politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s time for the Tories to pick a candidate for Buckingham
Comments
-
I have no greater respect for Grieve, Soubry, or Greening, and view the proposed deal as preferable to the alternatives.AmpfieldAndy said:
But do you have any more respect for either May, Hammond or Clark who have negotiated a deal that is simply a white flag that does nothing for us or for arch Remainers like Grieve, Soubry, and Greening who are openly trying to thwart the referendum. I don’t.Sean_F said:
My lack of respect for people like Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, and Boris Johnson is boundless.Big_G_NorthWales said:
History will show that TM achieved a Brexit deal with the 27 Countries of Europe and if brexit falls it will be the responsibility, ironically, of the ERG membersOldKingCole said:
She did, after all, campaign as enthusiastically as she ever does, for Remain. And her Deal is better than Leaving on 29th March without one.Big_G_NorthWales said:It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps share responsibility
However, I still believe TM will not allow no deal but will continue to keep it on the table until either amendments to the vote or subsequent actions in the HOC give her the space to remove it without ERG being able to accuse her directly.
The ERG can be rightly criticised for being utterly clueless on the type of Brexit they want and for failingto put in the hard work to prepare one but to put together a “deal” that is clearly worse than no deal is an abdication of responsibility.
Both no deal and no Brexit are better than May’s “deal”.0 -
..provided you have a high tolerance for repetition, I guess.Beverley_C said:
Mozart was the greatest composer ever. That is all that matters!Foxy said:Mozart was a German Austrian, a subject of the Hapsburg monarchy.
Which presumably must include any regular PB'er.0 -
Washington was prominent in the victory of the British forces over the French in the 7 years war. I think you accurately portray his method in the War of Independence but do him a disservice overall.Foxy said:
The question of whether Washington was a shite General is an interesting one. He did after all win the war! He did it by the method that has been successful in many other insurgencies. He kept his army in the field and substantially intact until the enemy decided the war was unwinnable. His was the prototype independence campaign. Cornwallis won every battle in his southern campaign until his surrender at Yorktown. It is a difference between strategy and tactics that May ignores.ydoethur said:
George Washington is a national hero, and has statues galore and even the capital of the USA named after him.Sean_F said:
If the Germans had won WWII, Petain, Laval, Quisling, and the leaders of a pro Nazi British government would be seen as national heroes.OldKingCole said:On Treason: (may have posted it before)
Treason doth never prosper
What's the reason?
If it do prosper, none dare call it treason!
Lee is vilified and was recently part of a direct action campaign to have his statues and name removed from all places as a racist traitor.
What were the differences?
1) Washington kept his slaves units he died - Lee released his in his lifetime, punctiliously observing his father-in-law's will;
2) One was a shite general who was practically incapable of fighting an effective battle, and the other was one of the most daring and inventive generals of them all and a key figure of the Army of the Confederacy;
3) One won. The other lost.
Incidentally, over the holidays I went to see Hamilton (the award winning musical) great fun and deserving of the hype. Who would have thought a biography of an early American politician done substantially in rap by a multi-ethnic cast could be so brilliant and effective?0 -
Not a subject of the prince-archbishop of Salzburg?Foxy said:
Indeed, until the rise of nationalism in the 19th century, most of Europe was composed of multi-cultural states, with peoples that were found in other states also. Allegiance was to monarch rather than to ethnicity, language or even in many countries religion. Then as now people often had multiple overlapping identities.ydoethur said:
Well, German history is incredibly complicated in terms of delineating political boundaries. Technically there was no state of 'Germany' until 1871. Although Mozart was Austrian, his father was Bavarian and both were at that time part of the Holy Roman Empire which technically included most of Germany, albeit in a very loose confederation. Even after the dissolution of the Empire in 1806, there was always a widespread belief (and not just in Germany) that Austria was a German state that just didn't happen to be part of Germany.DecrepitJohnL said:Voting for the "best German of all time" got off to a shaky start yesterday after the Austrian ambassador to Germany complained that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, whose name appears on a list of eligible candidates, is Austrian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/07/arts.germany
Therefore at the time Bach was born Eisenach was part of the state that later transformed into the Empire of Austria (sorry @RoyalBlue)!
So I can see how Mozart might be claimed as German, or very cheekily Bach as Austrian. I can also say I think for the time period we're talking about such labels are anachronistic. Nationality mattered less than language in that place and period. From that point of view, both were German.
Mozart was a German Austrian, a subject of the Hapsburg monarchy.0 -
Ah. Cheers. That makes more sense.ydoethur said:
You've missed half the conversation. It was Beethoven, not Mozart. Who was born in Bonn in the Holy Roman Empire (see above) before moving to Vienna, where following the dissolution of the Empire he died an Austrian.Richard_Tyndall said:
It was always said jokingly that Austria had the best PR man in history. He managed to convince the world that Mozart was Austrian and Hitler was German.ydoethur said:
Well, German history is incredibly complicated in terms of delineating political boundaries. Technically there was no state of 'Germany' until 1871. Although Mozart was Austrian, his father was Bavarian and both were at that time part of the Holy Roman Empire which technically included most of Germany, albeit in a very loose confederation. Even after the dissolution of the Empire in 1806, there was always a widespread belief (and not just in Germany) that Austria was a German state that just didn't happen to be part of Germany.DecrepitJohnL said:Voting for the "best German of all time" got off to a shaky start yesterday after the Austrian ambassador to Germany complained that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, whose name appears on a list of eligible candidates, is Austrian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/07/arts.germany
Therefore at the time Bach was born Eisenach was part of the state that later transformed into the Empire of Austria (sorry @RoyalBlue)!
