Leaving aside the accusations of other calls, this does not seem like a cast iron defence.
During cross-examination on Wednesday, Webbe, who was suspended by the Labour party, said she had never met Ms Merritt and "there was no reason for any falling out".
She claimed a recorded phone call on 25 April in which Webbe was heard saying "get out of my relationship" 11 times was taken out of context.
Webbe said it had been during a heated argument with Mr Thomas over breaching the Covid-19 lockdown with Ms Merritt.
"I simply called her and asked her not to break lockdown with Lester," she said.
"She was breaking the rules and I was just pointing it out. I'm the victim."
Webbe claimed she was a victim of "domestic abuse and coercive control" and was being "goaded and gaslighted" during the row, which resulted in police being called after a neighbour reported her screams.
She confirmed she was still in a relationship with Mr Thomas and they were engaged.
He wants to “show his solidarity” with someone who’s just been convicted of a rather nasty and non-political harrasment campaign, that included a threat of an acid attack against a woman?
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
He wants to “show his solidarity” with someone who’s just been convicted of a rather nasty and non-political harrasment campaign, that included a threat of an acid attack against a woman?
I assume he actually just means he believes her and supports her, but his brain is fossilised into the language of student politics, which makes it seem like politics.
Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
"Minorities" doesn't work as it is seen, on its own, as pejorative, "you're just a minority and always will be"
That's why they got rid of "ethnic minorities", and reversed it to the tortured "minority ethnic", which suggests they may be in the minority now but just you wait!
Now that's gone as well. They are running out of options. How about "THEM"?
Hopefully we'll ask people what they would like to be called and use that.
And when they inevitably have very different views? That doesn't just apply to race but also things like calling Scots British. Some would be offended if you do and others if you don't.
If a group of people do not have a common identity that they can agree on, is there any sense in referring to them as a cohesive group?
My nomination for the country with the most turbulent political year in 2021 would be Bulgaria which faces its third General Election on November 14th. In addition, as well as electing a new National Assembly (240 seats), they are also electing a new President.
The latest polling for the National Assembly election as follows:
Changes from July 2021:
GERB-SDS: 23.1% (-0.4) Coalition for Bulgaria: 16.8% (+3.4) We Continue the Change: 15.8% (+15.8) Democratic Bulgaria: 10.9% (-1.7) There is Such a Nation: 10.4% (-13.7) Movement for Rights and Freedoms: 9.3% (-1.4) Stand Up Bulgaria!: 3.2% (-1.8) Revival: 2.9% (-0.1) Bulgarian National Movement: 2.1% (-1.0)
The big change since July has been the creation of We Continue the Change which was formed on September 19th based on three small existing parties and the caretaker economy and finance ministers. It has taken off an emerged as a new challenger to the conservative GERB and the leftish Coalition for Bulgaria.
The other big event has been the spectacular collapse of There is Such a Nation (ITN) who outpolled GERB in July and won the most seats (65) in the National Assembly. However, the party's leader, Slavi Trifonov, basically refused to work with any other party and used Facebook as his primary communication medium (a change from Twitter I suppose).
It also emerged ITN had close links with the NDSV, the party set up in 2001 as a personal vehicle for the former Prime Minister Simeon von Saxe-Coburg Gotha (so related to our royal family I believe). Simeon was only six when his father, Boris III, died in 1943 and a regency acted for him until the country was liberated by the Red Army.
In February 1945, Simeon's three regents were removed and executed and in 1946 the monarchy abolished. Simeon and his family ended up in Spain in 1951.
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
He wants to “show his solidarity” with someone who’s just been convicted of a rather nasty and non-political harrasment campaign, that included a threat of an acid attack against a woman?
This was the 28th Sept so she had not been convicted. Perhaps they thought the charges were trumped up. Poor judgement for sure.
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
How does that solve matters for the EU though?
Having neutral arbitration instead of one party determining it unilaterally is an eminently reasonable request. If they spark a trade war over such 100%ism then what do they gain from it? They lose everything they wanted and could have got once Article 16 is invoked.
I think if an agreement can be found on every other issue then arbitration instead of the ECJ won't be a deal-breaker. Better to get 50% of what you want than 0% of it for them.
Removing the oversight of the ECJ (which was, of course already agreed with the UK and which, in itself, can't justify the invokation of Article 16) would effectively mean the NI is no longer part of the single market. Perhaps the EU could give some ground on the lower-level details, but it's hard to see how they could give up on being the final arbiter of their own rules. And when two sides cannot reach a resolution, then a trade war is what you get. Nobody wants wars of any sort, but they still happen.
A problem is this: as long as NI is de facto in the SM, then it is being treated differently from the rest of the UK. There is an internal division within a single nation state called the UK. While the DUP will, of course, never tell what they actually want, they will tell you what they don't, and (unless they found it politically useful) being treated differently is something they don't want and will always be a lever for them to pull until the end of the world.
(BTW Why it's OK to the EU to have that internal division in the UK, but never to have internal divisions within the EU SM is not explained. But it matters to the EU more than peace in Ireland apparently)
I never understood why the Brexit negotiators managed to allow this to become a UK problem, rather than what it is, an EU problem.
Because the Brexit negotiators were Theresa May and Olly Robbins, with Dominic Grieves as a 'swing' vote in Parliament.
Frost and Johnson are undoing that sequencing damage now.
Do you honestly believe that? Is it the case that they are unpicking the deal they signed up to and promoted just a few months ago?
The interesting thing is that honesty among politicians was the only sure fire certainty. Telling the truth was sacrosanct and it contributed greatly to the belief that however useless or incompetent the British were never corrupt. Incredible the damage one dodgy administration can do.
You're right, Tony "straight kind of guy" Blair really did destroy all faith on that one.
Hypocrisy. You're on here every day misleading others.
And you’re on here every day baiting and trolling others. Have a day off.
Whilst Westminster has suffered many people of questionable character over the years, you have to conclude that some of our current MPs are very poor indeed.
There have always been rotten MPs. What we currently lack are the very good and outstanding figures of even the quite recent past.
Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
"Minorities" doesn't work as it is seen, on its own, as pejorative, "you're just a minority and always will be"
That's why they got rid of "ethnic minorities", and reversed it to the tortured "minority ethnic", which suggests they may be in the minority now but just you wait!
Now that's gone as well. They are running out of options. How about "THEM"?
Hopefully we'll ask people what they would like to be called and use that.
And when they inevitably have very different views? That doesn't just apply to race but also things like calling Scots British. Some would be offended if you do and others if you don't.
If a group of people do not have a common identity that they can agree on, is there any sense in referring to them as a cohesive group?
We can't all agree on what it means to be British, or even who should be British. Should we stop referring to British too?
Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
I quite like it. It sounds more positive and an identity to be worn with pride.
BAME sounds like it was dreamt up in a windowless office in Swindon.
I'm sure it was. It's just meant to be an inoffensive term for "not white people". Some people seem to find it offensive. The non-White person I know best doesn't object to it at all, in fact uses the term happily, so that probably colours my judgement on the subject. It seems to me that there will be occasions when a synonym for the term could prove useful. So if that term has been cancelled, the cancellers might want to give us a replacement.
It’s definitely en route to cancellation
‘So the term BAME has had its day. But what should replace it?’
And you can find plenty of non-white people on Twitter who REALLY object to it. I don’t see how it survives
I obect to it for linguistic reasons. 'Black and Minority Ethnic' - surely this is a tautology, like Cheshire West and Chester or Bath and North East Somerset? And why 'minority ethnic' - surely this is putting the noun and adjective the wrong way around? Why is 'ethnic minority' dodgy but 'minority ethnic' fine?
has anybody got the contact details for the committee that decides this sort of thing? How can we make a submission? I wish they would issue their standards less frequently, even annual changes would be more manageable than the current six week period.
My nomination for the country with the most turbulent political year in 2021 would be Bulgaria which faces its third General Election on November 14th. In addition, as well as electing a new National Assembly (240 seats), they are also electing a new President.
The latest polling for the National Assembly election as follows:
Changes from July 2021:
GERB-SDS: 23.1% (-0.4) Coalition for Bulgaria: 16.8% (+3.4) We Continue the Change: 15.8% (+15.8) Democratic Bulgaria: 10.9% (-1.7) There is Such a Nation: 10.4% (-13.7) Movement for Rights and Freedoms: 9.3% (-1.4) Stand Up Bulgaria!: 3.2% (-1.8) Revival: 2.9% (-0.1) Bulgarian National Movement: 2.1% (-1.0)
The big change since July has been the creation of We Continue the Change which was formed on September 19th based on three small existing parties and the caretaker economy and finance ministers. It has taken off an emerged as a new challenger to the conservative GERB and the leftish Coalition for Bulgaria.
The other big event has been the spectacular collapse of There is Such a Nation (ITN) who outpolled GERB in July and won the most seats (65) in the National Assembly. However, the party's leader, Slavi Trifonov, basically refused to work with any other party and used Facebook as his primary communication medium (a change from Twitter I suppose).
It also emerged ITN had close links with the NDSV, the party set up in 2001 as a personal vehicle for the former Prime Minister Simeon von Saxe-Coburg Gotha (so related to our royal family I believe). Simeon was only six when his father, Boris III, died in 1943 and a regency acted for him until the country was liberated by the Red Army.
In February 1945, Simeon's three regents were removed and executed and in 1946 the monarchy abolished. Simeon and his family ended up in Spain in 1951.
Very impressive turbulence indeed. I'm sure you were as annoyed as I was that Israel managed to form a government and so has only had 4 elections in 3 years, only 2 of which were in the same calendar year (though three in 12 months in 2019/20).
I remember reading about Simeon. Can't be many former royals who end up leading their countries.
The other term disappearing without trace is British, for instance instead of the British government, we have the UK government, and so on.
That one is quite specific to the issues around Northern Ireland and Brexit, where the precise meanings of UK, GB, British Isles, Ireland, and RoI, have become more significant.
Euro-twitter getting quiet poetic in their frustration, about UK not being trustworthy:
https://twitter.com/PalmeirasCk/status/1448238277933387783 Absolutely, but it’s not like this hasn’t happened before. Argentina was the 6th largest economy on earth in 1900. And it collapsed as a result of this very thing, it could no longer be trusted. It’s fine to already be wealthy like Johnson, etc, and think this is a game.
