A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.
There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.
Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.
The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.
And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.
The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.
There's politics all over this.
In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.
But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.
I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.
We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.
It needs designing some more.
Northern Ireland and Eire is a different set of issues.
This started off with exporting and importing to / from the rest of the EU
The issue under discussion here is internal trade within the United Kingdom, in particular food supplies between its main domestic supermarkets for British citizens who consume (99%+ of the time) that produce domestically and locally.
The existing protocol is disproportionately obsessed with the <1% of the time something might sneak over the NI/Irish border into the broader EU. It's OTT. It's also why I supported May's Deal and her CU backstop.
I was willing to compromise - others were not, on all sides - so we now have this ridiculous obstinacy.
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
But it isn't just vengeance, it is justice that should be sought. The man incited an attempted coup. A coup attempt which left five people dead.
What is wrong with you people who are suggesting he walks free, in the interests of "peace". to continue as a shadow President, a President in waiting who can spew his seditious propaganda to the angry and disenchanted?
Donald Trump makes the angry, angrier. The louder his voice, the greater the division.
Lock him up to shut him up!
You are letting your emotions takeover from a course that I support in as far as preventing him ever standing again has to be utmost in people's minds and I am not suggesting he should not face due process, but be careful for what you wish for, it could just ignite the issue for years to come
Surely the point is that fascism has always been a disputed category unless applied to Mussolini and his party? Were Salazar, Franco, Peron etc fascists? Trump certainly belongs to that basket of deplorables to whom the question can be applied.
It is not a position which even claims to have theoretical underpinnings, is it? I cannot imagine what the Fascist Manifesto would say.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.
There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.
Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.
The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.
And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.
The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.
There's politics all over this.
In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.
But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.
I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.
We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.
It needs designing some more.
Genuine question: why do Brexiteers refer to the Irish Republic as Eire rather than Ireland? I never see anyone else calling it that. It's weird.
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
I don't see any way that Biden has of bringing them on board. They believe Biden isn't their rightful president. Trump broke a fragile country apart. It will take a political generation to heal. The GOP will become increasingly right wing, until they are out of power so long, they need to tack back towards the centre. It's happened to both Tories and Labour here, and Trump only got in as the Democrats pushed for an unpopular leader.
I am certain Biden cannot bring these extremists on board, but continuing fighting Trump after 20th in my opinion is self defeating
Make sure he cannot go anywhere near office and move on...
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.
Say what?
Small children in Dumbarton knew exactly how the fuck bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.
Our Government didn't otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.
I disagree. The government knew exactly how bad it would be. But they had been told by the Brexiters to worsen the terms of trade with our erstwhile trading partners and they obliged.
The government absolutely knew. To think otherwise is simply not credible.
Is the government actively malign, or just stupid and incompetent? It's hard to tell. I would go for a bit of both.
They were told to Brexit. They had very few options. That some of them actually wanted to do so too is unforgiveable but what can you do (not vote for them, obvs).
And yet Boris still polls around 40% and Labour are not going anywhere at present
That is a result of our stale political system of 2 party politics.
Good thing the LibDems look so bright and shiny new then, eh?
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.
Say what?
Small children in Dumbarton knew exactly how the fuck bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.
Our Government didn't otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.
I disagree. The government knew exactly how bad it would be. But they had been told by the Brexiters to worsen the terms of trade with our erstwhile trading partners and they obliged.
The government absolutely knew. To think otherwise is simply not credible.
Is the government actively malign, or just stupid and incompetent? It's hard to tell. I would go for a bit of both.
They were told to Brexit. They had very few options. That some of them actually wanted to do so too is unforgiveable but what can you do (not vote for them, obvs).
And yet Boris still polls around 40% and Labour are not going anywhere at present
That is a result of our stale political system of 2 party politics.
Good thing the LibDems look so bright and shiny new then, eh?
I think you rather make the point. As a LD even I can see very little reason why anyone would vote for them currently. What is the point? And after them very little other choice.
As they say most Govt lose power rather than oppositions winning it. It really is a very stale system.
It would be nice to have a positive reason to vote for something that has a chance to do something.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.
There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.
Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.
The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.
And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.
The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.
There's politics all over this.
In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.
But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.
I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.
We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.
It needs designing some more.
Genuine question: why do Brexiteers refer to the Irish Republic as Eire rather than Ireland? I never see anyone else calling it that. It's weird.
They don't all.
I suspect for some it is a shorthand to differentiate it from NI.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.
There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.
Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.
The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.
And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.
The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.
There's politics all over this.
In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.
But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.
I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.
We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.
It needs designing some more.
Genuine question: why do Brexiteers refer to the Irish Republic as Eire rather than Ireland? I never see anyone else calling it that. It's weird.
It's not a Brexiteer thing. The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "the name of the State is Éire", and the UK government has used the name "Eire" too.
It's quicker. And also "Ireland" can be confused with the island of Ireland when you are discussing distinctions between NI and the Irish Republic, so I think it's clearer.
And being honest given the time available it makes sense to delay things until after the 20th - then you have as long as necessary to do things and can slowly damage Trump's reputation further by releasing things bit by bit.
You will also know whether the Trumpster base have delivered on threats to disrupt the Inauguration at various state Capitols - which will add to the charge sheet and frankly, make it much easier for Republicans to throw him under the bus. Hence yesterday, you had Trump saying to anyone who still listens "don't".
I am now so cynical where Trump is concerned that I read his message as a coded plea for his people to engage in violence, not hold back.
Nah, it was a message to McConnell.
McConnell leaked he was considering supporting conviction, Trump releases calm message talking about values unity and condemning violence, senators like Graham say this shows conviction is vindictive. McConnell will probably follow, as his leak prompted the right response.
You misunderstand McConnell's motives. He clearly hates Trump and wants to do as much as he can to marginalise him in future within the Republican Party. Moreover, he has absolutely nothing to lose, with a 6 year term that will take him to the age where he would surely retire. His lead will provide cover to other Republican senators who have similar feelings but need to mind their backs. The bar for them is lower than it was for the House Republicans, who were technically voting on a procedure to remove Trump from office, whereas in the Senate it will essentially be a deferred vote to reprimand Trump, stop him ever coming back and expose him further to legal jeopardy.
Paradoxically, for those House Republicans who resorted to arguing that a vote against impeachment was a vote for reconciliation, and notably did not defend Trump's conduct, Trump's video yesterday blows that out of the water. Trump would never have resorted to issuing a video that renounced everything he had called for a week earlier if he was not intensely worried about where impeachment may lead. If impeachment had been rejected, we would just have got more of the same. Bullies never back down unless you stand up to them.
Yes. Appeasement hasn't worked. Trumpism - being him plus his hardcore base - has 100% lived down to HRC's "deplorables" warning and then some. Impeachment is necessary, whether or not 17 GOP Senators can find in themselves the basic level of integrity required to vote for a conviction.
Surely the point is that fascism has always been a disputed category unless applied to Mussolini and his party? Were Salazar, Franco, Peron etc fascists? Trump certainly belongs to that basket of deplorables to whom the question can be applied.
The point Evans makes is that Fascist ideology subsumes the individual into the war making state - none of which applies to Trump. Populist amoral demagogue, yes, warmaking big state trampler of individual liberties, no.
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.
Say what?
Small children in Dumbarton knew exactly how the fuck bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.
Our Government didn't otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.
I disagree. The government knew exactly how bad it would be. But they had been told by the Brexiters to worsen the terms of trade with our erstwhile trading partners and they obliged.
