Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Yes. With hindsight that would have been a good play. But this IS all hinsdsight. At the time we had a PM and a government in the hole. Oppositions do not tend to dig them out of it. Especially when they are polling ok, as Labour were at that point. They were focused on getting an election and winning it.
It's not all hindsight. I was advising Labour's best course was to abstain at the time, ad nauseum. Brexit would than have been a Blue on Blue shitfest.
I still believe Corbyn wanted to ensure Brexit happened, one way or another. He didn't really care how hard it was.
The irony of course is that Corbyn's gut instinct was right on this one issue and he was making Labour abstain early on.
It was Starmer that was a leading advocate for the second referendum die hard remainerism and rejecting May's deal. Corbyn abandoned his own principles - for possibly the only time in 40 years of politics - and paid the price for doing so.
May's deal was shit. It's not the job of the opposition to vote for things they don't support because the government can't get its own side to vote for it and might be stupid enough to do something totally suicidal instead. Labour gave the government an opportunity to vote for a genuine compromise that respected the referendum result and the Tories whipped their MPs to vote against it. None of this is the fault of anyone outside of the Conservative Party.
"It's not the job of the opposition to vote for things they don't support"
Labour should have abstained then. Shit politics by Labour, giving way too much time to the likes of Benn and Starmer, trying to get Brexit set aside. Well, they ended up on the wrong end of Boris and his 80 seat majority. Which of us was smarter?
I can't remember any senior Labour politician calling for Brexit to be 'set aside'. Some wanted a Norway style deal. Some wanted a referendum to confirm that May's version of Brexit was really what people had voted for (since no well-defined programme for Brexit had ever been offered to the electorate, just a mish-mash of mutually-incompatible promises). Was it smart politics? Maybe, maybe not. If May's deal had got through, perhaps May would now have a 100 seat majority, having 'got Brexit done'. Personally I prefer politicians to act in what they see as the national interest not in order to seek partisan advantage, but then I'm not a Tory.
“A referendum to confirm a referendum”. In other words ignore the first result because you didn’t like it. What pish
Not really. A first referendum on the principle and a second on the details doesn't seem totally crazy when making a consequential constitutional change. Especially when the first referendum promised people the moon on a stick.
That means that you have to negotiate with people who know you're going to have another vote. AKA how to get the shittest deal imaginable.
We already seem to be getting the shittest deal imaginable. With the alternative of something even shitter.
I love the way the Remoaners prepare to pivot so quickly.
I love the way Brexiters are so keen to blame everyone but themselves in a fit of passive aggressive self harm, and it is blame they seek, not plaudits.
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
It's pretty silly, indeed raving bonkers, to blame the one person who campaigned vigorously for Remain for Brexit. And also pretty silly to blame those who voted for Theresa May: Brexit had already been decided by then, and if she had had the majority she asked for and needed, she'd have been able to deliver it in the sensible way she was planning, without Labour and other opposition parties helping (and actively voting with) the ERG to torpedo it.
I'll grant you the other two categories.
Cameron's idea of campaigning for Remain was to spend years slagging off the EU to prove he was down with the Eurosceptics, and then bully people into voting for his deal by threatening them with the abyss if they didn't. He's one of the most disastrous Prime Ministers in history.
Poppycock. That's like blaming the solicitor who advises you against a bad purchase for the bad purchase you decide to make.
Cameron remain the best Prime Minister, apart from the very special case of Maggie, for at least a half century, in the sense that he ran the country and the government better than any other PM. It's completely absurd to blame him for decisions made by others - not least, voters.
So he'll get no credit if Brexit goes PhilThompsonite?
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Yes. With hindsight that would have been a good play. But this IS all hinsdsight. At the time we had a PM and a government in the hole. Oppositions do not tend to dig them out of it. Especially when they are polling ok, as Labour were at that point. They were focused on getting an election and winning it.
It's not all hindsight. I was advising Labour's best course was to abstain at the time, ad nauseum. Brexit would than have been a Blue on Blue shitfest.
I still believe Corbyn wanted to ensure Brexit happened, one way or another. He didn't really care how hard it was.
The irony of course is that Corbyn's gut instinct was right on this one issue and he was making Labour abstain early on.
It was Starmer that was a leading advocate for the second referendum die hard remainerism and rejecting May's deal. Corbyn abandoned his own principles - for possibly the only time in 40 years of politics - and paid the price for doing so.
May's deal was shit. It's not the job of the opposition to vote for things they don't support because the government can't get its own side to vote for it and might be stupid enough to do something totally suicidal instead. Labour gave the government an opportunity to vote for a genuine compromise that respected the referendum result and the Tories whipped their MPs to vote against it. None of this is the fault of anyone outside of the Conservative Party.
The Tory Eurosceptics are getting exactly what they wanted despite not having the numbers in Parliament to do it.
Thank you for that. Years ago on this site I was a lone Leaver opposing all the way May's deal and I was being told by fellow Leavers time and again we wouldn't get anything more to my liking because there were not enough MPs in Parliament to facilitate that.
Well as it happened there were. Labour, LDs, TIG etc take a bow - by marching through the lobbies with Steve Baker etc look what you have brought about. I thank you for it.
They played very high stakes poker. I assumed (because of the numbers in parliament) we must lose but they were £4k up and decided to risk it all to play for the £100k grand prize.
They left with their bus fare home.
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
You say that but how many Tories rejected May's deal at Meaningful Vote 3 as they were die hard adamant it wasn't hard enough - as I was here at the time?
Only 34 Tories rejected it at Meaningful Vote 3. And that includes Dominic Grieve and co.
My viewpoint - that May's deal was an unacceptable betrayal - was represented by fewer than 30 Tories at MV3. But those less than 30 MPs are getting an exit more to their and my liking.
There are over 600 MPs in Parliament. That is an incredible, incredible victory for a vote of fewer than 30.
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Yes. With hindsight that would have been a good play. But this IS all hinsdsight. At the time we had a PM and a government in the hole. Oppositions do not tend to dig them out of it. Especially when they are polling ok, as Labour were at that point. They were focused on getting an election and winning it.
It's not all hindsight. I was advising Labour's best course was to abstain at the time, ad nauseum. Brexit would than have been a Blue on Blue shitfest.
I still believe Corbyn wanted to ensure Brexit happened, one way or another. He didn't really care how hard it was.
The irony of course is that Corbyn's gut instinct was right on this one issue and he was making Labour abstain early on.
It was Starmer that was a leading advocate for the second referendum die hard remainerism and rejecting May's deal. Corbyn abandoned his own principles - for possibly the only time in 40 years of politics - and paid the price for doing so.
May's deal was shit. It's not the job of the opposition to vote for things they don't support because the government can't get its own side to vote for it and might be stupid enough to do something totally suicidal instead. Labour gave the government an opportunity to vote for a genuine compromise that respected the referendum result and the Tories whipped their MPs to vote against it. None of this is the fault of anyone outside of the Conservative Party.
The Tory Eurosceptics are getting exactly what they wanted despite not having the numbers in Parliament to do it.
Thank you for that. Years ago on this site I was a lone Leaver opposing all the way May's deal and I was being told by fellow Leavers time and again we wouldn't get anything more to my liking because there were not enough MPs in Parliament to facilitate that.
Well as it happened there were. Labour, LDs, TIG etc take a bow - by marching through the lobbies with Steve Baker etc look what you have brought about. I thank you for it.
They played very high stakes poker. I assumed (because of the numbers in parliament) we must lose but they were £4k up and decided to risk it all to play for the £100k grand prize.
They left with their bus fare home.
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
17,410,742 voted to leave the EU
Your point?
It was the largest democratic mandate in the history of the UK. Literally the biggest vote for anything, ever.
That was because there were only two choices on the ballot - and of course Putin was supporting Leave
Far less certain than Obama was supporting Remain -"Or the puppy gets it..."
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Yes. With hindsight that would have been a good play. But this IS all hinsdsight. At the time we had a PM and a government in the hole. Oppositions do not tend to dig them out of it. Especially when they are polling ok, as Labour were at that point. They were focused on getting an election and winning it.
It's not all hindsight. I was advising Labour's best course was to abstain at the time, ad nauseum. Brexit would than have been a Blue on Blue shitfest.
I still believe Corbyn wanted to ensure Brexit happened, one way or another. He didn't really care how hard it was.
The irony of course is that Corbyn's gut instinct was right on this one issue and he was making Labour abstain early on.
It was Starmer that was a leading advocate for the second referendum die hard remainerism and rejecting May's deal. Corbyn abandoned his own principles - for possibly the only time in 40 years of politics - and paid the price for doing so.
May's deal was shit. It's not the job of the opposition to vote for things they don't support because the government can't get its own side to vote for it and might be stupid enough to do something totally suicidal instead. Labour gave the government an opportunity to vote for a genuine compromise that respected the referendum result and the Tories whipped their MPs to vote against it. None of this is the fault of anyone outside of the Conservative Party.
The Tory Eurosceptics are getting exactly what they wanted despite not having the numbers in Parliament to do it.
Thank you for that. Years ago on this site I was a lone Leaver opposing all the way May's deal and I was being told by fellow Leavers time and again we wouldn't get anything more to my liking because there were not enough MPs in Parliament to facilitate that.
Well as it happened there were. Labour, LDs, TIG etc take a bow - by marching through the lobbies with Steve Baker etc look what you have brought about. I thank you for it.
They played very high stakes poker. I assumed (because of the numbers in parliament) we must lose but they were £4k up and decided to risk it all to play for the £100k grand prize.
They left with their bus fare home.
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
17,410,742 voted to leave the EU
Over 74,000,000 voted to give Trump another four years.
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Yes. With hindsight that would have been a good play. But this IS all hinsdsight. At the time we had a PM and a government in the hole. Oppositions do not tend to dig them out of it. Especially when they are polling ok, as Labour were at that point. They were focused on getting an election and winning it.
It's not all hindsight. I was advising Labour's best course was to abstain at the time, ad nauseum. Brexit would than have been a Blue on Blue shitfest.
I still believe Corbyn wanted to ensure Brexit happened, one way or another. He didn't really care how hard it was.
The irony of course is that Corbyn's gut instinct was right on this one issue and he was making Labour abstain early on.
It was Starmer that was a leading advocate for the second referendum die hard remainerism and rejecting May's deal. Corbyn abandoned his own principles - for possibly the only time in 40 years of politics - and paid the price for doing so.
May's deal was shit. It's not the job of the opposition to vote for things they don't support because the government can't get its own side to vote for it and might be stupid enough to do something totally suicidal instead. Labour gave the government an opportunity to vote for a genuine compromise that respected the referendum result and the Tories whipped their MPs to vote against it. None of this is the fault of anyone outside of the Conservative Party.
The Tory Eurosceptics are getting exactly what they wanted despite not having the numbers in Parliament to do it.