So I can see how Mozart might be claimed as German, or very cheekily Bach as Austrian. I can also say I think for the time period we're talking about such labels are anachronistic. Nationality mattered less than language in that place and period. From that point of view, both were German.
As a general point if ever anyone goes to Prague and visits the castle, do make a point of hunting down and visiting the private Lobkowicz Palace. It has a museum which contains the original hand written scores of Beethoven's 3rd, 4th and 5th Symphonies as well as Mozart's orchestration of Handel's messiah with all his corrections scrawled all over it. It really is remarkable and surprisingly moving to see these pieces of music written in the hand of their composers.0 -
Nonsense. May’s deal does nothing on trade which is not part of her deal and it’s her own gross negligence that has led to the failure to prepare for no deal.IanB2 said:
Nonsense. May's deal avoids most of the cliffedge crises that would arise from a no deal exit, and therefore is clearly better. You are right however that no Brexit is better still.AmpfieldAndy said:
But do you have any more respect for either May, Hammond or Clark who have negotiated a deal that is simply a white flag that does nothing for us or for arch Remainers like Grieve, Soubry, and Greening who are openly trying to thwart the referendum. I don’t.Sean_F said:
My lack of respect for people like Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, and Boris Johnson is boundless.Big_G_NorthWales said:
History will show that TM achieved a Brexit deal with the 27 Countries of Europe and if brexit falls it will be the responsibility, ironically, of the ERG membersOldKingCole said:
She did, after all, campaign as enthusiastically as she ever does, for Remain. And her Deal is better than Leaving on 29th March without one.Big_G_NorthWales said:It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps share responsibility
However, I still believe TM will not allow no deal but will continue to keep it on the table until either amendments to the vote or subsequent actions in the HOC give her the space to remove it without ERG being able to accuse her directly.
The ERG can be rightly criticised for being utterly clueless on the type of Brexit they want and for failingto put in the hard work to prepare one but to put together a “deal” that is clearly worse than no deal is an abdication of responsibility.
Both no deal and no Brexit are better than May’s “deal”.0 -
Bizarre. May's deal broadly protects our current arrangements on trade. Which are better than cold turkey no deal. And government didn't prepare for no deal because it promised big business that it wouldn't happen.AmpfieldAndy said:
Nonsense. May’s deal does nothing on trade which is not part of her deal and it’s her own gross negligence that has led to the failure to prepare for no deal.IanB2 said:
Nonsense. May's deal avoids most of the cliffedge crises that would arise from a no deal exit, and therefore is clearly better. You are right however that no Brexit is better still.AmpfieldAndy said:
But do you have any more respect for either May, Hammond or Clark who have negotiated a deal that is simply a white flag that does nothing for us or for arch Remainers like Grieve, Soubry, and Greening who are openly trying to thwart the referendum. I don’t.Sean_F said:
My lack of respect for people like Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, and Boris Johnson is boundless.Big_G_NorthWales said:
History will show that TM achieved a Brexit deal with the 27 Countries of Europe and if brexit falls it will be the responsibility, ironically, of the ERG membersOldKingCole said:
She did, after all, campaign as enthusiastically as she ever does, for Remain. And her Deal is better than Leaving on 29th March without one.Big_G_NorthWales said:It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps share responsibility
However, I still believe TM will not allow no deal but will continue to keep it on the table until either amendments to the vote or subsequent actions in the HOC give her the space to remove it without ERG being able to accuse her directly.
The ERG can be rightly criticised for being utterly clueless on the type of Brexit they want and for failingto put in the hard work to prepare one but to put together a “deal” that is clearly worse than no deal is an abdication of responsibility.
Both no deal and no Brexit are better than May’s “deal”.0 -
For 21 months and then we are back to a cliffedge. So we will have less time between now and the next cliffedge than we had between invoking Article 50 and the original one.IanB2 said:
Bizarre. May's deal broadly protects our current arrangements on trade. Which are better than cold turkey no deal. And government didn't prepare for no deal because it promised big business that it wouldn't happen.AmpfieldAndy said:
Nonsense. May’s deal does nothing on trade which is not part of her deal and it’s her own gross negligence that has led to the failure to prepare for no deal.IanB2 said:
Nonsense. May's deal avoids most of the cliffedge crises that would arise from a no deal exit, and therefore is clearly better. You are right however that no Brexit is better still.AmpfieldAndy said:
But do you have any more respect for either May, Hammond or Clark who have negotiated a deal that is simply a white flag that does nothing for us or for arch Remainers like Grieve, Soubry, and Greening who are openly trying to thwart the referendum. I don’t.Sean_F said:
My lack of respect for people like Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, and Boris Johnson is boundless.Big_G_NorthWales said:
History will show that TM achieved a Brexit deal with the 27 Countries of Europe and if brexit falls it will be the responsibility, ironically, of the ERG membersOldKingCole said:
She did, after all, campaign as enthusiastically as she ever does, for Remain. And her Deal is better than Leaving on 29th March without one.Big_G_NorthWales said:It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps share responsibility
However, I still believe TM will not allow no deal but will continue to keep it on the table until either amendments to the vote or subsequent actions in the HOC give her the space to remove it without ERG being able to accuse her directly.