The government absolutely knew. To think otherwise is simply not credible.
Is the government actively malign, or just stupid and incompetent? It's hard to tell. I would go for a bit of both.
They were told to Brexit. They had very few options. That some of them actually wanted to do so too is unforgiveable but what can you do (not vote for them, obvs).
And yet Boris still polls around 40% and Labour are not going anywhere at present
Off topic, but in response to your post.
Considering where Labour were last year, off the back of an 80 seat commons defeat, their almost level pegging with the Conservatives is quite remarkable.
The polls go one of two ways. The Conservatives, on the back of Johnson's Churchillian victory over Covid go stratospheric. The alternative being, when the economic reality bites as the support packages peter out and the economy struggles, that 40% gets chipped away, and if and when it happens at a growing pace.
I expect the latter, but Johnson being Johnson, haven't dismissed the former out of hand.
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
Surrendering to threats of violence is hardly the way to turn the page on Trump. Impeachment is not ‘vengeance’; it is a constitutional remedy to his behaviour, which cannot be ignored.
I am not arguing he should not be impeached and he must be removed from standing again
However, he has millions of armed and idiotic supporters and continuing a feud with him will only embolden them
The trouble is that rules based systems have rules. Please outline the procedure for removing him from standing again, without impeachment.
Surely the point is that fascism has always been a disputed category unless applied to Mussolini and his party? Were Salazar, Franco, Peron etc fascists? Trump certainly belongs to that basket of deplorables to whom the question can be applied.
I would say that Trump is clearly in the Fascist tradition. If he doesn't clear the bar to be labelled as a fascist I would say that is more down to the constraints on his behaviour imposed by the US's strong constitutional checks and balances rather than his own choices. Living in a country with far fewer checks on the power of the Executive that should give us pause.
Interesting pivot from the odious Goodwin: he has spent the last four years arse-licking Trump, now he is reduced to moderating a discussion about whether his idol is or is not a fascist.
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.
Say what?
Small children in Dumbarton knew exactly how the fuck bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.
Our Government didn't otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.
I disagree. The government knew exactly how bad it would be. But they had been told by the Brexiters to worsen the terms of trade with our erstwhile trading partners and they obliged.
The government absolutely knew. To think otherwise is simply not credible.
Is the government actively malign, or just stupid and incompetent? It's hard to tell. I would go for a bit of both.
They were told to Brexit. They had very few options. That some of them actually wanted to do so too is unforgiveable but what can you do (not vote for them, obvs).
And yet Boris still polls around 40% and Labour are not going anywhere at present
That is a result of our stale political system of 2 party politics.
Good thing the LibDems look so bright and shiny new then, eh?
Perhaps we need to Change UK?
Well exactly. Did anyone here think that was going to work or were they always destined to disappear into oblivion?
That's why we joined in the first place, and why we will rejoin inevitably.
It was easy to cope without having 40 years of established, cross-border supply chains disrupted, fewer things crossed borders (presumably) and where they did any delays were an expected and planned part of the process. It's a bit like asking how we coped without mobile phones - we'd never had them, so it was easy.
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
I don't see any way that Biden has of bringing them on board. They believe Biden isn't their rightful president. Trump broke a fragile country apart. It will take a political generation to heal. The GOP will become increasingly right wing, until they are out of power so long, they need to tack back towards the centre. It's happened to both Tories and Labour here, and Trump only got in as the Democrats pushed for an unpopular leader.
I am certain Biden cannot bring these extremists on board, but continuing fighting Trump after 20th in my opinion is self defeating
Make sure he cannot go anywhere near office and move on...
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
But it isn't just vengeance, it is justice that should be sought. The man incited an attempted coup. A coup attempt which left five people dead.
What is wrong with you people who are suggesting he walks free, in the interests of "peace". to continue as a shadow President, a President in waiting who can spew his seditious propaganda to the angry and disenchanted?
Donald Trump makes the angry, angrier. The louder his voice, the greater the division.
Lock him up to shut him up!
You are letting your emotions takeover from a course that I support in as far as preventing him ever standing again has to be utmost in people's minds and I am not suggesting he should not face due process, but be careful for what you wish for, it could just ignite the issue for years to come
Allowing Trump to continue spouting his propaganda at will, leads down a dark road. Free speech is one thing "propagandagepezete" leads us to rioting in the Reichstag, or the Capitol Building.
He has done something very bad. Punishment rather than retribution is required, that will shut him up too.
Thread on the chaos caused by government u-turns from the Federation of Wholesale Distributors. Millions of pounds of products bought for Schools contracts now redundant following the abrupt closure of schools. And now apparently a rash of food parcel orders cancelled after the Chartwells debacle.
Surely the point is that fascism has always been a disputed category unless applied to Mussolini and his party? Were Salazar, Franco, Peron etc fascists? Trump certainly belongs to that basket of deplorables to whom the question can be applied.
The point Evans makes is that Fascist ideology subsumes the individual into the war making state - none of which applies to Trump. Populist amoral demagogue, yes, warmaking big state trampler of individual liberties, no.
It comes down to - are authoritarian, anti-democratic, arseholes, not of the left all Fascists, or is there a sub-division of said arseholes?
We will be back to Blue whale rectums quite soon, I suppose.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.
There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.
Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.
The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.
And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.
The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.
There's politics all over this.
In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.
But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.
I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.
We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.
It needs designing some more.
Genuine question: why do Brexiteers refer to the Irish Republic as Eire rather than Ireland? I never see anyone else calling it that. It's weird.
It's not a Brexiteer thing. The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "the name of the State is Éire", and the UK government has used the name "Eire" too.
It's quicker. And also "Ireland" can be confused with the island of Ireland when you are discussing distinctions between NI and the Irish Republic, so I think it's clearer.
You only quote part of the constitution. It says "the name of the State is Eire, or in the English language, Ireland." Do you call Germany Bundesrepublik Deutschland? It may not be a Brexiteer thing but Brexiteers are the only people I have ever heard call it Eire. Certainly all the Irish people I know call it Ireland.
Northern Ireland and Eire is a different set of issues.
This started off with exporting and importing to / from the rest of the EU
The issue under discussion here is internal trade within the United Kingdom, in particular food supplies between its main domestic supermarkets for British citizens who consume (99%+ of the time) that produce domestically and locally.
The existing protocol is disproportionately obsessed with the <1% of the time something might sneak over the NI/Irish border into the broader EU. It's OTT. It's also why I supported May's Deal and her CU backstop.
I was willing to compromise - others were not, on all sides - so we now have this ridiculous obstinacy. </p>
What are you on about? Ireland has a very well integrated supply chain. 1% doesn't "sneak" over the border. Retailers ship products north to south to north. Farmers send meat cross the border for processing then back again for packing then back again to be sold.
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
But it isn't just vengeance, it is justice that should be sought. The man incited an attempted coup. A coup attempt which left five people dead.
What is wrong with you people who are suggesting he walks free, in the interests of "peace". to continue as a shadow President, a President in waiting who can spew his seditious propaganda to the angry and disenchanted?
Donald Trump makes the angry, angrier. The louder his voice, the greater the division.
Lock him up to shut him up!
You are letting your emotions takeover from a course that I support in as far as preventing him ever standing again has to be utmost in people's minds and I am not suggesting he should not face due process, but be careful for what you wish for, it could just ignite the issue for years to come
Allowing Trump to continue spouting his propaganda at will, leads down a dark road. Free speech is one thing "propagandagepezete" leads us to rioting in the Reichstag, or the Capitol Building.
