein.
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?
Cameron made it very difficult by framing the whole thing as his deal versus nothing. An alternative Brexit campaign could easily promote a different version of Brexit because it was all a fantasy.
Didn't stop alternative Remainers providing an alternative Remain campaign if they'd wanted to. Labour could have easily fought a Remain campaign based on their vision of Remain if they won the next election if they had wanted to.
Stop peddling excuses blaming Cameron. Your side simply didn't put up a good fight and deserved to lose.
On fishing after no deal, isn't the delirium on the side of the EU fleets that think it's okay to continue to illegally fish in UK territorial waters without expecting a reaction from the UK government to protect its territory.
Can you show us a quote from the EU side saying they will fish illegally and disregard the status of our agreement, or non agreement?
We won't know until it happens, however the EU rhetoric isn't good so far with Macron pushing for a year of status quo in the no deal scenario. It shows the deluded entitlement they feel, at least. I'm sure Macron isn't alone in France with that delusion and fishing fleet captains will try their luck.
Next up, the UK allies with Prussia to stop the French sneaking up on us through the Baltic...
Where was the outrage when the Irish boarded Northern Irish fishing vessels and arrested their crews last year?
What outrage? They were fishing illegally.
And any EU fishing vessel in UK waters after January 1st will be doing the same if we don't have a deal. So why are you Euroloons so exercised about the UK following the example of the Irish?
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?
Cameron made it very difficult by framing the whole thing as his deal versus nothing. An alternative Brexit campaign could easily promote a different version of Brexit because it was all a fantasy.
Didn't stop alternative Remainers providing an alternative Remain campaign if they'd wanted to. Labour could have easily fought a Remain campaign based on their vision of Remain if they won the next election if they had wanted to.
Stop peddling excuses blaming Cameron. Your side simply didn't put up a good fight and deserved to lose.
So you think an official Remain campaign saying, "We'll never join the Euro," could have sat alongside an unofficial Remain campaign saying maybe we would?
On topic, hurrah for the Supreme Court for slapping down this astonishing attack on States' Right, this shows the importance of a strong independent judiciary.
No wonder Emperor Boris Johnson wants to castrate our judiciary.
Final point, reading between the lines, I think SCOTUS would have voted 9 nil against the case if they had heard the case.
Read the response of Texas??? 'fair enough guvnor we'll just roll over and accept whatever you say'.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
This is actually quite a good solution. It would certainly help with the issue in the channel, although the danger is that the less intelligent Captain Haddock types try vigilanteism.
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?
Cameron made it very difficult by framing the whole thing as his deal versus nothing. An alternative Brexit campaign could easily promote a different version of Brexit because it was all a fantasy.
Didn't stop alternative Remainers providing an alternative Remain campaign if they'd wanted to. Labour could have easily fought a Remain campaign based on their vision of Remain if they won the next election if they had wanted to.
Stop peddling excuses blaming Cameron. Your side simply didn't put up a good fight and deserved to lose.
So you think an official Remain campaign saying, "We'll never join the Euro," could have sat alongside an unofficial Remain campaign saying maybe we would?
Yes of course.
Vote Leave and Leave.EU posited very different versions of Brexit.
On topic, hurrah for the Supreme Court for slapping down this astonishing attack on States' Right, this shows the importance of a strong independent judiciary.
No wonder Emperor Boris Johnson wants to castrate our judiciary.
Final point, reading between the lines, I think SCOTUS would have voted 9 nil against the case if they had heard the case.
Read the response of Texas??? 'fair enough guvnor we'll just roll over and accept whatever you say'.
Actually that wasn;t it, was it?
Your posts are the craziest things I’ll read, so why would I read whatever drivel Give-Me-A-Pardon-Paxton has emitted this time?
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
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?
Cameron made it very difficult by framing the whole thing as his deal versus nothing. An alternative Brexit campaign could easily promote a different version of Brexit because it was all a fantasy.
Didn't stop alternative Remainers providing an alternative Remain campaign if they'd wanted to. Labour could have easily fought a Remain campaign based on their vision of Remain if they won the next election if they had wanted to.
Stop peddling excuses blaming Cameron. Your side simply didn't put up a good fight and deserved to lose.
So you think an official Remain campaign saying, "We'll never join the Euro," could have sat alongside an unofficial Remain campaign saying maybe we would?
Yes of course.
Vote Leave and Leave.EU posited very different versions of Brexit.
That was easy when there was no reality-based version of Brexit to compare with.
I see our Brexit supporting friends have gone loopy again and have decided anyone who thinks the most extreme course of action is stupid are unpatriotic. Well I have the opportunity to embrace that in May by voting for the SNP for the first time, and I’m not sure the attitudes above are helping to change my mind.
I think I mentioned this previously but it was nervous middle class Scots who won the first IndyRef for No. However, middle Scotland only aligns economically with Middle England, it has a different set of social values (prudence dear child, prudence) and being told that your Presbyterian cultural mores are unpatriotic is an unimaginably stupid strategy. What makes me laugh is that Gove and even Johnson (belatedly) understand this, which is why we’ve had less “Britain r Best” rhetoric from them over this and more “We’ll be okay if we can’t reach a deal with our neighbours and we will do everything we can to avoid the worst outcomes”. For all that I find their arguments to be wrong headed the less heated leavers on here like Phillip get this too for the most part.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that an increasingly crucial section of the electorate is the sceptical middle, people who are neither Unionists or Nationalists, Leavers or Remainers or necessarily capital L & C Labour or Conservative. Of course the extremes get more bandwidth, particularly in British tabloids and social media, but the sleeping giant of the SM may be awakening, particularly on an 'I've just about had enough of your stupid shit'* level.
*Stupid shit = Trump, Farage, Johnston, Brexit, fish, Britain is best etc
Why do you not add Salmon and Sturgeon to that list? I mean I am in favour of Scottish Independence and support both of them on that front but undoubtedly they are in the same crowd, taping into the same arguments as some of the people you list.
Afaics the primary arguments of the people I've listed are immigration is bad, immigrants are bad, the EU is bad, my country is the greatest in the world. I'm hard put to think of where 'Salmon' or Sturgeon have tapped into those.
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 we do get No Deal, there will quite soon be physical manifestations of that. Lorry queues, price rises and shortages are predicatable, but I expect there will be things that happen which will surprise us (and not in a positive way). A big drop in Tory support seems to be the only likely upside.
That's a massive upside, though, so long as it persists to the next election. It would mean a return of rationality and self-respect amongst the great British people and in this great country that I love so much it makes me weep patriotic tears of salt sometimes. Johnson & Co would be calculating (if they do No Deal) that this will not happen, that the electorate will continue to buy their "bulldog" bullshit. Like "Union" says, it would be great to find out that this is terrible miscalculation by them.
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?
No not all others. Just as not all of us agree why should all of them?
Of the 6 former PMs three are Liberals and two of those three backed Brexit. Turnbull is the exception amongst the Liberals.
In Australia, the Conservatives call themselves Liberals, officially. They are not Liberals at all. This is very confusing for some of our PB Tories.