The ERG can be rightly criticised for being utterly clueless on the type of Brexit they want and for failingto put in the hard work to prepare one but to put together a “deal” that is clearly worse than no deal is an abdication of responsibility.
Both no deal and no Brexit are better than May’s “deal”.0 -
We don't want wars to happen. Doesn't mean that you abolish the military.IanB2 said:
Bizarre. May's deal broadly protects our current arrangements on trade. Which are better than cold turkey no deal. And government didn't prepare for no deal because it promised big business that it wouldn't happen.AmpfieldAndy said:
Nonsense. May’s deal does nothing on trade which is not part of her deal and it’s her own gross negligence that has led to the failure to prepare for no deal.IanB2 said:
Nonsense. May's deal avoids most of the cliffedge crises that would arise from a no deal exit, and therefore is clearly better. You are right however that no Brexit is better still.AmpfieldAndy said:
But do you have any more respect for either May, Hammond or Clark who have negotiated a deal that is simply a white flag that does nothing for us or for arch Remainers like Grieve, Soubry, and Greening who are openly trying to thwart the referendum. I don’t.Sean_F said:
My lack of respect for people like Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, and Boris Johnson is boundless.Big_G_NorthWales said:
History will show that TM achieved a Brexit deal with the 27 Countries of Europe and if brexit falls it will be the responsibility, ironically, of the ERG membersOldKingCole said:
She did, after all, campaign as enthusiastically as she ever does, for Remain. And her Deal is better than Leaving on 29th March without one.Big_G_NorthWales said:It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps share responsibility
However, I still believe TM will not allow no deal but will continue to keep it on the table until either amendments to the vote or subsequent actions in the HOC give her the space to remove it without ERG being able to accuse her directly.
The ERG can be rightly criticised for being utterly clueless on the type of Brexit they want and for failingto put in the hard work to prepare one but to put together a “deal” that is clearly worse than no deal is an abdication of responsibility.
Both no deal and no Brexit are better than May’s “deal”.0 -
May's Deal is not "pure" enough for the Brexiteers. It doe snot matter what it achieves when it is the wrong kind of Brexit.IanB2 said:
Bizarre. May's deal broadly protects our current arrangements on trade. Which are better than cold turkey no deal. And government didn't prepare for no deal because it promised big business that it wouldn't happen.AmpfieldAndy said:
Nonsense. May’s deal does nothing on trade which is not part of her deal and it’s her own gross negligence that has led to the failure to prepare for no deal.IanB2 said:
Nonsense. May's deal avoids most of the cliffedge crises that would arise from a no deal exit, and therefore is clearly better. You are right however that no Brexit is better still.AmpfieldAndy said:
But do you have any more respect for either May, Hammond or Clark who have negotiated a deal that is simply a white flag that does nothing for us or for arch Remainers like Grieve, Soubry, and Greening who are openly trying to thwart the referendum. I don’t.Sean_F said:
My lack of respect for people like Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, and Boris Johnson is boundless.Big_G_NorthWales said:
History will show that TM achieved a Brexit deal with the 27 Countries of Europe and if brexit falls it will be the responsibility, ironically, of the ERG membersOldKingCole said:
She did, after all, campaign as enthusiastically as she ever does, for Remain. And her Deal is better than Leaving on 29th March without one.Big_G_NorthWales said:It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps share responsibility
However, I still believe TM will not allow no deal but will continue to keep it on the table until either amendments to the vote or subsequent actions in the HOC give her the space to remove it without ERG being able to accuse her directly.
The ERG can be rightly criticised for being utterly clueless on the type of Brexit they want and for failingto put in the hard work to prepare one but to put together a “deal” that is clearly worse than no deal is an abdication of responsibility.
Both no deal and no Brexit are better than May’s “deal”.
Do not expect reason. Brexit is, by any measure, national insanity. It loses us influence, worsens our trade and makes us poorer.0 -
IanB2 said:
..provided you have a high tolerance for repetition, I guess.Beverley_C said:
Mozart was the greatest composer ever. That is all that matters!Foxy said:Mozart was a German Austrian, a subject of the Hapsburg monarchy.
Which presumably must include any regular PB'er.