Thank you for that. Years ago on this site I was a lone Leaver opposing all the way May's deal and I was being told by fellow Leavers time and again we wouldn't get anything more to my liking because there were not enough MPs in Parliament to facilitate that.
Well as it happened there were. Labour, LDs, TIG etc take a bow - by marching through the lobbies with Steve Baker etc look what you have brought about. I thank you for it.
They played very high stakes poker. I assumed (because of the numbers in parliament) we must lose but they were £4k up and decided to risk it all to play for the £100k grand prize.
They left with their bus fare home.
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
17,410,742 voted to leave the EU
Your point?
It was the largest democratic mandate in the history of the UK. Literally the biggest vote for anything, ever.
That was because there were only two choices on the ballot - and of course Putin was supporting Leave
The choices were leave and remain. Not leave and put in.
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
It's pretty silly, indeed raving bonkers, to blame the one person who campaigned vigorously for Remain for Brexit. And also pretty silly to blame those who voted for Theresa May: Brexit had already been decided by then, and if she had had the majority she asked for and needed, she'd have been able to deliver it in the sensible way she was planning, without Labour and other opposition parties helping (and actively voting with) the ERG to torpedo it.
I'll grant you the other two categories.
Cameron richly deserves his share of the blame/kudos for Brexit, given that he was the one who called the referendum and set out its terms in the first place. May campaigned for PM on a mandate of implementing Brexit, and it was she who invoked Article 50 with no proper plan in place. So she also shares in the honours.
Cameron was right to call the referendum, which he didn't exactly hurry into. Not that he had any choice - but are you seriously suggesting that the voice of the majority should not have been heard, just because you don't like the answer?
Theresa May stonewalled Article 50 for over nine months, which was hardly rushing into it, with a two-year extendable implementation period. Those who voted Leave would have had a very, very legitimate grievance if she'd waited even longer. What's more, it was impossible to have a 'proper plan' in place, not least because the EU, to their great discredit and contrary to their own interests, had the brain-dead idea of insisting that we couldn't negotiate the final destination until after we'd agreed to a transition to somewhere unknown and actually left.
Hard to avoid the conclusion Macron isn't using the lorry blockage as extra leverage to get what he wants in the final Brexit deal.
He's holding out.
Probably. Johnson has, inadvertently I accept, got into the situation where he needs a favour from someone he's trying to drive a hard bargain with. I am sure he would prefer not to be in that situation.
On fish the UK has said it will ban the live export of animals to Europe post brexit
Does anyone know if that applies to shellfish
Good question. If it does it kills how much of the fishing export market? If it doesn’t why not, poor little slithering, creepy crawling little creatures, what about their rights and mental well being? There’s things in aquarium more intelligent than what grazes in fields.
Most fish is frozen but shellfish is exported live
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
It's pretty silly, indeed raving bonkers, to blame the one person who campaigned vigorously for Remain for Brexit. And also pretty silly to blame those who voted for Theresa May: Brexit had already been decided by then, and if she had had the majority she asked for and needed, she'd have been able to deliver it in the sensible way she was planning, without Labour and other opposition parties helping (and actively voting with) the ERG to torpedo it.
I'll grant you the other two categories.
Cameron richly deserves his share of the blame/kudos for Brexit, given that he was the one who called the referendum and set out its terms in the first place. May campaigned for PM on a mandate of implementing Brexit, and it was she who invoked Article 50 with no proper plan in place. So she also shares in the honours.
Cameron was right to call the referendum, which he didn't exactly hurry into. Not that he had any choice - but are you seriously suggesting that the voice of the majority should not have been heard, just because you don't like the answer?
Theresa May stonewalled Article 50 for over nine months, which was hardly rushing into it, with a two-year extendable implementation period. Those who voted Leave would have had a very, very legitimate grievance if she'd waited even longer. What's more, it was impossible to have a 'proper plan' in place, not least because the EU, to their great discredit and contrary to their own interests, had the brain-dead idea of insisting that we couldn't negotiate the final destination until after we'd agreed to a transition to somewhere unknown and actually left.
A position that became even more bizarre with that deeply contrived ruling on revoking Article 50, which made their stance ridiculous.
The EU do not come out of this process with credit. What they do come out with, and I suppose this may be more important to them, is a population of Europe thoroughly cowed at the the thought of leaving.
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Yes. With hindsight that would have been a good play. But this IS all hinsdsight. At the time we had a PM and a government in the hole. Oppositions do not tend to dig them out of it. Especially when they are polling ok, as Labour were at that point. They were focused on getting an election and winning it.
It's not all hindsight. I was advising Labour's best course was to abstain at the time, ad nauseum. Brexit would than have been a Blue on Blue shitfest.
I still believe Corbyn wanted to ensure Brexit happened, one way or another. He didn't really care how hard it was.
The irony of course is that Corbyn's gut instinct was right on this one issue and he was making Labour abstain early on.
It was Starmer that was a leading advocate for the second referendum die hard remainerism and rejecting May's deal. Corbyn abandoned his own principles - for possibly the only time in 40 years of politics - and paid the price for doing so.
May's deal was shit. It's not the job of the opposition to vote for things they don't support because the government can't get its own side to vote for it and might be stupid enough to do something totally suicidal instead. Labour gave the government an opportunity to vote for a genuine compromise that respected the referendum result and the Tories whipped their MPs to vote against it. None of this is the fault of anyone outside of the Conservative Party.
The Tory Eurosceptics are getting exactly what they wanted despite not having the numbers in Parliament to do it.
Thank you for that. Years ago on this site I was a lone Leaver opposing all the way May's deal and I was being told by fellow Leavers time and again we wouldn't get anything more to my liking because there were not enough MPs in Parliament to facilitate that.
Well as it happened there were. Labour, LDs, TIG etc take a bow - by marching through the lobbies with Steve Baker etc look what you have brought about. I thank you for it.
They played very high stakes poker. I assumed (because of the numbers in parliament) we must lose but they were £4k up and decided to risk it all to play for the £100k grand prize.
They left with their bus fare home.
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
You say that but how many Tories rejected May's deal at Meaningful Vote 3 as they were die hard adamant it wasn't hard enough - as I was here at the time?
Only 34 Tories rejected it at Meaningful Vote 3. And that includes Dominic Grieve and co.
My viewpoint - that May's deal was an unacceptable betrayal - was represented by fewer than 30 Tories at MV3. But those less than 30 MPs are getting an exit more to their and my liking.
There are over 600 MPs in Parliament. That is an incredible, incredible victory for a vote of fewer than 30.
You are all talking about May`s deal as though it were a trade deal. May`s deal was a withdrawal agreement/transition agreement, just as Johnson`s was. If May`s deal was being proceeded with instead of Johnson`s we would be in a similar position as now wouldn`t we - trying to negotiate a trade deal?
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Yes. With hindsight that would have been a good play. But this IS all hinsdsight. At the time we had a PM and a government in the hole. Oppositions do not tend to dig them out of it. Especially when they are polling ok, as Labour were at that point. They were focused on getting an election and winning it.
It's not all hindsight. I was advising Labour's best course was to abstain at the time, ad nauseum. Brexit would than have been a Blue on Blue shitfest.
I still believe Corbyn wanted to ensure Brexit happened, one way or another. He didn't really care how hard it was.
The irony of course is that Corbyn's gut instinct was right on this one issue and he was making Labour abstain early on.
It was Starmer that was a leading advocate for the second referendum die hard remainerism and rejecting May's deal. Corbyn abandoned his own principles - for possibly the only time in 40 years of politics - and paid the price for doing so.
May's deal was shit. It's not the job of the opposition to vote for things they don't support because the government can't get its own side to vote for it and might be stupid enough to do something totally suicidal instead. Labour gave the government an opportunity to vote for a genuine compromise that respected the referendum result and the Tories whipped their MPs to vote against it. None of this is the fault of anyone outside of the Conservative Party.
The Tory Eurosceptics are getting exactly what they wanted despite not having the numbers in Parliament to do it.
Thank you for that. Years ago on this site I was a lone Leaver opposing all the way May's deal and I was being told by fellow Leavers time and again we wouldn't get anything more to my liking because there were not enough MPs in Parliament to facilitate that.
Well as it happened there were. Labour, LDs, TIG etc take a bow - by marching through the lobbies with Steve Baker etc look what you have brought about. I thank you for it.
They played very high stakes poker. I assumed (because of the numbers in parliament) we must lose but they were £4k up and decided to risk it all to play for the £100k grand prize.
They left with their bus fare home.
A dark and dangerous nightbus at that.
Only if you accept Brexit as a dark and dangerous place.
Personally, I see all forms of Brexit as crap, so don't really distinguish between Mays crap deal, BoZos crap Deal or a crap No Deal. There was no need for Remainers to support any of them.
I appreciate Brexiteers want to spread the blame to Blair, or Cameron, or Swinson or whatever bogeyman they choose, but it simply doesn't wash. They voted for it and should own it.
I dont think leavers have looked into Bill Gates enough. He might be responsible, or perhaps some pizza restaurants somewhere. Who knows these days? It is not like the old days where the PM was responsible.
On fish the UK has said it will ban the live export of animals to Europe post brexit
Does anyone know if that applies to shellfish
Good question. If it does it kills how much of the fishing export market? If it doesn’t why not, poor little slithering, creepy crawling little creatures, what about their rights and mental well being? There’s things in aquarium more intelligent than what grazes in fields.
Most fish is frozen but shellfish is exported live
Spoke to a major foodservice contact an hour ago. Most trucks are being held at depots as futile sending vehicles to sit in a queue. His take - "we may as well get used to this"
It is what I said to you last week. People will adjust and get used to any new reality. 🤷🏻♂️
How does that thought help us, though? History shows that people will adjust and get use to the most appalling and horrendous of new realities. I don’t find that thought particularly consoling.
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Yes. With hindsight that would have been a good play. But this IS all hinsdsight. At the time we had a PM and a government in the hole. Oppositions do not tend to dig them out of it. Especially when they are polling ok, as Labour were at that point. They were focused on getting an election and winning it.
It's not all hindsight. I was advising Labour's best course was to abstain at the time, ad nauseum. Brexit would than have been a Blue on Blue shitfest.
I still believe Corbyn wanted to ensure Brexit happened, one way or another. He didn't really care how hard it was.
The irony of course is that Corbyn's gut instinct was right on this one issue and he was making Labour abstain early on.
It was Starmer that was a leading advocate for the second referendum die hard remainerism and rejecting May's deal. Corbyn abandoned his own principles - for possibly the only time in 40 years of politics - and paid the price for doing so.
May's deal was shit. It's not the job of the opposition to vote for things they don't support because the government can't get its own side to vote for it and might be stupid enough to do something totally suicidal instead. Labour gave the government an opportunity to vote for a genuine compromise that respected the referendum result and the Tories whipped their MPs to vote against it. None of this is the fault of anyone outside of the Conservative Party.