There's no confusion I think everyone knows that. Not least as I said someone who grew up there.
Though as a supporter of liberal economics the Liberals downunder or the Conservatives in the UK are for many the intellectual descendents of that school of thought. There is a reason the old Liberal Party split in two and many old school Liberals joined the Conservatives.
In soft letters I would rather call myself a liberal than a conservative but right wing liberalism in this country, or as many call it libertarianism, belongs to the Conservative Party. In Australia right wing liberalism belongs in the Liberal Party which is nice and simple.
Now, I'm liberal, but to a degree I want ev'rybody to be free But if you think that I'll let Barry Goldwater Move in next door and marry my daughter You must think I'm crazy!
I see our Brexit supporting friends have gone loopy again and have decided anyone who thinks the most extreme course of action is stupid are unpatriotic. Well I have the opportunity to embrace that in May by voting for the SNP for the first time, and I’m not sure the attitudes above are helping to change my mind.
I think I mentioned this previously but it was nervous middle class Scots who won the first IndyRef for No. However, middle Scotland only aligns economically with Middle England, it has a different set of social values (prudence dear child, prudence) and being told that your Presbyterian cultural mores are unpatriotic is an unimaginably stupid strategy. What makes me laugh is that Gove and even Johnson (belatedly) understand this, which is why we’ve had less “Britain r Best” rhetoric from them over this and more “We’ll be okay if we can’t reach a deal with our neighbours and we will do everything we can to avoid the worst outcomes”. For all that I find their arguments to be wrong headed the less heated leavers on here like Phillip get this too for the most part.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that an increasingly crucial section of the electorate is the sceptical middle, people who are neither Unionists or Nationalists, Leavers or Remainers or necessarily capital L & C Labour or Conservative. Of course the extremes get more bandwidth, particularly in British tabloids and social media, but the sleeping giant of the SM may be awakening, particularly on an 'I've just about had enough of your stupid shit'* level.
*Stupid shit = Trump, Farage, Johnston, Brexit, fish, Britain is best etc
Why do you not add Salmon and Sturgeon to that list? I mean I am in favour of Scottish Independence and support both of them on that front but undoubtedly they are in the same crowd, taping into the same arguments as some of the people you list.
Afaics the primary arguments of the people I've listed are immigration is bad, immigrants are bad, the EU is bad, my country is the greatest in the world. I'm hard put to think of where 'Salmon' or Sturgeon have tapped into those.
UK bad, English bad. Those are themes I hear again and again. If you don't think that is an important thread in independence then you are not listening.
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?
No not all others. Just as not all of us agree why should all of them?
Of the 6 former PMs three are Liberals and two of those three backed Brexit. Turnbull is the exception amongst the Liberals.
In Australia, the Conservatives call themselves Liberals, officially. They are not Liberals at all. This is very confusing for some of our PB Tories.
There's no confusion I think everyone knows that. Not least as I said someone who grew up there.
Though as a supporter of liberal economics the Liberals downunder or the Conservatives in the UK are for many the intellectual descendents of that school of thought. There is a reason the old Liberal Party split in two and many old school Liberals joined the Conservatives.
In soft letters I would rather call myself a liberal than a conservative but right wing liberalism in this country, or as many call it libertarianism, belongs to the Conservative Party. In Australia right wing liberalism belongs in the Liberal Party which is nice and simple.
Where does that leave the National Party? I thought they were the rural conservatives.
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 we do get No Deal, there will quite soon be physical manifestations of that. Lorry queues, price rises and shortages are predicatable, but I expect there will be things that happen which will surprise us (and not in a positive way). A big drop in Tory support seems to be the only likely upside.
That's a massive upside, though, so long as it persists to the next election. It would mean a return of rationality and self-respect amongst the great British people and in this great country that I love so much it makes me weep patriotic tears of salt sometimes. Johnson & Co would be calculating (if they do No Deal) that this will not happen, that the electorate will continue to buy their "bulldog" bullshit. Like "Union" says, it would be great to find out that this is terrible miscalculation by them.
Are you saying labour will be going into the next election on a 'rejoin' ticket? best of luck with that in the blue wall seats.
I see our Brexit supporting friends have gone loopy again and have decided anyone who thinks the most extreme course of action is stupid are unpatriotic. Well I have the opportunity to embrace that in May by voting for the SNP for the first time, and I’m not sure the attitudes above are helping to change my mind.
I think I mentioned this previously but it was nervous middle class Scots who won the first IndyRef for No. However, middle Scotland only aligns economically with Middle England, it has a different set of social values (prudence dear child, prudence) and being told that your Presbyterian cultural mores are unpatriotic is an unimaginably stupid strategy. What makes me laugh is that Gove and even Johnson (belatedly) understand this, which is why we’ve had less “Britain r Best” rhetoric from them over this and more “We’ll be okay if we can’t reach a deal with our neighbours and we will do everything we can to avoid the worst outcomes”. For all that I find their arguments to be wrong headed the less heated leavers on here like Phillip get this too for the most part.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that an increasingly crucial section of the electorate is the sceptical middle, people who are neither Unionists or Nationalists, Leavers or Remainers or necessarily capital L & C Labour or Conservative. Of course the extremes get more bandwidth, particularly in British tabloids and social media, but the sleeping giant of the SM may be awakening, particularly on an 'I've just about had enough of your stupid shit'* level.
*Stupid shit = Trump, Farage, Johnston, Brexit, fish, Britain is best etc
Why do you not add Salmon and Sturgeon to that list? I mean I am in favour of Scottish Independence and support both of them on that front but undoubtedly they are in the same crowd, taping into the same arguments as some of the people you list.
Afaics the primary arguments of the people I've listed are immigration is bad, immigrants are bad, the EU is bad, my country is the greatest in the world. I'm hard put to think of where 'Salmon' or Sturgeon have tapped into those.
UK bad, English bad. Those are themes I hear again and again. If you don't think that is an important thread in independence then you are not listening.
Salmond and Sturgeon have said the English are bad? Ok.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
This is actually quite a good solution. It would certainly help with the issue in the channel, although the danger is that the less intelligent Captain Haddock types try vigilanteism.
There always is and there should be an agreement from both sides to deal with any vigilantism or illegal fishing as a crime against both sides. We cooperate on so many things. This is just a matter of political will.
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?
No not all others. Just as not all of us agree why should all of them?
Of the 6 former PMs three are Liberals and two of those three backed Brexit. Turnbull is the exception amongst the Liberals.
In Australia, the Conservatives call themselves Liberals, officially. They are not Liberals at all. This is very confusing for some of our PB Tories.
There's no confusion I think everyone knows that. Not least as I said someone who grew up there.
Though as a supporter of liberal economics the Liberals downunder or the Conservatives in the UK are for many the intellectual descendents of that school of thought. There is a reason the old Liberal Party split in two and many old school Liberals joined the Conservatives.
In soft letters I would rather call myself a liberal than a conservative but right wing liberalism in this country, or as many call it libertarianism, belongs to the Conservative Party. In Australia right wing liberalism belongs in the Liberal Party which is nice and simple.