He has done something very bad. Punishment rather than retribution is required, that will shut him up too.
He has been worst than very bad, but how you balance justice v peace is the issue for Americans to decide, and the key word is balance
Personally I would be delighted if we never heard another word from him
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.
Say what?
Small children in Dumbarton knew exactly how the fuck bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.
Our Government didn't otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.
I disagree. The government knew exactly how bad it would be. But they had been told by the Brexiters to worsen the terms of trade with our erstwhile trading partners and they obliged.
The government absolutely knew. To think otherwise is simply not credible.
Is the government actively malign, or just stupid and incompetent? It's hard to tell. I would go for a bit of both.
They were told to Brexit. They had very few options. That some of them actually wanted to do so too is unforgiveable but what can you do (not vote for them, obvs).
And yet Boris still polls around 40% and Labour are not going anywhere at present
That is a result of our stale political system of 2 party politics.
Good thing the LibDems look so bright and shiny new then, eh?
I think you rather make the point. As a LD even I can see very little reason why anyone would vote for them currently. What is the point? And after them very little other choice.
As they say most Govt lose power rather than oppositions winning it. It really is a very stale system.
It would be nice to have a positive reason to vote for something that has a chance to do something.
I guess a two-party system is the inevitable result of a FPTP voting system. Is there anywhere that uses FPTP and doesn't have a 2-party system?
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.
Say what?
Small children in Dumbarton knew exactly how the fuck bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.
Our Government didn't otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.
I disagree. The government knew exactly how bad it would be. But they had been told by the Brexiters to worsen the terms of trade with our erstwhile trading partners and they obliged.
The government absolutely knew. To think otherwise is simply not credible.
Is the government actively malign, or just stupid and incompetent? It's hard to tell. I would go for a bit of both.
They were told to Brexit. They had very few options. That some of them actually wanted to do so too is unforgiveable but what can you do (not vote for them, obvs).
And yet Boris still polls around 40% and Labour are not going anywhere at present
That is a result of our stale political system of 2 party politics.
Good thing the LibDems look so bright and shiny new then, eh?
Perhaps we need to Change UK?
Well exactly. Did anyone here think that was going to work or were they always destined to disappear into oblivion?
[Selebian checks his posting history to see whether he said anything ill-judged and embarrassing about Tiggers having a chance... Phew!]
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.
There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.
Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.
The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.
And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.
The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.
There's politics all over this.
In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.
But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.
I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.
We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.
It needs designing some more.
Genuine question: why do Brexiteers refer to the Irish Republic as Eire rather than Ireland? I never see anyone else calling it that. It's weird.
They don't all.
I suspect for some it is a shorthand to differentiate it from NI.
You would have thought that the word "Northern" in "Northern Ireland" fulfilled that function adequately. I didn't say all Brexiteers call Ireland Eire, but all the people I see calling it that are Brexiteers.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.
There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.
Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.
The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.
And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.
The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.
There's politics all over this.
In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.
But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.
I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.
We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.
It needs designing some more.
Genuine question: why do Brexiteers refer to the Irish Republic as Eire rather than Ireland? I never see anyone else calling it that. It's weird.
It's not a Brexiteer thing. The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "the name of the State is Éire", and the UK government has used the name "Eire" too.
It's quicker. And also "Ireland" can be confused with the island of Ireland when you are discussing distinctions between NI and the Irish Republic, so I think it's clearer.
You only quote part of the constitution. It says "the name of the State is Eire, or in the English language, Ireland." Do you call Germany Bundesrepublik Deutschland? It may not be a Brexiteer thing but Brexiteers are the only people I have ever heard call it Eire. Certainly all the Irish people I know call it Ireland.
Germany doesn't have the same challenge of distinguishing different political states on an island of shared geography with a similar name. And everyone I've met from Bombay calls it "Bombay", not Mumbai; however, everyone here still calls it Mumbai regardless.
Do you want to have a substantial discussion about any of the points I raised, or would you prefer to continue to focus on trivialities?
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.
Say what?
Small children in Dumbarton knew exactly how the fuck bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.
Our Government didn't otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.
I disagree. The government knew exactly how bad it would be. But they had been told by the Brexiters to worsen the terms of trade with our erstwhile trading partners and they obliged.
The government absolutely knew. To think otherwise is simply not credible.
Is the government actively malign, or just stupid and incompetent? It's hard to tell. I would go for a bit of both.
They were told to Brexit. They had very few options. That some of them actually wanted to do so too is unforgiveable but what can you do (not vote for them, obvs).
And yet Boris still polls around 40% and Labour are not going anywhere at present
That is a result of our stale political system of 2 party politics.
Good thing the LibDems look so bright and shiny new then, eh?
I think you rather make the point. As a LD even I can see very little reason why anyone would vote for them currently. What is the point? And after them very little other choice.
As they say most Govt lose power rather than oppositions winning it. It really is a very stale system.
It would be nice to have a positive reason to vote for something that has a chance to do something.
I guess a two-party system is the inevitable result of a FPTP voting system. Is there anywhere that uses FPTP and doesn't have a 2-party system?
Malaysia has FPTP and a multi party system (coalitions seem the norm) but probably as the voters tend to split on ethnic lines....
Surely the point is that fascism has always been a disputed category unless applied to Mussolini and his party? Were Salazar, Franco, Peron etc fascists? Trump certainly belongs to that basket of deplorables to whom the question can be applied.
The point Evans makes is that Fascist ideology subsumes the individual into the war making state - none of which applies to Trump. Populist amoral demagogue, yes, warmaking big state trampler of individual liberties, no.
The "point" is purest wankery and bollocks. There tends to be at least one individual who is not subsumed into the state - the supreme leader. Donald J Trump in this case. There is no question he views himself that way. War making? Trampler of individual liberties? In all probability Yes and Yes if he had succeeded in staying in power despite losing the election. He is a wannabe fascist. Or (ok, Nigel) an incipient fascist. This much is undeniable. He has not become the genuine article because the coup did not work out. Fascism follows successful fascist coups not failed ones.
In fairness the England reply is making it pretty obvious that the wicket is a spinner's paradise.
Or that our batsmen are as reckless as theirs. The commentators don’t think it’s that bad a pitch for batting; just requires circumspection.
In fairness I haven't seen the play, just the commentary but Bess 5 for 30 in ten overs? I mean, to describe him as an average spinner is slightly generous. Either bonkers batting or a first day pitch doing weird.
The fact that Trump is an arch-capitalist almost disqualifies him from being a fascist on its own. True fascists despise capitalism because it operates independent of their authority and isn't controllable. But of course people use the word as a synonym for "a really bad person".
Surely the point is that fascism has always been a disputed category unless applied to Mussolini and his party? Were Salazar, Franco, Peron etc fascists? Trump certainly belongs to that basket of deplorables to whom the question can be applied.
The point Evans makes is that Fascist ideology subsumes the individual into the war making state - none of which applies to Trump. Populist amoral demagogue, yes, warmaking big state trampler of individual liberties, no.
The "point" is purest wankery and bollocks. There tends to be at least one individual who is not subsumed into the state - the supreme leader. Donald J Trump in this case. There is no question he views himself that way. War making? Trampler of individual liberties? In all probability Yes and Yes if he had succeeded in staying in power despite losing the election. He is a wannabe fascist. Or (ok, Nigel) an incipient fascist. This much is undeniable. He has not become the genuine article because the coup did not work out. Fascism follows successful fascist coups not failed ones.