What happened to Argentina?
I know there is interesting military history in that they all had bigger navies than the USA.
I thought the crash was mainly because it had run out of bird-poo.
In my understanding:
Military coup, leading to import substitution instead of investing in agriculture (where it had a comparative advantage and which had made it rich in the first place). Coupled with political instability and poor macroeconomic management, the result was hyperinflation and underinvestment.
I would say poor educational system, poor administrative and legal systems. Argentina got rich on beef, but never had the ability to move beyond there.
And then, as you say, military dictatorships, etc.
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.
The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
Off topic
I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.
The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
It's not that GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit. It's just that in the light of Brexit the GFA needs renegotiated because continued membership of EU on both sides was implied throughout it.
Indeed. The GFA should have stopped Brexit
Thanks for the reply OGH! Not sure what point you're making though. Are you saying the UK electorate should have voted Remain because otherwise the GFA would be undermined?
He encapsulates EU and liberal thinking perfectly.
It was indeed their hope that the GFA could be used to stop Brexit or render it totally meaningless.
FWIW I think peoples concerns about peace in Ireland are sincere, Brexit should not be allowed to risk the progress we’ve made. It’s very important this is taken seriously.
And the threat of violence should not be allowed to undermine democracy.
If the choice is respecting democratic choices, or the 'progress' of the GFA, then democracy is more important.
There is nothing more important than democracy. Not even peace. Our forefathers literally fought for our rights.
Of course democracy matters, it therefore matters that a majority in NI didn’t vote for Brexit. A degree of sensitivity is required. The government has a responsibility to govern sympathetically to the whole nation, not just the parts that support it.
Euro-twitter getting quiet poetic in their frustration, about UK not being trustworthy:
https://twitter.com/PalmeirasCk/status/1448238277933387783 Absolutely, but it’s not like this hasn’t happened before. Argentina was the 6th largest economy on earth in 1900. And it collapsed as a result of this very thing, it could no longer be trusted. It’s fine to already be wealthy like Johnson, etc, and think this is a game.
What happened to Argentina?
I know there is interesting military history in that they all had bigger navies than the USA.
I thought the crash was mainly because it had run out of bird-poo.
In my understanding:
Military coup, leading to import substitution instead of investing in agriculture (where it had a comparative advantage and which had made it rich in the first place). Coupled with political instability and poor macroeconomic management, the result was hyperinflation and underinvestment.
I would say poor educational system, poor administrative and legal systems. Argentina got rich on beef, but never had the ability to move beyond there.
And then, as you say, military dictatorships, etc.
After beef move on to a chocolate brownie with dulce de leche. I think they managed just fine.
Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
"Minorities" doesn't work as it is seen, on its own, as pejorative, "you're just a minority and always will be"
That's why they got rid of "ethnic minorities", and reversed it to the tortured "minority ethnic", which suggests they may be in the minority now but just you wait!
Now that's gone as well. They are running out of options. How about "THEM"?
Hopefully we'll ask people what they would like to be called and use that.
And thus you won't get an umbrella term that satisfies everyone, and you end up having the same debate all over again eventually.
But why an umbrella term? And why umbrellise non-whites but not whites, as if I have more in common with a monoglot Estonian than an anglophone Sri Lankan? Forms are online these days, not paper, so you can list as many identities as you like in a dropdown and let people pick one. If you then want to group identities for one reason or another you can do that on an ad hoc basis later on.
I am sorry to say it is a wider problem of how to categorise any group with more than one member, and what it means when you have done it. You may even end up having to worry about the problem of 'universals' which is famously intractable.
They partake of the same Form, innit. And you can stuff your third man argument where the sun don't shine.
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
How does that solve matters for the EU though?
Having neutral arbitration instead of one party determining it unilaterally is an eminently reasonable request. If they spark a trade war over such 100%ism then what do they gain from it? They lose everything they wanted and could have got once Article 16 is invoked.
I think if an agreement can be found on every other issue then arbitration instead of the ECJ won't be a deal-breaker. Better to get 50% of what you want than 0% of it for them.
Removing the oversight of the ECJ (which was, of course already agreed with the UK and which, in itself, can't justify the invokation of Article 16) would effectively mean the NI is no longer part of the single market. Perhaps the EU could give some ground on the lower-level details, but it's hard to see how they could give up on being the final arbiter of their own rules. And when two sides cannot reach a resolution, then a trade war is what you get. Nobody wants wars of any sort, but they still happen.
A problem is this: as long as NI is de facto in the SM, then it is being treated differently from the rest of the UK. There is an internal division within a single nation state called the UK. While the DUP will, of course, never tell what they actually want, they will tell you what they don't, and (unless they found it politically useful) being treated differently is something they don't want and will always be a lever for them to pull until the end of the world.
(BTW Why it's OK to the EU to have that internal division in the UK, but never to have internal divisions within the EU SM is not explained. But it matters to the EU more than peace in Ireland apparently)
I never understood why the Brexit negotiators managed to allow this to become a UK problem, rather than what it is, an EU problem.
Because the Brexit negotiators were Theresa May and Olly Robbins, with Dominic Grieves as a 'swing' vote in Parliament.
Frost and Johnson are undoing that sequencing damage now.
Do you honestly believe that? Is it the case that they are unpicking the deal they signed up to and promoted just a few months ago?
Yes I honestly believe that. And this deal was signed up more than two years ago, its not the TCA. The TCA stands.
It is completely reasonable for the Protocol to be rewritten post-TCA, it should never have been sequenced to deal with NI before the future of the EU/UK relationship was determined.
I can’t remember Boris saying there were these problems when he promoted the Brexit settlement.
The EU itself, by its actions today, are recognising practical issues with the protocol themselves and hopefully the UK and the EU can agree a sensible conclusion
I cannot remember the EU saying there were problems when they promoted their settlement
It's great. Lord Frost and DAG would be unable to agree what day of the week it is; but outsider sympathetic followers of the political process who don't carry absurd baggage will have no problem in seeing that they are both almost completely correct.
I see Amnesty international are demanding a meeting with the Premiership to discuss amending the ownership rules following the Newcastle takeover. They commissioned a QC last year to redraft the rules so these can be presented. A little presumptuous.
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.
The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
Off topic
I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.
The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
And Brown was not the architect of devolution. Donald Dewar perhaps.
Well, there's the next Blue Origins advert ready "Everybody in the world needs to do this," the [Shatner] told Mr Bezos after landing back on Earth. "It was unbelievable."
In tears, he added: "What you have given me is the most profound experience. I'm so filled with emotion about what just happened. I hope I never recover from this. I hope I can retain what I feel now. I don't want to lose it."
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
How does that solve matters for the EU though?
Having neutral arbitration instead of one party determining it unilaterally is an eminently reasonable request. If they spark a trade war over such 100%ism then what do they gain from it? They lose everything they wanted and could have got once Article 16 is invoked.
I think if an agreement can be found on every other issue then arbitration instead of the ECJ won't be a deal-breaker. Better to get 50% of what you want than 0% of it for them.
Removing the oversight of the ECJ (which was, of course already agreed with the UK and which, in itself, can't justify the invokation of Article 16) would effectively mean the NI is no longer part of the single market. Perhaps the EU could give some ground on the lower-level details, but it's hard to see how they could give up on being the final arbiter of their own rules. And when two sides cannot reach a resolution, then a trade war is what you get. Nobody wants wars of any sort, but they still happen.
A problem is this: as long as NI is de facto in the SM, then it is being treated differently from the rest of the UK. There is an internal division within a single nation state called the UK. While the DUP will, of course, never tell what they actually want, they will tell you what they don't, and (unless they found it politically useful) being treated differently is something they don't want and will always be a lever for them to pull until the end of the world.
(BTW Why it's OK to the EU to have that internal division in the UK, but never to have internal divisions within the EU SM is not explained. But it matters to the EU more than peace in Ireland apparently)
I never understood why the Brexit negotiators managed to allow this to become a UK problem, rather than what it is, an EU problem.
Because the Brexit negotiators were Theresa May and Olly Robbins, with Dominic Grieves as a 'swing' vote in Parliament.
Frost and Johnson are undoing that sequencing damage now.
Do you honestly believe that? Is it the case that they are unpicking the deal they signed up to and promoted just a few months ago?
Yes I honestly believe that. And this deal was signed up more than two years ago, its not the TCA. The TCA stands.
It is completely reasonable for the Protocol to be rewritten post-TCA, it should never have been sequenced to deal with NI before the future of the EU/UK relationship was determined.
I can’t remember Boris saying there were these problems when he promoted the Brexit settlement.
The EU itself, by its actions today, are recognising practical issues with the protocol themselves and hopefully the UK and the EU can agree a sensible conclusion
I cannot remember the EU saying there were problems when they promoting their settlement
Time to move on from attempts at point scoring
It’s important to note when people change their mind. Perhaps the government might like to say that it got it wrong. Better than trying argue that black is white and this was somehow the plan all along.
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.
The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
Off topic
I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.
The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
It's not that GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit. It's just that in the light of Brexit the GFA needs renegotiated because continued membership of EU on both sides was implied throughout it.
Indeed. The GFA should have stopped Brexit
Thanks for the reply OGH! Not sure what point you're making though. Are you saying the UK electorate should have voted Remain because otherwise the GFA would be undermined?
He encapsulates EU and liberal thinking perfectly.
It was indeed their hope that the GFA could be used to stop Brexit or render it totally meaningless.
FWIW I think peoples concerns about peace in Ireland are sincere, Brexit should not be allowed to risk the progress we’ve made. It’s very important this is taken seriously.
And the threat of violence should not be allowed to undermine democracy.
If the choice is respecting democratic choices, or the 'progress' of the GFA, then democracy is more important.
There is nothing more important than democracy. Not even peace. Our forefathers literally fought for our rights.
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.
The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
Off topic
I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.
The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
The EU chose to add Article 50 to its Treaties post-GFA. Ireland ratified that by referendum and the UK ratified and exercised it.
So Article 50 trumps the GFA. If the GFA and Article 50 aren't compatible, then its the GFA needs to change not the other way around.
... meanwhile back on Planet Earth...
... everything I've been predicting is coming to pass ...