Where does that leave the National Party? I thought they were the rural conservatives.
They are. Which is why Clipp is ignorant in dismissing the liberalism in the Liberals.
But then he has a very illiberal view on what it means to be liberal.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
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.
My wife voted the other other way to me, as did my father, but I can't say it's caused estrangement.
The lucky folk had hot gravel to eat, prior to 1973.
That comment from Saunders is just pure fantasy. Moreover for most of the 70s we were already in the EEC. His comments rely entirely on people having no memory or understanding of the era.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly rules zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
Precisely. If they are countenancing no fly zones we need to treat them as our geopolitical enemy until there can be an economic ceasefire. At which point we can put fishing compromises etc on the table.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
Looks quite a good idea. Very Mandelbrottian.
Though I don't see the EU banning supertrawlers much before 2100.
We knew about the discards issue soon after 1990, and they still sat on their arses in Brussels for nearly 3 decades until Hugh FW and his campaign.
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 we do get No Deal, there will quite soon be physical manifestations of that. Lorry queues, price rises and shortages are predicatable, but I expect there will be things that happen which will surprise us (and not in a positive way). A big drop in Tory support seems to be the only likely upside.
That's a massive upside, though, so long as it persists to the next election. It would mean a return of rationality and self-respect amongst the great British people and in this great country that I love so much it makes me weep patriotic tears of salt sometimes. Johnson & Co would be calculating (if they do No Deal) that this will not happen, that the electorate will continue to buy their "bulldog" bullshit. Like "Union" says, it would be great to find out that this is terrible miscalculation by them.
Are you saying labour will be going into the next election on a 'rejoin' ticket? best of luck with that in the blue wall seats.
No, Labour, and LibDems have ruled out Rejoin at the next GE. I think only SNP will run on that manifesto. Not sure about Greens, SF and PC.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly rules zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
We had people threatening Spain with war within three days of Article 50 being invoked.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
I think the only sane answer to such delusional views is 'bollocks'.
It is exactly this sort of confrontational attitude from sections of the Leave side (and some on the Remain side) that has got us to the point where we are faced with such stark choices.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly rules zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
We had people threatening Spain with war within three days of Article 50 being invoked.
No.
We had people responding to bizarre hypotheticals on what we should do if Spain declared war on us by invading Gibraltar - not the other way around.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly rules zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
We had people threatening Spain with war within three days of Article 50 being invoked.
Yes, a few twitter idiots and chump MPs is exactly the same as the EU commission actually saying British planes can't land in the EU or fly through EU airspace.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly rules zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
We had people threatening Spain with war within three days of Article 50 being invoked.
Yes, but Hyufd’s personal desire to invade every nation in Europe is slightly unusual.
I mean, I’m quite happy to see the Spanish fishers finally get their overdue comeuppance, but I see no need to nuke Madrid.
On topic, hurrah for the Supreme Court for slapping down this astonishing attack on States' Right, this shows the importance of a strong independent judiciary.
No wonder Emperor Boris Johnson wants to castrate our judiciary.
Final point, reading between the lines, I think SCOTUS would have voted 9 nil against the case if they had heard the case.
Well I think SCOTUS was wrong. I wanted them to hear the case for the one and only reason that Trump was going to give evidence. That would have been magnificent entertainment.
I see our Brexit supporting friends have gone loopy again and have decided anyone who thinks the most extreme course of action is stupid are unpatriotic. Well I have the opportunity to embrace that in May by voting for the SNP for the first time, and I’m not sure the attitudes above are helping to change my mind.
I think I mentioned this previously but it was nervous middle class Scots who won the first IndyRef for No. However, middle Scotland only aligns economically with Middle England, it has a different set of social values (prudence dear child, prudence) and being told that your Presbyterian cultural mores are unpatriotic is an unimaginably stupid strategy. What makes me laugh is that Gove and even Johnson (belatedly) understand this, which is why we’ve had less “Britain r Best” rhetoric from them over this and more “We’ll be okay if we can’t reach a deal with our neighbours and we will do everything we can to avoid the worst outcomes”. For all that I find their arguments to be wrong headed the less heated leavers on here like Phillip get this too for the most part.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that an increasingly crucial section of the electorate is the sceptical middle, people who are neither Unionists or Nationalists, Leavers or Remainers or necessarily capital L & C Labour or Conservative. Of course the extremes get more bandwidth, particularly in British tabloids and social media, but the sleeping giant of the SM may be awakening, particularly on an 'I've just about had enough of your stupid shit'* level.
*Stupid shit = Trump, Farage, Johnston, Brexit, fish, Britain is best etc
Why do you not add Salmon and Sturgeon to that list? I mean I am in favour of Scottish Independence and support both of them on that front but undoubtedly they are in the same crowd, taping into the same arguments as some of the people you list.
Salmond absolutely. Hopeless man, big reason I was put off from Yes last time. Sturgeon is a different kettle of fish. Every time I see someone banging on about her doing something evil and separatist it’s usually just something that a sensible regional leader elsewhere would do (disallowing travel from English T3 for instance) or everyone else ended up doing anyway. She doesn’t fit in the Trump vein.
Agreed. Sturgeon is not a populist. Unless the meaning of the word is widened to lose all utility.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly rules zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
We had people threatening Spain with war within three days of Article 50 being invoked.
Yes, a few twitter idiots and chump MPs is exactly the same as the EU commission actually saying British planes can't land in the EU or fly through EU airspace.
Without a deal on planes, and plane parts, that is the legal position. So I agree with UvdL that there needs to be some mini deals, even in the No Deal context to prevent such problems. It is why I have stayed out of the No Deal markets as I am unclear as to the bookies position on minideals.
On topic, hurrah for the Supreme Court for slapping down this astonishing attack on States' Right, this shows the importance of a strong independent judiciary.
No wonder Emperor Boris Johnson wants to castrate our judiciary.
Final point, reading between the lines, I think SCOTUS would have voted 9 nil against the case if they had heard the case.
Well I think SCOTUS was wrong. I wanted them to hear the case for the one and only reason that Trump was going to give evidence. That would have been magnificent entertainment.
The case was not dismissed on its merits but on the basis Texas had no standing ie Texas could not show it was damaged by the unconstitutional acts of the sued states.
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 we do get No Deal, there will quite soon be physical manifestations of that. Lorry queues, price rises and shortages are predicatable, but I expect there will be things that happen which will surprise us (and not in a positive way). A big drop in Tory support seems to be the only likely upside.
That's a massive upside, though, so long as it persists to the next election. It would mean a return of rationality and self-respect amongst the great British people and in this great country that I love so much it makes me weep patriotic tears of salt sometimes. Johnson & Co would be calculating (if they do No Deal) that this will not happen, that the electorate will continue to buy their "bulldog" bullshit. Like "Union" says, it would be great to find out that this is terrible miscalculation by them.
Are you saying labour will be going into the next election on a 'rejoin' ticket? best of luck with that in the blue wall seats.
No way will they do that, no. They'll be on a "Make the Bullshit Stop" ticket.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
I think the only sane answer to such delusional views is 'bollocks'.