Beethoven is stodgy as far as symphonies go. Some of his piano sonatas are ok.0 -
Wrong. It simply means we enter a transitional period which perpetuates current arrangements for 2 years, supposedly to negotiate a trade deal. It is simply a deferral not a protection and a deferral that risked losing NI for no good reason and with no exit. On that basis of how badly May has handled these negotiations, we would be insane to trust her with negotiating the trade deal.IanB2 said:
Bizarre. May's deal broadly protects our current arrangements on trade. Which are better than cold turkey no deal. And government didn't prepare for no deal because it promised big business that it wouldn't happen.AmpfieldAndy said:
Nonsense. May’s deal does nothing on trade which is not part of her deal and it’s her own gross negligence that has led to the failure to prepare for no deal.IanB2 said:
Nonsense. May's deal avoids most of the cliffedge crises that would arise from a no deal exit, and therefore is clearly better. You are right however that no Brexit is better still.AmpfieldAndy said:
But do you have any more respect for either May, Hammond or Clark who have negotiated a deal that is simply a white flag that does nothing for us or for arch Remainers like Grieve, Soubry, and Greening who are openly trying to thwart the referendum. I don’t.Sean_F said:
My lack of respect for people like Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, and Boris Johnson is boundless.Big_G_NorthWales said:
History will show that TM achieved a Brexit deal with the 27 Countries of Europe and if brexit falls it will be the responsibility, ironically, of the ERG membersOldKingCole said:
She did, after all, campaign as enthusiastically as she ever does, for Remain. And her Deal is better than Leaving on 29th March without one.Big_G_NorthWales said:It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps
The ERG can be rightly criticised for being utterly clueless on the type of Brexit they want and for failingto put in the hard work to prepare one but to put together a “deal” that is clearly worse than no deal is an abdication of responsibility.
Both no deal and no Brexit are better than May’s “deal”.
“No deal is better than a bad deal” was one of her quotes. Now she seems to have negotiated a deal on the basis that any deal, even one dictated by the EU that offers us nothing,0 -
17.4m voted for it. Ignoring them simply because you don’t like it seems bizarre.Beverley_C said:
May's Deal is not "pure" enough for the Brexiteers. It doe snot matter what it achieves when it is the wrong kind of Brexit.IanB2 said:
Bizarre. May's deal broadly protects our current arrangements on trade. Which are better than cold turkey no deal. And government didn't prepare for no deal because it promised big business that it wouldn't happen.AmpfieldAndy said:
Nonsense. May’s deal does nothing on trade which is not part of her deal and it’s her own gross negligence that has led to the failure to prepare for no deal.IanB2 said:
Nonsense. May's deal avoids most of the cliffedge crises that would arise from a no deal exit, and therefore is clearly better. You are right however that no Brexit is better still.AmpfieldAndy said:
But do you have any more respect for either May, Hammond or Clark who have negotiated a deal that is simply a white flag that does nothing for us or for arch Remainers like Grieve, Soubry, and Greening who are openly trying to thwart the referendum. I don’t.Sean_F said:
My lack of respect for people like Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, and Boris Johnson is boundless.Big_G_NorthWales said:
History will show that TM achieved a Brexit deal with the 27 Countries of Europe and if brexit falls it will be the responsibility, ironically, of the ERG membersOldKingCole said:
She did, after all, campaign as enthusiastically as she ever does, for Remain. And her Deal is better than Leaving on 29th March without one.Big_G_NorthWales said:It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps share responsibility
The ERG can be rightly criticised for being utterly clueless on the type of Brexit they want and for failingto put in the hard work to prepare one but to put together a “deal” that is clearly worse than no deal is an abdication of responsibility.
Both no deal and no Brexit are better than May’s “deal”.
Do not expect reason. Brexit is, by any measure, national insanity. It loses us influence, worsens our trade and makes us poorer.0 -
Wrong in all three cases. It will increase our influence, improve our trade and make the country wealthier. This lunatic obsession you Eurofanatics have with 6% of the world's population as if there is nothing else out there beyond Europe but seabeasts and dragons really is bizarre.Beverley_C said:
May's Deal is not "pure" enough for the Brexiteers. It doe snot matter what it achieves when it is the wrong kind of Brexit.
Do not expect reason. Brexit is, by any measure, national insanity. It loses us influence, worsens our trade and makes us poorer.0 -
That was just a slogan, intended to defer the day when her headbangers had their appointment with reality.AmpfieldAndy said:
Wrong. It simply means we enter a transitional period which perpetuates current arrangements for 2 years, supposedly to negotiate a trade deal. It is simply a deferral not a protection and a deferral that risked losing NI for no good reason and with no exit. On that basis of how badly May has handled these negotiations, we would be insane to trust her with negotiating the trade deal.IanB2 said:
Bizarre. May's deal broadly protects our current arrangements on trade. Which are better than cold turkey no deal. And government didn't prepare for no deal because it promised big business that it wouldn't happen.AmpfieldAndy said:
Nonsense. May’s deal does nothing on trade which is not part of her deal and it’s her own gross negligence that has led to the failure to prepare for no deal.IanB2 said:
Nonsense. May's deal avoids most of the cliffedge crises that would arise from a no deal exit, and therefore is clearly better. You are right however that no Brexit is better still.AmpfieldAndy said:
But do you . I don’t.Sean_F said:
My lack of respect for people like Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, and Boris Johnson is boundless.Big_G_NorthWales said:
History will show that TM achieved a Brexit deal with the 27 Countries of Europe and if brexit falls it will be the responsibility, ironically, of the ERG membersOldKingCole said:
She did, after all, campaign as enthusiastically as she ever does, for Remain. And her Deal is better than Leaving on 29th March without one.Big_G_NorthWales said:It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps
The ERG can be rightly criticised for being utterly clueless on the type of Brexit they want and for failingto put in the hard work to prepare one but to put together a “deal” that is clearly worse than no deal is an abdication of responsibility.
