politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » EU and Whose Army?
Comments
-
Go on a low carb diet and drink G&T, VAT.alex. said:
I’m quite keen to lose some weight. Unfortunately only alcohol shortages might resolve that.Scott_P said:
He put up the price of petrol.steve_garner said:I reckon Macron thought likewise recently.
You think Brits are going to cheer food shortages?0 -
Is that not basically the present situation?alex. said:IRish backstop: just for the sake of saying it, my opinion is that the big error (from both sides) on the backstop is to effectively define it in terms of a solution rather than a problem. What should have happened is that both sides should have worked hard on a mutually acceptable definition of the problem that the backstop was designed to resolve.
The withdrawal agreement solution (customs union) would have then been included as a solution to the problem but not THE solution. As long as an alternative solution was worked on and proven to be workable (adjudicated upon as necessary by an agreed independent third part) the U.K. would not be tied into the existing solution, only the commitment.(to resolve the problem, as defined)
The backstop only comes into action in the absence of a different solution.0 -
Ultimately is the key there. It may well pass in March if nowt else turns up. But almost anything could happen in the meantime. And almost anyone could be leading the country by then.nielh said:
This is why I think MP's might well end up ultimately voting for the deal, despite their pronouncements to the contrary. The only other realistic option is to revoke article 50.Cyclefree said:PART TWO
We are a Parliamentary democracy - or so all those Brexiteers told us - not some Ruritanian country in the 1930's where the Will manifests itself as the ramblings of some ignorant but fluent chancer.
MPs need to live up to their responsibilities. If they think the course of action the country has embarked on is the wrong one, then they need to say so, to explain the limits of what is or is not achievable and what the consequences are, to speak truth to power and that includes speaking some hard truths to the British people about what is or is not achievable in the real world we live in now.
And the hard truth is that we cannot do exactly what we want or get all that we want. We have to earn our living and that involves making compromises with the rest of the world and our immediate neighbours in particular. Brexiteers seem utterly blind to this.
If Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally, we would be silly - if we reject the Deal on offer - not to consider this opportunity to climb back down from the window ledge we're currently standing on. And then do the hard fresh thinking that has been sorely needed for some time now about Britain's place in the world and Europe, specifically, soberly and seriously and thoughtfully.
Britain has generally been known for its pragmatism and practical approach to life - not its rigid faith in untested ideologies. Brexit seems to have been turned into such a faith. It is not very British.0 -
Scott_P said:
He put up the price of petrol.steve_garner said:I reckon Macron thought likewise recently.
You think Brits are going to cheer food shortages?</blockquote
The EU's in enough of a mess without stopping food exports to the UK. Perhaps you think ROI will take up the slack.0 -
-
It’s a total mystery why he didn’t so badly in his a-level despite going to one of the best state school in the country.Scott_P said:twitter.com/Dorianlynskey/status/1071115194791796737
Remember how brown couldn’t cope with the constant onslaught of info when he was PM leading to important documents going unsigned etc and he was a hell of a lot brighter than magic numpty.0 -
If most of our freight transport is parked in Kent then no blockade is required.Donny43 said:
There aren't going to be food shortages.Scott_P said:
He put up the price of petrol.steve_garner said:I reckon Macron thought likewise recently.
You think Brits are going to cheer food shortages?
Unless you think the EU would put up a blockade.
And if they would do that, why have we been negotiating with them?0 -
Who rules on the validity of the alternative solution?OblitusSumMe said:
Is that not basically the present situation?alex. said:IRish backstop: just for the sake of saying it, my opinion is that the big error (from both sides) on the backstop is to effectively define it in terms of a solution rather than a problem. What should have happened is that both sides should have worked hard on a mutually acceptable definition of the problem that the backstop was designed to resolve.
The withdrawal agreement solution (customs union) would have then been included as a solution to the problem but not THE solution. As long as an alternative solution was worked on and proven to be workable (adjudicated upon as necessary by an agreed independent third part) the U.K. would not be tied into the existing solution, only the commitment.(to resolve the problem, as defined)
The backstop only comes into action in the absence of a different solution.
I don’t disagree with you but it’s largely a question of presentation. The current formulation is easy to argue against if you believe that the current solution is favourable to the EU.
0 -
0
-
Labour supporters will claim it's all just clever politics by Corbyn, when it's far more likely that he and quite a lot of the people around him are thick or liars.FrancisUrquhart said:
It’s a total mystery why he didn’t so badly in his a-level despite going to one of the best state school in the country.Scott_P said:twitter.com/Dorianlynskey/status/1071115194791796737
Remember how brown couldn’t cope with the constant onslaught of info when he was PM leading to important documents going unsigned etc and he was a hell of a lot brighter than magic numpty.
He's our Trump. God help us if we are stupid enough to give him the keys to No. 10.
The Labour Party is managing the improbable and making the ERG look sensible. This is bad in case anyone hasn't figured things out.0 -
Most of our freight transport won't be parked in Kent...OblitusSumMe said:
If most of our freight transport is parked in Kent then no blockade is required.Donny43 said:
There aren't going to be food shortages.Scott_P said:
He put up the price of petrol.steve_garner said:I reckon Macron thought likewise recently.
You think Brits are going to cheer food shortages?
Unless you think the EU would put up a blockade.
And if they would do that, why have we been negotiating with them?0 -
Of all the reasons to lament current events that sort of thing, which crops up a lot, is pathetic. Nations have to deal with their internal shit sometimes and it isnt pretty so the fuck what? Foreign governments deal with others based on cold calculating assessment of outcomes. Sort out the outcome as best you can and it doesn't matter if it provides comedic fodder. I find the constant bemoaning of such to be itself a bit comical and placing national self worth in the assessment of others. What, other nations and their politics have never gotten stupid? Give me a break.Scott_P said:
0 -
Amber Rudd back in Cabinet for 1 week and already undermining May. But I read consistently that it is those nasty brexiteers that are the problem.CarlottaVance said:Pike at it again:
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1071171771389349890?s=200 -
One of the most annoying things about this debate is the idea that various solutions can be finalised in March. If we get to March without a deal then no deal will effectively already have happened. Businesses aren’t going to be waiting around until then to fully activate their contingency plans.dixiedean said:
Ultimately is the key there. It may well pass in March if nowt else turns up. But almost anything could happen in the meantime. And almost anyone could be leading the country by then.nielh said:
This is why I think MP's might well end up ultimately voting for the deal, despite their pronouncements to the contrary. The only other realistic option is to revoke article 50.Cyclefree said:PART TWO
We are a Parliamentary democracy - or so all those Brexiteers told us - not some Ruritanian country in the 1930's where the Will manifests itself as the ramblings of some ignorant but fluent chancer.
MPs need to live up to their responsibilities. If they think the course of action the country has embarked on is the wrong one, then they need to say so, to explain the limits of what is or is not achievable and what the consequences are, to speak truth to power and that includes speaking some hard truths to the British people about what is or is not achievable in the real world we live in now.
And the hard truth is that we cannot do exactly what we want or get all that we want. We have to earn our living and that involves making compromises with the rest of the world and our immediate neighbours in particular. Brexiteers seem utterly blind to this.
If Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally, we would be silly - if we reject the Deal on offer - not to consider this opportunity to climb back down from the window ledge we're currently standing on. And then do the hard fresh thinking that has been sorely needed for some time now about Britain's place in the world and Europe, specifically, soberly and seriously and thoughtfully.
Britain has generally been known for its pragmatism and practical approach to life - not its rigid faith in untested ideologies. Brexit seems to have been turned into such a faith. It is not very British.
0 -
Another idiot. If he doesn't want her to hold the vote bloody QUIT already.CarlottaVance said:Pike at it again:
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1071171771389349890?s=20
No no it'll be fine, well just not vote on it. Problem solved right?
0 -
Typed on a phone so just, what Cyclefree said. Let’s stop putting liars and the stupid on some sort of virtue pedestal.0
-
If it does that it needs to explain why. Christ, we need some politicians with a bit of courage to speak to us as grown ups. To say that the promises were lies and unachievable, to say that some of the problems attributed to the EU are ones we can deal with ourselves, to say that some of those selling Brexit may have done so for ulterior motives or broken the law and that it is foolish to make such an important decision on the basis of a possibly illegitimate vote, to say that it is our job - as Parliamentarians - not to embark on a course of action which we think is harmful to the country etc etc.notme said:
If parliament just exercised its right to revoke article 50 and bury Brexit, the wrath would be extraordinary, you are lighting a touch paper that could take decades to put out.Beverley_C said:
+1000Cyclefree said:PART TWO
MPs need to live up to their responsibilities. If they think the course of action the country has embarked on is the wrong one, then they need to say so, to explain the limits of what is or is not achievable and what the consequences are, to speak truth to power and that includes speaking some hard truths to the British people about what is or is not achievable in the real world we live in now.