It is exactly this sort of confrontational attitude from sections of the Leave side (and some on the Remain side) that has got us to the point where we are faced with such stark choices.
No, the reason we're fucked is people like you in government holding on to the belief they are negotiating with an ally or reasonable party. It's people like Olly Robbins putting forwards favourable compromises for the EU giving them a 90/10 win in almost all areas still being treated as a hostile party by them.
We're in this position because we didn't negotiate with them as an informal enemy and instead negotiated with them as a formal ally, expecting them to do the same. They did no such thing and now with their threats of economic blockades the veil has finally fallen, even if you refuse to see it.
If France were truly our ally would they not be stepping in now and vetoing the idea that British planes can't land in the EU or fly through EU airspace? If the EU was truly our ally would they even have suggested such a ridiculous idea in the first place? Globally airspace and landing rights have no quid quo pro, the only countries that are denied it are those who support terrorism and yet the EU are saying we should sign up to some form of the LPF to get landing and airspace rights. They can absolutely get fucked and expect an arbitration loss within about two seconds as they would have to apply the same rules to all nations.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
I think the only sane answer to such delusional views is 'bollocks'.
It is exactly this sort of confrontational attitude from sections of the Leave side (and some on the Remain side) that has got us to the point where we are faced with such stark choices.
No, the reason we're fucked is people like you in government holding on to the belief they are negotiating with an ally or reasonable party. It's people like Olly Robbins putting forwards favourable compromises for the EU giving them a 90/10 win in almost all areas still being treated as a hostile party by them.
We're in this position because we didn't negotiate with them as an informal enemy and instead negotiated with them as a formal ally, expecting them to do the same. They did no such thing and now with their threats of economic blockades the veil has finally fallen, even if you refuse to see it.
If France were truly our ally would they not be stepping in now and vetoing the idea that British planes can't land in the EU or fly through EU airspace? If the EU was truly our ally would they even have suggested such a ridiculous idea in the first place? Globally airspace and landing rights have no quid quo pro, the only countries that are denied it are those who support terrorism and yet the EU are saying we should sign up to some form of the LPF to get landing and airspace rights. They can absolutely get fucked and expect an arbitration loss within about two seconds as they would have to apply the same rules to all nations.
If we really wanted to make remainer heads explode we could always withdraw our troops, ships, air support and nuclear umbrella and leave these b8stards to Putin....
On topic, hurrah for the Supreme Court for slapping down this astonishing attack on States' Right, this shows the importance of a strong independent judiciary.
No wonder Emperor Boris Johnson wants to castrate our judiciary.
Final point, reading between the lines, I think SCOTUS would have voted 9 nil against the case if they had heard the case.
Well I think SCOTUS was wrong. I wanted them to hear the case for the one and only reason that Trump was going to give evidence. That would have been magnificent entertainment.
The case was not dismissed on its merits but on the basis Texas had no standing ie Texas could not show it was damaged by the unconstitutional acts of the sued states.
The acts were not shown to be unconstitutional, quite the opposite - remember SCOTUS dismissed a case from people that actually could have had standing prior to that. Had the actions been unconstitutional then that should have been heard by the Pennsylvanian voters appeal to SCOTUS.
But it was obvious to everyone here but you it seems that Texas would lack standing.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly rules zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
We had people threatening Spain with war within three days of Article 50 being invoked.
Yes, a few twitter idiots and chump MPs is exactly the same as the EU commission actually saying British planes can't land in the EU or fly through EU airspace.
Without a deal on planes, and plane parts, that is the legal position. So I agree with UvdL that there needs to be some mini deals, even in the No Deal context to prevent such problems. It is why I have stayed out of the No Deal markets as I am unclear as to the bookies position on minideals.
So are they suggesting the CAA which has identical rules to EU agencies hasn't got the competency but the Russian aviation authority which has significant lower standards does?
There is no legitimate reason to tie any kind of LPF measures to landing and airspace rights, the EU are declaring an economic and trade war with these kinds of proposals. It's nothing more than that.
There's not even any of the rumours or denied titbits of a deal briefing you might expect by now, if anything were going to materialise soon. If they're secretly on the verge of a breakthrough, they're keeping it vey well hidden.
On topic, hurrah for the Supreme Court for slapping down this astonishing attack on States' Right, this shows the importance of a strong independent judiciary.
No wonder Emperor Boris Johnson wants to castrate our judiciary.
Final point, reading between the lines, I think SCOTUS would have voted 9 nil against the case if they had heard the case.
Well I think SCOTUS was wrong. I wanted them to hear the case for the one and only reason that Trump was going to give evidence. That would have been magnificent entertainment.
Well SCOTUS hearings are not televised, so we would not have seen the entertainment.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
I think the only sane answer to such delusional views is 'bollocks'.
It is exactly this sort of confrontational attitude from sections of the Leave side (and some on the Remain side) that has got us to the point where we are faced with such stark choices.
No, the reason we're fucked is people like you in government holding on to the belief they are negotiating with an ally or reasonable party. It's people like Olly Robbins putting forwards favourable compromises for the EU giving them a 90/10 win in almost all areas still being treated as a hostile party by them.
We're in this position because we didn't negotiate with them as an informal enemy and instead negotiated with them as a formal ally, expecting them to do the same. They did no such thing and now with their threats of economic blockades the veil has finally fallen, even if you refuse to see it.
If France were truly our ally would they not be stepping in now and vetoing the idea that British planes can't land in the EU or fly through EU airspace? If the EU was truly our ally would they even have suggested such a ridiculous idea in the first place? Globally airspace and landing rights have no quid quo pro, the only countries that are denied it are those who support terrorism and yet the EU are saying we should sign up to some form of the LPF to get landing and airspace rights. They can absolutely get fucked and expect an arbitration loss within about two seconds as they would have to apply the same rules to all nations.
Do you think someone like Erdogan is a model for how to negotiate with pseudo-allies?
I see our Brexit supporting friends have gone loopy again and have decided anyone who thinks the most extreme course of action is stupid are unpatriotic. Well I have the opportunity to embrace that in May by voting for the SNP for the first time, and I’m not sure the attitudes above are helping to change my mind.
I think I mentioned this previously but it was nervous middle class Scots who won the first IndyRef for No. However, middle Scotland only aligns economically with Middle England, it has a different set of social values (prudence dear child, prudence) and being told that your Presbyterian cultural mores are unpatriotic is an unimaginably stupid strategy. What makes me laugh is that Gove and even Johnson (belatedly) understand this, which is why we’ve had less “Britain r Best” rhetoric from them over this and more “We’ll be okay if we can’t reach a deal with our neighbours and we will do everything we can to avoid the worst outcomes”. For all that I find their arguments to be wrong headed the less heated leavers on here like Phillip get this too for the most part.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that an increasingly crucial section of the electorate is the sceptical middle, people who are neither Unionists or Nationalists, Leavers or Remainers or necessarily capital L & C Labour or Conservative. Of course the extremes get more bandwidth, particularly in British tabloids and social media, but the sleeping giant of the SM may be awakening, particularly on an 'I've just about had enough of your stupid shit'* level.