The Tory Eurosceptics are getting exactly what they wanted despite not having the numbers in Parliament to do it.
Thank you for that. Years ago on this site I was a lone Leaver opposing all the way May's deal and I was being told by fellow Leavers time and again we wouldn't get anything more to my liking because there were not enough MPs in Parliament to facilitate that.
Well as it happened there were. Labour, LDs, TIG etc take a bow - by marching through the lobbies with Steve Baker etc look what you have brought about. I thank you for it.
They played very high stakes poker. I assumed (because of the numbers in parliament) we must lose but they were £4k up and decided to risk it all to play for the £100k grand prize.
They left with their bus fare home.
A dark and dangerous nightbus at that.
Only if you accept Brexit as a dark and dangerous place.
Personally, I see all forms of Brexit as crap, so don't really distinguish between Mays crap deal, BoZos crap Deal or a crap No Deal. There was no need for Remainers to support any of them.
I appreciate Brexiteers want to spread the blame to Blair, or Cameron, or Swinson or whatever bogeyman they choose, but it simply doesn't wash. They voted for it and should own it.
The curious thing is how many Brexit backers are keen to spread the credit around. If Brexit is going to end brilliantly, I'd want to say it was all down to my genius. And it is going to end brilliantly.
Hard to avoid the conclusion Macron isn't using the lorry blockage as extra leverage to get what he wants in the final Brexit deal.
He's holding out.
Absolutely. Manny is the hero of every remainer this evening, killing no deal more with every lorry.
If French Presidential communications were to be leaked and it were revealed that Macron had said about the new covid strain "Super, punissons les trous du cul anglais pour le Brexit", would we have a case for suing France for the costs of this freight blockage?
On fish the UK has said it will ban the live export of animals to Europe post brexit
Does anyone know if that applies to shellfish
Good question. If it does it kills how much of the fishing export market? If it doesn’t why not, poor little slithering, creepy crawling little creatures, what about their rights and mental well being? There’s things in aquarium more intelligent than what grazes in fields.
Most fish is frozen but shellfish is exported live
Yes it is. Poor little things. 🙁
Fortunately not cephalopods. At least I hope not.
Why? Is there some personal stake you have here?
No, not even a surf'n'turf one. They're clever little buggers, that's all.
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Yes. With hindsight that would have been a good play. But this IS all hinsdsight. At the time we had a PM and a government in the hole. Oppositions do not tend to dig them out of it. Especially when they are polling ok, as Labour were at that point. They were focused on getting an election and winning it.
It's not all hindsight. I was advising Labour's best course was to abstain at the time, ad nauseum. Brexit would than have been a Blue on Blue shitfest.
I still believe Corbyn wanted to ensure Brexit happened, one way or another. He didn't really care how hard it was.
The irony of course is that Corbyn's gut instinct was right on this one issue and he was making Labour abstain early on.
It was Starmer that was a leading advocate for the second referendum die hard remainerism and rejecting May's deal. Corbyn abandoned his own principles - for possibly the only time in 40 years of politics - and paid the price for doing so.
May's deal was shit. It's not the job of the opposition to vote for things they don't support because the government can't get its own side to vote for it and might be stupid enough to do something totally suicidal instead. Labour gave the government an opportunity to vote for a genuine compromise that respected the referendum result and the Tories whipped their MPs to vote against it. None of this is the fault of anyone outside of the Conservative Party.
The Tory Eurosceptics are getting exactly what they wanted despite not having the numbers in Parliament to do it.
Thank you for that. Years ago on this site I was a lone Leaver opposing all the way May's deal and I was being told by fellow Leavers time and again we wouldn't get anything more to my liking because there were not enough MPs in Parliament to facilitate that.
Well as it happened there were. Labour, LDs, TIG etc take a bow - by marching through the lobbies with Steve Baker etc look what you have brought about. I thank you for it.
They played very high stakes poker. I assumed (because of the numbers in parliament) we must lose but they were £4k up and decided to risk it all to play for the £100k grand prize.
They left with their bus fare home.
A dark and dangerous nightbus at that.
Only if you accept Brexit as a dark and dangerous place.
Personally, I see all forms of Brexit as crap, so don't really distinguish between Mays crap deal, BoZos crap Deal or a crap No Deal. There was no need for Remainers to support any of them.
I appreciate Brexiteers want to spread the blame to Blair, or Cameron, or Swinson or whatever bogeyman they choose, but it simply doesn't wash. They voted for it and should own it.
I dont think leavers have looked into Bill Gates enough. He might be responsible, or perhaps some pizza restaurants somewhere. Who knows these days? It is not like the old days where the PM was responsible.
Well,we all know that pizza restaurants that serve it with pineapple are bringing the Apocalypse a step closer.
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Yes. With hindsight that would have been a good play. But this IS all hinsdsight. At the time we had a PM and a government in the hole. Oppositions do not tend to dig them out of it. Especially when they are polling ok, as Labour were at that point. They were focused on getting an election and winning it.
It's not all hindsight. I was advising Labour's best course was to abstain at the time, ad nauseum. Brexit would than have been a Blue on Blue shitfest.
I still believe Corbyn wanted to ensure Brexit happened, one way or another. He didn't really care how hard it was.
The irony of course is that Corbyn's gut instinct was right on this one issue and he was making Labour abstain early on.
It was Starmer that was a leading advocate for the second referendum die hard remainerism and rejecting May's deal. Corbyn abandoned his own principles - for possibly the only time in 40 years of politics - and paid the price for doing so.
May's deal was shit. It's not the job of the opposition to vote for things they don't support because the government can't get its own side to vote for it and might be stupid enough to do something totally suicidal instead. Labour gave the government an opportunity to vote for a genuine compromise that respected the referendum result and the Tories whipped their MPs to vote against it. None of this is the fault of anyone outside of the Conservative Party.
The Tory Eurosceptics are getting exactly what they wanted despite not having the numbers in Parliament to do it.
Thank you for that. Years ago on this site I was a lone Leaver opposing all the way May's deal and I was being told by fellow Leavers time and again we wouldn't get anything more to my liking because there were not enough MPs in Parliament to facilitate that.
Well as it happened there were. Labour, LDs, TIG etc take a bow - by marching through the lobbies with Steve Baker etc look what you have brought about. I thank you for it.
They played very high stakes poker. I assumed (because of the numbers in parliament) we must lose but they were £4k up and decided to risk it all to play for the £100k grand prize.
They left with their bus fare home.
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
17,410,742 voted to leave the EU
Over 74,000,000 voted to give Trump another four years.
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Yes. With hindsight that would have been a good play. But this IS all hinsdsight. At the time we had a PM and a government in the hole. Oppositions do not tend to dig them out of it. Especially when they are polling ok, as Labour were at that point. They were focused on getting an election and winning it.
It's not all hindsight. I was advising Labour's best course was to abstain at the time, ad nauseum. Brexit would than have been a Blue on Blue shitfest.
I still believe Corbyn wanted to ensure Brexit happened, one way or another. He didn't really care how hard it was.
The irony of course is that Corbyn's gut instinct was right on this one issue and he was making Labour abstain early on.
It was Starmer that was a leading advocate for the second referendum die hard remainerism and rejecting May's deal. Corbyn abandoned his own principles - for possibly the only time in 40 years of politics - and paid the price for doing so.
May's deal was shit. It's not the job of the opposition to vote for things they don't support because the government can't get its own side to vote for it and might be stupid enough to do something totally suicidal instead. Labour gave the government an opportunity to vote for a genuine compromise that respected the referendum result and the Tories whipped their MPs to vote against it. None of this is the fault of anyone outside of the Conservative Party.
The Tory Eurosceptics are getting exactly what they wanted despite not having the numbers in Parliament to do it.
Thank you for that. Years ago on this site I was a lone Leaver opposing all the way May's deal and I was being told by fellow Leavers time and again we wouldn't get anything more to my liking because there were not enough MPs in Parliament to facilitate that.
Well as it happened there were. Labour, LDs, TIG etc take a bow - by marching through the lobbies with Steve Baker etc look what you have brought about. I thank you for it.
They played very high stakes poker. I assumed (because of the numbers in parliament) we must lose but they were £4k up and decided to risk it all to play for the £100k grand prize.
They left with their bus fare home.
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
You say that but how many Tories rejected May's deal at Meaningful Vote 3 as they were die hard adamant it wasn't hard enough - as I was here at the time?
Only 34 Tories rejected it at Meaningful Vote 3. And that includes Dominic Grieve and co.
My viewpoint - that May's deal was an unacceptable betrayal - was represented by fewer than 30 Tories at MV3. But those less than 30 MPs are getting an exit more to their and my liking.
There are over 600 MPs in Parliament. That is an incredible, incredible victory for a vote of fewer than 30.
You are all talking about May`s deal as though it were a trade deal. May`s deal was a withdrawal agreement/transition agreement, just as Johnson`s was. If May`s deal was being proceeded with instead of Johnson`s we would be in a similar position as now wouldn`t we - trying to negotiate a trade deal?
The very important difference is that with May’s deal we defaulted to being inside the Single Market without a further deal. With Johnson’s, we default to outside.
Hard to avoid the conclusion Macron isn't using the lorry blockage as extra leverage to get what he wants in the final Brexit deal.
He's holding out.
Absolutely. Manny is the hero of every remainer this evening, killing no deal more with every lorry.
If French Presidential communications were to be leaked and it were revealed that Macron had said about the new covid strain "Super, punissons les trous du cul anglais pour le Brexit", would we have a case for suing France for the costs of this freight blockage?
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
It's pretty silly, indeed raving bonkers, to blame the one person who campaigned vigorously for Remain for Brexit. And also pretty silly to blame those who voted for Theresa May: Brexit had already been decided by then, and if she had had the majority she asked for and needed, she'd have been able to deliver it in the sensible way she was planning, without Labour and other opposition parties helping (and actively voting with) the ERG to torpedo it.
I'll grant you the other two categories.
Cameron richly deserves his share of the blame/kudos for Brexit, given that he was the one who called the referendum and set out its terms in the first place. May campaigned for PM on a mandate of implementing Brexit, and it was she who invoked Article 50 with no proper plan in place. So she also shares in the honours.
Cameron was right to call the referendum, which he didn't exactly hurry into. Not that he had any choice - but are you seriously suggesting that the voice of the majority should not have been heard, just because you don't like the answer?
Theresa May stonewalled Article 50 for over nine months, which was hardly rushing into it, with a two-year extendable implementation period. Those who voted Leave would have had a very, very legitimate grievance if she'd waited even longer. What's more, it was impossible to have a 'proper plan' in place, not least because the EU, to their great discredit and contrary to their own interests, had the brain-dead idea of insisting that we couldn't negotiate the final destination until after we'd agreed to a transition to somewhere unknown and actually left.
At the time Cameron named the date of the referendum, you were predicting Remain would win by 70-30. You shared his delusions about his strategy.