And the hard truth is that we cannot do exactly what we want or get all that we want. We have to earn our living and that involves making compromises with the rest of the world and our immediate neighbours in particular. Brexiteers seem utterly blind to this.
If Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally, we would be silly - if we reject the Deal on offer - not to consider this opportunity to climb back down from the window ledge we're currently standing on. And then do the hard fresh thinking that has been sorely needed for some time now about Britain's place in the world and Europe, specifically, soberly and seriously and thoughtfully.
Britain has generally been known for its pragmatism and practical approach to life - not its rigid faith in untested ideologies. Brexit seems to have been turned into such a faith. It is not very British.
Do you think that if a crash out Brexit occurred and it led to a recession, jobs lost etc and it turns out that some on the Brexit side were breaking the law, that that wouldn't light a touch paper that could take decades to put out? All the choices we now have are fraught with difficulty and risk. The job of Parliament is to choose the least risky option, the one that will cause least harm. Not to keep on going down one road simply because over two and a half years ago people voted in favour of something which it now turns out was unachievable and may have been obtained illegitimately.
0 -
Stunningly unfortunate timing for you there given that someone who really is in the know has said the scare stories about the ports are indeed misleading.Cyclefree said:I am so sick of people saying that what they call Project Fear Mark 2 is ridiculous.
Is it?
Pretty much everything the Brexiteers have said or promised about Brexit has turned out to be bollocks on stilts, to put it mildly. Why should we believe them when they say that it'll all turn out fine, even though those who have real knowledge about ports and roads and importing/exporting etc are saying the opposite?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/07/warnings-no-deal-ports-chaos-misleading-industry-boss-says/0 -
You do understand about capacity, permits and customs checks, I take it. No, thought not.Donny43 said:
There aren't going to be food shortages.Scott_P said:
He put up the price of petrol.steve_garner said:I reckon Macron thought likewise recently.
You think Brits are going to cheer food shortages?
Unless you think the EU would put up a blockade.
And if they would do that, why have we been negotiating with them?0 -
-
Delaying the vote is the most moronic lets run down the clock play yet.kle4 said:
Another idiot. If he doesn't want her to hold the vote bloody QUIT already.CarlottaVance said:Pike at it again:
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1071171771389349890?s=20
No no it'll be fine, well just not vote on it. Problem solved right?
Nothing's going to change, either pull the vote because the deal is dead and go straight to Plan B or hold the damn thing already.0 -
Quite. Unless we get an extension to article 50 the time for can kicking is over. At some point we’ve got to start properly planning for what happens on March 30.kle4 said:
Another idiot. If he doesn't want her to hold the vote bloody QUIT already.CarlottaVance said:Pike at it again:
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1071171771389349890?s=20
No no it'll be fine, well just not vote on it. Problem solved right?0 -
'Tim Morris, the chief executive of UK Major Ports Group, the trade body, said: “The UK’s port sector is a resilient, adaptable and highly competitive one, offering customers a range of options. We will work through the challenges of Brexit as we have done with huge changes throughout the centuries.” 'matt said:
You do understand about capacity, permits and customs checks, I take it. No, thought not.Donny43 said:
There aren't going to be food shortages.Scott_P said:
He put up the price of petrol.steve_garner said:I reckon Macron thought likewise recently.
You think Brits are going to cheer food shortages?
Unless you think the EU would put up a blockade.
And if they would do that, why have we been negotiating with them?0 -
Induvidual-1 speaks: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/10711776214452305960
-
Indeed. I may not have the confidence in plan b you do but I understand it. I genuinely don't get what those who content the vote are trying to achieve. A decision is needed, saving the gov for a day or week isn't achieving anything.Philip_Thompson said:
Delaying the vote is the most moronic lets run down the clock play yet.kle4 said:
Another idiot. If he doesn't want her to hold the vote bloody QUIT already.CarlottaVance said:Pike at it again:
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1071171771389349890?s=20
No no it'll be fine, well just not vote on it. Problem solved right?
Nothing's going to change, either pull the vote because the deal is dead and go straight to Plan B or hold the damn thing already.
0 -
Secret Services callsigns are getting a bit obvious now.Chameleon said:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1071177621445230596
But I'm sure he agrees that Individual-1 is in troubled waters. Oh wait:
"On approximately June 16, 2015, Individual-1, for whom Cohen worked at the time, began an ultimately successful campaign for President of the United States."0 -
Does this guy ever not lie?Chameleon said:Induvidual-1 speaks: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1071177621445230596
0 -
Except that what he says is consistent with what I am saying. "Working through challenges" is an elegantly euphemistic way of saying there will be problems but we will have to deal with them.Richard_Tyndall said:
Stunningly unfortunate timing for you there given that someone who really is in the know has said the scare stories about the ports are indeed misleading.Cyclefree said:I am so sick of people saying that what they call Project Fear Mark 2 is ridiculous.
Is it?
Pretty much everything the Brexiteers have said or promised about Brexit has turned out to be bollocks on stilts, to put it mildly. Why should we believe them when they say that it'll all turn out fine, even though those who have real knowledge about ports and roads and importing/exporting etc are saying the opposite?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/07/warnings-no-deal-ports-chaos-misleading-industry-boss-says/0 -
Except of course they weren't lies and they weren't unachievable. If we had a half decent PM instead of a xenophobic authoritarian who has spent much of her ministerial life trying to screw over immigrants and who consequently doesn't have the first idea about what Leave voters actually wanted, then we might have been in a position to have reasonable negotiations with the reasonable people on the other side.Cyclefree said:
If it does that it needs to explain why. Christ, we need some politicians with a bit of courage to speak to us as grown ups. To say that the promises were lies and unachievable, to say that some of the problems attributed to the EU are ones we can deal with ourselves, to say that some of those selling Brexit may have done so for ulterior motives or broken the law and that it is foolish to make such an important decision on the basis of a possibly illegitimate vote, to say that it is our job - as Parliamentarians - not to embark on a course of action which we think is harmful to the country etc etc.
Do you think that if a crash out Brexit occurred and it led to a recession, jobs lost etc and it turns out that some on the Brexit side were breaking the law, that that wouldn't light a touch paper that could take decades to put out? All the choices we now have are fraught with difficulty and risk. The job of Parliament is to choose the least risky option, the one that will cause least harm. Not to keep on going down one road simply because over two and a half years ago people voted in favour of something which it now turns out was unachievable and may have been obtained illegitimately.
Barnier has been a decent, reasonable negotiator the whole way through. It is our side - and primarily May - who have behaved like a bunch of ignorant schoolkids, not because their task was impossible but because they were unfit to hold the office in the first place.
And now we have a deal that is workable and appears to satisfy most moderates in both camps (and I don't doubt most of the heavy lifting for this was again done by Barnier and his team). But you are now claiming we should dump it all, forget democracy and go back to being the annoying thorn in the side of the EU - because for sure that is what we will continue to be.
Parliament need to pass the WA, for all its faults, and let the EU and the UK get on with negotiating our future trade arrangements.
That is the grown up thing to do.
0 -
The term "no deal" really covers two very different eventualities: a managed no-deal and a chaotic no-deal. The latter can only happen by accident - it would probably need Parliament to approve the deal this month but then some spanner to be thrown in the works later.alex. said:
One of the most annoying things about this debate is the idea that various solutions can be finalised in March. If we get to March without a deal then no deal will effectively already have happened. Businesses aren’t going to be waiting around until then to fully activate their contingency plans.dixiedean said:
Ultimately is the key there. It may well pass in March if nowt else turns up. But almost anything could happen in the meantime. And almost anyone could be leading the country by then.nielh said:
This is why I think MP's might well end up ultimately voting for the deal, despite their pronouncements to the contrary. The only other realistic option is to revoke article 50.Cyclefree said:PART TWO
We are a Parliamentary democracy - or so all those Brexiteers told us - not some Ruritanian country in the 1930's where the Will manifests itself as the ramblings of some ignorant but fluent chancer.
MPs need to live up to their responsibilities. If they think the course of action the country has embarked on is the wrong one, then they need to say so, to explain the limits of what is or is not achievable and what the consequences are, to speak truth to power and that includes speaking some hard truths to the British people about what is or is not achievable in the real world we live in now.
And the hard truth is that we cannot do exactly what we want or get all that we want. We have to earn our living and that involves making compromises with the rest of the world and our immediate neighbours in particular. Brexiteers seem utterly blind to this.
If Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally, we would be silly - if we reject the Deal on offer - not to consider this opportunity to climb back down from the window ledge we're currently standing on. And then do the hard fresh thinking that has been sorely needed for some time now about Britain's place in the world and Europe, specifically, soberly and seriously and thoughtfully.