*Stupid shit = Trump, Farage, Johnston, Brexit, fish, Britain is best etc
Why do you not add Salmon and Sturgeon to that list? I mean I am in favour of Scottish Independence and support both of them on that front but undoubtedly they are in the same crowd, taping into the same arguments as some of the people you list.
Afaics the primary arguments of the people I've listed are immigration is bad, immigrants are bad, the EU is bad, my country is the greatest in the world. I'm hard put to think of where 'Salmon' or Sturgeon have tapped into those.
UK bad, English bad. Those are themes I hear again and again. If you don't think that is an important thread in independence then you are not listening.
Sometimes memories are long, things happen in the past and become established memes. For example, the behaviour of the English in Ireland probably did more to bring about Irish independence than Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen.
On topic, hurrah for the Supreme Court for slapping down this astonishing attack on States' Right, this shows the importance of a strong independent judiciary.
No wonder Emperor Boris Johnson wants to castrate our judiciary.
Final point, reading between the lines, I think SCOTUS would have voted 9 nil against the case if they had heard the case.
Well I think SCOTUS was wrong. I wanted them to hear the case for the one and only reason that Trump was going to give evidence. That would have been magnificent entertainment.
The case was not dismissed on its merits but on the basis Texas had no standing ie Texas could not show it was damaged by the unconstitutional acts of the sued states.
An odd reply. What I posted was my attempt at a joke, although I still think it would have been great entertainment.
Have no idea what your point is. I know why it was dismissed, but has that has zippo to do with my post so why post your post? Did I anywhere suggest it was dismissed on the merits of the case. Weird!
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
I think the only sane answer to such delusional views is 'bollocks'.
It is exactly this sort of confrontational attitude from sections of the Leave side (and some on the Remain side) that has got us to the point where we are faced with such stark choices.
No, the reason we're fucked is people like you in government holding on to the belief they are negotiating with an ally or reasonable party. It's people like Olly Robbins putting forwards favourable compromises for the EU giving them a 90/10 win in almost all areas still being treated as a hostile party by them.
We're in this position because we didn't negotiate with them as an informal enemy and instead negotiated with them as a formal ally, expecting them to do the same. They did no such thing and now with their threats of economic blockades the veil has finally fallen, even if you refuse to see it.
If France were truly our ally would they not be stepping in now and vetoing the idea that British planes can't land in the EU or fly through EU airspace? If the EU was truly our ally would they even have suggested such a ridiculous idea in the first place? Globally airspace and landing rights have no quid quo pro, the only countries that are denied it are those who support terrorism and yet the EU are saying we should sign up to some form of the LPF to get landing and airspace rights. They can absolutely get fucked and expect an arbitration loss within about two seconds as they would have to apply the same rules to all nations.
Do you think someone like Erdogan is a model for how to negotiate with pseudo-allies?
Well, to be fair, St Theresa had bit of a soft spot for him, as she did for Orban.
Next up, the UK allies with Prussia to stop the French sneaking up on us through the Baltic...
Where was the outrage when the Irish boarded Northern Irish fishing vessels and arrested their crews last year?
What outrage? They were fishing illegally.
Yes, I think I get this one: it's entirely understandable if EU member states police their own fishing waters and arrest crews but it's an absolute outrage if the UK does the same.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
I think the only sane answer to such delusional views is 'bollocks'.
It is exactly this sort of confrontational attitude from sections of the Leave side (and some on the Remain side) that has got us to the point where we are faced with such stark choices.
No, the reason we're fucked is people like you in government holding on to the belief they are negotiating with an ally or reasonable party. It's people like Olly Robbins putting forwards favourable compromises for the EU giving them a 90/10 win in almost all areas still being treated as a hostile party by them.
We're in this position because we didn't negotiate with them as an informal enemy and instead negotiated with them as a formal ally, expecting them to do the same. They did no such thing and now with their threats of economic blockades the veil has finally fallen, even if you refuse to see it.
If France were truly our ally would they not be stepping in now and vetoing the idea that British planes can't land in the EU or fly through EU airspace? If the EU was truly our ally would they even have suggested such a ridiculous idea in the first place? Globally airspace and landing rights have no quid quo pro, the only countries that are denied it are those who support terrorism and yet the EU are saying we should sign up to some form of the LPF to get landing and airspace rights. They can absolutely get fucked and expect an arbitration loss within about two seconds as they would have to apply the same rules to all nations.
Do you think someone like Erdogan is a model for how to negotiate with pseudo-allies?
Lol, more bullshit it's the EU that is acting like a dictator drunk on power that's slowly slipping away from them. They have realised a successful UK outside of the EU is an existential threat to them, I think you have too which is why you're so downbeat lately.
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.
Yes, to me the only sane responses to the to Brexit were either Remain or WTO terms. No one wanted a soft Brexit, just a distant unsatisfactory second choice before getting what they really want in a later battle.
I have been for WTO ever since 2016, just changed my mind to wanting it ratified by referendum when it became clear that was going to be the choice in 2018.
Nah that's rubbish. It was perfectly feasible for us to have gone for EFTA membership in the wake of the referendum and that would easily have had majority support in the country as a whole. Sadly we had a PM in charge who didn't understand anything about Brexit or its support base and who chose to alienate practically everyone on all sides of the debate.
The Remainer myth that a hard Brexit was the only one that would be acceptable to Leavers just shows how little you understood - or cared - what Brexit was about.
Well, Brexit is about different things to different people. Amongst the 17m no doubt there were some like you who were passionate about leaving the EU yet hot to trot for EFTA. Unfortunately the politics meant that such a thing - the softest of Brexits - was not possible for a Tory PM to implement and retain their job. It needed a different result in the 17 election. If Labour had won, EFTA or similar would have been the likely outcome.
But where are where we are. This deal. Which by my reckoning passes your very robust "sovereignty" test, therefore you are hoping it gets done - am I right?
Yes. We should have dealt months ago. We should have gone with May's deal.
Sure looks that way. A less bad Brexit plus something even more important - it would probably have saved us from Johnson.
With Johnson's predeliction for Churchillian wartime rhetoric, what's not to like?
I have to say that Ian Dunt's use of language does his cause no favours
Is his surname rhyming slang?
He works for a very innovative news website, which was making internet news pay long before most people. They were charging organisations for presence pages very very early.
But he's been a mini-me Adonis on Brexit since 2016.
Smart and insightful Remainers will realise that the UK publicly saying it will police enforcement of its waters in the event of No Deal is the best chance there is of getting a Deal.
I can only conclude from what I've seen on here today that there aren't that many of them, or they're staying quiet.
Next up, the UK allies with Prussia to stop the French sneaking up on us through the Baltic...
Where was the outrage when the Irish boarded Northern Irish fishing vessels and arrested their crews last year?
What outrage? They were fishing illegally.
Yes, I think I get this one: it's entirely understandable if EU member states police their own fishing waters and arrest crews but it's an absolute outrage if the UK does the same.