Hard to avoid the conclusion Macron isn't using the lorry blockage as extra leverage to get what he wants in the final Brexit deal.
He's holding out.
Emboldened by a Select Comittee saying the UK just HAVE to accept whatever is offered.
Yes, well they are not wrong, are they? That is the position Boris has boxed himself, and us, into.
They would be better off serving the interests of the UK in pointing out the disaster that awaits the EU too in a No Deal.
Gridlock is not one way traffic on trade.
Because of % of Andorra’s goods come from EU, Andorra holds all the cards too, does she?
Don’t be silly. You would expect a bigger economy like EU to sell more to little economy, U.K., than other way round, That’s not a weak position for EU, if easy for them to find markets elsewhere, as the bigger economy should be able to. That’s just basic maths. 🥱
I don't see it. (Farage as an author doesn't help obviously).
My view of the government (as a citizen) is that they're doing ok. There is of course a lot of risk that things could change.
There seems to be some degree of fellowship in the cabinet. This is a very good thing if it's there. I personally think that several ministers are performing better than they have historically - Hancock, Patel, Raab. They all have their issues, but given the absolute awfulness of what's actually going on in the world I think they're doing well.
If I'm right (and I'm speculating rather than knowing) then Boris is doing well in perhaps the most important task he has at the moment (leading the cabinet).
Despite all the flak I think that he's got some degree of respect elsewhere in parliament for dealing with all of this.
It would appear that the 'needs must' cooperation between him and the devolved governments isn't so bad.
The only real thing broken about Boris' premiership may well be just the press coverage.
Hard to avoid the conclusion Macron isn't using the lorry blockage as extra leverage to get what he wants in the final Brexit deal.
He's holding out.
Emboldened by a Select Comittee saying the UK just HAVE to accept whatever is offered.
Yes, well they are not wrong, are they? That is the position Boris has boxed himself, and us, into.
They would be better off serving the interests of the UK in pointing out the disaster that awaits the EU too in a No Deal.
Gridlock is not one way traffic on trade.
Because of % of Andorra’s goods come from EU, Andorra holds all the cards too, does she?
Don’t be silly. You would expect a bigger economy like EU to sell more to little economy, U.K., than other way round, That’s not a weak position for EU, if easy for them to find markets elsewhere, as the bigger economy should be able to. That’s just basic maths. 🥱
Hard to avoid the conclusion Macron isn't using the lorry blockage as extra leverage to get what he wants in the final Brexit deal.
He's holding out.
Absolutely. Manny is the hero of every remainer this evening, killing no deal more with every lorry.
If French Presidential communications were to be leaked and it were revealed that Macron had said about the new covid strain "Super, punissons les trous du cul anglais pour le Brexit", would we have a case for suing France for the costs of this freight blockage?
Yes, but why bother? They never pay up. They still owe us around €1.8 billion for that illegal ban on our beef - the one imposed to protect French consumers from a disease that was far more widespread in French cattle than it was in British.
The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
However, the scheme was halted last week after concerns were raised by directors of public health about the accuracy of the tests and the potential false reassurance given to people who test negative. A government source said the planned rollout “proved unnecessary”.
Hard to avoid the conclusion Macron isn't using the lorry blockage as extra leverage to get what he wants in the final Brexit deal.
He's holding out.
Absolutely. Manny is the hero of every remainer this evening, killing no deal more with every lorry.
If French Presidential communications were to be leaked and it were revealed that Macron had said about the new covid strain "Super, punissons les trous du cul anglais pour le Brexit", would we have a case for suing France for the costs of this freight blockage?
Yes, but why bother? They never pay up. They still owe us around €1.8 billion for that illegal ban on our beef - the one imposed to protect French consumers from a disease that was far more widespread in French cattle than it was in British.
And juist think hbow much the Irish could sting the UK for.
Oh FFS. Do the frigging deal!!! We are now arguing about a few fish for christ's sake.
Johnson is conflicted. Which is the more uncomfortable for him? Gridlock on the M2 and M20, empty shelves and medication shortages, or the wrath of Jacob Rees Mogg and Farage.
Sod the empty shelves!
One suspects that Johnson, Rees Mogg AND Farage are all well-stocked re: their personal essentials and favorite dainties:
BJ = Putin-brand super-quality Beluga caviar, genuine endangered whale blubber and 100+ rail tanker cars full of high-test KY jelly
JRM = modified Eton collars, watered silk lounging pillows embroidered by blind family retainers, and a moatful of contraband cod liver oil
NF = used crash helmets (British-made only), mad-cow cutlets (ditto) and several gross of Psilocybin mushrooms pizzas (from shrooms harvested solely from the finest East Anglian cow-pies).
Hard to avoid the conclusion Macron isn't using the lorry blockage as extra leverage to get what he wants in the final Brexit deal.
He's holding out.
Absolutely. Manny is the hero of every remainer this evening, killing no deal more with every lorry.
If French Presidential communications were to be leaked and it were revealed that Macron had said about the new covid strain "Super, punissons les trous du cul anglais pour le Brexit", would we have a case for suing France for the costs of this freight blockage?
That’s a really good point actually. “In his nothing has changed it’s still clogged up’ address to nation yesterday, Boris had agreed with Manny not to talk brexit in the phone call. Why the hell not?
Hard to avoid the conclusion Macron isn't using the lorry blockage as extra leverage to get what he wants in the final Brexit deal.
He's holding out.
Absolutely. Manny is the hero of every remainer this evening, killing no deal more with every lorry.
If French Presidential communications were to be leaked and it were revealed that Macron had said about the new covid strain "Super, punissons les trous du cul anglais pour le Brexit", would we have a case for suing France for the costs of this freight blockage?
Isn't the idiom trous noirs anglais?
It's a disappointing French idiom if so! I just google translated this, but I do love many French idioms. "Avoir le cul bordé de nouilles" (To have an arse surrounded by noodles = to be very lucky). "L'esprit d'escalier" (The ghost of the staircase - when you think of the perfect riposte after the conversation is over so the ghost on the staircase has just told you it). And so many more..
The very important difference is that with May’s deal we defaulted to being inside the Single Market without a further deal. With Johnson’s, we default to outside.
It's blindingly obvious now how much stronger our hand would have been because of that. Theresa May, amazingly, had managed to get the EU to agree to a UK-wide ‘single customs territory’ with full access to the Single Market, while the requirement for regulatory alignment would have been limited to Northern Ireland. The only way they could have got out of that would have been to offer us an even better deal than that.
Hard to avoid the conclusion Macron isn't using the lorry blockage as extra leverage to get what he wants in the final Brexit deal.
He's holding out.
Absolutely. Manny is the hero of every remainer this evening, killing no deal more with every lorry.
If French Presidential communications were to be leaked and it were revealed that Macron had said about the new covid strain "Super, punissons les trous du cul anglais pour le Brexit", would we have a case for suing France for the costs of this freight blockage?
Yes, but why bother? They never pay up. They still owe us around €1.8 billion for that illegal ban on our beef - the one imposed to protect French consumers from a disease that was far more widespread in French cattle than it was in British.
And juist think hbow much the Irish could sting the UK for.
Nothing. They sold out in exchange for the Treaty Ports and not having to pay imperial debts.
“The main message is: please don’t travel to Kent,” Grant Shapps declared in a live press conference on Monday evening. This used to be the stuff of science fiction or satire. Only with the full run-up of 2020 could such a script land in a news broadcast. The acclimatisation to extreme events is becoming more shocking than the events themselves. There is a numb horror on realising that the preposterous has become normal.
When asked about the state of Brexit negotiations, the prime minister laughed.
When Priti Patel was asked about failures of pandemic management today, she declared: “The government has consistently this year been ahead of the curve in terms of proactive decisions on coronavirus.” It is hard to draft a more precise inversion of the truth. The home secretary’s calculated cynicism comes from the same place as the prime minister’s spontaneous laughter. They express the same contempt for the audience.
Many Tory MPs know that Johnson is unfit to lead the country in the current circumstances, but they cannot admit the bigger fraud in which they were complicit – selling him to the public as someone who was fit to lead in any circumstances.
Even in the midst of national tragedy he adopts the sombre pose awkwardly, like a football mascot observing the minute’s silence on Remembrance Sunday. Some Tories are embarrassed by it, but for the cabinet it is a kind of defence. He is the one Britain chose. Everyone knew who he was; what he is. Caveat emptor. You don’t hire a clown and then complain that his nose is too red.
The longer that show goes on, the harder it gets to remember what good government ever felt like. The deeper we go into this emergency, the more it shades into absurdity and the absurdity starts to feel like normality. The clown sets aside his red nose. No one is laughing at him any more. But he is surely laughing at us.
The very important difference is that with May’s deal we defaulted to being inside the Single Market without a further deal. With Johnson’s, we default to outside.
It's blindingly obvious now how much stronger our hand would have been because of that. Theresa May, amazingly, had managed to get the EU to agree to a UK-wide ‘single customs territory’ with full access to the Single Market, while the requirement for regulatory alignment would have been limited to Northern Ireland. The only way they could have got out of that would have been to offer us an even better deal than that.
What’s even more amazing is she had managed to negotiate us out of the CFP.
So it really would have put all the pressure on the EU to find a way forward.
The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
However, the scheme was halted last week after concerns were raised by directors of public health about the accuracy of the tests and the potential false reassurance given to people who test negative. A government source said the planned rollout “proved unnecessary”.
Let’s get right into the fluff of the swab on this one.
The rapid tests can be as low as 50% accurate? The upper end on these is what?
Is a 50% accurate test better or worse than no test?
At the time Cameron named the date of the referendum, you were predicting Remain would win by 70-30. You shared his delusions about his strategy.
Indeed I did think that. I was wrong, like most people. I don't recall your prediction, but perhaps you can point us to it.
Of course, at the time the referendum was committed to, Labour hadn't yet chosen a 100-1 outsider far-left leader who was a Brexiteer and who ensured (or, more likely, allowed Seumas Milne to ensure) that the Labour Remain campaign was totally hobbled. I really don't think I could have been expected to predict that!
What everyone forgets is that the prize Cameron was going for was a big one: he had negotiated a very good semi-detached membership for us, enhancing the opt-outs and concessions we already had, and if voters had been sensible we'd have been in an excellent position. Alas, they decided to make the bad purchase despite his advice. That decision was their fault, not his.
The very important difference is that with May’s deal we defaulted to being inside the Single Market without a further deal. With Johnson’s, we default to outside.
It's blindingly obvious now how much stronger our hand would have been because of that. Theresa May, amazingly, had managed to get the EU to agree to a UK-wide ‘single customs territory’ with full access to the Single Market, while the requirement for regulatory alignment would have been limited to Northern Ireland. The only way they could have got out of that would have been to offer us an even better deal than that.
