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.
No, there is no mention of LPF in the EU position on how to keep planes flying. Points 1 and 2 in their to do list.
It's funny seeing people refer to British exceptionalism just because some don't want to be in their larger federation neighbour.
Don't hear much talk about Canadian exceptionalism for not want to be states of the USA.
Its isn't British exceptionalism. Its English exceptionalism.
What is exceptional about believing you can and should be a sovereign country like Canada and about 170 other countries around the globe?
I don't really see "exceptionalism" as much of a criticism. All successful countries are exceptional.
Perhaps if you gave it some thought rather than trot out fatuous one liners?
Pots and kettles, it seems.
That IS original. Another cracker. Hats off.
But no, look, when British "exceptionalism" is used in the negative sense it refers to the belief amongst some Brits that they (Brits and Britain) are better than others. A superior type of nation and breed.
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.
No, you still don't get it Casino, there are fifth columnists in this country who want to see the UK disarm in a trade war and go running back to the EU. Their allegiance isn't to the UK, that much has been clear since 2016. We've literally got people saying that the EU defending it's own territory is fair game but the UK doing so is outrageous.
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.
Mr Spock would like to have a few words with you.
But nobody is going die if we maintain the status quo or worse regarding fishing.
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.
I was always puzzled by the failure of moderates in the LP to back May's deal. Fear of the tribal LP membership amplified by the leaders? In the chain of causes that have brought us to where we are with Brexit Corbynism is a major component because it blocked off moderate forces at a crucial time.
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.
I would guess that close friends split 2/1 in favour of Leave, but again, I've not had any falling outs over it. I might have been different if I worked in a central London law firm.
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.
I said on Thursday that the UK Government would be forced to respond to the EU by making this publicly clear after they released a No Deal plan (again, publicly, to put pressure on the UK) intimating that they'd only grant flying rights and lorry transit rights if they had status quo access to UK fishing waters for 12 months plus "level playing field" compliance.
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.
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.
It's bollocks though.
As noted already, BoZo will impose tariffs and barriers today to avoid the chance of barriers and tariffs in the future.
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.
No, you still don't get it Casino, there are fifth columnists in this country who want to see the UK disarm in a trade war and go running back to the EU. Their allegiance isn't to the UK, that much has been clear since 2016. We've literally got people saying that the EU defending it's own territory is fair game but the UK doing so is outrageous.
But it's the UK that's seeking to leave the EU yet still seeking trade privileges within it, not the other way round. This 'war' and 'moment of national defence' is entirely self-created, which is partly why it's very silly to use the emotive language of treachery and fifth-columnists for those dare to disagree.
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
A period of silence would be most welcome
We will get that silence in just a few weeks provided a Deal is agreed.
It's funny seeing people refer to British exceptionalism just because some don't want to be in their larger federation neighbour.
Don't hear much talk about Canadian exceptionalism for not want to be states of the USA.
Its isn't British exceptionalism. Its English exceptionalism.
What is exceptional about believing you can and should be a sovereign country like Canada and about 170 other countries around the globe?
I don't really see "exceptionalism" as much of a criticism. All successful countries are exceptional.
Perhaps if you gave it some thought rather than trot out fatuous one liners?
Pots and kettles, it seems.
That IS original. Another cracker. Hats off.
But no, look, when British "exceptionalism" is used in the negative sense it refers to the belief amongst some Brits that they (Brits and Britain) are better than others. A superior type of nation and breed.
That's a valid criticism where true, surely.
I'm sure you can find better things to do with your life than insulting me. Please don't respond to my posts in future.
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.
Why do you think the EU will care? Over the last four years they've seen and heard it all and I have no doubt they've planned for all the Redwood-esque bullshit. Pumping the rhetoric makes the UK look ridiculous and the outcome will be the same.
What is the RN gonna do? Machine gun French trawlerman? Ram Dutch boats? It'll look like Boris trying to crush a fly with his chode. And the outcome will be the same.
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.
But could they be bitching like crazy behind your back?
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.
I would remind you that someone I have seen you speak very highly of in the past - a certain Winston Churchill - knew exactly who and what he had to do in terms of dealing with those whose ideas he opposed and disliked so as to achieve the greater aims. He didn't hesitate to support the Communists against what he perceived was a greater evil. Everything in politics and life is a matter of degrees and priorities.
France is doing what it considers is best for its country and its people. We are doing the same. If there is a solution that presents itself which allows both sides to do that without having to compromise and which actually improves things for the sectors we are supposedly fighting for - in this case the small fishing enterprises - then why on earth would you let ideology get in the way?