Nope it is perfectly reasonable.
The difference is we are making a song and dance about, stirring up nationalism, threatening our neighbours, etc, etc.
Whereas they have simply got on with the business of arresting fisherman fishing illegally without the above.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly rules zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
We had people threatening Spain with war within three days of Article 50 being invoked.
Max's whole argument of "blockades " and "bans" is disingenuous and utterly risible. Exporting goods&services into the single market and conducting international airtravel are things which obviously cannot happen in a legal vacuum. They can happen now because there are treaties in place. Blighty has made the sovereign decision to terminate any and all treaties that existed for that purpose, so these things will stop. There is no option to "just look the other way". Once the certifications (and insurance coverage) for planes, crews and airports expire, everything will grind to a halt. That is automatic, not a choice. It's not something that is "being threatened", it's how the real world works. If you terminate your treaties, you need to replace them with something else. If you refuse to do that, you will have to accept the consequences of your decision.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
I think the only sane answer to such delusional views is 'bollocks'.
It is exactly this sort of confrontational attitude from sections of the Leave side (and some on the Remain side) that has got us to the point where we are faced with such stark choices.
No, the reason we're fucked is people like you in government holding on to the belief they are negotiating with an ally or reasonable party. It's people like Olly Robbins putting forwards favourable compromises for the EU giving them a 90/10 win in almost all areas still being treated as a hostile party by them.
We're in this position because we didn't negotiate with them as an informal enemy and instead negotiated with them as a formal ally, expecting them to do the same. They did no such thing and now with their threats of economic blockades the veil has finally fallen, even if you refuse to see it.
If France were truly our ally would they not be stepping in now and vetoing the idea that British planes can't land in the EU or fly through EU airspace? If the EU was truly our ally would they even have suggested such a ridiculous idea in the first place? Globally airspace and landing rights have no quid quo pro, the only countries that are denied it are those who support terrorism and yet the EU are saying we should sign up to some form of the LPF to get landing and airspace rights. They can absolutely get fucked and expect an arbitration loss within about two seconds as they would have to apply the same rules to all nations.
Wow! Is this were we have got on on PB? @Richard_Tyndall being told off for not being a true "Leaver"?
I think we have fell down Alice-in-Wonderlands's rabbit hole....
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
I think the only sane answer to such delusional views is 'bollocks'.
It is exactly this sort of confrontational attitude from sections of the Leave side (and some on the Remain side) that has got us to the point where we are faced with such stark choices.
No, the reason we're fucked is people like you in government holding on to the belief they are negotiating with an ally or reasonable party. It's people like Olly Robbins putting forwards favourable compromises for the EU giving them a 90/10 win in almost all areas still being treated as a hostile party by them.
We're in this position because we didn't negotiate with them as an informal enemy and instead negotiated with them as a formal ally, expecting them to do the same. They did no such thing and now with their threats of economic blockades the veil has finally fallen, even if you refuse to see it.
If France were truly our ally would they not be stepping in now and vetoing the idea that British planes can't land in the EU or fly through EU airspace? If the EU was truly our ally would they even have suggested such a ridiculous idea in the first place? Globally airspace and landing rights have no quid quo pro, the only countries that are denied it are those who support terrorism and yet the EU are saying we should sign up to some form of the LPF to get landing and airspace rights. They can absolutely get fucked and expect an arbitration loss within about two seconds as they would have to apply the same rules to all nations.
If we really wanted to make remainer heads explode we could always withdraw our troops, ships, air support and nuclear umbrella and leave these b8stards to Putin....
Withdrawing from NATO, eh? I suppose the logic of no compromise on pure national sovereignty could point in that direction.
Smart and insightful Remainers will realise that the UK publicly saying it will police enforcement of its waters in the event of No Deal is the best chance there is of getting a Deal.
I can only conclude from what I've seen on here today that there aren't that many of them, or they're staying quiet.
I can't comprehend the focus on fishing by either side, I really cannot.
Fishing accounts for 0.1% of the UK's GDP and this is the hill to die on?
I know I work in the Banking & Financial Services sector but a bit more focus on that during any deal may have been more of a priority. Heck even manufacturing.
I see our Brexit supporting friends have gone loopy again and have decided anyone who thinks the most extreme course of action is stupid are unpatriotic. Well I have the opportunity to embrace that in May by voting for the SNP for the first time, and I’m not sure the attitudes above are helping to change my mind.
I think I mentioned this previously but it was nervous middle class Scots who won the first IndyRef for No. However, middle Scotland only aligns economically with Middle England, it has a different set of social values (prudence dear child, prudence) and being told that your Presbyterian cultural mores are unpatriotic is an unimaginably stupid strategy. What makes me laugh is that Gove and even Johnson (belatedly) understand this, which is why we’ve had less “Britain r Best” rhetoric from them over this and more “We’ll be okay if we can’t reach a deal with our neighbours and we will do everything we can to avoid the worst outcomes”. For all that I find their arguments to be wrong headed the less heated leavers on here like Phillip get this too for the most part.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that an increasingly crucial section of the electorate is the sceptical middle, people who are neither Unionists or Nationalists, Leavers or Remainers or necessarily capital L & C Labour or Conservative. Of course the extremes get more bandwidth, particularly in British tabloids and social media, but the sleeping giant of the SM may be awakening, particularly on an 'I've just about had enough of your stupid shit'* level.
*Stupid shit = Trump, Farage, Johnston, Brexit, fish, Britain is best etc
Why do you not add Salmon and Sturgeon to that list? I mean I am in favour of Scottish Independence and support both of them on that front but undoubtedly they are in the same crowd, taping into the same arguments as some of the people you list.
Afaics the primary arguments of the people I've listed are immigration is bad, immigrants are bad, the EU is bad, my country is the greatest in the world. I'm hard put to think of where 'Salmon' or Sturgeon have tapped into those.
UK bad, English bad. Those are themes I hear again and again. If you don't think that is an important thread in independence then you are not listening.
Sometimes memories are long, things happen in the past and become established memes. For example, the behaviour of the English in Ireland probably did more to bring about Irish independence than Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen.
Yep I agree with that. I just find it ironic that we have some Scots on here trotting out the line that British (English) nationalism is evil and wrong whilst Scottish nationalism is wholesome and right. It is as daft as those Brexiteers who believe in Brexit for reasons of sovereignty and political accountability but oppose Scottish independence for the same reasons.
I would add these Brexiteers are often the ones who rail against the institutions, laws and customs of the British (English) state because they are doing the job they were created to do.
Smart and insightful Remainers will realise that the UK publicly saying it will police enforcement of its waters in the event of No Deal is the best chance there is of getting a Deal.
Dumb and deceitful Brexiteers have been saying for 4 years that every really stupid thing they says makes a deal more likely, as we stare down the barrel of No Deal
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly rules zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
We had people threatening Spain with war within three days of Article 50 being invoked.