Yes great to default to be inside something we want to leave. 🤦🏻♂️
The very important difference is that with May’s deal we defaulted to being inside the Single Market without a further deal. With Johnson’s, we default to outside.
It's blindingly obvious now how much stronger our hand would have been because of that. Theresa May, amazingly, had managed to get the EU to agree to a UK-wide ‘single customs territory’ with full access to the Single Market, while the requirement for regulatory alignment would have been limited to Northern Ireland. The only way they could have got out of that would have been to offer us an even better deal than that.
What’s even more amazing is she had managed to negotiate us out of the CFP.
So it really would have put all the pressure on the EU to find a way forward.
And it was blocked by Parliament. Of course the ERG nutters blocked it, but the remainers in Parliament could have ensured that deal if they weren't so keen on blocking Brexit.
The very important difference is that with May’s deal we defaulted to being inside the Single Market without a further deal. With Johnson’s, we default to outside.
It's blindingly obvious now how much stronger our hand would have been because of that. Theresa May, amazingly, had managed to get the EU to agree to a UK-wide ‘single customs territory’ with full access to the Single Market, while the requirement for regulatory alignment would have been limited to Northern Ireland. The only way they could have got out of that would have been to offer us an even better deal than that.
What’s even more amazing is she had managed to negotiate us out of the CFP.
So it really would have put all the pressure on the EU to find a way forward.
Yes, it was quite amazing that the EU signed up to it. No wonder they jumped at the opportunity Boris gave them to go back to their original opening position.
The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
However, the scheme was halted last week after concerns were raised by directors of public health about the accuracy of the tests and the potential false reassurance given to people who test negative. A government source said the planned rollout “proved unnecessary”.
Let’s get right into the fluff of the swab on this one.
The rapid tests can be as low as 50% accurate? The upper end on these is what?
Is a 50% accurate test better or worse than no test?
Has anyone had one?
Worse, if it gives false negatives, because it means people who might have been isolating due to symptoms don’t.
This is a fairly damning article on why using it in schools (for example) is not a smart idea for that reason.
The very important difference is that with May’s deal we defaulted to being inside the Single Market without a further deal. With Johnson’s, we default to outside.
It's blindingly obvious now how much stronger our hand would have been because of that. Theresa May, amazingly, had managed to get the EU to agree to a UK-wide ‘single customs territory’ with full access to the Single Market, while the requirement for regulatory alignment would have been limited to Northern Ireland. The only way they could have got out of that would have been to offer us an even better deal than that.
May's deal was a good deal.
I didn't greatly like it, but had I been an MP I'd have voted for it with alacrity - because it was a good deal.
Hard to avoid the conclusion Macron isn't using the lorry blockage as extra leverage to get what he wants in the final Brexit deal.
He's holding out.
Absolutely. Manny is the hero of every remainer this evening, killing no deal more with every lorry.
If French Presidential communications were to be leaked and it were revealed that Macron had said about the new covid strain "Super, punissons les trous du cul anglais pour le Brexit", would we have a case for suing France for the costs of this freight blockage?
Isn't the idiom trous noirs anglais?
It's a disappointing French idiom if so! I just google translated this, but I do love many French idioms. "Avoir le cul bordé de nouilles" (To have an arse surrounded by noodles = to be very lucky). "L'esprit d'escalier" (The ghost of the staircase - when you think of the perfect riposte after the conversation is over so the ghost on the staircase has just told you it). And so many more..
It may be some consolation that I remember reading the possibly apocryphal story that French and Russian scientists were very upset when Anglophone scientists coined the term 'black hole', because the word for word translation means ...
What really upset them, though, was that when Stephen HAwking and colleagues came up witrh the idea that these bodies might be surrounded by a fuzz of certain particles, they called the result a 'hairy black hole'.
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Yes. With hindsight that would have been a good play. But this IS all hinsdsight. At the time we had a PM and a government in the hole. Oppositions do not tend to dig them out of it. Especially when they are polling ok, as Labour were at that point. They were focused on getting an election and winning it.
It's not all hindsight. I was advising Labour's best course was to abstain at the time, ad nauseum. Brexit would than have been a Blue on Blue shitfest.
I still believe Corbyn wanted to ensure Brexit happened, one way or another. He didn't really care how hard it was.
The irony of course is that Corbyn's gut instinct was right on this one issue and he was making Labour abstain early on.
It was Starmer that was a leading advocate for the second referendum die hard remainerism and rejecting May's deal. Corbyn abandoned his own principles - for possibly the only time in 40 years of politics - and paid the price for doing so.
May's deal was shit. It's not the job of the opposition to vote for things they don't support because the government can't get its own side to vote for it and might be stupid enough to do something totally suicidal instead. Labour gave the government an opportunity to vote for a genuine compromise that respected the referendum result and the Tories whipped their MPs to vote against it. None of this is the fault of anyone outside of the Conservative Party.
The Tory Eurosceptics are getting exactly what they wanted despite not having the numbers in Parliament to do it.
Thank you for that. Years ago on this site I was a lone Leaver opposing all the way May's deal and I was being told by fellow Leavers time and again we wouldn't get anything more to my liking because there were not enough MPs in Parliament to facilitate that.
Well as it happened there were. Labour, LDs, TIG etc take a bow - by marching through the lobbies with Steve Baker etc look what you have brought about. I thank you for it.
They played very high stakes poker. I assumed (because of the numbers in parliament) we must lose but they were £4k up and decided to risk it all to play for the £100k grand prize.
They left with their bus fare home.
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
You say that but how many Tories rejected May's deal at Meaningful Vote 3 as they were die hard adamant it wasn't hard enough - as I was here at the time?
Only 34 Tories rejected it at Meaningful Vote 3. And that includes Dominic Grieve and co.
My viewpoint - that May's deal was an unacceptable betrayal - was represented by fewer than 30 Tories at MV3. But those less than 30 MPs are getting an exit more to their and my liking.
There are over 600 MPs in Parliament. That is an incredible, incredible victory for a vote of fewer than 30.
You are all talking about May`s deal as though it were a trade deal. May`s deal was a withdrawal agreement/transition agreement, just as Johnson`s was. If May`s deal was being proceeded with instead of Johnson`s we would be in a similar position as now wouldn`t we - trying to negotiate a trade deal?
No because May's deal was a trap. We would have been stuck in the godawful backstop forever with no way out unless the EU deigned to let us out. No chance of walking away, no Article 50, no unilateral exit. We would have been prisoners and supplicants who could only leave if Barnier or his successor decided we could. Oh and 27 nations could all veto us being able to leave it. We would be powerless and helpless at their mercy.
The very important difference is that with May’s deal we defaulted to being inside the Single Market without a further deal. With Johnson’s, we default to outside.
It's blindingly obvious now how much stronger our hand would have been because of that. Theresa May, amazingly, had managed to get the EU to agree to a UK-wide ‘single customs territory’ with full access to the Single Market, while the requirement for regulatory alignment would have been limited to Northern Ireland. The only way they could have got out of that would have been to offer us an even better deal than that.
Basically, May and Robbins built a failsafe into the Brexit Machine. Which is what some Brexiteers hated, because they wanted to override the failsafes, like the engineers at Chernobyl. Look Mummy, no hands.
A better politician would have done a better job of concealing the mechanism than TM, but it makes her better at statesmanship than her detractors.
The very important difference is that with May’s deal we defaulted to being inside the Single Market without a further deal. With Johnson’s, we default to outside.
It's blindingly obvious now how much stronger our hand would have been because of that. Theresa May, amazingly, had managed to get the EU to agree to a UK-wide ‘single customs territory’ with full access to the Single Market, while the requirement for regulatory alignment would have been limited to Northern Ireland. The only way they could have got out of that would have been to offer us an even better deal than that.
What’s even more amazing is she had managed to negotiate us out of the CFP.
So it really would have put all the pressure on the EU to find a way forward.
And it was blocked by Parliament. Of course the ERG nutters blocked it, but the remainers in Parliament could have ensured that deal if they weren't so keen on blocking Brexit.
Yes, and having (unlike them) actually read it, I was bloody furious with the lot of them.
The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
However, the scheme was halted last week after concerns were raised by directors of public health about the accuracy of the tests and the potential false reassurance given to people who test negative. A government source said the planned rollout “proved unnecessary”.
Let’s get right into the fluff of the swab on this one.
The rapid tests can be as low as 50% accurate? The upper end on these is what?
Is a 50% accurate test better or worse than no test?
Has anyone had one?
Worse, if it gives false negatives, because it means people who might have been isolating due to symptoms don’t.
This is a fairly damning article on why using it in schools (for example) is not a smart idea for that reason.
What about used in combination for stronger guidance. Is it/Could it be combined with questionnaire whilst you are waiting?
I mean if testresult said no, but you answered yes to feeling worse than you ever have, lost all smell and taste, and spent all night on pot whilst projectile vomiting into sink, they would be mad to send you away with all clear wouldn’t’ they?
The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
However, the scheme was halted last week after concerns were raised by directors of public health about the accuracy of the tests and the potential false reassurance given to people who test negative. A government source said the planned rollout “proved unnecessary”.
Is a 50% accurate test better or worse than no test?
Evening all! A few comments: 1. If the pox doesn't worry you it should do. We had this new Boris Bug, we've sent students home and there will still be additional Christmas Day spreading going on. Its increasingly awful now, January will be worse 2. We're moving to Scotland hopefully early February. Not sure whether my son in Yr 8 will go back at all - I know they *want* to send kids back, but having accepted a "phased" return is required (i.e. he's not going into school when he's supposed to) its easier to just extend this further 3. Brexit just makes me giggle. We'll get a few days respite of mandatory covid tests and then the real chaos starts deal or no deal. No deal means an additional tariff is added to make the chaos that much more expensive. But even with a deal the chaos is still there as we try and funnel what had been 9-10k trucks a day each way through newly introduced customs checks.
Deal. No deal. Whatever. Get used to stuff not moving. Oh, and a prediction. Within a few days of the new year the queues will dissipate as the number of trucks coming across reduces to a trickle. Massively reducing throughput is not "success" despite what some people are going to say about it.
The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
However, the scheme was halted last week after concerns were raised by directors of public health about the accuracy of the tests and the potential false reassurance given to people who test negative. A government source said the planned rollout “proved unnecessary”.
Let’s get right into the fluff of the swab on this one.
The rapid tests can be as low as 50% accurate? The upper end on these is what?
Is a 50% accurate test better or worse than no test?
Has anyone had one?
Worse, if it gives false negatives, because it means people who might have been isolating due to symptoms don’t.
This is a fairly damning article on why using it in schools (for example) is not a smart idea for that reason.
What about used in combination for stronger guidance. Is it/Could it be combined with questionnaire whilst you are waiting?
I mean if testresult said no, but you answered yes to feeling worse than you ever have, lost all smell and taste, and spent all night on pot whilst projectile vomiting into sink, they would be mad to send you away with all clear wouldn’t’ they?