Both no deal and no Brexit are better than May’s “deal”.
“No deal is better than a bad deal” was one of her quotes. Now she seems to have negotiated a deal on the basis that any deal, even one dictated by the EU that offers us nothing,0 -
I guess you get some credit for putting no deal up there with war, in terms of the damage it will do.Philip_Thompson said:
We don't want wars to happen. Doesn't mean that you abolish the military.IanB2 said:
Bizarre. May's deal broadly protects our current arrangements on trade. Which are better than cold turkey no deal. And government didn't prepare for no deal because it promised big business that it wouldn't happen.AmpfieldAndy said:
Nonsense. May’s deal does nothing on trade which is not part of her deal and it’s her own gross negligence that has led to the failure to prepare for no deal.IanB2 said:
Nonsense. May's deal avoids most of the cliffedge crises that would arise from a no deal exit, and therefore is clearly better. You are right however that no Brexit is better still.AmpfieldAndy said:
But do you have any more respect for either May, Hammond or Clark who have negotiated a deal that is simply a white flag that does nothing for us or for arch Remainers like Grieve, Soubry, and Greening who are openly trying to thwart the referendum. I don’t.Sean_F said:
My lack of respect for people like Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, and Boris Johnson is boundless.Big_G_NorthWales said:
History will show that TM achieved a Brexit deal with the 27 Countries of Europe and if brexit falls it will be the responsibility, ironically, of the ERG membersOldKingCole said:
She did, after all, campaign as enthusiastically as she ever does, for Remain. And her Deal is better than Leaving on 29th March without one.Big_G_NorthWales said:It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps share responsibility
However, I still believe TM will not allow no deal but will continue to keep it on the table until either amendments to the vote or subsequent actions in the HOC give her the space to remove it without ERG being able to accuse her directly.
The ERG can be rightly criticised for being utterly clueless on the type of Brexit they want and for failingto put in the hard work to prepare one but to put together a “deal” that is clearly worse than no deal is an abdication of responsibility.
Both no deal and no Brexit are better than May’s “deal”.0 -
So she is a liar is she ? Hardly a ringing endorsement of her fitness for the task entrusted to her.IanB2 said:
That was just a slogan, intended to defer the day when her headbangers had their appointment with reality.AmpfieldAndy said:
Wrong. It simply means we enter a transitional period which perpetuates current arrangements for 2 years, supposedly to negotiate a trade deal. It is simply a deferral not a protection and a deferral that risked losing NI for no good reason and with no exit. On that basis of how badly May has handled these negotiations, we would be insane to trust her with negotiating the trade deal.IanB2 said:
Bizarre. May's deal broadly protects our current arrangements on trade. Which are better than cold turkey no deal. And government didn't prepare for no deal because it promised big business that it wouldn't happen.AmpfieldAndy said:
Nonsense. May’s deal does nothing on trade which is not part of her deal and it’s her own gross negligence that has led to the failure to prepare for no deal.IanB2 said:
Nonsense. May's deal avoids most of the cliffedge crises that would arise from a no deal exit, and therefore is clearly better. You are right however that no Brexit is better still.AmpfieldAndy said:
The ERG can be rightly criticised for being utterly clueless on the type of Brexit they want and for failingto put in the hard work to prepare one but to put together a “deal” that is clearly worse than no deal is an abdication of responsibility.Sean_F said:
My lack of respect for people like Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, and Boris Johnson is boundless.Big_G_NorthWales said:
History will show that TM achieved a Brexit deal with the 27 Countries of Europe and if brexit falls it will be the responsibility, ironically, of the ERG membersOldKingCole said:
She did, after all, campaign as enthusiastically as she ever does, for Remain. And her Deal is better than Leaving on 29th March without one.Big_G_NorthWales said:It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps
Both no deal and no Brexit are better than May’s “deal”.
“No deal is better than a bad deal” was one of her quotes. Now she seems to have negotiated a deal on the basis that any deal, even one dictated by the EU that offers us nothing,0 -
Precisely. What has May's deal gained for the UK?AmpfieldAndy said:Wrong. It simply means we enter a transitional period which perpetuates current arrangements for 2 years, supposedly to negotiate a trade deal. It is simply a deferral not a protection and a deferral that risked losing NI for no good reason and with no exit. On that basis of how badly May has handled these negotiations, we would be insane to trust her with negotiating the trade deal.
“No deal is better than a bad deal” was one of her quotes. Now she seems to have negotiated a deal on the basis that any deal, even one dictated by the EU that offers us nothing,
At the point of invoking Article 50 we had 24 months to negotiate our future arrangements and what happens to issues like money, Northern Ireland etc where we had something on our side they wanted.
If we implement May's deal we have 21 months to negotiate our future arrangements having already given money and Northern Ireland to the EU.0 -
Auditioning to be the self harming idiot of the world isn't going to increase our influence. You clearly haven't been abroad recently; we are progressively trashing our national reputation for pragmatism and common sense.Richard_Tyndall said:
Wrong in all three cases. It will increase our influence, improve our trade and make the country wealthier. This lunatic obsession you Eurofanatics have with 6% of the world's population as if there is nothing else out there beyond Europe but seabeasts and dragons really is bizarre.Beverley_C said:
May's Deal is not "pure" enough for the Brexiteers. It doe snot matter what it achieves when it is the wrong kind of Brexit.