Max's whole argument of "blockades " and "bans" is disingenuous and utterly risible. Exporting goods&services into the single market and conducting international airtravel are things which obviously cannot happen in a legal vacuum. They can happen now because there are treaties in place. Blighty has made the sovereign decision to terminate any and all treaties that existed for that purpose, so these things will stop. There is no option to "just look the other way". Once the certifications (and insurance coverage) for planes, crews and airports expire, everything will grind to a halt. That is automatic, not a choice. It's not something that is "being threatened", it's how the real world works. If you terminate your treaties, you need to replace them with something else. If you refuse to do that, you will have to accept the consequences of your decision.
I'm not suggesting that they don't need replacing, I'm suggesting that the EU trying to tie that to any kind of LPF is a declaration of a trade war. No other country is subject to these kinds of measures. Explain why the UK should have to submit to them while Russia or even Iran aren't and yet have airspace and landing rights?
*Stupid shit = Trump, Farage, Johnston, Brexit, fish, Britain is best etc
Indy, Flags, etc...
Forced choices on which is the lesser of two evils are still choices. I recall you may even have agreed with me at the start of this shitshow on 24/06/16.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
I think the only sane answer to such delusional views is 'bollocks'.
It is exactly this sort of confrontational attitude from sections of the Leave side (and some on the Remain side) that has got us to the point where we are faced with such stark choices.
No, the reason we're fucked is people like you in government holding on to the belief they are negotiating with an ally or reasonable party. It's people like Olly Robbins putting forwards favourable compromises for the EU giving them a 90/10 win in almost all areas still being treated as a hostile party by them.
We're in this position because we didn't negotiate with them as an informal enemy and instead negotiated with them as a formal ally, expecting them to do the same. They did no such thing and now with their threats of economic blockades the veil has finally fallen, even if you refuse to see it.
If France were truly our ally would they not be stepping in now and vetoing the idea that British planes can't land in the EU or fly through EU airspace? If the EU was truly our ally would they even have suggested such a ridiculous idea in the first place? Globally airspace and landing rights have no quid quo pro, the only countries that are denied it are those who support terrorism and yet the EU are saying we should sign up to some form of the LPF to get landing and airspace rights. They can absolutely get fucked and expect an arbitration loss within about two seconds as they would have to apply the same rules to all nations.
If we really wanted to make remainer heads explode we could always withdraw our troops, ships, air support and nuclear umbrella and leave these b8stards to Putin....
Withdrawing from NATO, eh? I suppose the logic of no compromise on pure national sovereignty could point in that direction.
Smart and insightful Remainers will realise that the UK publicly saying it will police enforcement of its waters in the event of No Deal is the best chance there is of getting a Deal.
I can only conclude from what I've seen on here today that there aren't that many of them, or they're staying quiet.
I can't comprehend the focus on fishing by either side, I really cannot.
Fishing accounts for 0.1% of the UK's GDP and this is the hill to die on?
I know I work in the Banking & Financial Services sector but a bit more focus on that during any deal may have been more of a priority. Heck even manufacturing.
Sadly that is the same argument that says that it is worth sacrificing one person (against their will) to save 100. It is not an argument I can support.
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.
My wife voted the other other way to me, as did my father, but I can't say it's caused estrangement.
My wife, father, mother, sister and nephew all voted the same as me, and I managed to convince my wife, sister and nephew accordingly.
So I've been fortunate in having no family splits on this.
The issue has come with close friends. However, that's far better now than it was in, say, 2018.
On the fisheries I will repeat what I said on the last thread. Johnson has an easy way out of this one. Allow a continuation of fishing access with some reduced limits agreed with the EU but have a blanket ban on the supertrawlers fishing in British waters.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
No, while the EU are threatening economic blockades with flight bans and airspace bans there is no reason to negotiate with them on fishing at all. This should be the reddest of red lines in no deal.
That is frankly idiotic. If there is a solution there that suits all sides and which also maintains UK control of the fishing waters whilst helping to reduce overfishing and giving our fishermen more catch why the hell should we object to it?
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
If they were on our side of the world then there wouldn't be threats to British flagged planes not being able to land in EU countries or flying through EU airspace.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
I think the only sane answer to such delusional views is 'bollocks'.
It is exactly this sort of confrontational attitude from sections of the Leave side (and some on the Remain side) that has got us to the point where we are faced with such stark choices.
No, the reason we're fucked is people like you in government holding on to the belief they are negotiating with an ally or reasonable party. It's people like Olly Robbins putting forwards favourable compromises for the EU giving them a 90/10 win in almost all areas still being treated as a hostile party by them.
We're in this position because we didn't negotiate with them as an informal enemy and instead negotiated with them as a formal ally, expecting them to do the same. They did no such thing and now with their threats of economic blockades the veil has finally fallen, even if you refuse to see it.
If France were truly our ally would they not be stepping in now and vetoing the idea that British planes can't land in the EU or fly through EU airspace? If the EU was truly our ally would they even have suggested such a ridiculous idea in the first place? Globally airspace and landing rights have no quid quo pro, the only countries that are denied it are those who support terrorism and yet the EU are saying we should sign up to some form of the LPF to get landing and airspace rights. They can absolutely get fucked and expect an arbitration loss within about two seconds as they would have to apply the same rules to all nations.
If we really wanted to make remainer heads explode we could always withdraw our troops, ships, air support and nuclear umbrella and leave these b8stards to Putin....
Withdrawing from NATO, eh? I suppose the logic of no compromise on pure national sovereignty could point in that direction.
Smart and insightful Remainers will realise that the UK publicly saying it will police enforcement of its waters in the event of No Deal is the best chance there is of getting a Deal.
I can only conclude from what I've seen on here today that there aren't that many of them, or they're staying quiet.
I can't comprehend the focus on fishing by either side, I really cannot.
Fishing accounts for 0.1% of the UK's GDP and this is the hill to die on?
I know I work in the Banking & Financial Services sector but a bit more focus on that during any deal may have been more of a priority. Heck even manufacturing.
It's very emotive, but I think the main issue is the LPF. It does look as though a deal was almost reached a fortnight ago, but President Macron and some other EU leaders took the view that their negotiators had crossed red lines.
Smart and insightful Remainers will realise that the UK publicly saying it will police enforcement of its waters in the event of No Deal is the best chance there is of getting a Deal.
I can only conclude from what I've seen on here today that there aren't that many of them, or they're staying quiet.
The whole thing is pointless posturing. Someone already patrols UK fishing waters to enforce CFP rules and quotas, just as the Irish Navy does for Irish waters.
So announcing that Navy patrol vessels will do so in January means nothing. So what?
It's nothing to be outraged about, or applaud. That HMG have decided to make a thing of it makes me suspect they are trying to distract from something, but I've no idea whether they want to distract from no deal calamity or deal compromise.
I can only wait and see. Not much to say then, really.
Smart and insightful Remainers will realise that the UK publicly saying it will police enforcement of its waters in the event of No Deal is the best chance there is of getting a Deal.
I can only conclude from what I've seen on here today that there aren't that many of them, or they're staying quiet.
I can't comprehend the focus on fishing by either side, I really cannot.
Fishing accounts for 0.1% of the UK's GDP and this is the hill to die on?