Anybody who consciously marshals fascists for their own political gain deserves the label.
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.
Say what?
Small children in Dumbarton knew exactly how the fuck bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.
Our Government didn't otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.
I disagree. The government knew exactly how bad it would be. But they had been told by the Brexiters to worsen the terms of trade with our erstwhile trading partners and they obliged.
The government absolutely knew. To think otherwise is simply not credible.
Is the government actively malign, or just stupid and incompetent? It's hard to tell. I would go for a bit of both.
They were told to Brexit. They had very few options. That some of them actually wanted to do so too is unforgiveable but what can you do (not vote for them, obvs).
And yet Boris still polls around 40% and Labour are not going anywhere at present
That is a result of our stale political system of 2 party politics.
Good thing the LibDems look so bright and shiny new then, eh?
I think you rather make the point. As a LD even I can see very little reason why anyone would vote for them currently. What is the point? And after them very little other choice.
As they say most Govt lose power rather than oppositions winning it. It really is a very stale system.
It would be nice to have a positive reason to vote for something that has a chance to do something.
I guess a two-party system is the inevitable result of a FPTP voting system. Is there anywhere that uses FPTP and doesn't have a 2-party system?
Britain. But yes, FPTP does encourage two-party systems where those parties are broad tents. Maybe part of our trouble is we did go through a period of three parties in a two-party system.
In fairness the England reply is making it pretty obvious that the wicket is a spinner's paradise.
Or that our batsmen are as reckless as theirs. The commentators don’t think it’s that bad a pitch for batting; just requires circumspection.
In fairness I haven't seen the play, just the commentary but Bess 5 for 30 in ten overs? I mean, to describe him as an average spinner is slightly generous. Either bonkers batting or a first day pitch doing weird.
Bonkers batting.
Here are two of his wickets, a long hop, a freak dismissal, and one of the worst shots I've seen in the 30 years plus I've been watching cricket (not shown here).
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.
There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.
Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.
The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.
And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.
The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.
There's politics all over this.
In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.
But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.
I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.
We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.
It needs designing some more.
Genuine question: why do Brexiteers refer to the Irish Republic as Eire rather than Ireland? I never see anyone else calling it that. It's weird.
They don't all.
I suspect for some it is a shorthand to differentiate it from NI.
It's fairly arbitrary. Why do we say Beijing and Myanmar when they too are names in a foreign language form? Anyway Eire will be found on every Irish coin and stamp.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.
There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.
Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.
The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.
And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.
The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.
There's politics all over this.
In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.
But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.
I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.
We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.
It needs designing some more.
Genuine question: why do Brexiteers refer to the Irish Republic as Eire rather than Ireland? I never see anyone else calling it that. It's weird.
It's not a Brexiteer thing. The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "the name of the State is Éire", and the UK government has used the name "Eire" too.
It's quicker. And also "Ireland" can be confused with the island of Ireland when you are discussing distinctions between NI and the Irish Republic, so I think it's clearer.
You only quote part of the constitution. It says "the name of the State is Eire, or in the English language, Ireland." Do you call Germany Bundesrepublik Deutschland? It may not be a Brexiteer thing but Brexiteers are the only people I have ever heard call it Eire. Certainly all the Irish people I know call it Ireland.
Germany doesn't have the same challenge of distinguishing different political states on an island of shared geography with a similar name. And everyone I've met from Bombay calls it "Bombay", not Mumbai; however, everyone here still calls it Mumbai regardless.
Do you want to have a substantial discussion about any of the points I raised, or would you prefer to continue to focus on trivialities?
I don't really like discussing Brexit, as you know. 😉 I just thought it was interesting that one group of people call a country by a different name to everyone else, seemed like a weird choice and I wanted to find out more about their motivation.
And being honest given the time available it makes sense to delay things until after the 20th - then you have as long as necessary to do things and can slowly damage Trump's reputation further by releasing things bit by bit.
You will also know whether the Trumpster base have delivered on threats to disrupt the Inauguration at various state Capitols - which will add to the charge sheet and frankly, make it much easier for Republicans to throw him under the bus. Hence yesterday, you had Trump saying to anyone who still listens "don't".
He certainly got serious for the first time ever. I dont think he talked about himself once.
He can say the right things. Hes just chosen not to until forced.
He knows he's it deep trouble. His legal advisers wrote that speech and I doubt Trump believed a word of it.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.
There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.
Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.
The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.
And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.
The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.
There's politics all over this.
In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.
But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.
I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.
We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.
It needs designing some more.
Genuine question: why do Brexiteers refer to the Irish Republic as Eire rather than Ireland? I never see anyone else calling it that. It's weird.
It's not a Brexiteer thing. The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "the name of the State is Éire", and the UK government has used the name "Eire" too.
It's quicker. And also "Ireland" can be confused with the island of Ireland when you are discussing distinctions between NI and the Irish Republic, so I think it's clearer.
You only quote part of the constitution. It says "the name of the State is Eire, or in the English language, Ireland." Do you call Germany Bundesrepublik Deutschland? It may not be a Brexiteer thing but Brexiteers are the only people I have ever heard call it Eire. Certainly all the Irish people I know call it Ireland.
Germany doesn't have the same challenge of distinguishing different political states on an island of shared geography with a similar name. And everyone I've met from Bombay calls it "Bombay", not Mumbai; however, everyone here still calls it Mumbai regardless.
Do you want to have a substantial discussion about any of the points I raised, or would you prefer to continue to focus on trivialities?
I don't really like discussing Brexit, as you know. 😉 I just thought it was interesting that one group of people call a country by a different name to everyone else, seemed like a weird choice and I wanted to find out more about their motivation.
To be honest I have been surprised by the posts about this this morning. I always thought Eire was the proper name and if they wanted to use a word from their pretendy, reconstituted language that almost no one actually speaks then it was only polite to conform with their wishes. Always something new to learn on PB.
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
I don't see any way that Biden has of bringing them on board. They believe Biden isn't their rightful president. Trump broke a fragile country apart. It will take a political generation to heal. The GOP will become increasingly right wing, until they are out of power so long, they need to tack back towards the centre. It's happened to both Tories and Labour here, and Trump only got in as the Democrats pushed for an unpopular leader.
I am certain Biden cannot bring these extremists on board, but continuing fighting Trump after 20th in my opinion is self defeating
Make sure he cannot go anywhere near office and move on...
Which is exactly why he needs to be impeached.
I have no problem with his impeachment
So what is all this about vengeance ?
No. One was Impeach Hard. This is Impeach 2: Impeach Harder. No. 3 is Impeach with a Vengeance.
The fact that Trump is an arch-capitalist almost disqualifies him from being a fascist on its own. True fascists despise capitalism because it operates independent of their authority and isn't controllable. But of course people use the word as a synonym for "a really bad person".
Given his litany of bankruptcies and the fact the state generally picked up the tab it is fair to say Trump is a socialist.
The fact that Trump is an arch-capitalist almost disqualifies him from being a fascist on its own. True fascists despise capitalism because it operates independent of their authority and isn't controllable. But of course people use the word as a synonym for "a really bad person".
Trump is hardly an arch capitalist, though. He’s more of a kleptocrat in the mould of Putin, albeit severely limited by the constraints of the US system.