Edit: for clarity I am not comparing anyone with Communists or Nazis, just pointing out that if someone like Churchill can compromise on something so fundamental in his views then we certainly should be able to regarding a country with which we have so much in common.
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....
You're a real softie aren't you. I think we should nuke 'em and get it over and done with.
No, you still don't get it Casino, there are fifth columnists in this country who want to see the UK disarm in a trade war and go running back to the EU. Their allegiance isn't to the UK, that much has been clear since 2016. We've literally got people saying that the EU defending it's own territory is fair game but the UK doing so is outrageous.
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 a very emotive and symbolic issue for both sides and key in some otherwise remote and marginalised communities.
The EU has to give something (at the very least) that allows the UK to save face.
France is doing what it considers is best for its country and its people. We are doing the same. If there is a solution that presents itself which allows both sides to do that without having to compromise and which actually improves things for the sectors we are supposedly fighting for - in this case the small fishing enterprises - then why on earth would you let ideology get in the way?
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.
We have announced what we will do to enforce compliance from 1st Jan 2021 - that's it.
I suppose we could have kept quiet about it and then sprung it as a surprise next year if and when it happened.
But, like I said, that would have lessened the chances of getting a Deal now by not making those consequences plain and clear in the negotiating room.
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.
No, you still don't get it Casino, there are fifth columnists in this country who want to see the UK disarm in a trade war and go running back to the EU. Their allegiance isn't to the UK, that much has been clear since 2016. We've literally got people saying that the EU defending it's own territory is fair game but the UK doing so is outrageous.
These set of posts are so barking I'm guessing they're not to be taken seriously. .
It's funny seeing people refer to British exceptionalism just because some don't want to be in their larger federation neighbour.
Don't hear much talk about Canadian exceptionalism for not want to be states of the USA.
Its isn't British exceptionalism. Its English exceptionalism.
What is exceptional about believing you can and should be a sovereign country like Canada and about 170 other countries around the globe?
I don't really see "exceptionalism" as much of a criticism. All successful countries are exceptional.
Perhaps if you gave it some thought rather than trot out fatuous one liners?
Pots and kettles, it seems.
That IS original. Another cracker. Hats off.
But no, look, when British "exceptionalism" is used in the negative sense it refers to the belief amongst some Brits that they (Brits and Britain) are better than others. A superior type of nation and breed.
That's a valid criticism where true, surely.
Except that we are better than others. Most of them, anyway.
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.
You must have been rather persuasive! But we knew this, come to think of it, because it's on the record (from him) that you also convinced Philip Thompson, which is quite something. Although you were not alone. It was you, Richard Tyndall, and Michael Gove.
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.
No, you still don't get it Casino, there are fifth columnists in this country who want to see the UK disarm in a trade war and go running back to the EU. Their allegiance isn't to the UK, that much has been clear since 2016. We've literally got people saying that the EU defending it's own territory is fair game but the UK doing so is outrageous.
These set of posts are so barking I'm guessing they're not to be taken seriously. .
But I'm not quite sure.........
So you're ok with the UK defending it's territory with force if necessary in the no deal scenario?
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.
I would guess that close friends split 2/1 in favour of Leave, but again, I've not had any falling outs over it. I might have been different if I worked in a central London law firm.
I work in a very Remainy central London management consultancy and my friends are all graduate professionals and largely Millennials.
I have 4 Leaver friends and probably about 20+ Remainer friends.
As it happens I know (on the sly) at least five work colleagues who voted Leave in my company of 60 but they keep their mouths absolutely shut about it and about each other too.
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?
You've had years to sort out these issues, while being constantly reminded of all the problems lingering around. You've wasted these years with bullshittery and playing a game of chicken until the 59th minute of the 11th hour. Now you demand emergency rescue packages to make the problems go away that you denied and neglected. For free. Because you're holding all those cards.
France is doing what it considers is best for its country and its people. We are doing the same. If there is a solution that presents itself which allows both sides to do that without having to compromise and which actually improves things for the sectors we are supposedly fighting for - in this case the small fishing enterprises - then why on earth would you let ideology get in the way?
Remind us what your objection to the EU is?
The ability to pass laws against the will of our elected Government. The centralisation of power at a point remote (Governmentally) from the people. The desire amongst those in power to move towards a single European state which will set such remote governance in stone The idea that a 'one size' fits all policy is suitable for such a diverse set of nationalities, cultures and traditions. The arrogance of those who think that it is right to sacrifice whole countries for 'the greater good of the EU'
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.