Do not expect reason. Brexit is, by any measure, national insanity. It loses us influence, worsens our trade and makes us poorer.0 -
I thought the EU refused to negotiate future arrangements? They only wanted to deal with the withdrawal.Philip_Thompson said:
Precisely. What has May's deal gained for the UK?AmpfieldAndy said:Wrong. It simply means we enter a transitional period which perpetuates current arrangements for 2 years, supposedly to negotiate a trade deal. It is simply a deferral not a protection and a deferral that risked losing NI for no good reason and with no exit. On that basis of how badly May has handled these negotiations, we would be insane to trust her with negotiating the trade deal.
“No deal is better than a bad deal” was one of her quotes. Now she seems to have negotiated a deal on the basis that any deal, even one dictated by the EU that offers us nothing,
At the point of invoking Article 50 we had 24 months to negotiate our future arrangements and what happens to issues like money, Northern Ireland etc where we had something on our side they wanted.
If we implement May's deal we have 21 months to negotiate our future arrangements having already given money and Northern Ireland to the EU.0 -
Once again proving you have no soul.Beverley_C said:IanB2 said:
..provided you have a high tolerance for repetition, I guess.Beverley_C said:
Mozart was the greatest composer ever. That is all that matters!Foxy said:Mozart was a German Austrian, a subject of the Hapsburg monarchy.
Which presumably must include any regular PB'er.
Beethoven is stodgy as far as symphonies go. Some of his piano sonatas are ok.
There is no finer composer in the history of the world that Beethoven. And the greatest piece of music ever written is his Violin Concerto Opus 61. Preferably as played by Leonid Kogan. 0 -
I never said she was a good PM (although I do think she is underestimated on narrow tactics). Nevertheless her deal remains better than a no deal exit in two and a bit months' time. And we have common ground that no Brexit is better.AmpfieldAndy said:
So she is a liar is she ? Hardly a ringing endorsement of her fitness for the task entrusted to her.IanB2 said:
That was just a slogan, intended to defer the day when her headbangers had their appointment with reality.AmpfieldAndy said:
Wrong. It simply means we enter a transitional period which perpetuates current arrangements for 2 years, supposedly to negotiate a trade deal. It is simply a deferral not a protection and a deferral that risked losing NI for no good reason and with no exit. On that basis of how badly May has handled these negotiations, we would be insane to trust her with negotiating the trade deal.IanB2 said:
Bizarre. May's deal broadly protects our current arrangements on trade. Which are better than cold turkey no deal. And government didn't prepare for no deal because it promised big business that it wouldn't happen.AmpfieldAndy said:
Nonsense. May’s deal does nothing on trade which is not part of her deal and it’s her own gross negligence that has led to the failure to prepare for no deal.IanB2 said:
still.AmpfieldAndy said:
The ERG can be rightly criticised for being utterly clueless on the type of Brexit they want and for failingto put in the hard work to prepare one but to put together a “deal” that is clearly worse than no deal is an abdication of responsibility.Sean_F said:
My lack of respect for people like Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, and Boris Johnson is boundless.Big_G_NorthWales said:
History will show that TM achieved a Brexit deal with the 27 Countries of Europe and if brexit falls it will be the responsibility, ironically, of the ERG membersOldKingCole said:
She did, 29th March without one.Big_G_NorthWales said:It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps
Both no deal and no Brexit are better than May’s “deal”.
“No deal is better than a bad deal” was one of her quotes. Now she seems to have negotiated a deal on the basis that any deal, even one dictated by the EU that offers us nothing,0 -
LOL. I spend a lot more time abroad and talking to people from other countries than almost anyone else here. You need to try and get your information from somewhere other than the lower end of the internet.IanB2 said:
Auditioning to be the self harming idiot of the world isn't going to increase our influence. You clearly haven't been abroad recently; we are progressively trashing our national reputation for pragmatism and common sense.Richard_Tyndall said:
Wrong in all three cases. It will increase our influence, improve our trade and make the country wealthier. This lunatic obsession you Eurofanatics have with 6% of the world's population as if there is nothing else out there beyond Europe but seabeasts and dragons really is bizarre.Beverley_C said:
May's Deal is not "pure" enough for the Brexiteers. It doe snot matter what it achieves when it is the wrong kind of Brexit.
Do not expect reason. Brexit is, by any measure, national insanity. It loses us influence, worsens our trade and makes us poorer.0 -
Well both are making all the moves for a run and if neither run that is excellent news for Trump as it will then be much easier for him to win the rustbelt and the Electoral College and thus re electionFoxy said:
Gabbard is a non starter IMO, but as everyone apart from @HYFUD knows, both Sanders and Biden are too old to run.edmundintokyo said:
Not much oxygen left for Bernie after Warren grabs the Occupy Wall Street people and Gabbard gets the Tankies.TheWhiteRabbit said:Probably already posted but:
Tulsi Gabbard: Democrat says she will run for president in 20200 -
There's a Realpolitik argument that Assad is a good thing for Syria, compared with all the viable alternatives - he and his government are utterly unscrupulous in crushing the rebellion and it's clear that he uses chemical wepaons and his prisons are hellholes, but he doesn't persecute minorities for ethnic or religious reasons, he's not a nutty fundamentalist (and in fact basically secular) and he's not trying to export terror to anyone. Certainly the civil war to try to overthrow him has turned out to be a catastrophe, and if her view is that at this stage it's better to work with him rather than prolong the conflict, that's probably right. If it extends to thinking he's a nice fellow with agreeable associates, then she's deluded.OldKingCole said:
She's pro-Assad, but that doesn't necessarily make her a 'Putin lover'. Mind, being pro-Assad isn't much of a recommendation either!