No, everything I have been predicting is coming to pass, although not as quickly and to the extent (yet) I had anticipated. Sectarian problems in NI, trading issues between the EU and the UK. Labour shortages, food and fuel supplies compromised. And in unrelated news inflation and interest rate increases.
As a point of order did you predict covid and the worldwide energy and supply crisis we are now experiencing
The US and China were not involved in Brexit as far as I known
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
How does that solve matters for the EU though?
Having neutral arbitration instead of one party determining it unilaterally is an eminently reasonable request. If they spark a trade war over such 100%ism then what do they gain from it? They lose everything they wanted and could have got once Article 16 is invoked.
I think if an agreement can be found on every other issue then arbitration instead of the ECJ won't be a deal-breaker. Better to get 50% of what you want than 0% of it for them.
Removing the oversight of the ECJ (which was, of course already agreed with the UK and which, in itself, can't justify the invokation of Article 16) would effectively mean the NI is no longer part of the single market. Perhaps the EU could give some ground on the lower-level details, but it's hard to see how they could give up on being the final arbiter of their own rules. And when two sides cannot reach a resolution, then a trade war is what you get. Nobody wants wars of any sort, but they still happen.
A problem is this: as long as NI is de facto in the SM, then it is being treated differently from the rest of the UK. There is an internal division within a single nation state called the UK. While the DUP will, of course, never tell what they actually want, they will tell you what they don't, and (unless they found it politically useful) being treated differently is something they don't want and will always be a lever for them to pull until the end of the world.
(BTW Why it's OK to the EU to have that internal division in the UK, but never to have internal divisions within the EU SM is not explained. But it matters to the EU more than peace in Ireland apparently)
I never understood why the Brexit negotiators managed to allow this to become a UK problem, rather than what it is, an EU problem.
Because the Brexit negotiators were Theresa May and Olly Robbins, with Dominic Grieves as a 'swing' vote in Parliament.
Frost and Johnson are undoing that sequencing damage now.
Do you honestly believe that? Is it the case that they are unpicking the deal they signed up to and promoted just a few months ago?
The interesting thing is that honesty among politicians was the only sure fire certainty. Telling the truth was sacrosanct and it contributed greatly to the belief that however useless or incompetent the British were never corrupt. Incredible the damage one dodgy administration can do.
You're right, Tony "straight kind of guy" Blair really did destroy all faith on that one.
Do you watch Ch4 News? They've just done an interesting piece on the British economy and the picture they paint couldn't be more different from the nirvana you and Max seem to think we're enjoying!
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.
The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
Off topic
I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.
The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
It's not that GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit. It's just that in the light of Brexit the GFA needs renegotiated because continued membership of EU on both sides was implied throughout it.
Indeed. The GFA should have stopped Brexit
Thanks for the reply OGH! Not sure what point you're making though. Are you saying the UK electorate should have voted Remain because otherwise the GFA would be undermined?
He encapsulates EU and liberal thinking perfectly.
It was indeed their hope that the GFA could be used to stop Brexit or render it totally meaningless.
FWIW I think peoples concerns about peace in Ireland are sincere, Brexit should not be allowed to risk the progress we’ve made. It’s very important this is taken seriously.
And the threat of violence should not be allowed to undermine democracy.
If the choice is respecting democratic choices, or the 'progress' of the GFA, then democracy is more important.
There is nothing more important than democracy. Not even peace. Our forefathers literally fought for our rights.
Which forefathers of whom literally fought when for what rights? Do grow up.
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.
The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
Off topic
I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.
The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
It's not that GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit. It's just that in the light of Brexit the GFA needs renegotiated because continued membership of EU on both sides was implied throughout it.
Indeed. The GFA should have stopped Brexit
Thanks for the reply OGH! Not sure what point you're making though. Are you saying the UK electorate should have voted Remain because otherwise the GFA would be undermined?
He encapsulates EU and liberal thinking perfectly.
It was indeed their hope that the GFA could be used to stop Brexit or render it totally meaningless.
FWIW I think peoples concerns about peace in Ireland are sincere, Brexit should not be allowed to risk the progress we’ve made. It’s very important this is taken seriously.
That has always struck me as an arse about tit way of thinking. Brexit per se does not threaten peace in NI - it is only those who would wish the end of peace who would promote the idea, or those who do not want Brexit who would claim it in order to further their anti-Brexit case.
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
Policy thinking and implementation seems to have been subcontracted by governmental and other organisations to Stonewall. My wife works for a local authority and they have Stonewall as a partner. Their managers are very keen to get jn with stonewall and want to be ranked highly by stonewall as an employer.
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.
The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
Off topic
I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.
The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
It's not that GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit. It's just that in the light of Brexit the GFA needs renegotiated because continued membership of EU on both sides was implied throughout it.
Indeed. The GFA should have stopped Brexit
Thanks for the reply OGH! Not sure what point you're making though. Are you saying the UK electorate should have voted Remain because otherwise the GFA would be undermined?
He encapsulates EU and liberal thinking perfectly.
It was indeed their hope that the GFA could be used to stop Brexit or render it totally meaningless.
FWIW I think peoples concerns about peace in Ireland are sincere, Brexit should not be allowed to risk the progress we’ve made. It’s very important this is taken seriously.
And the threat of violence should not be allowed to undermine democracy.
If the choice is respecting democratic choices, or the 'progress' of the GFA, then democracy is more important.
There is nothing more important than democracy. Not even peace. Our forefathers literally fought for our rights.
Which forefathers of whom literally fought when for what rights? Do grow up.
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
How does that solve matters for the EU though?
Having neutral arbitration instead of one party determining it unilaterally is an eminently reasonable request. If they spark a trade war over such 100%ism then what do they gain from it? They lose everything they wanted and could have got once Article 16 is invoked.
I think if an agreement can be found on every other issue then arbitration instead of the ECJ won't be a deal-breaker. Better to get 50% of what you want than 0% of it for them.
Removing the oversight of the ECJ (which was, of course already agreed with the UK and which, in itself, can't justify the invokation of Article 16) would effectively mean the NI is no longer part of the single market. Perhaps the EU could give some ground on the lower-level details, but it's hard to see how they could give up on being the final arbiter of their own rules. And when two sides cannot reach a resolution, then a trade war is what you get. Nobody wants wars of any sort, but they still happen.
A problem is this: as long as NI is de facto in the SM, then it is being treated differently from the rest of the UK. There is an internal division within a single nation state called the UK. While the DUP will, of course, never tell what they actually want, they will tell you what they don't, and (unless they found it politically useful) being treated differently is something they don't want and will always be a lever for them to pull until the end of the world.
(BTW Why it's OK to the EU to have that internal division in the UK, but never to have internal divisions within the EU SM is not explained. But it matters to the EU more than peace in Ireland apparently)
I never understood why the Brexit negotiators managed to allow this to become a UK problem, rather than what it is, an EU problem.
Because the Brexit negotiators were Theresa May and Olly Robbins, with Dominic Grieves as a 'swing' vote in Parliament.
Frost and Johnson are undoing that sequencing damage now.
Do you honestly believe that? Is it the case that they are unpicking the deal they signed up to and promoted just a few months ago?
Yes I honestly believe that. And this deal was signed up more than two years ago, its not the TCA. The TCA stands.
It is completely reasonable for the Protocol to be rewritten post-TCA, it should never have been sequenced to deal with NI before the future of the EU/UK relationship was determined.
I can’t remember Boris saying there were these problems when he promoted the Brexit settlement.
The EU itself, by its actions today, are recognising practical issues with the protocol themselves and hopefully the UK and the EU can agree a sensible conclusion
I cannot remember the EU saying there were problems when they promoting their settlement
Time to move on from attempts at point scoring
It’s important to note when people change their mind. Perhaps the government might like to say that it got it wrong. Better than trying argue that black is white and this was somehow the plan all along.
Back to point scoring that achieves absolutely nothing
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
Reality and the law are frequently inconvenient. The latter can be changed to control the former.
You can write as many laws as you want. You are not going to make a gay woman sexually attracted to a man. Or a gay man sexually attracted to a woman.
You could of course make laws which make it illegal to be sexually attracted to or sexually active only with the same sex. But this is hardly a liberal or progressive position. Though - oddly and, frankly, shamefully - attacking lesbians as phobic for not wanting to have sex with men with penises is coming quite close to this. It is a curious position for a supposedly pro-gay charity to be adopting.
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.
The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
Off topic
I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.
The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
It's not that GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit. It's just that in the light of Brexit the GFA needs renegotiated because continued membership of EU on both sides was implied throughout it.
Indeed. The GFA should have stopped Brexit
Thanks for the reply OGH! Not sure what point you're making though. Are you saying the UK electorate should have voted Remain because otherwise the GFA would be undermined?
He encapsulates EU and liberal thinking perfectly.
It was indeed their hope that the GFA could be used to stop Brexit or render it totally meaningless.
FWIW I think peoples concerns about peace in Ireland are sincere, Brexit should not be allowed to risk the progress we’ve made. It’s very important this is taken seriously.
And the threat of violence should not be allowed to undermine democracy.
If the choice is respecting democratic choices, or the 'progress' of the GFA, then democracy is more important.
There is nothing more important than democracy. Not even peace. Our forefathers literally fought for our rights.
Don't be ridiculous. Your hyperbole is foolish.
I'm neither being foolish nor hyperbolic. Do you disagree with any of these statements?
Both the UK and Ireland agreed the GFA
Subsequently both nations ratified the Lisbon Treaty incorporating Article 50 of the TEU
Therefore both nations recognised that Article 50 could be invoked
The people of the UK democratically voted to invoke Article 50
The Parliament of the UK democratically chose to invoke it.
Brexit is no more and no less than the democratic choice of the UK. A democratic choice enabled by Ireland as well as the EU in ratifying the Lisbon Treaty. And yet we have the outrage of people saying things like "The GFA should have stopped Brexit". Its disgusting.
If the GFA is incompatible with democracy then the GFA needs to be updated, not democracy.
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
How does that solve matters for the EU though?
Having neutral arbitration instead of one party determining it unilaterally is an eminently reasonable request. If they spark a trade war over such 100%ism then what do they gain from it? They lose everything they wanted and could have got once Article 16 is invoked.
I think if an agreement can be found on every other issue then arbitration instead of the ECJ won't be a deal-breaker. Better to get 50% of what you want than 0% of it for them.