Surely the point is that fascism has always been a disputed category unless applied to Mussolini and his party? Were Salazar, Franco, Peron etc fascists? Trump certainly belongs to that basket of deplorables to whom the question can be applied.
The point Evans makes is that Fascist ideology subsumes the individual into the war making state - none of which applies to Trump. Populist amoral demagogue, yes, warmaking big state trampler of individual liberties, no.
The "point" is purest wankery and bollocks. There tends to be at least one individual who is not subsumed into the state - the supreme leader. Donald J Trump in this case. There is no question he views himself that way. War making? Trampler of individual liberties? In all probability Yes and Yes if he had succeeded in staying in power despite losing the election. He is a wannabe fascist. Or (ok, Nigel) an incipient fascist. This much is undeniable. He has not become the genuine article because the coup did not work out. Fascism follows successful fascist coups not failed ones.
Leading expert on the Nazis and some person on the internet. Who to believe? Lazy labelling erodes meaning. If it makes you feel better to call him a "Fascist" fine, but that does not make it so.
Surely the point is that fascism has always been a disputed category unless applied to Mussolini and his party? Were Salazar, Franco, Peron etc fascists? Trump certainly belongs to that basket of deplorables to whom the question can be applied.
It is not a position which even claims to have theoretical underpinnings, is it? I cannot imagine what the Fascist Manifesto would say.
Exactly. The style is the substance. "Punctual Trains and Strong Borders!" might be on the side of the bus but the bus is going somewhere else entirely and the bloke driving it has a black shirt and a black heart.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.
There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.
Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.
The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.
And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.
The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.
There's politics all over this.
In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.
But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.
I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.
We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.
It needs designing some more.
Genuine question: why do Brexiteers refer to the Irish Republic as Eire rather than Ireland? I never see anyone else calling it that. It's weird.
It's not a Brexiteer thing. The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "the name of the State is Éire", and the UK government has used the name "Eire" too.
It's quicker. And also "Ireland" can be confused with the island of Ireland when you are discussing distinctions between NI and the Irish Republic, so I think it's clearer.
You only quote part of the constitution. It says "the name of the State is Eire, or in the English language, Ireland." Do you call Germany Bundesrepublik Deutschland? It may not be a Brexiteer thing but Brexiteers are the only people I have ever heard call it Eire. Certainly all the Irish people I know call it Ireland.
Germany doesn't have the same challenge of distinguishing different political states on an island of shared geography with a similar name. And everyone I've met from Bombay calls it "Bombay", not Mumbai; however, everyone here still calls it Mumbai regardless.
Do you want to have a substantial discussion about any of the points I raised, or would you prefer to continue to focus on trivialities?
I don't really like discussing Brexit, as you know. 😉 I just thought it was interesting that one group of people call a country by a different name to everyone else, seemed like a weird choice and I wanted to find out more about their motivation.
Ok. I think you're reading way too much into it but hey-ho.
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
But it isn't just vengeance, it is justice that should be sought. The man incited an attempted coup. A coup attempt which left five people dead.
What is wrong with you people who are suggesting he walks free, in the interests of "peace". to continue as a shadow President, a President in waiting who can spew his seditious propaganda to the angry and disenchanted?
Donald Trump makes the angry, angrier. The louder his voice, the greater the division.
Lock him up to shut him up!
You are letting your emotions takeover from a course that I support in as far as preventing him ever standing again has to be utmost in people's minds and I am not suggesting he should not face due process, but be careful for what you wish for, it could just ignite the issue for years to come
Allowing Trump to continue spouting his propaganda at will, leads down a dark road. Free speech is one thing "propagandagepezete" leads us to rioting in the Reichstag, or the Capitol Building.
He has done something very bad. Punishment rather than retribution is required, that will shut him up too.
He has been worst than very bad, but how you balance justice v peace is the issue for Americans to decide, and the key word is balance
Personally I would be delighted if we never heard another word from him
The fact that Trump is an arch-capitalist almost disqualifies him from being a fascist on its own. True fascists despise capitalism because it operates independent of their authority and isn't controllable. But of course people use the word as a synonym for "a really bad person".
Given his litany of bankruptcies and the fact the state generally picked up the tab it is fair to say Trump is a socialist.
He was also running a fiscal deficit close to 5% of GDP at the top of the economic cycle, pre Covid, which looks weird for a normal centre right politician.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.
There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.
Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.
The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.
And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.
The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.
There's politics all over this.
In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.
But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.
I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.
We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.
It needs designing some more.
Genuine question: why do Brexiteers refer to the Irish Republic as Eire rather than Ireland? I never see anyone else calling it that. It's weird.
It's not a Brexiteer thing. The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "the name of the State is Éire", and the UK government has used the name "Eire" too.
It's quicker. And also "Ireland" can be confused with the island of Ireland when you are discussing distinctions between NI and the Irish Republic, so I think it's clearer.
You only quote part of the constitution. It says "the name of the State is Eire, or in the English language, Ireland." Do you call Germany Bundesrepublik Deutschland? It may not be a Brexiteer thing but Brexiteers are the only people I have ever heard call it Eire. Certainly all the Irish people I know call it Ireland.
Germany doesn't have the same challenge of distinguishing different political states on an island of shared geography with a similar name. And everyone I've met from Bombay calls it "Bombay", not Mumbai; however, everyone here still calls it Mumbai regardless.
Do you want to have a substantial discussion about any of the points I raised, or would you prefer to continue to focus on trivialities?
I don't really like discussing Brexit, as you know. 😉 I just thought it was interesting that one group of people call a country by a different name to everyone else, seemed like a weird choice and I wanted to find out more about their motivation.
To be honest I have been surprised by the posts about this this morning. I always thought Eire was the proper name and if they wanted to use a word from their pretendy, reconstituted language that almost no one actually speaks then it was only polite to conform with their wishes. Always something new to learn on PB.
When the Scottish cringe is just not enough, there's always the proxy Irish cringe available.
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
Surrendering to threats of violence is hardly the way to turn the page on Trump. Impeachment is not ‘vengeance’; it is a constitutional remedy to his behaviour, which cannot be ignored.
Quite. Some comments talked about solving things at the ballot box, which is laughable a because he sought to overturn that and his supporters turned violent to overturn that, and b because impeachment and removal is a constitutional option, its not vengeance to use a process for it's intended purpose.
Republicans should know that, they used ths same reasoning to legally challenge the election, using available legal methods. The issue is whether using them is justified or if they are abused, not that the prices is vindictive
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
But it isn't just vengeance, it is justice that should be sought. The man incited an attempted coup. A coup attempt which left five people dead.
What is wrong with you people who are suggesting he walks free, in the interests of "peace". to continue as a shadow President, a President in waiting who can spew his seditious propaganda to the angry and disenchanted?
Donald Trump makes the angry, angrier. The louder his voice, the greater the division.
Lock him up to shut him up!
You are letting your emotions takeover from a course that I support in as far as preventing him ever standing again has to be utmost in people's minds and I am not suggesting he should not face due process, but be careful for what you wish for, it could just ignite the issue for years to come
Allowing Trump to continue spouting his propaganda at will, leads down a dark road. Free speech is one thing "propagandagepezete" leads us to rioting in the Reichstag, or the Capitol Building.
He has done something very bad. Punishment rather than retribution is required, that will shut him up too.