No, because many people including many superspreaders have quite mild symptoms.
The very important difference is that with May’s deal we defaulted to being inside the Single Market without a further deal. With Johnson’s, we default to outside.
It's blindingly obvious now how much stronger our hand would have been because of that. Theresa May, amazingly, had managed to get the EU to agree to a UK-wide ‘single customs territory’ with full access to the Single Market, while the requirement for regulatory alignment would have been limited to Northern Ireland. The only way they could have got out of that would have been to offer us an even better deal than that.
Yes great to default to be inside something we want to leave. 🤦🏻♂️
The Irish backstop default was pretty much 100% what the Leave campaign, and Eurosceptics generally, had been asking for over years, or indeed much better: outside the CFP and CAP, outside the political structures of the EU, without freedom of movement obligations, without budget contributions, free of ever-closer union, with no vestige of obligations on getting involved in bail-outs, and all this with full access to the Single Market. The ultimate cherry-pick.
Hard to avoid the conclusion Macron isn't using the lorry blockage as extra leverage to get what he wants in the final Brexit deal.
He's holding out.
Absolutely. Manny is the hero of every remainer this evening, killing no deal more with every lorry.
If French Presidential communications were to be leaked and it were revealed that Macron had said about the new covid strain "Super, punissons les trous du cul anglais pour le Brexit", would we have a case for suing France for the costs of this freight blockage?
Isn't the idiom trous noirs anglais?
It's a disappointing French idiom if so! I just google translated this, but I do love many French idioms. "Avoir le cul bordé de nouilles" (To have an arse surrounded by noodles = to be very lucky). "L'esprit d'escalier" (The ghost of the staircase - when you think of the perfect riposte after the conversation is over so the ghost on the staircase has just told you it). And so many more..
It may be some consolation that I remember reading the possibly apocryphal story that French and Russian scientists were very upset when Anglophone scientists coined the term 'black hole', because the word for word translation means ...
What really upset them, though, was that when Stephen HAwking and colleagues came up witrh the idea that these bodies might be surrounded by a fuzz of certain particles, they called the result a 'hairy black hole'.
"trous noirs poilus" on the list of things never to google!
The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
However, the scheme was halted last week after concerns were raised by directors of public health about the accuracy of the tests and the potential false reassurance given to people who test negative. A government source said the planned rollout “proved unnecessary”.
Let’s get right into the fluff of the swab on this one.
The rapid tests can be as low as 50% accurate? The upper end on these is what?
Is a 50% accurate test better or worse than no test?
Has anyone had one?
Worse, if it gives false negatives, because it means people who might have been isolating due to symptoms don’t.
This is a fairly damning article on why using it in schools (for example) is not a smart idea for that reason.
What about used in combination for stronger guidance. Is it/Could it be combined with questionnaire whilst you are waiting?
I mean if testresult said no, but you answered yes to feeling worse than you ever have, lost all smell and taste, and spent all night on pot whilst projectile vomiting into sink, they would be mad to send you away with all clear wouldn’t’ they?
No, because many people including many superspreaders have quite mild symptoms.
Is that the reason the test accuracy is so low, it struggles to pick those up?
The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
However, the scheme was halted last week after concerns were raised by directors of public health about the accuracy of the tests and the potential false reassurance given to people who test negative. A government source said the planned rollout “proved unnecessary”.
Let’s get right into the fluff of the swab on this one.
The rapid tests can be as low as 50% accurate? The upper end on these is what?
Is a 50% accurate test better or worse than no test?
Has anyone had one?
Worse, if it gives false negatives, because it means people who might have been isolating due to symptoms don’t.
This is a fairly damning article on why using it in schools (for example) is not a smart idea for that reason.
What about used in combination for stronger guidance. Is it/Could it be combined with questionnaire whilst you are waiting?
I mean if testresult said no, but you answered yes to feeling worse than you ever have, lost all smell and taste, and spent all night on pot whilst projectile vomiting into sink, they would be mad to send you away with all clear wouldn’t’ they?
No, because many people including many superspreaders have quite mild symptoms.
Is that the reason the test accuracy is so low, it struggles to pick those up?
The very important difference is that with May’s deal we defaulted to being inside the Single Market without a further deal. With Johnson’s, we default to outside.
It's blindingly obvious now how much stronger our hand would have been because of that. Theresa May, amazingly, had managed to get the EU to agree to a UK-wide ‘single customs territory’ with full access to the Single Market, while the requirement for regulatory alignment would have been limited to Northern Ireland. The only way they could have got out of that would have been to offer us an even better deal than that.
What’s even more amazing is she had managed to negotiate us out of the CFP.
So it really would have put all the pressure on the EU to find a way forward.
And it was blocked by Parliament. Of course the ERG nutters blocked it, but the remainers in Parliament could have ensured that deal if they weren't so keen on blocking Brexit.
Yes, and having (unlike them) actually read it, I was bloody furious with the lot of them.
Are there anti Brexit people on here that supported the Remainers in Parliament blocking May's deal at the time, and still think they did the right thing?
The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
However, the scheme was halted last week after concerns were raised by directors of public health about the accuracy of the tests and the potential false reassurance given to people who test negative. A government source said the planned rollout “proved unnecessary”.
Is a 50% accurate test better or worse than no test?
You’re seriously asking that?
Well yes. Because government are serious about opening these centres with such a test, and using the same test in schools. Would you say the same to Her Maj government as you just said to me?
Are other country’s using more reliable tests we could be using too?
What are you saying has gone wrong, we traded off accuracy in favour of reporting large quantity?
The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
However, the scheme was halted last week after concerns were raised by directors of public health about the accuracy of the tests and the potential false reassurance given to people who test negative. A government source said the planned rollout “proved unnecessary”.
Let’s get right into the fluff of the swab on this one.
The rapid tests can be as low as 50% accurate? The upper end on these is what?
Is a 50% accurate test better or worse than no test?
Has anyone had one?
Worse, if it gives false negatives, because it means people who might have been isolating due to symptoms don’t.
This is a fairly damning article on why using it in schools (for example) is not a smart idea for that reason.
What about used in combination for stronger guidance. Is it/Could it be combined with questionnaire whilst you are waiting?
I mean if testresult said no, but you answered yes to feeling worse than you ever have, lost all smell and taste, and spent all night on pot whilst projectile vomiting into sink, they would be mad to send you away with all clear wouldn’t’ they?
No, because many people including many superspreaders have quite mild symptoms.
Is that the reason the test accuracy is so low, it struggles to pick those up?
The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
However, the scheme was halted last week after concerns were raised by directors of public health about the accuracy of the tests and the potential false reassurance given to people who test negative. A government source said the planned rollout “proved unnecessary”.
Let’s get right into the fluff of the swab on this one.
The rapid tests can be as low as 50% accurate? The upper end on these is what?
Is a 50% accurate test better or worse than no test?
Has anyone had one?
Worse, if it gives false negatives, because it means people who might have been isolating due to symptoms don’t.
This is a fairly damning article on why using it in schools (for example) is not a smart idea for that reason.
What about used in combination for stronger guidance. Is it/Could it be combined with questionnaire whilst you are waiting?
I mean if testresult said no, but you answered yes to feeling worse than you ever have, lost all smell and taste, and spent all night on pot whilst projectile vomiting into sink, they would be mad to send you away with all clear wouldn’t’ they?
No, because many people including many superspreaders have quite mild symptoms.
Is that the reason the test accuracy is so low, it struggles to pick those up?
It is of interest that while this has been going on, in the past week, testing capacity for PCR tests has been increased by 150K
Basically, May and Robbins built a failsafe into the Brexit Machine. Which is what some Brexiteers hated, because they wanted to override the failsafes, like the engineers at Chernobyl. Look Mummy, no hands.
A better politician would have done a better job of concealing the mechanism than TM, but it makes her better at statesmanship than her detractors.
Like BoZo's current logic. It would be intolerable for us to have constraints placed upon us in future, therefore we insist that they are applied right now and exist in perpetuity.
Hard to avoid the conclusion Macron isn't using the lorry blockage as extra leverage to get what he wants in the final Brexit deal.
He's holding out.
Absolutely. Manny is the hero of every remainer this evening, killing no deal more with every lorry.
If French Presidential communications were to be leaked and it were revealed that Macron had said about the new covid strain "Super, punissons les trous du cul anglais pour le Brexit", would we have a case for suing France for the costs of this freight blockage?
Isn't the idiom trous noirs anglais?
It's a disappointing French idiom if so! I just google translated this, but I do love many French idioms. "Avoir le cul bordé de nouilles" (To have an arse surrounded by noodles = to be very lucky). "L'esprit d'escalier" (The ghost of the staircase - when you think of the perfect riposte after the conversation is over so the ghost on the staircase has just told you it). And so many more..
It may be some consolation that I remember reading the possibly apocryphal story that French and Russian scientists were very upset when Anglophone scientists coined the term 'black hole', because the word for word translation means ...
What really upset them, though, was that when Stephen HAwking and colleagues came up witrh the idea that these bodies might be surrounded by a fuzz of certain particles, they called the result a 'hairy black hole'.
"trous noirs poilus" on the list of things never to google!
Presumably hairy rather than infantryman's? I didn't dare to look at the photos ...
The very important difference is that with May’s deal we defaulted to being inside the Single Market without a further deal. With Johnson’s, we default to outside.
It's blindingly obvious now how much stronger our hand would have been because of that. Theresa May, amazingly, had managed to get the EU to agree to a UK-wide ‘single customs territory’ with full access to the Single Market, while the requirement for regulatory alignment would have been limited to Northern Ireland. The only way they could have got out of that would have been to offer us an even better deal than that.
What’s even more amazing is she had managed to negotiate us out of the CFP.
So it really would have put all the pressure on the EU to find a way forward.
And it was blocked by Parliament. Of course the ERG nutters blocked it, but the remainers in Parliament could have ensured that deal if they weren't so keen on blocking Brexit.
Yes, and having (unlike them) actually read it, I was bloody furious with the lot of them.
Are there anti Brexit people on here that supported the Remainers in Parliament blocking May's deal at the time, and still think they did the right thing?
Are there pro Brexit people on here who wish the Remainers in Parliament had voted for May's deal, despite opposing it at the time?
The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
However, the scheme was halted last week after concerns were raised by directors of public health about the accuracy of the tests and the potential false reassurance given to people who test negative. A government source said the planned rollout “proved unnecessary”.
Let’s get right into the fluff of the swab on this one.
The rapid tests can be as low as 50% accurate? The upper end on these is what?
Is a 50% accurate test better or worse than no test?
Has anyone had one?
Worse, if it gives false negatives, because it means people who might have been isolating due to symptoms don’t.
This is a fairly damning article on why using it in schools (for example) is not a smart idea for that reason.
What about used in combination for stronger guidance. Is it/Could it be combined with questionnaire whilst you are waiting?