Removing the oversight of the ECJ (which was, of course already agreed with the UK and which, in itself, can't justify the invokation of Article 16) would effectively mean the NI is no longer part of the single market. Perhaps the EU could give some ground on the lower-level details, but it's hard to see how they could give up on being the final arbiter of their own rules. And when two sides cannot reach a resolution, then a trade war is what you get. Nobody wants wars of any sort, but they still happen.
A problem is this: as long as NI is de facto in the SM, then it is being treated differently from the rest of the UK. There is an internal division within a single nation state called the UK. While the DUP will, of course, never tell what they actually want, they will tell you what they don't, and (unless they found it politically useful) being treated differently is something they don't want and will always be a lever for them to pull until the end of the world.
(BTW Why it's OK to the EU to have that internal division in the UK, but never to have internal divisions within the EU SM is not explained. But it matters to the EU more than peace in Ireland apparently)
I never understood why the Brexit negotiators managed to allow this to become a UK problem, rather than what it is, an EU problem.
Because the Brexit negotiators were Theresa May and Olly Robbins, with Dominic Grieves as a 'swing' vote in Parliament.
Frost and Johnson are undoing that sequencing damage now.
Do you honestly believe that? Is it the case that they are unpicking the deal they signed up to and promoted just a few months ago?
The interesting thing is that honesty among politicians was the only sure fire certainty. Telling the truth was sacrosanct and it contributed greatly to the belief that however useless or incompetent the British were never corrupt. Incredible the damage one dodgy administration can do.
You're right, Tony "straight kind of guy" Blair really did destroy all faith on that one.
Do you watch Ch4 News? They've just done an interesting piece on the British economy and the picture they paint couldn't be more different from the nirvana you and Max seem to think we're enjoying!
No I don't.
What was interesting about it? Was it reporting on mass unemployment and everything else "Project Fear" said would happen?
I read the first para or three, but DAG lost me when he started nit-picking about whether Burke could be regarded as "one of my country's greatest philosophers" by (English) Lord Frost, because Burke died 3 years before the Act of Union with Ireland.
The fact is that Burke was in the House of Commons for 28 years, called himself an Englishman, and lived on this side of the channel for most of his life.
I think that's DAG in full Captain Mainwaring mode. Which may make him happy.
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
How does that solve matters for the EU though?
Having neutral arbitration instead of one party determining it unilaterally is an eminently reasonable request. If they spark a trade war over such 100%ism then what do they gain from it? They lose everything they wanted and could have got once Article 16 is invoked.
I think if an agreement can be found on every other issue then arbitration instead of the ECJ won't be a deal-breaker. Better to get 50% of what you want than 0% of it for them.
Removing the oversight of the ECJ (which was, of course already agreed with the UK and which, in itself, can't justify the invokation of Article 16) would effectively mean the NI is no longer part of the single market. Perhaps the EU could give some ground on the lower-level details, but it's hard to see how they could give up on being the final arbiter of their own rules. And when two sides cannot reach a resolution, then a trade war is what you get. Nobody wants wars of any sort, but they still happen.
A problem is this: as long as NI is de facto in the SM, then it is being treated differently from the rest of the UK. There is an internal division within a single nation state called the UK. While the DUP will, of course, never tell what they actually want, they will tell you what they don't, and (unless they found it politically useful) being treated differently is something they don't want and will always be a lever for them to pull until the end of the world.
(BTW Why it's OK to the EU to have that internal division in the UK, but never to have internal divisions within the EU SM is not explained. But it matters to the EU more than peace in Ireland apparently)
I never understood why the Brexit negotiators managed to allow this to become a UK problem, rather than what it is, an EU problem.
Because the Brexit negotiators were Theresa May and Olly Robbins, with Dominic Grieves as a 'swing' vote in Parliament.
Frost and Johnson are undoing that sequencing damage now.
Do you honestly believe that? Is it the case that they are unpicking the deal they signed up to and promoted just a few months ago?
The interesting thing is that honesty among politicians was the only sure fire certainty. Telling the truth was sacrosanct and it contributed greatly to the belief that however useless or incompetent the British were never corrupt. Incredible the damage one dodgy administration can do.
You're right, Tony "straight kind of guy" Blair really did destroy all faith on that one.
Do you watch Ch4 News? They've just done an interesting piece on the British economy and the picture they paint couldn't be more different from the nirvana you and Max seem to think we're enjoying!
Really, channel 4 news painted a gloomy picture of Britain today. Wow. Surprised.
Well, there's the next Blue Origins advert ready "Everybody in the world needs to do this," the [Shatner] told Mr Bezos after landing back on Earth. "It was unbelievable."
In tears, he added: "What you have given me is the most profound experience. I'm so filled with emotion about what just happened. I hope I never recover from this. I hope I can retain what I feel now. I don't want to lose it."
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
Reality and the law are frequently inconvenient. The latter can be changed to control the former.
You can write as many laws as you want. You are not going to make a gay woman sexually attracted to a man. Or a gay man sexually attracted to a woman.
You could of course make laws which make it illegal to be sexually attracted to or sexually active only with the same sex. But this is hardly a liberal or progressive position. Though - oddly and, frankly, shamefully - attacking lesbians as phobic for not wanting to have sex with men with penises is coming quite close to this. It is a curious position for a supposedly pro-gay charity to be adopting.
I don't pretend to really understand why some positions have gotten to where they are now. It seems in some areas to be at the point that we should all be hyper aware of peoples differences, and make those all consuming identities, and in others that to suggest biology has any relevance at all is a hateful stance.
But my summation seems to be how some groups operate. Change the law, change the thinking.
Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
"Minorities" doesn't work as it is seen, on its own, as pejorative, "you're just a minority and always will be"
That's why they got rid of "ethnic minorities", and reversed it to the tortured "minority ethnic", which suggests they may be in the minority now but just you wait!
Now that's gone as well. They are running out of options. How about "THEM"?
Hopefully we'll ask people what they would like to be called and use that.
And thus you won't get an umbrella term that satisfies everyone, and you end up having the same debate all over again eventually.
But why an umbrella term? And why umbrellise non-whites but not whites, as if I have more in common with a monoglot Estonian than an anglophone Sri Lankan? Forms are online these days, not paper, so you can list as many identities as you like in a dropdown and let people pick one. If you then want to group identities for one reason or another you can do that on an ad hoc basis later on.
I am sorry to say it is a wider problem of how to categorise any group with more than one member, and what it means when you have done it. You may even end up having to worry about the problem of 'universals' which is famously intractable.
They partake of the same Form, innit. And you can stuff your third man argument where the sun don't shine.
Yes, I'm not sure if you are affirming or attacking Aristotle's line here; but FWIW, I think his view is about as sensible as the subject can allow. Third man definitely belongs to cricket, not universals.
Well, there's the next Blue Origins advert ready "Everybody in the world needs to do this," the [Shatner] told Mr Bezos after landing back on Earth. "It was unbelievable."
In tears, he added: "What you have given me is the most profound experience. I'm so filled with emotion about what just happened. I hope I never recover from this. I hope I can retain what I feel now. I don't want to lose it."
Very impressive turbulence indeed. I'm sure you were as annoyed as I was that Israel managed to form a government and so has only had 4 elections in 3 years, only 2 of which were in the same calendar year (though three in 12 months in 2019/20).
I remember reading about Simeon. Can't be many former royals who end up leading their countries.
There's still quite a few elections to come this year including Nicaragua, Honduras, Tonga and the vastly contrasting territories of Libya and the Falkland Islands.
Japan votes on October 31st - there are 465 seats in the Diet. The LDP won 290 last time on about a third of the vote and the new Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida, is seeking his own mandate. The Constitutional Democrats (the original party plus a couple of others since the last election) have 113 seats.
Looking at the polls, I can't see much alternative to another LDP landslide - the new PM isn't as popular as Taro Kono, who stood against Kishida in the recent LDP leadership election. However, with the government's approval rating at 63%, it's hard to see a big mood for change.
Well, there's the next Blue Origins advert ready "Everybody in the world needs to do this," the [Shatner] told Mr Bezos after landing back on Earth. "It was unbelievable."
In tears, he added: "What you have given me is the most profound experience. I'm so filled with emotion about what just happened. I hope I never recover from this. I hope I can retain what I feel now. I don't want to lose it."
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.
The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
Off topic
I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.
The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
It's not that GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit. It's just that in the light of Brexit the GFA needs renegotiated because continued membership of EU on both sides was implied throughout it.
Indeed. The GFA should have stopped Brexit
Thanks for the reply OGH! Not sure what point you're making though. Are you saying the UK electorate should have voted Remain because otherwise the GFA would be undermined?
He encapsulates EU and liberal thinking perfectly.
It was indeed their hope that the GFA could be used to stop Brexit or render it totally meaningless.
FWIW I think peoples concerns about peace in Ireland are sincere, Brexit should not be allowed to risk the progress we’ve made. It’s very important this is taken seriously.
And the threat of violence should not be allowed to undermine democracy.
If the choice is respecting democratic choices, or the 'progress' of the GFA, then democracy is more important.
There is nothing more important than democracy. Not even peace. Our forefathers literally fought for our rights.
Which forefathers of whom literally fought when for what rights? Do grow up.
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
Reality and the law are frequently inconvenient. The latter can be changed to control the former.
You can write as many laws as you want. You are not going to make a gay woman sexually attracted to a man. Or a gay man sexually attracted to a woman.
You could of course make laws which make it illegal to be sexually attracted to or sexually active only with the same sex. But this is hardly a liberal or progressive position. Though - oddly and, frankly, shamefully - attacking lesbians as phobic for not wanting to have sex with men with penises is coming quite close to this. It is a curious position for a supposedly pro-gay charity to be adopting.
I don't pretend to really understand why some positions have gotten to where they are now. It seems in some areas to be at the point that we should all be hyper aware of peoples differences, and make those all consuming identities, and in others that to suggest biology has any relevance at all is a hateful stance.
But my summation seems to be how some groups operate. Change the law, change the thinking.
Late middle age and older is indicated when, as with me, you have to keep asking your children to remind you of the difference between 'sex' and 'gender' and which is which, and what we are permitted to say about them.
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.
The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
Off topic
I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.
The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
It's not that GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit. It's just that in the light of Brexit the GFA needs renegotiated because continued membership of EU on both sides was implied throughout it.