Britain has generally been known for its pragmatism and practical approach to life - not its rigid faith in untested ideologies. Brexit seems to have been turned into such a faith. It is not very British.0 -
Hardly news.Scott_P said:
Now had they reported that Manafort had told the truth about.. anything, then that would be a headline.
0 -
That sounds like any encounter with real life to me.Cyclefree said:
Except that what he says is consistent with what I am saying. "Working through challenges" is an elegantly euphemistic way of saying there will be problems but we will have to deal with them.Richard_Tyndall said:
Stunningly unfortunate timing for you there given that someone who really is in the know has said the scare stories about the ports are indeed misleading.Cyclefree said:I am so sick of people saying that what they call Project Fear Mark 2 is ridiculous.
Is it?
Pretty much everything the Brexiteers have said or promised about Brexit has turned out to be bollocks on stilts, to put it mildly. Why should we believe them when they say that it'll all turn out fine, even though those who have real knowledge about ports and roads and importing/exporting etc are saying the opposite?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/07/warnings-no-deal-ports-chaos-misleading-industry-boss-says/0 -
I wasn't meaning to have a dig at you exactly, just pointing out that after months of nothing but unremitting tales of disaster, it was very unfortunate timing that you should post your long detailed piece just as someone started to undermine those claims.Cyclefree said:
Except that what he says is consistent with what I am saying. "Working through challenges" is an elegantly euphemistic way of saying there will be problems but we will have to deal with them.Richard_Tyndall said:
Stunningly unfortunate timing for you there given that someone who really is in the know has said the scare stories about the ports are indeed misleading.Cyclefree said:I am so sick of people saying that what they call Project Fear Mark 2 is ridiculous.
Is it?
Pretty much everything the Brexiteers have said or promised about Brexit has turned out to be bollocks on stilts, to put it mildly. Why should we believe them when they say that it'll all turn out fine, even though those who have real knowledge about ports and roads and importing/exporting etc are saying the opposite?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/07/warnings-no-deal-ports-chaos-misleading-industry-boss-says/
I would have though you would agree that "Working through challenges" and the whole tone of his comments are a very long way from the catastrophic shut downs we are being promised by Remain campaigners.0 -
It was asked at a recent general meeting of our hospital, of the Medical Director, what out "No Deal" Brexit risk assessment was. The answer was "we do not have one".MarqueeMark said:Can I just say, any politician saying Brexit will mean "people will die through lack of medicines" is utterly odious when that politician is either
a) too poor at their job to organise the supply of vital medicines with two years warning or
- infinitely worse -
b) refuses to organise that supply of vital supplies in time so that they can say "but people will die..."
They deserve eternal contempt.
The two reasons why: 1) Because we have been instructed by the DoH to do no stockpiling. 2) There is no point in doing a risk assessment where we can take no mitigating action.
0 -
Gavin Williamson is an odious inept PM wannabe! Instead of putting Tobias Elwood as Defence Secretary May made yet another error by installing that moron instead .
0 -
Does he ever actually do any presidenting in between sending all his fucking tweets?glw said:
Does this guy ever not lie?Chameleon said:Induvidual-1 speaks: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1071177621445230596
0 -
Well yes of course. I fear, though that, like Churchill's America we will only do it after exhausting every other option .alex. said:
One of the most annoying things about this debate is the idea that various solutions can be finalised in March. If we get to March without a deal then no deal will effectively already have happened. Businesses aren’t going to be waiting around until then to fully activate their contingency plans.dixiedean said:
Ultimately is the key there. It may well pass in March if nowt else turns up. But almost anything could happen in the meantime. And almost anyone could be leading the country by then.nielh said:
This is why I think MP's might well end up ultimately voting for the deal, despite their pronouncements to the contrary. The only other realistic option is to revoke article 50.Cyclefree said:PART TWO
We are a Parliamentary democracy - or so all those Brexiteers told us - not some Ruritanian country in the 1930's where the Will manifests itself as the ramblings of some ignorant but fluent chancer.
MPs need to live up to their responsibilities. If they think the course of action the country has embarked on is the wrong one, then they need to say so, to explain the limits of what is or is not achievable and what the consequences are, to speak truth to power and that includes speaking some hard truths to the British people about what is or is not achievable in the real world we live in now.
And the hard truth is that we cannot do exactly what we want or get all that we want. We have to earn our living and that involves making compromises with the rest of the world and our immediate neighbours in particular. Brexiteers seem utterly blind to this.
If Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally, we would be silly - if we reject the Deal on offer - not to consider this opportunity to climb back down from the window ledge we're currently standing on. And then do the hard fresh thinking that has been sorely needed for some time now about Britain's place in the world and Europe, specifically, soberly and seriously and thoughtfully.
Britain has generally been known for its pragmatism and practical approach to life - not its rigid faith in untested ideologies. Brexit seems to have been turned into such a faith. It is not very British.0 -
Hey those 3 hours a day of not reading reports, shouting at his staff, and asking for laws to be broken, are hard work.solarflare said:
Does he ever actually do any presidenting in between sending all his fucking tweets?glw said:
Does this guy ever not lie?Chameleon said:Induvidual-1 speaks: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1071177621445230596
0 -
He does enough damage in the 5 mins a day when he does...solarflare said:
Does he ever actually do any presidenting in between sending all his fucking tweets?glw said:
Does this guy ever not lie?Chameleon said:Induvidual-1 speaks: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1071177621445230596
0 -
A managed no deal is more spin from the ERG nutjobs , just as their new mantra Clean Global Brexit is yet more polishing of the Brexit turd !Donny43 said:
The term "no deal" really covers two very different eventualities: a managed no-deal and a chaotic no-deal. The latter can only happen by accident - it would probably need Parliament to approve the deal this month but then some spanner to be thrown in the works later.alex. said:
One of the most annoying things about this debate is the idea that various solutions can be finalised in March. If we get to March without a deal then no deal will effectively already have happened. Businesses aren’t going to be waiting around until then to fully activate their contingency plans.dixiedean said:
Ultimately is the key there. It may well pass in March if nowt else turns up. But almost anything could happen in the meantime. And almost anyone could be leading the country by then.nielh said:
This is why I think MP's might well end up ultimately voting for the deal, despite their pronouncements to the contrary. The only other realistic option is to revoke article 50.Cyclefree said:PART TWO
We are a Parliamentary democracy - or so all those Brexiteers told us - not some Ruritanian country in the 1930's where the Will manifests itself as the ramblings of some ignorant but fluent chancer.
MPs need to live up to their responsibilities. If they think the course of action the country has embarked on is the wrong one, then they need to say so, to explain the limits of what is or is not achievable and what the consequences are, to speak truth to power and that includes speaking some hard truths to the British people about what is or is not achievable in the real world we live in now.
And the hard truth is that we cannot do exactly what we want or get all that we want. We have to earn our living and that involves making compromises with the rest of the world and our immediate neighbours in particular. Brexiteers seem utterly blind to this.
If Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally, we would be silly - if we reject the Deal on offer - not to consider this opportunity to climb back down from the window ledge we're currently standing on. And then do the hard fresh thinking that has been sorely needed for some time now about Britain's place in the world and Europe, specifically, soberly and seriously and thoughtfully.
Britain has generally been known for its pragmatism and practical approach to life - not its rigid faith in untested ideologies. Brexit seems to have been turned into such a faith. It is not very British.
The UKs no deal plans rely on co operation with the EU , good luck with that with the nutjobs telling the EU to go whistle for the money they’re owed .
0 -
-
Anyone talking about "huge changes throughout the centuries" is clearly just employing feel-good rhetoric.Cyclefree said:
Except that what he says is consistent with what I am saying. "Working through challenges" is an elegantly euphemistic way of saying there will be problems but we will have to deal with them.Richard_Tyndall said:
Stunningly unfortunate timing for you there given that someone who really is in the know has said the scare stories about the ports are indeed misleading.Cyclefree said:I am so sick of people saying that what they call Project Fear Mark 2 is ridiculous.
Is it?
Pretty much everything the Brexiteers have said or promised about Brexit has turned out to be bollocks on stilts, to put it mildly. Why should we believe them when they say that it'll all turn out fine, even though those who have real knowledge about ports and roads and importing/exporting etc are saying the opposite?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/07/warnings-no-deal-ports-chaos-misleading-industry-boss-says/0 -
No it is someone reflecting real-world reality rather than Chicken Licken hysteria.williamglenn said:
Anyone talking about "huge changes throughout the centuries" is clearly just employing feel-good rhetoric.Cyclefree said:
Except that what he says is consistent with what I am saying. "Working through challenges" is an elegantly euphemistic way of saying there will be problems but we will have to deal with them.Richard_Tyndall said:
Stunningly unfortunate timing for you there given that someone who really is in the know has said the scare stories about the ports are indeed misleading.Cyclefree said:I am so sick of people saying that what they call Project Fear Mark 2 is ridiculous.