I know I work in the Banking & Financial Services sector but a bit more focus on that during any deal may have been more of a priority. Heck even manufacturing.
One might ask why the EU (particularly France) are making these increased demands on this at the last moment. It also doesn't seem like a priority in terms of GDP for them either.
The level playing field issue seems much more of a big deal for both sides, and one I am not sure is bridgeable. It is clear the EU sees it is absolutely fundamental to their block that a country so close might divergence from the sort of rules they use, while for the UK, not being able to diverge at all isn't Brexit.
Comments
We keep being told brexit means brexit by the EU and no cherry picking or whatever phraseology they want to use, well it works both ways and on the 1st of January if they drive us to no deal it means no fishing rights for EU fleets and the UK government will set the rules on sustainable fishing in UK territorial water. If EU fleets don't want to operate under those rules then they are going to have to learn the hard way that fishing in UK territorial water will be impossible.
Though as a supporter of liberal economics the Liberals downunder or the Conservatives in the UK are for many the intellectual descendents of that school of thought. There is a reason the old Liberal Party split in two and many old school Liberals joined the Conservatives.
In soft letters I would rather call myself a liberal than a conservative but right wing liberalism in this country, or as many call it libertarianism, belongs to the Conservative Party. In Australia right wing liberalism belongs in the Liberal Party which is nice and simple.
It will win plaudits on all sides. It massively reduces the overfishing of the waters, it will be supported by organisations like Greenpeace, it will allow real increase in catches for British fishermen without cutting them off from their European markets and it will allow EU fishermen continued access as long as they abide by the UK rules - bearing in mind most of the French fishermen are small boat owners. It might also put more pressure on the EU to follow suit and ban the supertrawlers from their waters as well.
Stop peddling excuses blaming Cameron. Your side simply didn't put up a good fight and deserved to lose.
Actually that wasn;t it, was it?
Vote Leave and Leave.EU posited very different versions of Brexit.
In case you missed it, even after all of this, the French are, in the great scheme of things, on our side in the world. They are doing many things we consider vital and important and the fact we want a looser relationship and the fact that both we and they are willing to fight hard for our corner does not make them our mortal enemies.
If a deal is there to be done then we should do it.
I want ev'rybody to be free
But if you think that I'll let Barry Goldwater
Move in next door and marry my daughter
You must think I'm crazy!
Ok.
But then he has a very illiberal view on what it means to be liberal.
Frankly, the moment they put those proposals forwards and threatened the UK with an economic blockade they became formal enemies. Allies don't threaten each other with no fly zones.
We need to be prepared to take very confrontational decisions if we do no deal. We have to fight fire with fire, disarming in the face of EU economic aggression will end in the same disaster we've been facing for the last 4 years where the EU have been negotiating with us as an enemy and we've been negotiating with them as an ally.
The Irish Navy has moved on to detaining *Irish* fishing boats in UK waters
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/munster/arid-40046636.html
Though I don't see the EU banning supertrawlers much before 2100.
We knew about the discards issue soon after 1990, and they still sat on their arses in Brussels for nearly 3 decades until Hugh FW and his campaign.
It is exactly this sort of confrontational attitude from sections of the Leave side (and some on the Remain side) that has got us to the point where we are faced with such stark choices.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55285305
We had people responding to bizarre hypotheticals on what we should do if Spain declared war on us by invading Gibraltar - not the other way around.
Next stop on the Brexit goods elevator is down to the 9th circle of Hell
I mean, I’m quite happy to see the Spanish fishers finally get their overdue comeuppance, but I see no need to nuke Madrid.
We're in this position because we didn't negotiate with them as an informal enemy and instead negotiated with them as a formal ally, expecting them to do the same. They did no such thing and now with their threats of economic blockades the veil has finally fallen, even if you refuse to see it.
If France were truly our ally would they not be stepping in now and vetoing the idea that British planes can't land in the EU or fly through EU airspace? If the EU was truly our ally would they even have suggested such a ridiculous idea in the first place? Globally airspace and landing rights have no quid quo pro, the only countries that are denied it are those who support terrorism and yet the EU are saying we should sign up to some form of the LPF to get landing and airspace rights. They can absolutely get fucked and expect an arbitration loss within about two seconds as they would have to apply the same rules to all nations.
But it was obvious to everyone here but you it seems that Texas would lack standing.
There is no legitimate reason to tie any kind of LPF measures to landing and airspace rights, the EU are declaring an economic and trade war with these kinds of proposals. It's nothing more than that.
They have to introduce one with a joystick so the generals can keep themselves happy.
Have no idea what your point is. I know why it was dismissed, but has that has zippo to do with my post so why post your post? Did I anywhere suggest it was dismissed on the merits of the case. Weird!
But he's been a mini-me Adonis on Brexit since 2016.
I can only conclude from what I've seen on here today that there aren't that many of them, or they're staying quiet.
Meanwhile emigration to shelter in Scotland who have refused to allow them into their territorial waters is gathering apace!
Oh what fun it must be to be Prime Minister with mental age of four!
The difference is we are making a song and dance about, stirring up nationalism, threatening our neighbours, etc, etc.
Whereas they have simply got on with the business of arresting fisherman fishing illegally without the above.
Exporting goods&services into the single market and conducting international airtravel are things which obviously cannot happen in a legal vacuum. They can happen now because there are treaties in place. Blighty has made the sovereign decision to terminate any and all treaties that existed for that purpose, so these things will stop.
There is no option to "just look the other way". Once the certifications (and insurance coverage) for planes, crews and airports expire, everything will grind to a halt. That is automatic, not a choice. It's not something that is "being threatened", it's how the real world works.
If you terminate your treaties, you need to replace them with something else. If you refuse to do that, you will have to accept the consequences of your decision.
I think we have fell down Alice-in-Wonderlands's rabbit hole....
I suppose the logic of no compromise on pure national sovereignty could point in that direction.
Fishing accounts for 0.1% of the UK's GDP and this is the hill to die on?
I know I work in the Banking & Financial Services sector but a bit more focus on that during any deal may have been more of a priority. Heck even manufacturing.
I would add these Brexiteers are often the ones who rail against the institutions, laws and customs of the British (English) state because they are doing the job they were created to do.
A period of silence would be most welcome
Tracey Brabin has been selected as our candidate for West Yorkshire mayor. If she wins, she'll step down from parliament.
If people ask nicely, I might post the full result of the ballot.
Already posted and discussed yesterday.
So I've been fortunate in having no family splits on this.
The issue has come with close friends. However, that's far better now than it was in, say, 2018.
So announcing that Navy patrol vessels will do so in January means nothing. So what?
It's nothing to be outraged about, or applaud. That HMG have decided to make a thing of it makes me suspect they are trying to distract from something, but I've no idea whether they want to distract from no deal calamity or deal compromise.
I can only wait and see. Not much to say then, really.
The level playing field issue seems much more of a big deal for both sides, and one I am not sure is bridgeable. It is clear the EU sees it is absolutely fundamental to their block that a country so close might divergence from the sort of rules they use, while for the UK, not being able to diverge at all isn't Brexit.