Indeed. The GFA should have stopped Brexit
Thanks for the reply OGH! Not sure what point you're making though. Are you saying the UK electorate should have voted Remain because otherwise the GFA would be undermined?
He encapsulates EU and liberal thinking perfectly.
It was indeed their hope that the GFA could be used to stop Brexit or render it totally meaningless.
FWIW I think peoples concerns about peace in Ireland are sincere, Brexit should not be allowed to risk the progress we’ve made. It’s very important this is taken seriously.
And the threat of violence should not be allowed to undermine democracy.
If the choice is respecting democratic choices, or the 'progress' of the GFA, then democracy is more important.
There is nothing more important than democracy. Not even peace. Our forefathers literally fought for our rights.
Which forefathers of whom literally fought when for what rights? Do grow up.
And what about our foremothers?
And indeed our four bears. Rampant speciesism.
Four bears rampant. Worth going out of your way to see.
Euro-twitter getting quiet poetic in their frustration, about UK not being trustworthy:
https://twitter.com/PalmeirasCk/status/1448238277933387783 Absolutely, but it’s not like this hasn’t happened before. Argentina was the 6th largest economy on earth in 1900. And it collapsed as a result of this very thing, it could no longer be trusted. It’s fine to already be wealthy like Johnson, etc, and think this is a game.
What happened to Argentina?
I know there is interesting military history in that they all had bigger navies than the USA.
I thought the crash was mainly because it had run out of bird-poo.
In my understanding:
Military coup, leading to import substitution instead of investing in agriculture (where it had a comparative advantage and which had made it rich in the first place). Coupled with political instability and poor macroeconomic management, the result was hyperinflation and underinvestment.
What makes it pertinent is that Johsononism is Peronism. Not similar, actually is, including the three pillars of social justice, national sovereignty and economic independence, as well as a system of patronage that goes through the party. As Argentina is hardly a poster child, it raises the question of whether the UK is destined for a similar trajectory.
Answer, not necessarily. The rot had already set in by the 1930s - Peron just made it worse, although his first few years were relatively successful. The diversion from a solid base in agriculture was certainly to blame, as you point out, plus intermittent military coups.
I think Johnson may end up doing less damage than Peron simply because he lacks that man's energy. Levelling Up is just a slogan to Johnson. Peron tried to put into practice.
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
The EU are using the GFA as a weapon. Pretty sure that peace treaties should not be used as that
The GFA is a complete pain in the ass for the EU. It prevents them from properly sealing their border, and they are having to bend their rules to accommodate it. The root cause of the problem, and the main threat to the GFA, is, of course, Brexit itself.
I didn't vote in the referendum but I have a lot of sympathy for the Brexiteer cause because the EU is a undemocratic mess.
The root problem is Blair who's to blame for both GFA and Scottish devolution
What's Scottish devolution got to do with Brexit?
Blair. The only problem with Brexit at the moment is GFA. Blair negotiated GFA. Blair devolved Scotland
Yes he created the sand in the rifts (not just NI), and it won't go away. Stupid. Brown was clearly the architect of foolishness in Scotland though.
Off topic
I am loving the PB Brexiteers rewriting of history.
The GFA is faulty because it didn't anticipate Brexit.
The EU chose to add Article 50 to its Treaties post-GFA. Ireland ratified that by referendum and the UK ratified and exercised it.
So Article 50 trumps the GFA. If the GFA and Article 50 aren't compatible, then its the GFA needs to change not the other way around.
... meanwhile back on Planet Earth...
... everything I've been predicting is coming to pass ...
No, everything I have been predicting is coming to pass, although not as quickly and to the extent (yet) I had anticipated. Sectarian problems in NI, trading issues between the EU and the UK. Labour shortages, food and fuel supplies compromised. And in unrelated news inflation and interest rate increases.
As a point of order did you predict covid and the worldwide energy and supply crisis we are now experiencing
The US and China were not involved in Brexit as far as I known
So you are suggesting that were it not for all these other issues Brexit would have been a roaring success. You may well be correct, bur we shall now never know.
I say Brexit exacerbated the problems for the UK, but if we focus on the one issue of Northern Ireland, it always was going to be incredibly delicate, which is why Mrs May was so cautious. Johnson was prepared to drive a coach and horses through the Good Friday Agreement, his compromise of the NI Protocol failed. It was inevitsble it would fail because on Johnson's tes he had to pick a side.
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
Reality and the law are frequently inconvenient. The latter can be changed to control the former.
You can write as many laws as you want. You are not going to make a gay woman sexually attracted to a man. Or a gay man sexually attracted to a woman.
You could of course make laws which make it illegal to be sexually attracted to or sexually active only with the same sex. But this is hardly a liberal or progressive position. Though - oddly and, frankly, shamefully - attacking lesbians as phobic for not wanting to have sex with men with penises is coming quite close to this. It is a curious position for a supposedly pro-gay charity to be adopting.
The cotton ceiling is what they called it. Lesbians being guilt shamed for not wanting ‘girldick’, it’s vile.
Www.terfisaslur.com has many appalling examples.
You may appreciate this from the guardian. I am surprised they printed it.
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
Policy thinking and implementation seems to have been subcontracted by governmental and other organisations to Stonewall. My wife works for a local authority and they have Stonewall as a partner. Their managers are very keen to get jn with stonewall and want to be ranked highly by stonewall as an employer.
There is something a bit sinister about this. First, because managers ought to think for themselves not subcontract something as important as how to treat your staff to others. What are they? 4-year olds wanting a Blue Peter badge?
Second, there is plenty of accurate training information out there about the relevant legislation, best practice etc without needing to involve a charity let alone one which scores you as if you have to pass their exam.
It also mistakenly assumes two very damaging things: (1) that all gay people (or any other minority) all think in the same way or have exactly the same interests - a dubious assumption; and (2) that only one organisation can and does and should represent them and should be seen as their only spokesman. It's the equivalent of assuming that the MCB represents all Muslims. Imagine if a local authority decided that it needed to get the approval of the local Catholic Archbishop and a certificate from him on how it behaves to and talks about Catholics in its employment.
It creates a conflict of interest. Stonewall campaigns for a change in the law - which it is entitled to do - but it is also using its position as a sort of referee (in its own mind) as a way of getting firms to behave as if the law had already been changed in the way that it wants. This is not on - not least because it is trying to stop any debate on whether those changes are necessary or welcome or indeed whether there may be harmful consequences from them.
Finally, I dislike the Mafia-style protection racket going on: if you don't do as we want we'll publicly shame you. Who made them judge and jury?
Very impressive turbulence indeed. I'm sure you were as annoyed as I was that Israel managed to form a government and so has only had 4 elections in 3 years, only 2 of which were in the same calendar year (though three in 12 months in 2019/20).
I remember reading about Simeon. Can't be many former royals who end up leading their countries.
Looking at the polls, I can't see much alternative to another LDP landslide - the new PM isn't as popular as Taro Kono, who stood against Kishida in the recent LDP leadership election. However, with the government's approval rating at 63%, it's hard to see a big mood for change.
Isn't that always the case in Japan? They've had, what, 4 years of non LDP government?
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
Policy thinking and implementation seems to have been subcontracted by governmental and other organisations to Stonewall. My wife works for a local authority and they have Stonewall as a partner. Their managers are very keen to get jn with stonewall and want to be ranked highly by stonewall as an employer.
Yet they’ve all missed the change in Stonewall as an organisation, from necessary defenders of gay rights to absurdist “woke” positions around identity more generally, specifically anti-feminist and in favour of ‘critical race theory’ teaching.
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
How does that solve matters for the EU though?
Having neutral arbitration instead of one party determining it unilaterally is an eminently reasonable request. If they spark a trade war over such 100%ism then what do they gain from it? They lose everything they wanted and could have got once Article 16 is invoked.
I think if an agreement can be found on every other issue then arbitration instead of the ECJ won't be a deal-breaker. Better to get 50% of what you want than 0% of it for them.
Removing the oversight of the ECJ (which was, of course already agreed with the UK and which, in itself, can't justify the invokation of Article 16) would effectively mean the NI is no longer part of the single market. Perhaps the EU could give some ground on the lower-level details, but it's hard to see how they could give up on being the final arbiter of their own rules. And when two sides cannot reach a resolution, then a trade war is what you get. Nobody wants wars of any sort, but they still happen.
A problem is this: as long as NI is de facto in the SM, then it is being treated differently from the rest of the UK. There is an internal division within a single nation state called the UK. While the DUP will, of course, never tell what they actually want, they will tell you what they don't, and (unless they found it politically useful) being treated differently is something they don't want and will always be a lever for them to pull until the end of the world.
(BTW Why it's OK to the EU to have that internal division in the UK, but never to have internal divisions within the EU SM is not explained. But it matters to the EU more than peace in Ireland apparently)
I never understood why the Brexit negotiators managed to allow this to become a UK problem, rather than what it is, an EU problem.
Because the Brexit negotiators were Theresa May and Olly Robbins, with Dominic Grieves as a 'swing' vote in Parliament.
Frost and Johnson are undoing that sequencing damage now.
Do you honestly believe that? Is it the case that they are unpicking the deal they signed up to and promoted just a few months ago?
Yes I honestly believe that. And this deal was signed up more than two years ago, its not the TCA. The TCA stands.
It is completely reasonable for the Protocol to be rewritten post-TCA, it should never have been sequenced to deal with NI before the future of the EU/UK relationship was determined.
I can’t remember Boris saying there were these problems when he promoted the Brexit settlement.
The EU itself, by its actions today, are recognising practical issues with the protocol themselves and hopefully the UK and the EU can agree a sensible conclusion
I cannot remember the EU saying there were problems when they promoted their settlement
Time to move on from attempts at point scoring
‘I cannot remember the EU saying there were problems when they promoted their settlement
Time to move on from attempts at point scoring’
Lol, the Norn ‘Now is not the time for soundbites’ award goes to..
What it boils down to is that the UK has a real audacity in challenging the EU, and doubly so for doing so as shamelessly as they do.
It is also hilarious to see him claim that Edmund Burke is not at all British despite the fact the man lived in England for decades, was in the British parliament for 20 years, as the British Paymaster of the Forces, and regularly referred to himself as an Englishman.
But of course it is Frost that doesn't do his homework!