Is it?
Pretty much everything the Brexiteers have said or promised about Brexit has turned out to be bollocks on stilts, to put it mildly. Why should we believe them when they say that it'll all turn out fine, even though those who have real knowledge about ports and roads and importing/exporting etc are saying the opposite?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/07/warnings-no-deal-ports-chaos-misleading-industry-boss-says/0 -
What an earth has happened to you? You're usually quite measured.Cyclefree said:
If it does that it needs to explain why. Christ, we need some politicians with a bit of courage to speak to us as grown ups. To say that the promises were lies and unachievable, to say that some of the problems attributed to the EU are ones we can deal with ourselves, to say that some of those selling Brexit may have done so for ulterior motives or broken the law and that it is foolish to make such an important decision on the basis of a possibly illegitimate vote, to say that it is our job - as Parliamentarians - not to embark on a course of action which we think is harmful to the country etc etc.
Do you think that if a crash out Brexit occurred and it led to a recession, jobs lost etc and it turns out that some on the Brexit side were breaking the law, that that wouldn't light a touch paper that could take decades to put out? All the choices we now have are fraught with difficulty and risk. The job of Parliament is to choose the least risky option, the one that will cause least harm. Not to keep on going down one road simply because over two and a half years ago people voted in favour of something which it now turns out was unachievable and may have been obtained illegitimately.0 -
I have doubts about some of the claims of food shortages (albeit not the claims that food prices may rise significantly) for one simple reason. That food supplies in this country are almost entirely managed by the Private sector, and i expect the private sector to have been planning for months for the contingency of no deal.
In fact the obvious truth that contingency planning has been occurring is a reason to question many of the claims made about public sector predictions of the consequences of no deal. There will not, for example,be queues for weeks at Dover, for the simple reason that if going through Dover requires queues for weeks then businesses will not (attempt to) go through Dover. They will have investigated (and instigated) other solutions. It is like people claiming that Ireland will starve because they will not be able to go through Holyhead. In reality they are exploring, and implementing, alternatives that do not involve going through the UK.
On the other hand (aside from the likelihood of significant price rises) i would fear about critical functions delivered primarily by the public sector. Which is why i would focus particularly on the supply of medicine. I doubt the public sector has done anything like the quality of no deal planning of the private sector, and their planning will be largely based on "managing" no deal within existing operations, rather than changing existing operations to meet the reality of no deal Breixt.
In essence, private sector planning will involve searching for alternative routes/models to provide for their customers. Public sector planning will involve trying to clear existing routes. The former is pivoting to a new reality, the latter is crisis management.0 -
Would you want him to be?solarflare said:
Does he ever actually do any presidenting in between sending all his fucking tweets?glw said:
Does this guy ever not lie?Chameleon said:Induvidual-1 speaks: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1071177621445230596
0 -
It sounds a bit daft to me. A Tory PM is not going to resign because Labour MPs say they don't have confidence in her. Hell, a Labour leader didn't resign when a big majority of his own MPs voted no confidence in him. If Tory MPs want to get rid of her, they have a mechanism. If the whole house wants to get rid of this government, they also have a mechanism. But they can't mix up the two mechanisms; she'd just shrug it off, and rightly so. It really adds nothing to the likely defeat on the deal anyway.Black_Rook said:
Ah, just beat me to it. Suggestion is DUP might be willing to vote to censure May; this would (unlike a formal VoNC under the FTPA) be non-binding, but would be remarkable if she survived it.Scott_P said:
All this assumes firstly that the Deal is voted down, and secondly that she doesn't throw in the towel of her own accord first. And that there's actualy some substance to these rumours, of course.
If she does go then chances of a Hard Brexit go up another notch (which would please the DUP.) Office of PM likely to end up in hands of a more committed Brexiteer, in which case presumably no chance of reversing A50 without a political realignment?0 -
So you're saying it's remain or remain?Cyclefree said:
If it does that it needs to explain why. Christ, we need some politicians with a bit of courage to speak to us as grown ups. To say that the promises were lies and unachievable, to say that some of the problems attributed to the EU are ones we can deal with ourselves, to say that some of those selling Brexit may have done so for ulterior motives or broken the law and that it is foolish to make such an important decision on the basis of a possibly illegitimate vote, to say that it is our job - as Parliamentarians - not to embark on a course of action which we think is harmful to the country etc etc.notme said:
If parliament just exercised its right to revoke article 50 and bury Brexit, the wrath would be extraordinary, you are lighting a touch paper that could take decades to put out.Beverley_C said:
+1000Cyclefree said:PART TWO
MPs need to live up to their responsibilities. If they think the course of action the country has embarked on is the wrong one, then they need to say so, to explain the limits of what is or is not achievable and what the consequences are, to speak truth to power and that includes speaking some hard truths to the British people about what is or is not achievable in the real world we live in now.
And the hard truth is that we cannot do exactly what we want or get all that we want. We have to earn our living and that involves making compromises with the rest of the world and our immediate neighbours in particular. Brexiteers seem utterly blind to this.
If Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally, we would be silly - if we reject the Deal on offer - not to consider this opportunity to climb back down from the window ledge we're currently standing on. And then do the hard fresh thinking that has been sorely needed for some time now about Britain's place in the world and Europe, specifically, soberly and seriously and thoughtfully.
Britain has generally been known for its pragmatism and practical approach to life - not its rigid faith in untested ideologies. Brexit seems to have been turned into such a faith. It is not very British.
Do you think that if a crash out Brexit occurred and it led to a recession, jobs lost etc and it turns out that some on the Brexit side were breaking the law, that that wouldn't light a touch paper that could take decades to put out? All the choices we now have are fraught with difficulty and risk. The job of Parliament is to choose the least risky option, the one that will cause least harm. Not to keep on going down one road simply because over two and a half years ago people voted in favour of something which it now turns out was unachievable and may have been obtained illegitimately.0 -
People making a puddle on the floor because we're leaving a single market as part of which (just to remind people) we have a substantial trade deficit, is embarrassing. I am embarrassed for them.Philip_Thompson said:
No it is someone reflecting real-world reality rather than Chicken Licken hysteria.williamglenn said:
Anyone talking about "huge changes throughout the centuries" is clearly just employing feel-good rhetoric.Cyclefree said:
Except that what he says is consistent with what I am saying. "Working through challenges" is an elegantly euphemistic way of saying there will be problems but we will have to deal with them.Richard_Tyndall said:
Stunningly unfortunate timing for you there given that someone who really is in the know has said the scare stories about the ports are indeed misleading.Cyclefree said:I am so sick of people saying that what they call Project Fear Mark 2 is ridiculous.
Is it?
Pretty much everything the Brexiteers have said or promised about Brexit has turned out to be bollocks on stilts, to put it mildly. Why should we believe them when they say that it'll all turn out fine, even though those who have real knowledge about ports and roads and importing/exporting etc are saying the opposite?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/07/warnings-no-deal-ports-chaos-misleading-industry-boss-says/0 -
About as good at looking after IT security then....Foxy said:
It was asked at a recent general meeting of our hospital, of the Medical Director, what out "No Deal" Brexit risk assessment was. The answer was "we do not have one".MarqueeMark said:Can I just say, any politician saying Brexit will mean "people will die through lack of medicines" is utterly odious when that politician is either
a) too poor at their job to organise the supply of vital medicines with two years warning or
- infinitely worse -
b) refuses to organise that supply of vital supplies in time so that they can say "but people will die..."
They deserve eternal contempt.
The two reasons why: 1) Because we have been instructed by the DoH to do no stockpiling. 2) There is no point in doing a risk assessment where we can take no mitigating action.
But what to make of these reports then
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44672873
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/brexit-nhs-no-deal-plans-simon-stevens-matt-hancock-theresa-may-eu-final-say-a8654996.html
0 -
-
Working through challenges does not mean the sky will fall in either.Cyclefree said:
Except that what he says is consistent with what I am saying. "Working through challenges" is an elegantly euphemistic way of saying there will be problems but we will have to deal with them.Richard_Tyndall said:
Stunningly unfortunate timing for you there given that someone who really is in the know has said the scare stories about the ports are indeed misleading.Cyclefree said:I am so sick of people saying that what they call Project Fear Mark 2 is ridiculous.
Is it?
Pretty much everything the Brexiteers have said or promised about Brexit has turned out to be bollocks on stilts, to put it mildly. Why should we believe them when they say that it'll all turn out fine, even though those who have real knowledge about ports and roads and importing/exporting etc are saying the opposite?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/07/warnings-no-deal-ports-chaos-misleading-industry-boss-says/
Mervyn King amongst others has said that (a) this government has been negligent in its approach to brexit and (b) these doom laden projections are worst case scenarios based on ludicrous assumptions.