He has been worst than very bad, but how you balance justice v peace is the issue for Americans to decide, and the key word is balance
Personally I would be delighted if we never heard another word from him
Less than 5% of GOP representatives voted to impeach Trump last night, unless a significantly bigger proportion of GOP Senators vote to convict him, the conviction will fall short of the 2/3 majority required.
However it is possible that Trump could be disbarred from seeking public office again if that passes with just a simple majority once the Democrats take control of the Senate next week.
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
Surrendering to threats of violence is hardly the way to turn the page on Trump. Impeachment is not ‘vengeance’; it is a constitutional remedy to his behaviour, which cannot be ignored.
I am not arguing he should not be impeached and he must be removed from standing again
However, he has millions of armed and idiotic supporters and continuing a feud with him will only embolden them
Sometimes a political confrontation is needed. It hurts to put pressure on a wound so you can sort it out, but its better than the alternative.
Vaccine news. Just had a general news email from a nearby council (not mine but close) with a link to a covid vaccine booking system for the area for over 80s.
I had a quick peek (I'm not eligible) - next free slot is 8am tomorrow. So that sounds promising.
The fact that Trump is an arch-capitalist almost disqualifies him from being a fascist on its own. True fascists despise capitalism because it operates independent of their authority and isn't controllable. But of course people use the word as a synonym for "a really bad person".
Trump is hardly an arch capitalist, though. He’s more of a kleptocrat in the mould of Putin, albeit severely limited by the constraints of the US system.
Indeed, Reagan, Romney and Goldwater were all GOP nominees who ran on a more free market, laissez-faire, libertarian, capitalist programme than Trump did.
Trump is more of an authoritarian than a libertarian
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
But it isn't just vengeance, it is justice that should be sought. The man incited an attempted coup. A coup attempt which left five people dead.
What is wrong with you people who are suggesting he walks free, in the interests of "peace". to continue as a shadow President, a President in waiting who can spew his seditious propaganda to the angry and disenchanted?
Donald Trump makes the angry, angrier. The louder his voice, the greater the division.
Lock him up to shut him up!
You are letting your emotions takeover from a course that I support in as far as preventing him ever standing again has to be utmost in people's minds and I am not suggesting he should not face due process, but be careful for what you wish for, it could just ignite the issue for years to come
Allowing Trump to continue spouting his propaganda at will, leads down a dark road. Free speech is one thing "propagandagepezete" leads us to rioting in the Reichstag, or the Capitol Building.
He has done something very bad. Punishment rather than retribution is required, that will shut him up too.
He has been worst than very bad, but how you balance justice v peace is the issue for Americans to decide, and the key word is balance
Personally I would be delighted if we never heard another word from him
The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.
Say what?
Small children in Dumbarton knew exactly how the fuck bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.
Our Government didn't otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.
I disagree. The government knew exactly how bad it would be. But they had been told by the Brexiters to worsen the terms of trade with our erstwhile trading partners and they obliged.
The government absolutely knew. To think otherwise is simply not credible.
Is the government actively malign, or just stupid and incompetent? It's hard to tell. I would go for a bit of both.
They were told to Brexit. They had very few options. That some of them actually wanted to do so too is unforgiveable but what can you do (not vote for them, obvs).
And yet Boris still polls around 40% and Labour are not going anywhere at present
That is a result of our stale political system of 2 party politics.
Good thing the LibDems look so bright and shiny new then, eh?
I think you rather make the point. As a LD even I can see very little reason why anyone would vote for them currently. What is the point? And after them very little other choice.
As they say most Govt lose power rather than oppositions winning it. It really is a very stale system.
It would be nice to have a positive reason to vote for something that has a chance to do something.
I guess a two-party system is the inevitable result of a FPTP voting system. Is there anywhere that uses FPTP and doesn't have a 2-party system?
Britain. But yes, FPTP does encourage two-party systems where those parties are broad tents. Maybe part of our trouble is we did go through a period of three parties in a two-party system.
I think it's reasonable to describe a system in which no party other than the big two is able to obtain more than about a tenth of the seats as a two-party system. By any meaningful definition of the term, Britain, like the US, has a two-party system.
The only time that third parties get a look in is when both big parties move towards the centre, so that voters are not afraid of making a third party vote. This, of course, drives the big parties back towards the extremes, and the small parties are squeezed again. This makes the two-party system self-perpetuating.
The fact that Trump is an arch-capitalist almost disqualifies him from being a fascist on its own. True fascists despise capitalism because it operates independent of their authority and isn't controllable. But of course people use the word as a synonym for "a really bad person".
Given his litany of bankruptcies and the fact the state generally picked up the tab it is fair to say Trump is a socialist.
He was also running a fiscal deficit close to 5% of GDP at the top of the economic cycle, pre Covid, which looks weird for a normal centre right politician.
The fact that Trump is an arch-capitalist almost disqualifies him from being a fascist on its own. True fascists despise capitalism because it operates independent of their authority and isn't controllable. But of course people use the word as a synonym for "a really bad person".
I don't think that's true. Fascism has a complex relationship with capitalism, with mutual support and antagonism found in various times and places.
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
Surrendering to threats of violence is hardly the way to turn the page on Trump. Impeachment is not ‘vengeance’; it is a constitutional remedy to his behaviour, which cannot be ignored.
I am not arguing he should not be impeached and he must be removed from standing again
However, he has millions of armed and idiotic supporters and continuing a feud with him will only embolden them
Sometimes a political confrontation is needed. It hurts to put pressure on a wound so you can sort it out, but its better than the alternative.
The fact that Trump is an arch-capitalist almost disqualifies him from being a fascist on its own. True fascists despise capitalism because it operates independent of their authority and isn't controllable. But of course people use the word as a synonym for "a really bad person".
Given his litany of bankruptcies and the fact the state generally picked up the tab it is fair to say Trump is a socialist.
He was also running a fiscal deficit close to 5% of GDP at the top of the economic cycle, pre Covid, which looks weird for a normal centre right politician.
In general, Fascists spend like drunk sailors. High taxes as well.
All those jackboots and high fashion uniforms cost money...
Less than 5% of GOP representatives voted to impeach Trump last night, unless a significantly bigger proportion of GOP Senators vote to convict him, the conviction will fall short of the 2/3 majority required.
However it is possible that Trump could be disbarred from seeking public office again if that passes with just a simple majority once the Democrats take control of the Senate next week.
And being honest given the time available it makes sense to delay things until after the 20th - then you have as long as necessary to do things and can slowly damage Trump's reputation further by releasing things bit by bit.
You will also know whether the Trumpster base have delivered on threats to disrupt the Inauguration at various state Capitols - which will add to the charge sheet and frankly, make it much easier for Republicans to throw him under the bus. Hence yesterday, you had Trump saying to anyone who still listens "don't".
He certainly got serious for the first time ever. I dont think he talked about himself once.
He can say the right things. Hes just chosen not to until forced.
He knows he's it deep trouble. His legal advisers wrote that speech and I doubt Trump believed a word of it.
If hed said nothing till now wed doubt he did but his supporters could claim it was sincere.
But we know this is what he does. After his initial 'beautiful people' comments on the riots he later did a more appropriate video, only to go right back to form on Twitter afterwards.
The lack of twitter is the only reason he hasn't made clear he doesn't believe what he said last night.
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
But it isn't just vengeance, it is justice that should be sought. The man incited an attempted coup. A coup attempt which left five people dead.
What is wrong with you people who are suggesting he walks free, in the interests of "peace". to continue as a shadow President, a President in waiting who can spew his seditious propaganda to the angry and disenchanted?