Wow. Mr Šefčovič seems a very patient and rational man. The tweaks he's prepared to make to the EU's enforcement of the NI Protocol seem perfectly measured to me. Frosty should bite his hand off. Nevertheless, my fear is that Frosty is singularly uninterested in agreement and simply wants the whole thing to explode because that will bolster Boris's image with the base. Hope I'm wrong though.
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
Reality and the law are frequently inconvenient. The latter can be changed to control the former.
You can write as many laws as you want. You are not going to make a gay woman sexually attracted to a man. Or a gay man sexually attracted to a woman.
You could of course make laws which make it illegal to be sexually attracted to or sexually active only with the same sex. But this is hardly a liberal or progressive position. Though - oddly and, frankly, shamefully - attacking lesbians as phobic for not wanting to have sex with men with penises is coming quite close to this. It is a curious position for a supposedly pro-gay charity to be adopting.
I don't pretend to really understand why some positions have gotten to where they are now. It seems in some areas to be at the point that we should all be hyper aware of peoples differences, and make those all consuming identities, and in others that to suggest biology has any relevance at all is a hateful stance.
But my summation seems to be how some groups operate. Change the law, change the thinking.
You can change the law.
You cannot change biology.
King Canute taught us that.
Any law which is fundamentally out of line with reality will not last long in practice, will often be broken and will likely cause a great deal of misery while it exists.
Talk of a 50% and 80% reduction in customs paperwork.
Devil will be in the details but it really doesn't like the "generous" proposal promised. Simply doesn't seem good enough at all at first glance.
Though this no doubt is an opening proposal to then be negotiated from.
I doubt that there is any agreement to be had. The lines on ECJ supervision are too red. We'll just start the long grind towards legal action by the EU for breach of the TCA which will, presumably, end in the imposition of trade tariffs by the EU and probably retaliatory tariffs by the UK.
How does that solve matters for the EU though?
Having neutral arbitration instead of one party determining it unilaterally is an eminently reasonable request. If they spark a trade war over such 100%ism then what do they gain from it? They lose everything they wanted and could have got once Article 16 is invoked.
I think if an agreement can be found on every other issue then arbitration instead of the ECJ won't be a deal-breaker. Better to get 50% of what you want than 0% of it for them.
Removing the oversight of the ECJ (which was, of course already agreed with the UK and which, in itself, can't justify the invokation of Article 16) would effectively mean the NI is no longer part of the single market. Perhaps the EU could give some ground on the lower-level details, but it's hard to see how they could give up on being the final arbiter of their own rules. And when two sides cannot reach a resolution, then a trade war is what you get. Nobody wants wars of any sort, but they still happen.
A problem is this: as long as NI is de facto in the SM, then it is being treated differently from the rest of the UK. There is an internal division within a single nation state called the UK. While the DUP will, of course, never tell what they actually want, they will tell you what they don't, and (unless they found it politically useful) being treated differently is something they don't want and will always be a lever for them to pull until the end of the world.
(BTW Why it's OK to the EU to have that internal division in the UK, but never to have internal divisions within the EU SM is not explained. But it matters to the EU more than peace in Ireland apparently)
Once you decide there can be no hard land border, which all parties more or less agree on, the border has to go either into the Irish or Celtic Seas. Ireland marshalled its significant diplomatic leverage from the day of the referendum to ensure it was in the former.
They would probably argue that as the UK was leaving, the border should be its problem rather than Ireland's. The UK didn't necessarily have to accept Ireland would prevail, but ultimately both May and Johnson did.
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
Reality and the law are frequently inconvenient. The latter can be changed to control the former.
You can write as many laws as you want. You are not going to make a gay woman sexually attracted to a man. Or a gay man sexually attracted to a woman.
You could of course make laws which make it illegal to be sexually attracted to or sexually active only with the same sex. But this is hardly a liberal or progressive position. Though - oddly and, frankly, shamefully - attacking lesbians as phobic for not wanting to have sex with men with penises is coming quite close to this. It is a curious position for a supposedly pro-gay charity to be adopting.
I don't pretend to really understand why some positions have gotten to where they are now. It seems in some areas to be at the point that we should all be hyper aware of peoples differences, and make those all consuming identities, and in others that to suggest biology has any relevance at all is a hateful stance.
But my summation seems to be how some groups operate. Change the law, change the thinking.
You can change the law.
You cannot change biology.
King Canute taught us that.
Any law which is fundamentally out of line with reality will not last long in practice, will often be broken and will likely cause a great deal of misery while it exists.
Laws making homosexuality illegal, for instance.
It's not me who needs convincing. And I think there may be quite a bit of misery to go through.
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
Reality and the law are frequently inconvenient. The latter can be changed to control the former.
You can write as many laws as you want. You are not going to make a gay woman sexually attracted to a man. Or a gay man sexually attracted to a woman.
You could of course make laws which make it illegal to be sexually attracted to or sexually active only with the same sex. But this is hardly a liberal or progressive position. Though - oddly and, frankly, shamefully - attacking lesbians as phobic for not wanting to have sex with men with penises is coming quite close to this. It is a curious position for a supposedly pro-gay charity to be adopting.
I don't pretend to really understand why some positions have gotten to where they are now. It seems in some areas to be at the point that we should all be hyper aware of peoples differences, and make those all consuming identities, and in others that to suggest biology has any relevance at all is a hateful stance.
But my summation seems to be how some groups operate. Change the law, change the thinking.
You can change the law.
You cannot change biology.
King Canute taught us that.
Any law which is fundamentally out of line with reality will not last long in practice, will often be broken and will likely cause a great deal of misery while it exists.
Laws making homosexuality illegal, for instance.
In fairness, Cyclefree, that final one lasted over 400 years. It was frequently broken and undoubtedly caused much misery, but you can hardly say it ‘didn’t last long in practice.’
Well, there's the next Blue Origins advert ready "Everybody in the world needs to do this," the [Shatner] told Mr Bezos after landing back on Earth. "It was unbelievable."
In tears, he added: "What you have given me is the most profound experience. I'm so filled with emotion about what just happened. I hope I never recover from this. I hope I can retain what I feel now. I don't want to lose it."
The best stunt ever. So good it's not so much a stunt. Hat's off to Shatner and Bezos.
Stunt aside Bezos and others are really achieving things.
It’s quite interesting to note the differences between this rocket and one taking an orbital trajectory - this one accelerated to about Mach 3 and stayed there, pointing straight up until it quickly ran out of fuel, whereas an orbital rocket needs about Mach 30 of horizontal velocity to escape gravity.
Today’s rich men’s playthings have a good chance of becoming the next generation’s fun day out, maybe we’ll go to space instead of go-karting and kite surfing for a stag do? I’m about 25 years from retirement, would be an awesome present to myself instead of a bloody carriage clock.
Euro-twitter getting quiet poetic in their frustration, about UK not being trustworthy:
https://twitter.com/PalmeirasCk/status/1448238277933387783 Absolutely, but it’s not like this hasn’t happened before. Argentina was the 6th largest economy on earth in 1900. And it collapsed as a result of this very thing, it could no longer be trusted. It’s fine to already be wealthy like Johnson, etc, and think this is a game.
What happened to Argentina?
I know there is interesting military history in that they all had bigger navies than the USA.
I thought the crash was mainly because it had run out of bird-poo.
In my understanding:
Military coup, leading to import substitution instead of investing in agriculture (where it had a comparative advantage and which had made it rich in the first place). Coupled with political instability and poor macroeconomic management, the result was hyperinflation and underinvestment.
What makes it pertinent is that Johsononism is Peronism. Not similar, actually is, including the three pillars of social justice, national sovereignty and economic independence, as well as a system of patronage that goes through the party. As Argentina is hardly a poster child, it raises the question of whether the UK is destined for a similar trajectory.
Answer, not necessarily. The rot had already set in by the 1930s - Peron just made it worse, although his first few years were relatively successful. The diversion from a solid base in agriculture was certainly to blame, as you point out, plus intermittent military coups.
I think Johnson may end up doing less damage than Peron simply because he lacks that man's energy. Levelling Up is just a slogan to Johnson. Peron tried to put into practice.
Peron created a nationalised monopoly to handle international trade. Whatever you think about what Johnson is doing, it's not that.
Well, there's the next Blue Origins advert ready "Everybody in the world needs to do this," the [Shatner] told Mr Bezos after landing back on Earth. "It was unbelievable."
In tears, he added: "What you have given me is the most profound experience. I'm so filled with emotion about what just happened. I hope I never recover from this. I hope I can retain what I feel now. I don't want to lose it."
The best stunt ever. So good it's not so much a stunt. Hat's off to Shatner and Bezos.
Stunt aside Bezos and others are really achieving things.
It’s quite interesting to note the differences between this rocket and one taking an orbital trajectory - this one accelerated to about Mach 3 and stayed there, pointing straight up until it quickly ran out of fuel, whereas an orbital rocket needs about Mach 30 of horizontal velocity to escape gravity.
Today’s rich men’s playthings have a good chance of becoming the next generation’s fun day out, maybe we’ll go to space instead of go-karting and kite surfing for a stag do? I’m about 25 years from retirement, would be an awesome present to myself instead of a bloody carriage clock.
How will you tell the time in space without a carriage clock?
Euro-twitter getting quiet poetic in their frustration, about UK not being trustworthy:
https://twitter.com/PalmeirasCk/status/1448238277933387783 Absolutely, but it’s not like this hasn’t happened before. Argentina was the 6th largest economy on earth in 1900. And it collapsed as a result of this very thing, it could no longer be trusted. It’s fine to already be wealthy like Johnson, etc, and think this is a game.
What happened to Argentina?
I know there is interesting military history in that they all had bigger navies than the USA.
I thought the crash was mainly because it had run out of bird-poo.
In my understanding:
Military coup, leading to import substitution instead of investing in agriculture (where it had a comparative advantage and which had made it rich in the first place). Coupled with political instability and poor macroeconomic management, the result was hyperinflation and underinvestment.
What makes it pertinent is that Johsononism is Peronism. Not similar, actually is, including the three pillars of social justice, national sovereignty and economic independence, as well as a system of patronage that goes through the party. As Argentina is hardly a poster child, it raises the question of whether the UK is destined for a similar trajectory.