I mean if testresult said no, but you answered yes to feeling worse than you ever have, lost all smell and taste, and spent all night on pot whilst projectile vomiting into sink, they would be mad to send you away with all clear wouldn’t’ they?
No, because many people including many superspreaders have quite mild symptoms.
Is that the reason the test accuracy is so low, it struggles to pick those up?
The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
However, the scheme was halted last week after concerns were raised by directors of public health about the accuracy of the tests and the potential false reassurance given to people who test negative. A government source said the planned rollout “proved unnecessary”.
Is a 50% accurate test better or worse than no test?
You’re seriously asking that?
It's a interesting question to ask. Not merely a scientific number, but also a social and game theory question.
All tests have a level of accuracy. There is no medical test that can ever be 100% accurate.
What is the utility at various accuracies? How is calculated?
The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
However, the scheme was halted last week after concerns were raised by directors of public health about the accuracy of the tests and the potential false reassurance given to people who test negative. A government source said the planned rollout “proved unnecessary”.
Let’s get right into the fluff of the swab on this one.
The rapid tests can be as low as 50% accurate? The upper end on these is what?
Is a 50% accurate test better or worse than no test?
Has anyone had one?
Worse, if it gives false negatives, because it means people who might have been isolating due to symptoms don’t.
This is a fairly damning article on why using it in schools (for example) is not a smart idea for that reason.
What about used in combination for stronger guidance. Is it/Could it be combined with questionnaire whilst you are waiting?
I mean if testresult said no, but you answered yes to feeling worse than you ever have, lost all smell and taste, and spent all night on pot whilst projectile vomiting into sink, they would be mad to send you away with all clear wouldn’t’ they?
No, because many people including many superspreaders have quite mild symptoms.
Is that the reason the test accuracy is so low, it struggles to pick those up?
It is of interest that while this has been going on, in the past week, testing capacity for PCR tests has been increased by 150K
And that is a move to better reliability? If so that is a good thing.
Hard to avoid the conclusion Macron isn't using the lorry blockage as extra leverage to get what he wants in the final Brexit deal.
He's holding out.
Absolutely. Manny is the hero of every remainer this evening, killing no deal more with every lorry.
If French Presidential communications were to be leaked and it were revealed that Macron had said about the new covid strain "Super, punissons les trous du cul anglais pour le Brexit", would we have a case for suing France for the costs of this freight blockage?
Isn't the idiom trous noirs anglais?
It's a disappointing French idiom if so! I just google translated this, but I do love many French idioms. "Avoir le cul bordé de nouilles" (To have an arse surrounded by noodles = to be very lucky). "L'esprit d'escalier" (The ghost of the staircase - when you think of the perfect riposte after the conversation is over so the ghost on the staircase has just told you it). And so many more..
It may be some consolation that I remember reading the possibly apocryphal story that French and Russian scientists were very upset when Anglophone scientists coined the term 'black hole', because the word for word translation means ...
What really upset them, though, was that when Stephen HAwking and colleagues came up witrh the idea that these bodies might be surrounded by a fuzz of certain particles, they called the result a 'hairy black hole'.
"trous noirs poilus" on the list of things never to google!
Presumably hairy rather than infantryman's? I didn't dare to look at the photos ...
I guess they could be like the SAS of Trump's Space Force, the Black Hole Infantrymen?
Earlier today someone posted that we should ask for Calais back. I was sort of tempted to suggest we might give the French Scotland in exchange.
So far as I know the previous best offer was 3 green shield stamps and an empty beer mug from Mr M Smithson. He evaded settlement on a technicality.
Calais is a moral issue.
We have been given detailed statements from charitable organisations, that the living conditions for refugees there are so hideous, that we have a humanitarian obligation to take them in.
This means that this part of France is a failed state.
And we all know what we should do with failed states, don't we children?
The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
However, the scheme was halted last week after concerns were raised by directors of public health about the accuracy of the tests and the potential false reassurance given to people who test negative. A government source said the planned rollout “proved unnecessary”.
Let’s get right into the fluff of the swab on this one.
The rapid tests can be as low as 50% accurate? The upper end on these is what?
Is a 50% accurate test better or worse than no test?
Has anyone had one?
Worse, if it gives false negatives, because it means people who might have been isolating due to symptoms don’t.
This is a fairly damning article on why using it in schools (for example) is not a smart idea for that reason.
Sensitivity when conducted by self-trained persons = 58% Specificity = 99.68%
If prevalence is 10% among those seeking the test (i.e. the previously undiagnosed), of 10,000 taking the test, there should be 9,000 true negatives and 1,000 true positives.
With a sensitivity of 58%, it will show only 580 true positives (and 32 false positives), so the predictive value of a positive test is 580/612 = 94.8%. i.e. if you get a positive result, you are about 95% certain to have COVID
That means there are 9,388 negative tests of which only 8,968 are true negatives. So a negative test is 95.5% predictive that you indeed do not have COVID.
On an individual level, I'd say these are pretty reasonable numbers for predictive value. Obviously, with very large numbers of students going to school, they become of dubious value in preventing the spread of the virus via testing.
Earlier today someone posted that we should ask for Calais back. I was sort of tempted to suggest we might give the French Scotland in exchange.
So far as I know the previous best offer was 3 green shield stamps and an empty beer mug from Mr M Smithson. He evaded settlement on a technicality.
Calais is a moral issue.
We have been given detailed statements from charitable organisations, that the living conditions for refugees there are so hideous, that we have a humanitarian obligation to take them in.
This means that this part of France is a failed state.
And we all know what we should do with failed states, don't we children?
The very important difference is that with May’s deal we defaulted to being inside the Single Market without a further deal. With Johnson’s, we default to outside.
It's blindingly obvious now how much stronger our hand would have been because of that. Theresa May, amazingly, had managed to get the EU to agree to a UK-wide ‘single customs territory’ with full access to the Single Market, while the requirement for regulatory alignment would have been limited to Northern Ireland. The only way they could have got out of that would have been to offer us an even better deal than that.
What’s even more amazing is she had managed to negotiate us out of the CFP.
So it really would have put all the pressure on the EU to find a way forward.
And it was blocked by Parliament. Of course the ERG nutters blocked it, but the remainers in Parliament could have ensured that deal if they weren't so keen on blocking Brexit.
Yes, and having (unlike them) actually read it, I was bloody furious with the lot of them.
Are there anti Brexit people on here that supported the Remainers in Parliament blocking May's deal at the time, and still think they did the right thing?
Are there pro Brexit people on here who wish the Remainers in Parliament had voted for May's deal, despite opposing it at the time?
Maybe, but I'm not one. I wanted them to vote for it. Did you advocate them voting for it?
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
It's pretty silly, indeed raving bonkers, to blame the one person who campaigned vigorously for Remain for Brexit. And also pretty silly to blame those who voted for Theresa May: Brexit had already been decided by then, and if she had had the majority she asked for and needed, she'd have been able to deliver it in the sensible way she was planning, without Labour and other opposition parties helping (and actively voting with) the ERG to torpedo it.
I'll grant you the other two categories.
Cameron's idea of campaigning for Remain was to spend years slagging off the EU to prove he was down with the Eurosceptics, and then bully people into voting for his deal by threatening them with the abyss if they didn't. He's one of the most disastrous Prime Ministers in history.
Poppycock. That's like blaming the solicitor who advises you against a bad purchase for the bad purchase you decide to make.
Cameron remain the best Prime Minister, apart from the very special case of Maggie, for at least a half century, in the sense that he ran the country and the government better than any other PM. It's completely absurd to blame him for decisions made by others - not least, voters.
The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
However, the scheme was halted last week after concerns were raised by directors of public health about the accuracy of the tests and the potential false reassurance given to people who test negative. A government source said the planned rollout “proved unnecessary”.
Is a 50% accurate test better or worse than no test?
You’re seriously asking that?
It's a interesting question to ask. Not merely a scientific number, but also a social and game theory question.
All tests have a level of accuracy. There is no medical test that can ever be 100% accurate.
What is the utility at various accuracies? How is calculated?
Binary tests have two 'accuracies' - accuracy of positives and accuracy of negatives. If you really want to come up with a single figure then you can weight these, but then you have to quote your weighting choice.
Not really much to do with game theory beyond that.
Earlier today someone posted that we should ask for Calais back. I was sort of tempted to suggest we might give the French Scotland in exchange.
So far as I know the previous best offer was 3 green shield stamps and an empty beer mug from Mr M Smithson. He evaded settlement on a technicality.
Calais is a moral issue.
We have been given detailed statements from charitable organisations, that the living conditions for refugees there are so hideous, that we have a humanitarian obligation to take them in.
This means that this part of France is a failed state.
And we all know what we should do with failed states, don't we children?
Is there any oil around Calais? Lithium?
But have UNICEF spent £25k on food for the Calais refugee kids?
Earlier today someone posted that we should ask for Calais back. I was sort of tempted to suggest we might give the French Scotland in exchange.
So far as I know the previous best offer was 3 green shield stamps and an empty beer mug from Mr M Smithson. He evaded settlement on a technicality.
Calais is a moral issue.
We have been given detailed statements from charitable organisations, that the living conditions for refugees there are so hideous, that we have a humanitarian obligation to take them in.
This means that this part of France is a failed state.
And we all know what we should do with failed states, don't we children?
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
It's pretty silly, indeed raving bonkers, to blame the one person who campaigned vigorously for Remain for Brexit. And also pretty silly to blame those who voted for Theresa May: Brexit had already been decided by then, and if she had had the majority she asked for and needed, she'd have been able to deliver it in the sensible way she was planning, without Labour and other opposition parties helping (and actively voting with) the ERG to torpedo it.
I'll grant you the other two categories.
Cameron richly deserves his share of the blame/kudos for Brexit, given that he was the one who called the referendum and set out its terms in the first place. May campaigned for PM on a mandate of implementing Brexit, and it was she who invoked Article 50 with no proper plan in place. So she also shares in the honours.
Cameron was right to call the referendum, which he didn't exactly hurry into. Not that he had any choice - but are you seriously suggesting that the voice of the majority should not have been heard, just because you don't like the answer?
Theresa May stonewalled Article 50 for over nine months, which was hardly rushing into it, with a two-year extendable implementation period. Those who voted Leave would have had a very, very legitimate grievance if she'd waited even longer. What's more, it was impossible to have a 'proper plan' in place, not least because the EU, to their great discredit and contrary to their own interests, had the brain-dead idea of insisting that we couldn't negotiate the final destination until after we'd agreed to a transition to somewhere unknown and actually left.
At the time Cameron named the date of the referendum, you were predicting Remain would win by 70-30. You shared his delusions about his strategy.
The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
However, the scheme was halted last week after concerns were raised by directors of public health about the accuracy of the tests and the potential false reassurance given to people who test negative. A government source said the planned rollout “proved unnecessary”.
Is a 50% accurate test better or worse than no test?