But anyway I think she has too many issues that will irritate all the main supporter bases in the Democratic Party. Essentially Sanders needs to run if he's going to, and either build a clear lead or be seen to be falling clearly short, so that progressives can look elsewhere.0 -
No - you implied she was a liar.IanB2 said:
I never said she was a good PM (although I do think she is underestimated on narrow tactics). Nevertheless her deal remains better than a no deal exit in two and a bit months' time. And we have common ground that no Brexit is better.AmpfieldAndy said:
So she is a liar is she ? Hardly a ringing endorsement of her fitness for the task entrusted to her.IanB2 said:
That was just a slogan, intended to defer the day when her headbangers had their appointment with reality.AmpfieldAndy said:
Wrong. It simply means we enter a transitional period which perpetuates current arrangements for 2 years, supposedly to negotiate a trade deal. It is simply a deferral not a protection and a deferral that risked losing NI for no good reason and with no exit. On that basis of how badly May has handled these negotiations, we would be insane to trust her with negotiating the trade deal.IanB2 said:
Bizarre. May's deal broadly protects our current arrangements on trade. Which are better than cold turkey no deal. And government didn't prepare for no deal because it promised big business that it wouldn't happen.AmpfieldAndy said:
Nonsense. May’s deal does nothing on trade which is not part of her deal and it’s her own gross negligence that has led to the failure to prepare for no deal.IanB2 said:
still.AmpfieldAndy said:
Both no deal and no Brexit are better than May’s “deal”.Sean_F said:
My lack of respect for people like Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, and Boris Johnson is boundless.Big_G_NorthWales said:
History will show that TM achieved a Brexit deal with the 27 Countries of Europe and if brexit falls it will be the responsibility, ironically, of the ERG membersOldKingCole said:
She did, 29th March without one.Big_G_NorthWales said:It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps
“No deal is better than a bad deal” was one of her quotes. Now she seems to have negotiated a deal on the basis that any deal, even one dictated by the EU that offers us nothing,0 -
If you mean that her slogans are essentially meaningless, for sure.AmpfieldAndy said:
No - you implied she was a liar.IanB2 said:
I never said she was a good PM (although I do think she is underestimated on narrow tactics). Nevertheless her deal remains better than a no deal exit in two and a bit months' time. And we have common ground that no Brexit is better.AmpfieldAndy said:
So she is a liar is she ? Hardly a ringing endorsement of her fitness for the task entrusted to her.IanB2 said:
That was just a slogan, intended to defer the day when her headbangers had their appointment with reality.AmpfieldAndy said:
Wrong. It simply means we enter a transitional period which perpetuates current arrangements for 2 years, supposedly to negotiate a trade deal. It is simply a deferral not a protection and a deferral that risked losing NI for no good reason and with no exit. On that basis of how badly May has handled these negotiations, we would be insane to trust her with negotiating the trade deal.IanB2 said:
Bizarre. May's deal broadly protects our current arrangements on trade. Which are better than cold turkey no deal. And government didn't prepare for no deal because it promised big business that it wouldn't happen.AmpfieldAndy said:
Nonsense. May’s deal does nothing on trade which is not part of her deal and it’s her own gross negligence that has led to the failure to prepare for no deal.IanB2 said:
still.AmpfieldAndy said:
Both no deal and no Brexit are better than May’s “deal”.Sean_F said:
My lack of respect for people like Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, and Boris Johnson is boundless.Big_G_NorthWales said:
History will show that TM achieved a Brexit deal with the 27 Countries of Europe and if brexit falls it will be the responsibility, ironically, of the ERG membersOldKingCole said:
She did, 29th March without one.Big_G_NorthWales said:It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps
“No deal is better than a bad deal” was one of her quotes. Now she seems to have negotiated a deal on the basis that any deal, even one dictated by the EU that offers us nothing,0 -
The accompanying political statement suggests otherwise. We were fools to agree to their agenda and not make any agreement conditional upon an acceptable trade deal.RobD said:
I thought the EU refused to negotiate future arrangements? They only wanted to deal with the withdrawal.Philip_Thompson said:
Precisely. What has May's deal gained for the UK?AmpfieldAndy said:Wrong. It simply means we enter a transitional period which perpetuates current arrangements for 2 years, supposedly to negotiate a trade deal. It is simply a deferral not a protection and a deferral that risked losing NI for no good reason and with no exit. On that basis of how badly May has handled these negotiations, we would be insane to trust her with negotiating the trade deal.