There will be problems, they will be May and her teams fault but they will be resolved.
0 -
0
-
LOLFloater said:Mervyn King amongst others has said that (a) this government has been negligent in its approach to brexit and (b) these doom laden projections are worst case scenarios based on ludicrous assumptions.
Mervyn King, an expert on both "negligent in its approach" and "worst case scenarios based on ludicrous assumptions" that then materialised...0 -
Do you mean we won't run out of Mars bars after all? Thank the Lord, our children's staple diet may yet be saved.Floater said:
Working through challenges does not mean the sky will fall in either.Cyclefree said:
Except that what he says is consistent with what I am saying. "Working through challenges" is an elegantly euphemistic way of saying there will be problems but we will have to deal with them.Richard_Tyndall said:
Stunningly unfortunate timing for you there given that someone who really is in the know has said the scare stories about the ports are indeed misleading.Cyclefree said:I am so sick of people saying that what they call Project Fear Mark 2 is ridiculous.
Is it?
Pretty much everything the Brexiteers have said or promised about Brexit has turned out to be bollocks on stilts, to put it mildly. Why should we believe them when they say that it'll all turn out fine, even though those who have real knowledge about ports and roads and importing/exporting etc are saying the opposite?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/07/warnings-no-deal-ports-chaos-misleading-industry-boss-says/
Mervyn King amongst others has said that (a) this government has been negligent in its approach to brexit and (b) these doom laden projections are worst case scenarios based on ludicrous assumptions.
There will be problems, they will be May and her teams fault but they will be resolved.0 -
Resolved, but at a cost.Floater said:
Working through challenges does not mean the sky will fall in either.Cyclefree said:
Except that what he says is consistent with what I am saying. "Working through challenges" is an elegantly euphemistic way of saying there will be problems but we will have to deal with them.Richard_Tyndall said:
Stunningly unfortunate timing for you there given that someone who really is in the know has said the scare stories about the ports are indeed misleading.Cyclefree said:I am so sick of people saying that what they call Project Fear Mark 2 is ridiculous.
Is it?
Pretty much everything the Brexiteers have said or promised about Brexit has turned out to be bollocks on stilts, to put it mildly. Why should we believe them when they say that it'll all turn out fine, even though those who have real knowledge about ports and roads and importing/exporting etc are saying the opposite?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/07/warnings-no-deal-ports-chaos-misleading-industry-boss-says/
Mervyn King amongst others has said that (a) this government has been negligent in its approach to brexit and (b) these doom laden projections are worst case scenarios based on ludicrous assumptions.
There will be problems, they will be May and her teams fault but they will be resolved.
There is a reason why many of the forecasts about consequences of various shades of Brexit focus on things like cumulative GDP losses over several decades. Because they don't like to quantify the short term effects of upheaval. Within the long term forecasts there is plenty of scope for devastating recessions and/or massive booms. Which will have real effects on real people, regardless of what the forecasts say over 20 years
0 -
I could live with the WA or Remain. What I don’t want is a crash out No Deal, which is where we are headed.Richard_Tyndall said:
Except of course they weren't lies and they weren't unachievable. If we had a half decent PM instead of a xenophobic authoritarian who has spent much of her ministerial life trying to screw over immigrants and who consequently doesn't have the first idea about what Leave voters actually wanted, then we might have been in a position to have reasonable negotiations with the reasonable people on the other side.Cyclefree said:
If it does that it needs to explain why. Christ, we need some politicians with a bit of courage to speak to us as grown ups. To say that the promises were lies and unachievable, to say that some of the problems attributed to the EU are ones we can deal with ourselves, to say that some of those selling Brexit may have done so for ulterior motives or broken the law and that it is foolish to make such an important decision on the basis of a possibly illegitimate vote, to say that it is our job - as Parliamentarians - not to embark on a course of action which we think is harmful to the country etc etc.
Do you think that if a crash out Brexit occurred and it led to a recession, jobs lost etc and it turns out that some on the Brexit side were breaking the law, that that wouldn't light a touch paper that could take decades to put out? All the choices we now have are fraught with difficulty and risk. The job of Parliament is to choose the least risky option, the one that will cause least harm. Not to keep on going down one road simply because over two and a half years ago people voted in favour of something which it now turns out was unachievable and may have been obtained illegitimately.
Barnier has been a decent, reasonable negotiator the whole way through. It is our side - and primarily May - who have behaved like a bunch of ignorant schoolkids, not because their task was impossible but because they were unfit to hold the office in the first place.
And now we have a deal that is workable and appears to satisfy most moderates in both camps (and I don't doubt most of the heavy lifting for this was again done by Barnier and his team). But you are now claiming we should dump it all, forget democracy and go back to being the annoying thorn in the side of the EU - because for sure that is what we will continue to be.
Parliament need to pass the WA, for all its faults, and let the EU and the UK get on with negotiating our future trade arrangements.
That is the grown up thing to do.
I agree that May was not up to the job.
We will have to disagree about some of the statements made during the referendum campaign. Like you I think FoM is on the whole a good thing.0 -
QTWTAINsolarflare said:
Does he ever actually do any presidenting in between sending all his fucking tweets?glw said:
Does this guy ever not lie?Chameleon said:Induvidual-1 speaks: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1071177621445230596
0 -
Thank fuck. Imagine the shit we'd been in if Toadus actually tried to *do* something.numbertwelve said:
QTWTAINsolarflare said:
Does he ever actually do any presidenting in between sending all his fucking tweets?glw said:
Does this guy ever not lie?Chameleon said:Induvidual-1 speaks: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1071177621445230596
0 -
No - either the Deal or Remain.kle4 said:
So you're saying it's remain or remain?Cyclefree said:
If it does that it needs to explain why. Christ, we need some politicians with a bit of courage to speak to us as grown ups. To say that the promises were lies and unachievable, to say that some of the problems attributed to the EU are ones we can deal with ourselves, to say that some of those selling Brexit may have done so for ulterior motives or broken the law and that it is foolish to make such an important decision on the basis of a possibly illegitimate vote, to say that it is our job - as Parliamentarians - not to embark on a course of action which we think is harmful to the country etc etc.notme said:
If parliament just exercised its right to revoke article 50 and bury Brexit, the wrath would be extraordinary, you are lighting a touch paper that could take decades to put out.Beverley_C said:
+1000Cyclefree said:PART TWO
If Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally, we would be silly - if we reject the Deal on offer - not to consider this opportunity to climb back down from the window ledge we're currently standing on. And then do the hard fresh thinking that has been sorely needed for some time now about Britain's place in the world and Europe, specifically, soberly and seriously and thoughtfully.
Britain has generally been known for its pragmatism and practical approach to life - not its rigid faith in untested ideologies. Brexit seems to have been turned into such a faith. It is not very British.
Do you think that if a crash out Brexit occurred and it led to a recession, jobs lost etc and it turns out that some on the Brexit side were breaking the law, that that wouldn't light a touch paper that could take decades to put out? All the choices we now have are fraught with difficulty and risk. The job of Parliament is to choose the least risky option, the one that will cause least harm. Not to keep on going down one road simply because over two and a half years ago people voted in favour of something which it now turns out was unachievable and may have been obtained illegitimately.
But I fear we are heading for a No Deal Brexit, which will cause harm here and damage our relationships with our neighbours.
And I see a Parliament which is abrogating its responsibilities, a self-indulgent Tory party and a cowardly and delusional opposition.0 -
I am setting out in measured tones my exasperation with the way our government and legislature are behaving.Luckyguy1983 said:
What an earth has happened to you? You're usually quite measured.Cyclefree said:
If it does that it needs to explain why. Christ, we need some politicians with a bit of courage to speak to us as grown ups. To say that the promises were lies and unachievable, to say that some of the problems attributed to the EU are ones we can deal with ourselves, to say that some of those selling Brexit may have done so for ulterior motives or broken the law and that it is foolish to make such an important decision on the basis of a possibly illegitimate vote, to say that it is our job - as Parliamentarians - not to embark on a course of action which we think is harmful to the country etc etc.