You’re seriously asking that?
It's a interesting question to ask. Not merely a scientific number, but also a social and game theory question.
All tests have a level of accuracy. There is no medical test that can ever be 100% accurate.
What is the utility at various accuracies? How is calculated?
Binary tests have two 'accuracies' - accuracy of positives and accuracy of negatives. If you really want to come up with a single figure then you can weight these, but then you have to quote your weighting choice.
Not really much to do with game theory beyond that.
Better to stick with the two original numbers.
You need three numbers to do the calculations of predictive value: sensitivity, specificity, and prevalence.
The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
However, the scheme was halted last week after concerns were raised by directors of public health about the accuracy of the tests and the potential false reassurance given to people who test negative. A government source said the planned rollout “proved unnecessary”.
Let’s get right into the fluff of the swab on this one.
The rapid tests can be as low as 50% accurate? The upper end on these is what?
Is a 50% accurate test better or worse than no test?
Has anyone had one?
Worse, if it gives false negatives, because it means people who might have been isolating due to symptoms don’t.
This is a fairly damning article on why using it in schools (for example) is not a smart idea for that reason.
What about used in combination for stronger guidance. Is it/Could it be combined with questionnaire whilst you are waiting?
I mean if testresult said no, but you answered yes to feeling worse than you ever have, lost all smell and taste, and spent all night on pot whilst projectile vomiting into sink, they would be mad to send you away with all clear wouldn’t’ they?
No, because many people including many superspreaders have quite mild symptoms.
Is that the reason the test accuracy is so low, it struggles to pick those up?
It is of interest that while this has been going on, in the past week, testing capacity for PCR tests has been increased by 150K
And that is a move to better reliability? If so that is a good thing.
The PCR tests are the ones with the highest reliability, but require a lab too process.
The lateral flow tests are the 15 minute test that can be done anywhere. But have reliability concerns.
t should be noted that false negatives have been an issue with all tests for COVID - apart from some very complex and impractical to scale lab tests. Which were used by Porton Down for creating reference data IIRC.
Comments
"Now look at what you've made me do"
Gridlock is not one way traffic on trade.
Only 34 Tories rejected it at Meaningful Vote 3. And that includes Dominic Grieve and co.
My viewpoint - that May's deal was an unacceptable betrayal - was represented by fewer than 30 Tories at MV3. But those less than 30 MPs are getting an exit more to their and my liking.
There are over 600 MPs in Parliament. That is an incredible, incredible victory for a vote of fewer than 30.
Theresa May stonewalled Article 50 for over nine months, which was hardly rushing into it, with a two-year extendable implementation period. Those who voted Leave would have had a very, very legitimate grievance if she'd waited even longer. What's more, it was impossible to have a 'proper plan' in place, not least because the EU, to their great discredit and contrary to their own interests, had the brain-dead idea of insisting that we couldn't negotiate the final destination until after we'd agreed to a transition to somewhere unknown and actually left.
The EU do not come out of this process with credit. What they do come out with, and I suppose this may be more important to them, is a population of Europe thoroughly cowed at the the thought of leaving.
If Brexit is going to end brilliantly, I'd want to say it was all down to my genius. And it is going to end brilliantly.
Isn't it?
The optics though of chaos in Dover make it more difficult for Johnson to downplay the issues surrounding no deal so Macron will be happy.
I hope there will be a deal , for it to crash and burn over fish would be lunacy of the highest order .
Don’t be silly. You would expect a bigger economy like EU to sell more to little economy, U.K., than other way round, That’s not a weak position for EU, if easy for them to find markets elsewhere, as the bigger economy should be able to. That’s just basic maths. 🥱
My view of the government (as a citizen) is that they're doing ok. There is of course a lot of risk that things could change.
There seems to be some degree of fellowship in the cabinet. This is a very good thing if it's there. I personally think that several ministers are performing better than they have historically - Hancock, Patel, Raab. They all have their issues, but given the absolute awfulness of what's actually going on in the world I think they're doing well.
If I'm right (and I'm speculating rather than knowing) then Boris is doing well in perhaps the most important task he has at the moment (leading the cabinet).
Despite all the flak I think that he's got some degree of respect elsewhere in parliament for dealing with all of this.
It would appear that the 'needs must' cooperation between him and the devolved governments isn't so bad.
The only real thing broken about Boris' premiership may well be just the press coverage.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
However, the scheme was halted last week after concerns were raised by directors of public health about the accuracy of the tests and the potential false reassurance given to people who test negative. A government source said the planned rollout “proved unnecessary”.
BJ = Putin-brand super-quality Beluga caviar, genuine endangered whale blubber and 100+ rail tanker cars full of high-test KY jelly
JRM = modified Eton collars, watered silk lounging pillows embroidered by blind family retainers, and a moatful of contraband cod liver oil
NF = used crash helmets (British-made only), mad-cow cutlets (ditto) and several gross of Psilocybin mushrooms pizzas (from shrooms harvested solely from the finest East Anglian cow-pies).
When asked about the state of Brexit negotiations, the prime minister laughed.
When Priti Patel was asked about failures of pandemic management today, she declared: “The government has consistently this year been ahead of the curve in terms of proactive decisions on coronavirus.” It is hard to draft a more precise inversion of the truth. The home secretary’s calculated cynicism comes from the same place as the prime minister’s spontaneous laughter. They express the same contempt for the audience.
Many Tory MPs know that Johnson is unfit to lead the country in the current circumstances, but they cannot admit the bigger fraud in which they were complicit – selling him to the public as someone who was fit to lead in any circumstances.
Even in the midst of national tragedy he adopts the sombre pose awkwardly, like a football mascot observing the minute’s silence on Remembrance Sunday. Some Tories are embarrassed by it, but for the cabinet it is a kind of defence. He is the one Britain chose. Everyone knew who he was; what he is. Caveat emptor. You don’t hire a clown and then complain that his nose is too red.
The longer that show goes on, the harder it gets to remember what good government ever felt like. The deeper we go into this emergency, the more it shades into absurdity and the absurdity starts to feel like normality. The clown sets aside his red nose. No one is laughing at him any more. But he is surely laughing at us.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/22/covid-serious-absurd-boris-johnson
So it really would have put all the pressure on the EU to find a way forward.
The rapid tests can be as low as 50% accurate? The upper end on these is what?
Is a 50% accurate test better or worse than no test?
Has anyone had one?
Of course, at the time the referendum was committed to, Labour hadn't yet chosen a 100-1 outsider far-left leader who was a Brexiteer and who ensured (or, more likely, allowed Seumas Milne to ensure) that the Labour Remain campaign was totally hobbled. I really don't think I could have been expected to predict that!
What everyone forgets is that the prize Cameron was going for was a big one: he had negotiated a very good semi-detached membership for us, enhancing the opt-outs and concessions we already had, and if voters had been sensible we'd have been in an excellent position. Alas, they decided to make the bad purchase despite his advice. That decision was their fault, not his.
https://twitter.com/SirSocks/status/1341325760515207169?s=20
This is a fairly damning article on why using it in schools (for example) is not a smart idea for that reason.
https://www.tes.com/news/coronavirus-school-mass-rapid-covid-testing-recipe-disaster
I didn't greatly like it, but had I been an MP I'd have voted for it with alacrity - because it was a good deal.
What really upset them, though, was that when Stephen HAwking and colleagues came up witrh the idea that these bodies might be surrounded by a fuzz of certain particles, they called the result a 'hairy black hole'.
A better politician would have done a better job of concealing the mechanism than TM, but it makes her better at statesmanship than her detractors.
I mean if testresult said no, but you answered yes to feeling worse than you ever have, lost all smell and taste, and spent all night on pot whilst projectile vomiting into sink, they would be mad to send you away with all clear wouldn’t’ they?
1. If the pox doesn't worry you it should do. We had this new Boris Bug, we've sent students home and there will still be additional Christmas Day spreading going on. Its increasingly awful now, January will be worse
2. We're moving to Scotland hopefully early February. Not sure whether my son in Yr 8 will go back at all - I know they *want* to send kids back, but having accepted a "phased" return is required (i.e. he's not going into school when he's supposed to) its easier to just extend this further
3. Brexit just makes me giggle. We'll get a few days respite of mandatory covid tests and then the real chaos starts deal or no deal. No deal means an additional tariff is added to make the chaos that much more expensive. But even with a deal the chaos is still there as we try and funnel what had been 9-10k trucks a day each way through newly introduced customs checks.
Deal. No deal. Whatever. Get used to stuff not moving. Oh, and a prediction. Within a few days of the new year the queues will dissipate as the number of trucks coming across reduces to a trickle. Massively reducing throughput is not "success" despite what some people are going to say about it.
By case data
By hospitalisation data
So far as I know the previous best offer was 3 green shield stamps and an empty beer mug from Mr M Smithson. He evaded settlement on a technicality.
Watch it on Prime if you can. Remastered from the original film. It's like HD
Also fun watching the supporting cast. Hercule Poirot is the bad guy in one of them. Kevin's Mum is held hostage. Trigger is an International assassin
Would you say the same to Her Maj government as you just said to me?
Are other country’s using more reliable tests we could be using too?
What are you saying has gone wrong, we traded off accuracy in favour of reporting large quantity?
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/22/biden-connecticut-schools-chief-education-secretary-449808
Fucking genius.
All tests have a level of accuracy. There is no medical test that can ever be 100% accurate.
What is the utility at various accuracies? How is calculated?
https://twitter.com/davidenrich/status/1341446576334647297
We have been given detailed statements from charitable organisations, that the living conditions for refugees there are so hideous, that we have a humanitarian obligation to take them in.
This means that this part of France is a failed state.
And we all know what we should do with failed states, don't we children?
Is there any oil around Calais? Lithium?
Sensitivity when conducted by self-trained persons = 58%
Specificity = 99.68%
If prevalence is 10% among those seeking the test (i.e. the previously undiagnosed), of 10,000 taking the test, there should be 9,000 true negatives and 1,000 true positives.
With a sensitivity of 58%, it will show only 580 true positives (and 32 false positives), so the predictive value of a positive test is 580/612 = 94.8%. i.e. if you get a positive result, you are about 95% certain to have COVID
That means there are 9,388 negative tests of which only 8,968 are true negatives. So a negative test is 95.5% predictive that you indeed do not have COVID.
On an individual level, I'd say these are pretty reasonable numbers for predictive value. Obviously, with very large numbers of students going to school, they become of dubious value in preventing the spread of the virus via testing.
Not really much to do with game theory beyond that.
Better to stick with the two original numbers.
The bank was always going to bury something bad until after his death.
I was wrong too.
The lateral flow tests are the 15 minute test that can be done anywhere. But have reliability concerns.
t should be noted that false negatives have been an issue with all tests for COVID - apart from some very complex and impractical to scale lab tests. Which were used by Porton Down for creating reference data IIRC.