Answer, not necessarily. The rot had already set in by the 1930s - Peron just made it worse, although his first few years were relatively successful. The diversion from a solid base in agriculture was certainly to blame, as you point out, plus intermittent military coups.
I think Johnson may end up doing less damage than Peron simply because he lacks that man's energy. Levelling Up is just a slogan to Johnson. Peron tried to put into practice.
What it boils down to is that the UK has a real audacity in challenging the EU, and doubly so for doing so as shamelessly as they do.
It is also hilarious to see him claim that Edmund Burke is not at all British despite the fact the man lived in England for decades, was in the British parliament for 20 years, as the British Paymaster of the Forces, and regularly referred to himself as an Englishman.
But of course it is Frost that doesn't do his homework!
Burke moved to Britain at 21 then spent 47 years living in Britain until his death. 28 of those years in Parliament.
But he's not British apparently. I'm guessing David Allen Green doesn't think immigrants can be properly a part of this country even if they spend almost all their lives living in Britain. What a racist prat. 🤦♂️
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
Policy thinking and implementation seems to have been subcontracted by governmental and other organisations to Stonewall. My wife works for a local authority and they have Stonewall as a partner. Their managers are very keen to get jn with stonewall and want to be ranked highly by stonewall as an employer.
There is something a bit sinister about this. First, because managers ought to think for themselves not subcontract something as important as how to treat your staff to others. What are they? 4-year olds wanting a Blue Peter badge?
Second, there is plenty of accurate training information out there about the relevant legislation, best practice etc without needing to involve a charity let alone one which scores you as if you have to pass their exam.
It also mistakenly assumes two very damaging things: (1) that all gay people (or any other minority) all think in the same way or have exactly the same interests - a dubious assumption; and (2) that only one organisation can and does and should represent them and should be seen as their only spokesman. It's the equivalent of assuming that the MCB represents all Muslims. Imagine if a local authority decided that it needed to get the approval of the local Catholic Archbishop and a certificate from him on how it behaves to and talks about Catholics in its employment.
It creates a conflict of interest. Stonewall campaigns for a change in the law - which it is entitled to do - but it is also using its position as a sort of referee (in its own mind) as a way of getting firms to behave as if the law had already been changed in the way that it wants. This is not on - not least because it is trying to stop any debate on whether those changes are necessary or welcome or indeed whether there may be harmful consequences from them.
Finally, I dislike the Mafia-style protection racket going on: if you don't do as we want we'll publicly shame you. Who made them judge and jury?
I think they pretty much are the equivalent of 4 year olds after a blue peter badge. They see this as a good thing to have and something of value, so they want it.
You are right about it’s view on uniformity of thinking. Just look at how the gay community treats those who don’t go along with the groupthink. People who, if it was not for them truly standing up against prejudice, then these people wouldn’t be able to hold their partners hand in public or show them affection without attracting derision or violence.
My nomination for the country with the most turbulent political year in 2021 would be Bulgaria which faces its third General Election on November 14th. In addition, as well as electing a new National Assembly (240 seats), they are also electing a new President.
The latest polling for the National Assembly election as follows:
Changes from July 2021:
GERB-SDS: 23.1% (-0.4) Coalition for Bulgaria: 16.8% (+3.4) We Continue the Change: 15.8% (+15.8) Democratic Bulgaria: 10.9% (-1.7) There is Such a Nation: 10.4% (-13.7) Movement for Rights and Freedoms: 9.3% (-1.4) Stand Up Bulgaria!: 3.2% (-1.8) Revival: 2.9% (-0.1) Bulgarian National Movement: 2.1% (-1.0)
The big change since July has been the creation of We Continue the Change which was formed on September 19th based on three small existing parties and the caretaker economy and finance ministers. It has taken off an emerged as a new challenger to the conservative GERB and the leftish Coalition for Bulgaria.
The other big event has been the spectacular collapse of There is Such a Nation (ITN) who outpolled GERB in July and won the most seats (65) in the National Assembly. However, the party's leader, Slavi Trifonov, basically refused to work with any other party and used Facebook as his primary communication medium (a change from Twitter I suppose).
It also emerged ITN had close links with the NDSV, the party set up in 2001 as a personal vehicle for the former Prime Minister Simeon von Saxe-Coburg Gotha (so related to our royal family I believe). Simeon was only six when his father, Boris III, died in 1943 and a regency acted for him until the country was liberated by the Red Army.
In February 1945, Simeon's three regents were removed and executed and in 1946 the monarchy abolished. Simeon and his family ended up in Spain in 1951.
A big swing from There Is Such a Nation (seems there isn't) to We Continue the Change (indeed they do). Presumably at the next election We Then Decided Not will come to the fore.
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Thanks for that. Sheep have a habit of looking at you whilst chewing and they look like they’re thinking deeply.
Sheep are remarkably cunning creatures. Having lived with thousands of them surrounding my barn for a year, I know, believe me. One ewe had a cat-like ability - just by staring at me dolefully, surrounded by her two lambs - to get me to open the gate at the big house leading to the lovely green lawn, where she and all the other sheep happily grazed.
I didn't feel too bad about this. The lawn needed cutting. Sheep used to do this job before lawnmowers and no-one was living at the house anyway. And it kept the lambs temporarily away from my plants.
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
Policy thinking and implementation seems to have been subcontracted by governmental and other organisations to Stonewall. My wife works for a local authority and they have Stonewall as a partner. Their managers are very keen to get jn with stonewall and want to be ranked highly by stonewall as an employer.
There is something a bit sinister about this. First, because managers ought to think for themselves not subcontract something as important as how to treat your staff to others. What are they? 4-year olds wanting a Blue Peter badge?
Second, there is plenty of accurate training information out there about the relevant legislation, best practice etc without needing to involve a charity let alone one which scores you as if you have to pass their exam.
It also mistakenly assumes two very damaging things: (1) that all gay people (or any other minority) all think in the same way or have exactly the same interests - a dubious assumption; and (2) that only one organisation can and does and should represent them and should be seen as their only spokesman. It's the equivalent of assuming that the MCB represents all Muslims. Imagine if a local authority decided that it needed to get the approval of the local Catholic Archbishop and a certificate from him on how it behaves to and talks about Catholics in its employment.
It creates a conflict of interest. Stonewall campaigns for a change in the law - which it is entitled to do - but it is also using its position as a sort of referee (in its own mind) as a way of getting firms to behave as if the law had already been changed in the way that it wants. This is not on - not least because it is trying to stop any debate on whether those changes are necessary or welcome or indeed whether there may be harmful consequences from them.
Finally, I dislike the Mafia-style protection racket going on: if you don't do as we want we'll publicly shame you. Who made them judge and jury?
I think they pretty much are the equivalent of 4 year olds after a blue peter badge. They see this as a good thing to have and something of value, so they want it.
You are right about it’s view on uniformity of thinking. Just look at how the gay community treats those who don’t go along with the groupthink. People who, if it was not for them truly standing up against prejudice, then these people wouldn’t be able to hold their partners hand in public or show them affection without attracting derision or violence.
It’s totally insidious.
I don't like your use of the phrase "the gay community" there. You're falling into the very pratfall that Stonewall want you to make.
Who is this "gay community" of whom you refer? How is its membership determined? Is its leadership democratically elected? Who are its representatives?
The "gay community" doesn't treat anyone in any way with regards to groupthink any more than the "blonde community" or the "freckles" community does.
Stonewall and its ilk represent a teeny tiny fraction of "the gay community" almost all of whom are nothing more or less than perfectly normal individuals with their own opinions and beliefs that just so happen to be gay.
We shouldn't recognise anyone who deems themselves self-appointed guardians of a "community". Let alone that hideous phrase a "community leader".
Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
I quite like it. It sounds more positive and an identity to be worn with pride.
BAME sounds like it was dreamt up in a windowless office in Swindon.
I'm sure it was. It's just meant to be an inoffensive term for "not white people". Some people seem to find it offensive. The non-White person I know best doesn't object to it at all, in fact uses the term happily, so that probably colours my judgement on the subject. It seems to me that there will be occasions when a synonym for the term could prove useful. So if that term has been cancelled, the cancellers might want to give us a replacement.
It’s definitely en route to cancellation
‘So the term BAME has had its day. But what should replace it?’
And you can find plenty of non-white people on Twitter who REALLY object to it. I don’t see how it survives
I obect to it for linguistic reasons. 'Black and Minority Ethnic' - surely this is a tautology, like Cheshire West and Chester or Bath and North East Somerset? And why 'minority ethnic' - surely this is putting the noun and adjective the wrong way around? Why is 'ethnic minority' dodgy but 'minority ethnic' fine?
I always thought that BAME stood for Bath And Mogg East (Somerset).
What on earth is going on with the booster programme? Is this a case of losing the dynamic minister who was driving the vax plans? Surely it should now just roll along by momentum?
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
Policy thinking and implementation seems to have been subcontracted by governmental and other organisations to Stonewall. My wife works for a local authority and they have Stonewall as a partner. Their managers are very keen to get jn with stonewall and want to be ranked highly by stonewall as an employer.
There is something a bit sinister about this. First, because managers ought to think for themselves not subcontract something as important as how to treat your staff to others. What are they? 4-year olds wanting a Blue Peter badge?
Second, there is plenty of accurate training information out there about the relevant legislation, best practice etc without needing to involve a charity let alone one which scores you as if you have to pass their exam.
It also mistakenly assumes two very damaging things: (1) that all gay people (or any other minority) all think in the same way or have exactly the same interests - a dubious assumption; and (2) that only one organisation can and does and should represent them and should be seen as their only spokesman. It's the equivalent of assuming that the MCB represents all Muslims. Imagine if a local authority decided that it needed to get the approval of the local Catholic Archbishop and a certificate from him on how it behaves to and talks about Catholics in its employment.
It creates a conflict of interest. Stonewall campaigns for a change in the law - which it is entitled to do - but it is also using its position as a sort of referee (in its own mind) as a way of getting firms to behave as if the law had already been changed in the way that it wants. This is not on - not least because it is trying to stop any debate on whether those changes are necessary or welcome or indeed whether there may be harmful consequences from them.
Finally, I dislike the Mafia-style protection racket going on: if you don't do as we want we'll publicly shame you. Who made them judge and jury?