Donald Trump makes the angry, angrier. The louder his voice, the greater the division.
Lock him up to shut him up!
You are letting your emotions takeover from a course that I support in as far as preventing him ever standing again has to be utmost in people's minds and I am not suggesting he should not face due process, but be careful for what you wish for, it could just ignite the issue for years to come
Allowing Trump to continue spouting his propaganda at will, leads down a dark road. Free speech is one thing "propagandagepezete" leads us to rioting in the Reichstag, or the Capitol Building.
He has done something very bad. Punishment rather than retribution is required, that will shut him up too.
He has been worst than very bad, but how you balance justice v peace is the issue for Americans to decide, and the key word is balance
Personally I would be delighted if we never heard another word from him
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
But it isn't just vengeance, it is justice that should be sought. The man incited an attempted coup. A coup attempt which left five people dead.
What is wrong with you people who are suggesting he walks free, in the interests of "peace". to continue as a shadow President, a President in waiting who can spew his seditious propaganda to the angry and disenchanted?
Donald Trump makes the angry, angrier. The louder his voice, the greater the division.
Lock him up to shut him up!
You are letting your emotions takeover from a course that I support in as far as preventing him ever standing again has to be utmost in people's minds and I am not suggesting he should not face due process, but be careful for what you wish for, it could just ignite the issue for years to come
Once you begin to let off someone like Trump because you are scared of the threats and violence from their supporters then you are on a slippery slope. The whackos and gun-toting loons in the Trump base will very quickly learn the lesson that they can achieve things by threatening people and scaring people into doing nothing.
And being honest given the time available it makes sense to delay things until after the 20th - then you have as long as necessary to do things and can slowly damage Trump's reputation further by releasing things bit by bit.
You will also know whether the Trumpster base have delivered on threats to disrupt the Inauguration at various state Capitols - which will add to the charge sheet and frankly, make it much easier for Republicans to throw him under the bus. Hence yesterday, you had Trump saying to anyone who still listens "don't".
He certainly got serious for the first time ever. I dont think he talked about himself once.
He can say the right things. Hes just chosen not to until forced.
He knows he's it deep trouble. His legal advisers wrote that speech and I doubt Trump believed a word of it.
If hed said nothing till now wed doubt he did but his supporters could claim it was sincere.
But we know this is what he does. After his initial 'beautiful people' comments on the riots he later did a more appropriate video, only to go right back to form on Twitter afterwards.
The lack of twitter is the only reason he hasn't made clear he doesn't believe what he said last night.
I know I shouldn't say this but I do miss him not being on twitter.
Surely the point is that fascism has always been a disputed category unless applied to Mussolini and his party? Were Salazar, Franco, Peron etc fascists? Trump certainly belongs to that basket of deplorables to whom the question can be applied.
The point Evans makes is that Fascist ideology subsumes the individual into the war making state - none of which applies to Trump. Populist amoral demagogue, yes, warmaking big state trampler of individual liberties, no.
The "point" is purest wankery and bollocks. There tends to be at least one individual who is not subsumed into the state - the supreme leader. Donald J Trump in this case. There is no question he views himself that way. War making? Trampler of individual liberties? In all probability Yes and Yes if he had succeeded in staying in power despite losing the election. He is a wannabe fascist. Or (ok, Nigel) an incipient fascist. This much is undeniable. He has not become the genuine article because the coup did not work out. Fascism follows successful fascist coups not failed ones.
Leading expert on the Nazis and some person on the internet. Who to believe? Lazy labelling erodes meaning. If it makes you feel better to call him a "Fascist" fine, but that does not make it so.
You should believe neither of us. Just use your noddle. You don't seem to be.
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
But it isn't just vengeance, it is justice that should be sought. The man incited an attempted coup. A coup attempt which left five people dead.
What is wrong with you people who are suggesting he walks free, in the interests of "peace". to continue as a shadow President, a President in waiting who can spew his seditious propaganda to the angry and disenchanted?
Donald Trump makes the angry, angrier. The louder his voice, the greater the division.
Lock him up to shut him up!
You are letting your emotions takeover from a course that I support in as far as preventing him ever standing again has to be utmost in people's minds and I am not suggesting he should not face due process, but be careful for what you wish for, it could just ignite the issue for years to come
Allowing Trump to continue spouting his propaganda at will, leads down a dark road. Free speech is one thing "propagandagepezete" leads us to rioting in the Reichstag, or the Capitol Building.
He has done something very bad. Punishment rather than retribution is required, that will shut him up too.
He has been worst than very bad, but how you balance justice v peace is the issue for Americans to decide, and the key word is balance
Personally I would be delighted if we never heard another word from him
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
I don't see any way that Biden has of bringing them on board. They believe Biden isn't their rightful president. Trump broke a fragile country apart. It will take a political generation to heal. The GOP will become increasingly right wing, until they are out of power so long, they need to tack back towards the centre. It's happened to both Tories and Labour here, and Trump only got in as the Democrats pushed for an unpopular leader.
I am certain Biden cannot bring these extremists on board, but continuing fighting Trump after 20th in my opinion is self defeating
Make sure he cannot go anywhere near office and move on...
Which is exactly why he needs to be impeached.
I have no problem with his impeachment
So what is all this about vengeance ?
No. One was Impeach Hard. This is Impeach 2: Impeach Harder. No. 3 is Impeach with a Vengeance.
Fantastic! If that doesn't break the PB record for "likes" there is less justice here, than if Trump walks free.
4. Live Free or Impeach Hard. or 5. Another Day to Impeach Harder also work. In particular 5, as it is Trump's historic and unprecedented second roll of the impeachment dice.
Less than 5% of GOP representatives voted to impeach Trump last night, unless a significantly bigger proportion of GOP Senators vote to convict him, the conviction will fall short of the 2/3 majority required.
True, and I think the Senate is less likely to convict than to acquit. OTOH: 1) Senators serve longer terms and are more resistant to popular pressure, by design 2) Relatedly, there were far more votes against accepting the electoral college result in the House than the Senate 3) The GOP votes weren't needed to pass the thing, so they're purely signalling, whereas the 17(?) Senate votes would actually achieve something in return for the price of annoying the base 4) The Senate vote will only happen either after more provocation (if something made McConnell bring the vote forward) or after a couple of weeks, when potentially more details will have come out.
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
I don't see any way that Biden has of bringing them on board. They believe Biden isn't their rightful president. Trump broke a fragile country apart. It will take a political generation to heal. The GOP will become increasingly right wing, until they are out of power so long, they need to tack back towards the centre. It's happened to both Tories and Labour here, and Trump only got in as the Democrats pushed for an unpopular leader.
I am certain Biden cannot bring these extremists on board, but continuing fighting Trump after 20th in my opinion is self defeating
Make sure he cannot go anywhere near office and move on...
Which is exactly why he needs to be impeached.
I have no problem with his impeachment
So what is all this about vengeance ?
No. One was Impeach Hard. This is Impeach 2: Impeach Harder. No. 3 is Impeach with a Vengeance.
Fantastic! If that doesn't break the PB record for "likes" there is less justice here, than if Trump walks free.
4. Live Free or Impeach Hard. or 5. Another Day to Impeach Harder also work. In particular 5, as it is Trump's historic and unprecedented second roll of the impeachment dice.
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
But it isn't just vengeance, it is justice that should be sought. The man incited an attempted coup. A coup attempt which left five people dead.