Do you think that if a crash out Brexit occurred and it led to a recession, jobs lost etc and it turns out that some on the Brexit side were breaking the law, that that wouldn't light a touch paper that could take decades to put out? All the choices we now have are fraught with difficulty and risk. The job of Parliament is to choose the least risky option, the one that will cause least harm. Not to keep on going down one road simply because over two and a half years ago people voted in favour of something which it now turns out was unachievable and may have been obtained illegitimately.0 -
Labours position in the polls is a little better than their current percentage . The Greens are polling quite high at around 4 to 5 % across recent results . Come any election it’s likely there’d be movement towards Labour in key seats .0
-
The Brexiteer dipshits voted for no deal. They voted for chaos, economic disaster, ruined relationships with trading partners, and xenophobia.Cyclefree said:
I am setting out in measured tones my exasperation with the way our government and legislature are behaving.Luckyguy1983 said:
What an earth has happened to you? You're usually quite measured.Cyclefree said:
If it does that it needs to explain why. Christ, we need some politicians with a bit of courage to speak to us as grown ups. To say that the promises were lies and unachievable, to say that some of the problems attributed to the EU are ones we can deal with ourselves, to say that some of those selling Brexit may have done so for ulterior motives or broken the law and that it is foolish to make such an important decision on the basis of a possibly illegitimate vote, to say that it is our job - as Parliamentarians - not to embark on a course of action which we think is harmful to the country etc etc.
Do you think that if a crash out Brexit occurred and it led to a recession, jobs lost etc and it turns out that some on the Brexit side were breaking the law, that that wouldn't light a touch paper that could take decades to put out? All the choices we now have are fraught with difficulty and risk. The job of Parliament is to choose the least risky option, the one that will cause least harm. Not to keep on going down one road simply because over two and a half years ago people voted in favour of something which it now turns out was unachievable and may have been obtained illegitimately.
It's not for Parliament to stand in the way of the will of the people, no matter how rabid, pig-ignorant and stultifyingly ill-informed it may be.0 -
Yes it is.grabcocque said:It's not for Parliament to stand in the way of the will of the people, no matter how rabid, pig-ignorant and stultifyingly ill-informed it may be.
0 -
0
-
The thing is, unless we let the gammons and their dumbass Brexit Buccaneer enablers own the consequences of their actions, the simpletons will just do it again.williamglenn said:
Yes it is.grabcocque said:It's not for Parliament to stand in the way of the will of the people, no matter how rabid, pig-ignorant and stultifyingly ill-informed it may be.
They voted for chaos, let them have chaos.
0 -
Guys, Theresa has started hearing voices in her head.
https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/1071163335972978689
Because whoever she thinks is telling her to "get on with it" are definitely not real.0 -
Given that Mervyn King was the BoE Governor when we had our first bank run for a century and a half, in part because of his failure to live up to his responsibilities, I’m not sure how much value I’d place on what he says.Floater said:
Working through challenges does not mean the sky will fall in either.Cyclefree said:
Except that what he says is consistent with what I am saying. "Working through challenges" is an elegantly euphemistic way of saying there will be problems but we will have to deal with them.Richard_Tyndall said:
Stunningly unfortunate timing for you there given that someone who really is in the know has said the scare stories about the ports are indeed misleading.Cyclefree said:I am so sick of people saying that what they call Project Fear Mark 2 is ridiculous.
Is it?
Pretty much everything the Brexiteers have said or promised about Brexit has turned out to be bollocks on stilts, to put it mildly. Why should we believe them when they say that it'll all turn out fine, even though those who have real knowledge about ports and roads and importing/exporting etc are saying the opposite?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/07/warnings-no-deal-ports-chaos-misleading-industry-boss-says/
Mervyn King amongst others has said that (a) this government has been negligent in its approach to brexit and (b) these doom laden projections are worst case scenarios based on ludicrous assumptions.
There will be problems, they will be May and her teams fault but they will be resolved.
Problems can always - eventually - be resolved. But that is to miss the point. It is what the cost of doing so is, both the direct cost and the opportunity cost and whether it might have been more sensible to avoid having the problems in the first place.0 -
Yes and 20 per cent of that is cars. How does leaving the EU help, unless HMG has secret plans to recreate British Leyland? We have a trade surplus in services and a larger deficit in goods. By what mechanism does Brexit improve either position? It might. But does government have any plans to, say, change procurement rules to favour home suppliers, or block foreign takeovers? I doubt it. And that is betting without Liam Fox's fantasy FTAs to increase chlorinated chicken imports.Luckyguy1983 said:
People making a puddle on the floor because we're leaving a single market as part of which (just to remind people) we have a substantial trade deficit, is embarrassing. I am embarrassed for them.Philip_Thompson said:
No it is someone reflecting real-world reality rather than Chicken Licken hysteria.williamglenn said:
Anyone talking about "huge changes throughout the centuries" is clearly just employing feel-good rhetoric.Cyclefree said:
Except that what he says is consistent with what I am saying. "Working through challenges" is an elegantly euphemistic way of saying there will be problems but we will have to deal with them.Richard_Tyndall said:
Stunningly unfortunate timing for you there given that someone who really is in the know has said the scare stories about the ports are indeed misleading.Cyclefree said:I am so sick of people saying that what they call Project Fear Mark 2 is ridiculous.
Is it?
Pretty much everything the Brexiteers have said or promised about Brexit has turned out to be bollocks on stilts, to put it mildly. Why should we believe them when they say that it'll all turn out fine, even though those who have real knowledge about ports and roads and importing/exporting etc are saying the opposite?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/07/warnings-no-deal-ports-chaos-misleading-industry-boss-says/0 -
Well, The President does tweet great job references.solarflare said:
Does he ever actually do any presidenting in between sending all his fucking tweets?glw said:
Does this guy ever not lie?Chameleon said:Induvidual-1 speaks: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1071177621445230596
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1071132880368132096
0 -
God I hope not!solarflare said:
Does he ever actually do any presidenting in between sending all his fucking tweets?glw said:
Does this guy ever not lie?Chameleon said:Induvidual-1 speaks: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1071177621445230596
0 -
I well remember how this clueless King Knut continued to raise the base rate in 2007, even as the Global Financial Crisis took hold. Reality soon hit him then, as it will again if we go No-deal.Scott_P said:
LOLFloater said:Mervyn King amongst others has said that (a) this government has been negligent in its approach to brexit and (b) these doom laden projections are worst case scenarios based on ludicrous assumptions.
Mervyn King, an expert on both "negligent in its approach" and "worst case scenarios based on ludicrous assumptions" that then materialised...0 -
I don't disagree with anything you say, I merely scoff at the great mass of commenters who seem to think we have some privileged and advantageous position within the current set up. We don't. In every respect, the EU made us poorer. One could argue it was designed to do so. The way people talk it's like we're Germany leaving it.DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes and 20 per cent of that is cars. How does leaving the EU help, unless HMG has secret plans to recreate British Leyland? We have a trade surplus in services and a larger deficit in goods. By what mechanism does Brexit improve either position? It might. But does government have any plans to, say, change procurement rules to favour home suppliers, or block foreign takeovers? I doubt it. And that is betting without Liam Fox's fantasy FTAs to increase chlorinated chicken imports.Luckyguy1983 said:
People making a puddle on the floor because we're leaving a single market as part of which (just to remind people) we have a substantial trade deficit, is embarrassing. I am embarrassed for them.Philip_Thompson said:
No it is someone reflecting real-world reality rather than Chicken Licken hysteria.williamglenn said:
Anyone talking about "huge changes throughout the centuries" is clearly just employing feel-good rhetoric.Cyclefree said:
Except that what he says is consistent with what I am saying. "Working through challenges" is an elegantly euphemistic way of saying there will be problems but we will have to deal with them.Richard_Tyndall said:
Stunningly unfortunate timing for you there given that someone who really is in the know has said the scare stories about the ports are indeed misleading.Cyclefree said:I am so sick of people saying that what they call Project Fear Mark 2 is ridiculous.
Is it?
Pretty much everything the Brexiteers have said or promised about Brexit has turned out to be bollocks on stilts, to put it mildly. Why should we believe them when they say that it'll all turn out fine, even though those who have real knowledge about ports and roads and importing/exporting etc are saying the opposite?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/07/warnings-no-deal-ports-chaos-misleading-industry-boss-says/0 -
Tories and Labour tied on 38% each with Mori and Kantar today.nico67 said:Labours position in the polls is a little better than their current percentage . The Greens are polling quite high at around 4 to 5 % across recent results . Come any election it’s likely there’d be movement towards Labour in key seats .
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1071085637070192641?s=20
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1071131284385251330?s=20
Electoral Calculus makes it Tories 296, Labour 274, LD 18, SNP 40 with both polls, so Tories largest party and likely with a majority in England but Corbyn could still be PM with the SNP backing him and the LDs abstaining on confidence and supply0 -
King is certainly very bitter. Perhaps that’s related to the current Governor having the influence he thought was his by right but was taken away. Perhaps it’s because the current Governor isn’t British.Cyclefree said:
Given that Mervyn King was the BoE Governor when we had our first bank run for a century and a half, in part because of his failure to live up to his responsibilities, I’m not sure how much value I’d place on what he says.Floater said:
Working through challenges does not mean the sky will fall in either.Cyclefree said:
Except that what he says is consistent with what I am saying. "Working through challenges" is an elegantly euphemistic way of saying there will be problems but we will have to deal with them.Richard_Tyndall said:
Stunningly unfortunate timing for you there given that someone who really is in the know has said the scare stories about the ports are indeed misleading.Cyclefree said:I am so sick of people saying that what they call Project Fear Mark 2 is ridiculous.