I think they pretty much are the equivalent of 4 year olds after a blue peter badge. They see this as a good thing to have and something of value, so they want it.
You are right about it’s view on uniformity of thinking. Just look at how the gay community treats those who don’t go along with the groupthink. People who, if it was not for them truly standing up against prejudice, then these people wouldn’t be able to hold their partners hand in public or show them affection without attracting derision or violence.
It’s totally insidious.
And creates legal risks if they interpret the law incorrectly (see, for instance, Nottinghamshire NHS wrongly stating that the Equality Act protects gender and not mentioning sex on one of its training courses) and as a result discriminate against staff or patients.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDsCeC6f0zc&ab_channel=KLF
During cross-examination on Wednesday, Webbe, who was suspended by the Labour party, said she had never met Ms Merritt and "there was no reason for any falling out".
She claimed a recorded phone call on 25 April in which Webbe was heard saying "get out of my relationship" 11 times was taken out of context.
Webbe said it had been during a heated argument with Mr Thomas over breaching the Covid-19 lockdown with Ms Merritt.
"I simply called her and asked her not to break lockdown with Lester," she said.
"She was breaking the rules and I was just pointing it out. I'm the victim."
Webbe claimed she was a victim of "domestic abuse and coercive control" and was being "goaded and gaslighted" during the row, which resulted in police being called after a neighbour reported her screams.
She confirmed she was still in a relationship with Mr Thomas and they were engaged.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-58900981
https://davidallengreen.com/2021/10/a-hard-look-at-the-latest-brexit-speech-of-lord-frost/
is a classic.
My nomination for the country with the most turbulent political year in 2021 would be Bulgaria which faces its third General Election on November 14th. In addition, as well as electing a new National Assembly (240 seats), they are also electing a new President.
The latest polling for the National Assembly election as follows:
Changes from July 2021:
GERB-SDS: 23.1% (-0.4)
Coalition for Bulgaria: 16.8% (+3.4)
We Continue the Change: 15.8% (+15.8)
Democratic Bulgaria: 10.9% (-1.7)
There is Such a Nation: 10.4% (-13.7)
Movement for Rights and Freedoms: 9.3% (-1.4)
Stand Up Bulgaria!: 3.2% (-1.8)
Revival: 2.9% (-0.1)
Bulgarian National Movement: 2.1% (-1.0)
The big change since July has been the creation of We Continue the Change which was formed on September 19th based on three small existing parties and the caretaker economy and finance ministers. It has taken off an emerged as a new challenger to the conservative GERB and the leftish Coalition for Bulgaria.
The other big event has been the spectacular collapse of There is Such a Nation (ITN) who outpolled GERB in July and won the most seats (65) in the National Assembly. However, the party's leader, Slavi Trifonov, basically refused to work with any other party and used Facebook as his primary communication medium (a change from Twitter I suppose).
It also emerged ITN had close links with the NDSV, the party set up in 2001 as a personal vehicle for the former Prime Minister Simeon von Saxe-Coburg Gotha (so related to our royal family I believe). Simeon was only six when his father, Boris III, died in 1943 and a regency acted for him until the country was liberated by the Red Army.
In February 1945, Simeon's three regents were removed and executed and in 1946 the monarchy abolished. Simeon and his family ended up in Spain in 1951.
Edit: @Philip_Thompson beat me to it makes the same point above.
I was once told, in a discussion on this issue. If my wife identified as male then I’d be in a homosexual relationship as a consequence !!
I remember reading about Simeon. Can't be many former royals who end up leading their countries.
And then, as you say, military dictatorships, etc.
I cannot remember the EU saying there were problems when they promoted their settlement
Time to move on from attempts at point scoring
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/oct/13/amnesty-wants-meeting-with-premier-league-over-newcastle-takeover
"Everybody in the world needs to do this," the [Shatner] told Mr Bezos after landing back on Earth. "It was unbelievable."
In tears, he added: "What you have given me is the most profound experience. I'm so filled with emotion about what just happened. I hope I never recover from this. I hope I can retain what I feel now. I don't want to lose it."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58885555
The US and China were not involved in Brexit as far as I known
1. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1448289527030812681?s=21 - on Levelling Up
and
2. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1447490267892830215?s=21 - on sheep but really about what going green means.
You could of course make laws which make it illegal to be sexually attracted to or sexually active only with the same sex. But this is hardly a liberal or progressive position. Though - oddly and, frankly, shamefully - attacking lesbians as phobic for not wanting to have sex with men with penises is coming quite close to this. It is a curious position for a supposedly pro-gay charity to be adopting.
- Both the UK and Ireland agreed the GFA
- Subsequently both nations ratified the Lisbon Treaty incorporating Article 50 of the TEU
- Therefore both nations recognised that Article 50 could be invoked
- The people of the UK democratically voted to invoke Article 50
- The Parliament of the UK democratically chose to invoke it.
Brexit is no more and no less than the democratic choice of the UK. A democratic choice enabled by Ireland as well as the EU in ratifying the Lisbon Treaty. And yet we have the outrage of people saying things like "The GFA should have stopped Brexit". Its disgusting.If the GFA is incompatible with democracy then the GFA needs to be updated, not democracy.
What was interesting about it? Was it reporting on mass unemployment and everything else "Project Fear" said would happen?
The fact is that Burke was in the House of Commons for 28 years, called himself an Englishman, and lived on this side of the channel for most of his life.
I think that's DAG in full Captain Mainwaring mode. Which may make him happy.
Stunt aside Bezos and others are really achieving things.
But my summation seems to be how some groups operate. Change the law, change the thinking.
Japan votes on October 31st - there are 465 seats in the Diet. The LDP won 290 last time on about a third of the vote and the new Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida, is seeking his own mandate. The Constitutional Democrats (the original party plus a couple of others since the last election) have 113 seats.
Looking at the polls, I can't see much alternative to another LDP landslide - the new PM isn't as popular as Taro Kono, who stood against Kishida in the recent LDP leadership election. However, with the government's approval rating at 63%, it's hard to see a big mood for change.
A number of people killed and injured in a bow and arrow attack in Norway
http://dacrechurch.com/?page_id=31
Above-the-line Mr Meeks is certainly missed on here.
Answer, not necessarily. The rot had already set in by the 1930s - Peron just made it worse, although his first few years were relatively successful. The diversion from a solid base in agriculture was certainly to blame, as you point out, plus intermittent military coups.
I think Johnson may end up doing less damage than Peron simply because he lacks that man's energy. Levelling Up is just a slogan to Johnson. Peron tried to put into practice.
I say Brexit exacerbated the problems for the UK, but if we focus on the one issue of Northern Ireland, it always was going to be incredibly delicate, which is why Mrs May was so cautious. Johnson was prepared to drive a coach and horses through the Good Friday Agreement, his compromise of the NI Protocol failed. It was inevitsble it would fail because on Johnson's tes he had to pick a side.
...
Www.terfisaslur.com has many appalling examples.
You may appreciate this from the guardian. I am surprised they printed it.
Second, there is plenty of accurate training information out there about the relevant legislation, best practice etc without needing to involve a charity let alone one which scores you as if you have to pass their exam.
It also mistakenly assumes two very damaging things: (1) that all gay people (or any other minority) all think in the same way or have exactly the same interests - a dubious assumption; and (2) that only one organisation can and does and should represent them and should be seen as their only spokesman. It's the equivalent of assuming that the MCB represents all Muslims. Imagine if a local authority decided that it needed to get the approval of the local Catholic Archbishop and a certificate from him on how it behaves to and talks about Catholics in its employment.
It creates a conflict of interest. Stonewall campaigns for a change in the law - which it is entitled to do - but it is also using its position as a sort of referee (in its own mind) as a way of getting firms to behave as if the law had already been changed in the way that it wants. This is not on - not least because it is trying to stop any debate on whether those changes are necessary or welcome or indeed whether there may be harmful consequences from them.
Finally, I dislike the Mafia-style protection racket going on: if you don't do as we want we'll publicly shame you. Who made them judge and jury?
Time to move on from attempts at point scoring’
Lol, the Norn ‘Now is not the time for soundbites’ award goes to..
But of course it is Frost that doesn't do his homework!
You cannot change biology.
King Canute taught us that.
Any law which is fundamentally out of line with reality will not last long in practice, will often be broken and will likely cause a great deal of misery while it exists.
Laws making homosexuality illegal, for instance.
There are loads of castles near Newcastle tho
They would probably argue that as the UK was leaving, the border should be its problem rather than Ireland's. The UK didn't necessarily have to accept Ireland would prevail, but ultimately both May and Johnson did.
Today’s rich men’s playthings have a good chance of becoming the next generation’s fun day out, maybe we’ll go to space instead of go-karting and kite surfing for a stag do? I’m about 25 years from retirement, would be an awesome present to myself instead of a bloody carriage clock.
That's what puzzled me.
But he's not British apparently. I'm guessing David Allen Green doesn't think immigrants can be properly a part of this country even if they spend almost all their lives living in Britain. What a racist prat. 🤦♂️
You are right about it’s view on uniformity of thinking. Just look at how the gay community treats those who don’t go along with the groupthink. People who, if it was not for them truly standing up against prejudice, then these people wouldn’t be able to hold their partners hand in public or show them affection without attracting derision or violence.
It’s totally insidious.
I didn't feel too bad about this. The lawn needed cutting. Sheep used to do this job before lawnmowers and no-one was living at the house anyway. And it kept the lambs temporarily away from my plants.
Who is this "gay community" of whom you refer? How is its membership determined? Is its leadership democratically elected? Who are its representatives?
The "gay community" doesn't treat anyone in any way with regards to groupthink any more than the "blonde community" or the "freckles" community does.
Stonewall and its ilk represent a teeny tiny fraction of "the gay community" almost all of whom are nothing more or less than perfectly normal individuals with their own opinions and beliefs that just so happen to be gay.
We shouldn't recognise anyone who deems themselves self-appointed guardians of a "community". Let alone that hideous phrase a "community leader".
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/totaltradebalanceuktraderevisions
with the UK's trade balance improving by £7bn in 2019, £16bn in 2020 and £3bn in 2021H1.
Also seems such a dude. Shame. GET BETTER
"But I got my Rainbow badge" will not help then.
The ONS said economic growth fell by 0.1% in July compared with initial estimates of 0.1% growth.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58894904