Why do you think the EU will care? Over the last four years they've seen and heard it all and I have no doubt they've planned for all the Redwood-esque bullshit. Pumping the rhetoric makes the UK look ridiculous and the outcome will be the same.
What is the RN gonna do? Machine gun French trawlerman? Ram Dutch boats? It'll look like Boris trying to crush a fly with his chode. And the outcome will be the same.
They will care because it will lose them their second biggest trade partner, hundreds of thousands of jobs (almost all for their fishermen) and sour the milk of European regional stability and cooperation for years - and cut wholly undercut their project.
The idea the EU is some sort of omnipotent God in this is fanciful - they are desperately worried about the UK breaking free.
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.
I would remind you that someone I have seen you speak very highly of in the past - a certain Winston Churchill - knew exactly who and what he had to do in terms of dealing with those whose ideas he opposed and disliked so as to achieve the greater aims. He didn't hesitate to support the Communists against what he perceived was a greater evil. Everything in politics and life is a matter of degrees and priorities.
France is doing what it considers is best for its country and its people. We are doing the same. If there is a solution that presents itself which allows both sides to do that without having to compromise and which actually improves things for the sectors we are supposedly fighting for - in this case the small fishing enterprises - then why on earth would you let ideology get in the way?
Edit: for clarity I am not comparing anyone with Communists or Nazis, just pointing out that if someone like Churchill can compromise on something so fundamental in his views then we certainly should be able to regarding a country with which we have so much in common.
I have no problem with coming to an agreement on fish, but only as part of a wider deal. In a no deal scenario there is no deal on anything, as has been pointed out to us so many, many times. Why should we come to the table and agree something they want when we keep getting told the same tired old "brexit means brexit" over and over again? If the EU insists on the idea of no cherry picking then it must live by the same consequences of that idea.
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.
Perhaps we should have gone with the advice of the man who really knows how to do a deal. The man who literally wrote the book. President Donald J Trump. He told Mrs May right at the start - sue the fuckers.
But seriously, Max, for all your often excellent posts on certain other topics, on this one - Brexit and the EU - you sound borderline deranged.
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.
I said on Thursday that the UK Government would be forced to respond to the EU by making this publicly clear after they released a No Deal plan (again, publicly, to put pressure on the UK) intimating that they'd only grant flying rights and lorry transit rights if they had status quo access to UK fishing waters for 12 months plus "level playing field" compliance.
Well, one bit of posturing in response to another bit of posturing - I still don't see why I should care.
Though, for what it's worth, I thought the EU No Deal Plan was something of a concession to those on the No Deal Brexit extreme. The EU have spent a lot of time insisting that they're not interested in mini-deals after a No Deal Brexit, so to set out the start of a negotiating position on them is a vindication for all those Brexiteers who said that there would be deals sorted out to deal with all the legal details necessary to keep planes flying, etc. And how often is it that you like the counter-party's initial offer in a negotiation?
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.
I would guess that close friends split 2/1 in favour of Leave, but again, I've not had any falling outs over it. I might have been different if I worked in a central London law firm.
I work in a very Remainy central London management consultancy and my friends are all graduate professionals and largely Millennials.
I have 4 Leaver friends and probably about 20+ Remainer friends.
As it happens I know (on the sly) at least five work colleagues who voted Leave in my company of 60 but they keep their mouths absolutely shut about it and about each other too.
Mine split fairly clearly N/S of Watford Gdap, which is interesting.
It's funny seeing people refer to British exceptionalism just because some don't want to be in their larger federation neighbour.
Don't hear much talk about Canadian exceptionalism for not want to be states of the USA.
Its isn't British exceptionalism. Its English exceptionalism.
What is exceptional about believing you can and should be a sovereign country like Canada and about 170 other countries around the globe?
I don't really see "exceptionalism" as much of a criticism. All successful countries are exceptional.
Perhaps if you gave it some thought rather than trot out fatuous one liners?
Pots and kettles, it seems.
That IS original. Another cracker. Hats off.
But no, look, when British "exceptionalism" is used in the negative sense it refers to the belief amongst some Brits that they (Brits and Britain) are better than others. A superior type of nation and breed.
That's a valid criticism where true, surely.
Except that we are better than others. Most of them, anyway.
We are not. There is no 'British National Character' which makes us more able than anyone else to cope with things. It's a complete myth.
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.