Is it?
Pretty much everything the Brexiteers have said or promised about Brexit has turned out to be bollocks on stilts, to put it mildly. Why should we believe them when they say that it'll all turn out fine, even though those who have real knowledge about ports and roads and importing/exporting etc are saying the opposite?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/07/warnings-no-deal-ports-chaos-misleading-industry-boss-says/
Mervyn King amongst others has said that (a) this government has been negligent in its approach to brexit and (b) these doom laden projections are worst case scenarios based on ludicrous assumptions.
There will be problems, they will be May and her teams fault but they will be resolved.
Problems can always - eventually - be resolved. But that is to miss the point. It is what the cost of doing so is, both the direct cost and the opportunity cost and whether it might have been more sensible to avoid having the problems in the first place.0 -
"It has emerged that Mrs May has told No10 aides she will make a final decision on whether to have the showdown on Monday after a final “stocktake” once MPs are back from their constituencies."grabcocque said:Can somebody explain the downside?
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1071171771389349890
So, the vote is off then...0 -
The_Woodpecker said:
I well remember how this clueless King Knut continued to raise the base rate in 2007, even as the Global Financial Crisis took hold. Reality soon hit him then, as it will again if we go No-deal.Scott_P said:
LOLFloater said:Mervyn King amongst others has said that (a) this government has been negligent in its approach to brexit and (b) these doom laden projections are worst case scenarios based on ludicrous assumptions.
Mervyn King, an expert on both "negligent in its approach" and "worst case scenarios based on ludicrous assumptions" that then materialised...
The ECB has nothing to be proud about in that respect.0 -
"I feel no sympathy. I repeat, I FEEL NO SYMPATHY!! The German people chose their fate. That may surprise some people. Don't fool yourself. We didn't force the German people. They gave us a mandate, and now their little throats are being cut!"grabcocque said:
The thing is, unless we let the gammons and their dumbass Brexit Buccaneer enablers own the consequences of their actions, the simpletons will just do it again.williamglenn said:
Yes it is.grabcocque said:It's not for Parliament to stand in the way of the will of the people, no matter how rabid, pig-ignorant and stultifyingly ill-informed it may be.
They voted for chaos, let them have chaos.0 -
If the vote is off then bets are off. Monday is also the day we expect the European Court ruling on revoking Article 50.rottenborough said:
"It has emerged that Mrs May has told No10 aides she will make a final decision on whether to have the showdown on Monday after a final “stocktake” once MPs are back from their constituencies."grabcocque said:Can somebody explain the downside?
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1071171771389349890
So, the vote is off then...0 -
Given her modus operandi, there is no way she will hold this vote.DecrepitJohnL said:
If the vote is off then bets are off. Monday is also the day we expect the European Court ruling on revoking Article 50.rottenborough said:
"It has emerged that Mrs May has told No10 aides she will make a final decision on whether to have the showdown on Monday after a final “stocktake” once MPs are back from their constituencies."grabcocque said:Can somebody explain the downside?
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1071171771389349890
So, the vote is off then...
By middle of next week we will be back where we were. She will be dashing to Brussels to do another deal etc etc.0 -
I’m not sure you understand a risk assessment if you think there are no mitigating action for no deal. You might do a risk assessment for an outdoor event and a risk could be inclement weather. It would not be acceptable to say “nothing we can do about the weather - we’re not God”. You would be expected to consider what the risks were and what you could do to mitigate.Foxy said:
It was asked at a recent general meeting of our hospital, of the Medical Director, what out "No Deal" Brexit risk assessment was. The answer was "we do not have one".MarqueeMark said:Can I just say, any politician saying Brexit will mean "people will die through lack of medicines" is utterly odious when that politician is either
a) too poor at their job to organise the supply of vital medicines with two years warning or
- infinitely worse -
b) refuses to organise that supply of vital supplies in time so that they can say "but people will die..."
They deserve eternal contempt.
The two reasons why: 1) Because we have been instructed by the DoH to do no stockpiling. 2) There is no point in doing a risk assessment where we can take no mitigating action.0 -
That is an abysmal poll for Macron, now trailing Le Pen in net approvalPulpstar said:Looks like the dam might have cracked for Macron
Europe Elects
Yesterday at 14:52 ·
France, Elabe poll:
Approval ratings (president+party leaders)
Bayrou (MoDem-ALDE): 31% (+3)
Le Pen (RN-ENF): 25% (+1)
Besancenot (NPA-LEFT): 25% (+2)
Dupont-Aignan (DLF-EFDD): 24% (+2)
Macron (LREM-ALDE): 23% (-4)
Field work: 4/12/18 – 5/12/18
Sample size: 1,0020 -
This is one of the most interesting articles I've read recently:
"From the 1980s onwards, it was clear there was a price to be paid for western societies adapting to a new economic model and that price was sacrificing the European and American working class. No one thought the fallout would hit the bedrock of the lower-middle class, too. It’s obvious now, however, that the new model not only weakened the fringes of the proletariat but society as a whole.
The paradox is this is not a result of the failure of the globalised economic model but of its success. In recent decades, the French economy, like the European and US economies, has continued to create wealth. We are thus, on average, richer. The problem is at the same time unemployment, insecurity and poverty have also increased. The central question, therefore, is not whether a globalised economy is efficient, but what to do with this model when it fails to create and nurture a coherent society?"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/02/france-is-deeply-fractured-gilets-jeunes-just-a-symptom0 -
Well, the other possibility is that if there's a majority for something - I think settling the course of action by referendum would have a wider majority than plain Remain but who knows - TMay stays on as PM and does it.Black_Rook said:
There isn't a majority to be found for anything in the Commons apart from Remain, but the cancellation of Brexit can only proceed if both the Conservative and Labour pro-EU factions actually split from their respective parties and build a National Government together. This would have to be co-ordinated: there's no point in the rebel Tories jumping ship without the Labour Europhiles doing so at the same time, because there is no chance of a large cohort of centre-right politicians using their votes to put Jeremy Corbyn into power.
The complications are:
1) TMay has to want to do it
2) Tory MPs have to not defenestrate her while she does it
3) If the DUP try to pull the plug on the government partway through, some brave opposition MPs need to get struck down by toothache during the confidence vote0 -
Massively bad news if this continues. I know all the marxist-neophyte kids and ageing 68ers want to bring it all crashing down, but the UK (in or out) will feel the chill wind.HYUFD said:
That is an abysmal poll for Macron, now trailing Le Pen in net approvalPulpstar said:Looks like the dam might have cracked for Macron
Europe Elects
Yesterday at 14:52 ·
France, Elabe poll:
Approval ratings (president+party leaders)
Bayrou (MoDem-ALDE): 31% (+3)
Le Pen (RN-ENF): 25% (+1)
Besancenot (NPA-LEFT): 25% (+2)
Dupont-Aignan (DLF-EFDD): 24% (+2)
Macron (LREM-ALDE): 23% (-4)
Field work: 4/12/18 – 5/12/18
Sample size: 1,0020 -
Is anyone reassured by "we will work through the challenges"?Philip_Thompson said:
'Tim Morris, the chief executive of UK Major Ports Group, the trade body, said: “The UK’s port sector is a resilient, adaptable and highly competitive one, offering customers a range of options. We will work through the challenges of Brexit as we have done with huge changes throughout the centuries.” 'matt said:
You do understand about capacity, permits and customs checks, I take it. No, thought not.Donny43 said:
There aren't going to be food shortages.Scott_P said:
He put up the price of petrol.steve_garner said:I reckon Macron thought likewise recently.
You think Brits are going to cheer food shortages?
Unless you think the EU would put up a blockade.
And if they would do that, why have we been negotiating with them?0 -
Didn't the legislation say she *has* to hold this vote? So there's a limit to how much she can delay it???0
-
Yes, delaying the vote requires a vote.edmundintokyo said:Didn't the legislation say she *has* to hold this vote? So there's a limit to how much she can delay it???
0 -
NY Times: "In another personnel move, John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, is expected to leave his post in the next few days, ending a tumultuous 16-month tenure still among the longest for a senior aide to Mr. Trump,"
Oh dear God...0 -
In order for May to pull the vote she'd first need to get a programme motion through the house.