What is wrong with you people who are suggesting he walks free, in the interests of "peace". to continue as a shadow President, a President in waiting who can spew his seditious propaganda to the angry and disenchanted?
Donald Trump makes the angry, angrier. The louder his voice, the greater the division.
Lock him up to shut him up!
You are letting your emotions takeover from a course that I support in as far as preventing him ever standing again has to be utmost in people's minds and I am not suggesting he should not face due process, but be careful for what you wish for, it could just ignite the issue for years to come
Allowing Trump to continue spouting his propaganda at will, leads down a dark road. Free speech is one thing "propagandagepezete" leads us to rioting in the Reichstag, or the Capitol Building.
He has done something very bad. Punishment rather than retribution is required, that will shut him up too.
He has been worst than very bad, but how you balance justice v peace is the issue for Americans to decide, and the key word is balance
Personally I would be delighted if we never heard another word from him
That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.
The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.
His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.
And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...
My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division
Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period
Surrendering to threats of violence is hardly the way to turn the page on Trump. Impeachment is not ‘vengeance’; it is a constitutional remedy to his behaviour, which cannot be ignored.
I am not arguing he should not be impeached and he must be removed from standing again
However, he has millions of armed and idiotic supporters and continuing a feud with him will only embolden them
Sometimes a political confrontation is needed. It hurts to put pressure on a wound so you can sort it out, but its better than the alternative.
My fear is armed conflict across the US
That is not avoided by giving them what they want out of fear of armed conflict. It just encourages more threats.
The fact that Trump is an arch-capitalist almost disqualifies him from being a fascist on its own. True fascists despise capitalism because it operates independent of their authority and isn't controllable. But of course people use the word as a synonym for "a really bad person".
Given his litany of bankruptcies and the fact the state generally picked up the tab it is fair to say Trump is a socialist.
He was also running a fiscal deficit close to 5% of GDP at the top of the economic cycle, pre Covid, which looks weird for a normal centre right politician.
Just like Gordon Brown.
Further proof that Trump is a socialist.
Well about twice as much as Gordon Brown, and at a stronger point in the economic cycle. Since it has been proven (by repeated assertion on PB) that Brown's spending was reckless and out of control Leftist madness then Trump must basically be Lenin.
Wait until the Salmond allegations really hit home.
Though of course there will be no indyref2 allowed by the UK government anyway whatever happens in May, 2014 was a 'once in a generation' vote.
The Salmond stuff seems to be indy supporters tearing chunks off each other whilst not impacting their support for indy at all. Dont see why the voters would be different.
The fact that Trump is an arch-capitalist almost disqualifies him from being a fascist on its own. True fascists despise capitalism because it operates independent of their authority and isn't controllable. But of course people use the word as a synonym for "a really bad person".
Given his litany of bankruptcies and the fact the state generally picked up the tab it is fair to say Trump is a socialist.
He was also running a fiscal deficit close to 5% of GDP at the top of the economic cycle, pre Covid, which looks weird for a normal centre right politician.
Just like Gordon Brown.
Further proof that Trump is a socialist.
Well about twice as much as Gordon Brown, and at a stronger point in the economic cycle. Since it has been proven (by repeated assertion on PB) that Brown's spending was reckless and out of control Leftist madness then Trump must basically be Lenin.
No, he's a twat that tried to buy re-election with a reckless disregard for the long term consequences of his actions.
Comments
The existing protocol is disproportionately obsessed with the <1% of the time something might sneak over the NI/Irish border into the broader EU. It's OTT. It's also why I supported May's Deal and her CU backstop.
I was willing to compromise - others were not, on all sides - so we now have this ridiculous obstinacy.
That's why we joined in the first place, and why we will rejoin inevitably.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1349639300116344833
https://twitter.com/MatthewOToole2/status/1349655546308255745
As they say most Govt lose power rather than oppositions winning it. It really is a very stale system.
It would be nice to have a positive reason to vote for something that has a chance to do something.
I suspect for some it is a shorthand to differentiate it from NI.
It's quicker. And also "Ireland" can be confused with the island of Ireland when you are discussing distinctions between NI and the Irish Republic, so I think it's clearer.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1349645000712335360?s=21
He has done something very bad. Punishment rather than retribution is required, that will shut him up too.
There is of course no support for the sector from the government
https://twitter.com/FWDwholesale/status/1349461166091882496
We will be back to Blue whale rectums quite soon, I suppose.
Use of "Eire" when writing in English is deprecated in journalistic styles guides.
The existing protocol is disproportionately obsessed with the <1% of the time something might sneak over the NI/Irish border into the broader EU. It's OTT. It's also why I supported May's Deal and her CU backstop.
I was willing to compromise - others were not, on all sides - so we now have this ridiculous obstinacy. </p>
What are you on about? Ireland has a very well integrated supply chain. 1% doesn't "sneak" over the border. Retailers ship products north to south to north. Farmers send meat cross the border for processing then back again for packing then back again to be sold.
Personally I would be delighted if we never heard another word from him
Phew!]
No, only an idiot would have thought that!
Do you want to have a substantial discussion about any of the points I raised, or would you prefer to continue to focus on trivialities?
The commentators don’t think it’s that bad a pitch for batting; just requires circumspection.
Here are two of his wickets, a long hop, a freak dismissal, and one of the worst shots I've seen in the 30 years plus I've been watching cricket (not shown here).
https://twitter.com/SkyCricket/status/1349632322979696641
https://twitter.com/SkyCricket/status/1349637350608035840
I just thought it was interesting that one group of people call a country by a different name to everyone else, seemed like a weird choice and I wanted to find out more about their motivation.
He’s more of a kleptocrat in the mould of Putin, albeit severely limited by the constraints of the US system.
I will get on with my day!
Republicans should know that, they used ths same reasoning to legally challenge the election, using available legal methods. The issue is whether using them is justified or if they are abused, not that the prices is vindictive
However it is possible that Trump could be disbarred from seeking public office again if that passes with just a simple majority once the Democrats take control of the Senate next week.
I had a quick peek (I'm not eligible) - next free slot is 8am tomorrow. So that sounds promising.
Trump is more of an authoritarian than a libertarian
The only time that third parties get a look in is when both big parties move towards the centre, so that voters are not afraid of making a third party vote. This, of course, drives the big parties back towards the extremes, and the small parties are squeezed again. This makes the two-party system self-perpetuating.
Further proof that Trump is a socialist.
All those jackboots and high fashion uniforms cost money...
https://twitter.com/ProfAliceS/status/1349637769786765312?s=20
But we know this is what he does. After his initial 'beautiful people' comments on the riots he later did a more appropriate video, only to go right back to form on Twitter afterwards.
The lack of twitter is the only reason he hasn't made clear he doesn't believe what he said last night.
Though of course there will be no indyref2 allowed by the UK government anyway whatever happens in May, 2014 was a 'once in a generation' vote.
4. Live Free or Impeach Hard. or 5. Another Day to Impeach Harder also work. In particular 5, as it is Trump's historic and unprecedented second roll of the impeachment dice.
1) Senators serve longer terms and are more resistant to popular pressure, by design
2) Relatedly, there were far more votes against accepting the electoral college result in the House than the Senate
3) The GOP votes weren't needed to pass the thing, so they're purely signalling, whereas the 17(?) Senate votes would actually achieve something in return for the price of annoying the base
4) The Senate vote will only happen either after more provocation (if something made McConnell bring the vote forward) or after a couple of weeks, when potentially more details will have come out.