I would guess that close friends split 2/1 in favour of Leave, but again, I've not had any falling outs over it. I might have been different if I worked in a central London law firm.
I work in a very Remainy central London management consultancy and my friends are all graduate professionals and largely Millennials.
I have 4 Leaver friends and probably about 20+ Remainer friends.
As it happens I know (on the sly) at least five work colleagues who voted Leave in my company of 60 but they keep their mouths absolutely shut about it and about each other too.
It's funny seeing people refer to British exceptionalism just because some don't want to be in their larger federation neighbour.
Don't hear much talk about Canadian exceptionalism for not want to be states of the USA.
Its isn't British exceptionalism. Its English exceptionalism.
What is exceptional about believing you can and should be a sovereign country like Canada and about 170 other countries around the globe?
I don't really see "exceptionalism" as much of a criticism. All successful countries are exceptional.
Perhaps if you gave it some thought rather than trot out fatuous one liners?
Pots and kettles, it seems.
That IS original. Another cracker. Hats off.
But no, look, when British "exceptionalism" is used in the negative sense it refers to the belief amongst some Brits that they (Brits and Britain) are better than others. A superior type of nation and breed.
That's a valid criticism where true, surely.
I'm sure you can find better things to do with your life than insulting me. Please don't respond to my posts in future.
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.
I would guess that close friends split 2/1 in favour of Leave, but again, I've not had any falling outs over it. I might have been different if I worked in a central London law firm.
I work in a very Remainy central London management consultancy and my friends are all graduate professionals and largely Millennials.
I have 4 Leaver friends and probably about 20+ Remainer friends.
As it happens I know (on the sly) at least five work colleagues who voted Leave in my company of 60 but they keep their mouths absolutely shut about it and about each other too.
Yes, I am sure that their embarrassment is real.
No, it's to protect their careers and reputations.
Views are so dogmatic and prejudiced (we all hear how they talk about Leavers on the assumption that we too must automatically agree with them) that we know that no benefit of the doubt would be given.
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.
Perhaps we should have gone with the advice of the man who really knows how to do a deal. The man who literally wrote the book. President Donald J Trump. He told Mrs May right at the start - sue the fuckers.
But seriously, Max, for all your often excellent posts on certain other topics, on this one - Brexit and the EU - you sound borderline deranged.
Yeah, the cunning EU setting a trap for the plucky Brits is just not backed up by any facts. Truth is that this crappy cabinet handled a crappy situation crappily.
The hard Brexit nutters can own this one. Most of the EU would like us to come to our senses and either align or rejoin- either as one country or several.
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.
Why do you think the EU will care? Over the last four years they've seen and heard it all and I have no doubt they've planned for all the Redwood-esque bullshit. Pumping the rhetoric makes the UK look ridiculous and the outcome will be the same.
What is the RN gonna do? Machine gun French trawlerman? Ram Dutch boats? It'll look like Boris trying to crush a fly with his chode. And the outcome will be the same.
Patrol vessels will do what they are already doing - enforce the law as required in UK waters. Nothing to see there at all; it happens everywhere all the time all over Europe.
This morning we seem to have a plague of people with attacks of the vapours - unusually some of it seems to have made it from twitter and the Daily Mail to PB.
Though Scott's editing out of more reasonable tweets probably is perhaps not helping .
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.
Perhaps we should have gone with the advice of the man who really knows how to do a deal. The man who literally wrote the book. President Donald J Trump. He told Mrs May right at the start - sue the fuckers.
But seriously, Max, for all your often excellent posts on certain other topics, on this one - Brexit and the EU - you sound borderline deranged.
Yeah, the cunning EU setting a trap for the plucky Brits is just not backed up by any facts. Truth is that this crappy cabinet handled a crappy situation crappily.
The hard Brexit nutters can own this one. - either as one country or several.
"Most of the EU would like us to come to our senses and either align or rejoin"
That's the trap you cretin. That's what their negotiating stance has been set for all along.
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.
Perhaps we should have gone with the advice of the man who really knows how to do a deal. The man who literally wrote the book. President Donald J Trump. He told Mrs May right at the start - sue the fuckers.
But seriously, Max, for all your often excellent posts on certain other topics, on this one - Brexit and the EU - you sound borderline deranged.
Yeah, the cunning EU setting a trap for the plucky Brits is just not backed up by any facts. Truth is that this crappy cabinet handled a crappy situation crappily.
The hard Brexit nutters can own this one. - either as one country or several.