That would be fun.0 -
May has a capacity to surprise as she showed when calling the last general election, I would not rule out her calling a 3 way referendum next week, Deal, No Deal and Remain, with the most popular of the first head to head facing the latter head to head, that would also give Deal the best chance to winedmundintokyo said:
Well, the other possibility is that if there's a majority for something - I think settling the course of action by referendum would have a wider majority than plain Remain but who knows - TMay stays on as PM and does it.Black_Rook said:
There isn't a majority to be found for anything in the Commons apart from Remain, but the cancellation of Brexit can only proceed if both the Conservative and Labour pro-EU factions actually split from their respective parties and build a National Government together. This would have to be co-ordinated: there's no point in the rebel Tories jumping ship without the Labour Europhiles doing so at the same time, because there is no chance of a large cohort of centre-right politicians using their votes to put Jeremy Corbyn into power.
The complications are:
1) TMay has to want to do it
2) Tory MPs have to not defenestrate her while she does it
3) If the DUP try to pull the plug on the government partway through, some brave opposition MPs need to get struck down by toothache during the confidence vote0 -
It is the far right and far left on the march with these French protests at the moment certainly and if Brexiteers feel betrayed we would face a similar movement if their protests combined with Corbynistasrottenborough said:
Massively bad news if this continues. I know all the marxist-neophyte kids and ageing 68ers want to bring it all crashing down, but the UK (in or out) will feel the chill wind.HYUFD said:
That is an abysmal poll for Macron, now trailing Le Pen in net approvalPulpstar said:Looks like the dam might have cracked for Macron
Europe Elects
Yesterday at 14:52 ·
France, Elabe poll:
Approval ratings (president+party leaders)
Bayrou (MoDem-ALDE): 31% (+3)
Le Pen (RN-ENF): 25% (+1)
Besancenot (NPA-LEFT): 25% (+2)
Dupont-Aignan (DLF-EFDD): 24% (+2)
Macron (LREM-ALDE): 23% (-4)
Field work: 4/12/18 – 5/12/18
Sample size: 1,0020 -
I trust our politicians implicitly not to let any harm come to us.Cyclefree said:
I am setting out in measured tones my exasperation with the way our government and legislature are behaving.Luckyguy1983 said:
What an earth has happened to you? You're usually quite measured.Cyclefree said:
If it does that it needs to explain why. Christ, we need some politicians with a bit of courage to speak to us as grown ups. To say that the promises were lies and unachievable, to say that some of the problems attributed to the EU are ones we can deal with ourselves, to say that some of those selling Brexit may have done so for ulterior motives or broken the law and that it is foolish to make such an important decision on the basis of a possibly illegitimate vote, to say that it is our job - as Parliamentarians - not to embark on a course of action which we think is harmful to the country etc etc.
Do you think that if a crash out Brexit occurred and it led to a recession, jobs lost etc and it turns out that some on the Brexit side were breaking the law, that that wouldn't light a touch paper that could take decades to put out? All the choices we now have are fraught with difficulty and risk. The job of Parliament is to choose the least risky option, the one that will cause least harm. Not to keep on going down one road simply because over two and a half years ago people voted in favour of something which it now turns out was unachievable and may have been obtained illegitimately.
In particular, I don't believe for a moment that they would consider trying to make political capital out of such a serious situation.0 -
Chris said:
I trust our politicians implicitly not to let any harm come to us.
In particular, I don't believe for a moment that they would consider trying to make political capital out of such a serious situation.
0 -
I wonder when the public will notice UKIP have lost virtually all their MEPS and virtually everyone else vaguely well known. Where will that 5% go?HYUFD said:
Tories and Labour tied on 38% each with Mori and Kantar today.nico67 said:Labours position in the polls is a little better than their current percentage . The Greens are polling quite high at around 4 to 5 % across recent results . Come any election it’s likely there’d be movement towards Labour in key seats .
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1071085637070192641?s=20
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1071131284385251330?s=20
Electoral Calculus makes it Tories 296, Labour 274, LD 18, SNP 40 with both polls, so Tories largest party and likely with a majority in England but Corbyn could still be PM with the SNP backing him and the LDs abstaining on confidence and supply0 -
If I was her I wouldn't take the lead, I'd just say: We can't get this through on our votes alone so I'm open to proposals from MPs of all parties for things that *would* get through. Let the opposition MPs take the heat from Leavers for proposing the referendum, and if she's really lucky the ERG get back on side to head them off and she can pass her original thing.HYUFD said:
May has a capacity to surprise as she showed when calling the last general election, I would not rule out her calling a 3 way referendum next week, Deal, No Deal and Remain, with the most popular of the first head to head facing the latter head to head, that would also give Deal the best chance to winedmundintokyo said:
Well, the other possibility is that if there's a majority for something - I think settling the course of action by referendum would have a wider majority than plain Remain but who knows - TMay stays on as PM and does it.Black_Rook said:
There isn't a majority to be found for anything in the Commons apart from Remain, but the cancellation of Brexit can only proceed if both the Conservative and Labour pro-EU factions actually split from their respective parties and build a National Government together. This would have to be co-ordinated: there's no point in the rebel Tories jumping ship without the Labour Europhiles doing so at the same time, because there is no chance of a large cohort of centre-right politicians using their votes to put Jeremy Corbyn into power.
The complications are:
1) TMay has to want to do it
2) Tory MPs have to not defenestrate her while she does it
3) If the DUP try to pull the plug on the government partway through, some brave opposition MPs need to get struck down by toothache during the confidence vote0 -
Corbyn is not that stupid. If you want him to take the blame, let him be PM. You want him to share the blame? Government of national unity.edmundintokyo said:
If I was her I wouldn't take the lead, I'd just say: We can't get this through on our votes alone so I'm open to proposals from MPs of all parties for things that *would* get through. Let the opposition MPs take the heat from Leavers for proposing the referendum, and if she's really lucky the ERG get back on side to head them off and she can pass her original thing.HYUFD said:
May has a capacity to surprise as she showed when calling the last general election, I would not rule out her calling a 3 way referendum next week, Deal, No Deal and Remain, with the most popular of the first head to head facing the latter head to head, that would also give Deal the best chance to winedmundintokyo said:
Well, the other possibility is that if there's a majority for something - I think settling the course of action by referendum would have a wider majority than plain Remain but who knows - TMay stays on as PM and does it.Black_Rook said:
There isn't a majority to be found for anything in the Commons apart from Remain, but the cancellation of Brexit can only proceed if both the Conservative and Labour pro-EU factions actually split from their respective parties and build a National Government together. This would have to be co-ordinated: there's no point in the rebel Tories jumping ship without the Labour Europhiles doing so at the same time, because there is no chance of a large cohort of centre-right politicians using their votes to put Jeremy Corbyn into power.
The complications are:
1) TMay has to want to do it
2) Tory MPs have to not defenestrate her while she does it
3) If the DUP try to pull the plug on the government partway through, some brave opposition MPs need to get struck down by toothache during the confidence vote
Or you could just ask the SNP, or the Lib Dems to propose it, and then pull a "with a heavy heart, we no longer believe it possible to deliver Brexit in the current political climate and will be supporting this amendment."0 -
Is it remotely possible he is more able to speak his mind when not part of the system?Cyclefree said:
Given that Mervyn King was the BoE Governor when we had our first bank run for a century and a half, in part because of his failure to live up to his responsibilities, I’m not sure how much value I’d place on what he says.Floater said:
Working through challenges does not mean the sky will fall in either.Cyclefree said:
Except that what he says is consistent with what I am saying. "Working through challenges" is an elegantly euphemistic way of saying there will be problems but we will have to deal with them.Richard_Tyndall said:
Stunningly unfortunate timing for you there given that someone who really is in the know has said the scare stories about the ports are indeed misleading.Cyclefree said:I am so sick of people saying that what they call Project Fear Mark 2 is ridiculous.
Is it?
Pretty much everything the Brexiteers have said or promised about Brexit has turned out to be bollocks on stilts, to put it mildly. Why should we believe them when they say that it'll all turn out fine, even though those who have real knowledge about ports and roads and importing/exporting etc are saying the opposite?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/07/warnings-no-deal-ports-chaos-misleading-industry-boss-says/
Mervyn King amongst others has said that (a) this government has been negligent in its approach to brexit and (b) these doom laden projections are worst case scenarios based on ludicrous assumptions.
There will be problems, they will be May and her teams fault but they will be resolved.
Problems can always - eventually - be resolved. But that is to miss the point. It is what the cost of doing so is, both the direct cost and the opportunity cost and whether it might have been more sensible to avoid having the problems in the first place.
He is hardly alone in pouring doubt on these doom laden projections, even economists who don't want us to leave say these projections are shall we say, questionable..
I need hardly remind you that the people predicting doom and gloom hardly have a stellar record themselves.
0