"Most of the EU would like us to come to our senses and either align or rejoin"
That's the trap you cretin. That's what their negotiating stance has been set for all along.
Nah, I don't think the EU want us to rejoining, and that is likely to be a problem when we vote to do so.
When an obnoxious drunk has been evicted from a party, why let them (us) back in?
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.
I was always puzzled by the failure of moderates in the LP to back May's deal. Fear of the tribal LP membership amplified by the leaders? In the chain of causes that have brought us to where we are with Brexit Corbynism is a major component because it blocked off moderate forces at a crucial time.
At the time there was a Tory government and PM in dreadful trouble and it went too much against the grain for an Opposition to bail them out. Of course in the light of what ultimately transpired on 12th Dec this does not now look very clever.
F1: didn't offer a qualifying tip but the result does mean the pre-season bet on Norris betting Sainz (only evens, so not actually very good value) came off.
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.
Alito's concurrence stated he would "but would not grant other relief" and he's the most right wing justice of the lot on constitutional matters. It'd have been 9-0.
Comments
https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1336973232159776769?s=09
But no, look, when British "exceptionalism" is used in the negative sense it refers to the belief amongst some Brits that they (Brits and Britain) are better than others. A superior type of nation and breed.
That's a valid criticism where true, surely.
But nobody is going die if we maintain the status quo or worse regarding fishing.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337745268591259648
Admiral of the Fleet, Field Marshal and Marshal of the Royal Air Force Charles Windsor, if you don't mind.
As noted already, BoZo will impose tariffs and barriers today to avoid the chance of barriers and tariffs in the future.
It's fucking mental
Bots we live to the Scots.
So let's get it done and move on please.
What is the RN gonna do? Machine gun French trawlerman? Ram Dutch boats? It'll look like Boris trying to crush a fly with his chode. And the outcome will be the same.
France is doing what it considers is best for its country and its people. We are doing the same. If there is a solution that presents itself which allows both sides to do that without having to compromise and which actually improves things for the sectors we are supposedly fighting for - in this case the small fishing enterprises - then why on earth would you let ideology get in the way?
Edit: for clarity I am not comparing anyone with Communists or Nazis, just pointing out that if someone like Churchill can compromise on something so fundamental in his views then we certainly should be able to regarding a country with which we have so much in common.
NEW THREAD
The EU has to give something (at the very least) that allows the UK to save face.
An offer of 15-18% was so low as to be insulting.
I suppose we could have kept quiet about it and then sprung it as a surprise next year if and when it happened.
But, like I said, that would have lessened the chances of getting a Deal now by not making those consequences plain and clear in the negotiating room.
But I'm not quite sure.........
I have 4 Leaver friends and probably about 20+ Remainer friends.
As it happens I know (on the sly) at least five work colleagues who voted Leave in my company of 60 but they keep their mouths absolutely shut about it and about each other too.
The centralisation of power at a point remote (Governmentally) from the people.
The desire amongst those in power to move towards a single European state which will set such remote governance in stone
The idea that a 'one size' fits all policy is suitable for such a diverse set of nationalities, cultures and traditions.
The arrogance of those who think that it is right to sacrifice whole countries for 'the greater good of the EU'
For a start.
The idea the EU is some sort of omnipotent God in this is fanciful - they are desperately worried about the UK breaking free.
But seriously, Max, for all your often excellent posts on certain other topics, on this one - Brexit and the EU - you sound borderline deranged.
Though, for what it's worth, I thought the EU No Deal Plan was something of a concession to those on the No Deal Brexit extreme. The EU have spent a lot of time insisting that they're not interested in mini-deals after a No Deal Brexit, so to set out the start of a negotiating position on them is a vindication for all those Brexiteers who said that there would be deals sorted out to deal with all the legal details necessary to keep planes flying, etc. And how often is it that you like the counter-party's initial offer in a negotiation?
I will write what I want.
Just close your eyes if you need to.
Views are so dogmatic and prejudiced (we all hear how they talk about Leavers on the assumption that we too must automatically agree with them) that we know that no benefit of the doubt would be given.
The hard Brexit nutters can own this one. Most of the EU would like us to come to our senses and either align or rejoin- either as one country or several.
This morning we seem to have a plague of people with attacks of the vapours - unusually some of it seems to have made it from twitter and the Daily Mail to PB.
Though Scott's editing out of more reasonable tweets probably is perhaps not helping
That's the trap you cretin. That's what their negotiating stance has been set for all along.
When an obnoxious drunk has been evicted from a party, why let them (us) back in?