“No deal is better than a bad deal” was one of her quotes. Now she seems to have negotiated a deal on the basis that any deal, even one dictated by the EU that offers us nothing,
At the point of invoking Article 50 we had 24 months to negotiate our future arrangements and what happens to issues like money, Northern Ireland etc where we had something on our side they wanted.
If we implement May's deal we have 21 months to negotiate our future arrangements having already given money and Northern Ireland to the EU.0 -
Then I apologise if you are indeed well travelled. Although returning the same misconception makes us equally wrong.Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. I spend a lot more time abroad and talking to people from other countries than almost anyone else here. You need to try and get your information from somewhere other than the lower end of the internet.IanB2 said:
Auditioning to be the self harming idiot of the world isn't going to increase our influence. You clearly haven't been abroad recently; we are progressively trashing our national reputation for pragmatism and common sense.Richard_Tyndall said:
Wrong in all three cases. It will increase our influence, improve our trade and make the country wealthier. This lunatic obsession you Eurofanatics have with 6% of the world's population as if there is nothing else out there beyond Europe but seabeasts and dragons really is bizarre.Beverley_C said:
May's Deal is not "pure" enough for the Brexiteers. It doe snot matter what it achieves when it is the wrong kind of Brexit.
Do not expect reason. Brexit is, by any measure, national insanity. It loses us influence, worsens our trade and makes us poorer.
I am mystified at how anyone can think Brexit will increase our national influence. Brexiters will get their wish in one respect, at least, in that it is quite likely that we return to the 1970s position of being the sick man of Europe, which was a key reason why we joined in the first place.0 -
But you still trust her deal. Trusting someone you believe to be a liar seems insane to me.IanB2 said:
If you mean that her slogans are essentially meaningless, for sure.AmpfieldAndy said:
No - you implied she was a liar.IanB2 said:
I never said she was a good PM (although I do think she is underestimated on narrow tactics). Nevertheless her deal remains better than a no deal exit in two and a bit months' time. And we have common ground that no Brexit is better.AmpfieldAndy said:
So she is a liar is she ? Hardly a ringing endorsement of her fitness for the task entrusted to her.IanB2 said:
That was just a slogan, intended to defer the day when her headbangers had their appointment with reality.AmpfieldAndy said:
“No deal is better than a bad deal” was one of her quotes. Now she seems to have negotiated a deal on the basis that any deal, even one dictated by the EU that offers us nothing,IanB2 said:
Bizarre. May's deal broadly protects our current arrangements on trade. Which are better than cold turkey no deal. And government didn't prepare for no deal because it promised big business that it wouldn't happen.AmpfieldAndy said:
Nonsense. May’s deal does nothing on trade which is not part of her deal and it’s her own gross negligence that has led to the failure to prepare for no deal.IanB2 said:
still.AmpfieldAndy said:
Both no deal and no Brexit are better than May’s “deal”.Sean_F said:
My lack of respect for people like Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, and Boris Johnson is boundless.Big_G_NorthWales said:
History will show that TM achieved a Brexit deal with the 27 Countries of Europe and if brexit falls it will be the responsibility, ironically, of the ERG membersOldKingCole said:
She did, 29th March without one.Big_G_NorthWales said:It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps
0 -
Her deal is better than anything else on offer, other than abandoning the whole thing as a horrendous mistake. That's as far as it goes.AmpfieldAndy said:
But you still trust her deal. Trusting someone you believe to be a liar seems insane to me.IanB2 said:
If you mean that her slogans are essentially meaningless, for sure.AmpfieldAndy said:
No - you implied she was a liar.IanB2 said:
I never said she was a good PM (although I do think she is underestimated on narrow tactics). Nevertheless her deal remains better than a no deal exit in two and a bit months' time. And we have common ground that no Brexit is better.AmpfieldAndy said:
So she is a liar is she ? Hardly a ringing endorsement of her fitness for the task entrusted to her.IanB2 said:
That was just a slogan, intended to defer the day when her headbangers had their appointment with reality.AmpfieldAndy said:
“No deal is better than a bad deal” was one of her quotes. Now she seems to have negotiated a deal on the basis that any deal, even one dictated by the EU that offers us nothing,IanB2 said:
Bizarre. May's deal broadly protects our current arrangements on trade. Which are better than cold turkey no deal. And government didn't prepare for no deal because it promised big business that it wouldn't happen.AmpfieldAndy said:
Nonsense. May’s deal does nothing on trade which is not part of her deal and it’s her own gross negligence that has led to the failure to prepare for no deal.IanB2 said:
still.AmpfieldAndy said:
Both no deal and no Brexit are better than May’s “deal”.Sean_F said:
My lack of respect for people like Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, and Boris Johnson is boundless.Big_G_NorthWales said:
History will show that TM achieved a Brexit deal with the 27 Countries of Europe and if brexit falls it will be the responsibility, ironically, of the ERG membersOldKingCole said:
She did, 29th March without one.Big_G_NorthWales said:It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps
0 -
I just wonder whether any of the people who think No Deal won't be a disaster have any evidence to back up that view. If so, it would be useful information. I remember a lot of assertions that No Deal will be fine. But I can't remember any evidence to back them up.Foxy said:
I have long thought that likely, though No Deal is going to be Brexit with a whimper rather than a bang.SouthamObserver said:
That's why we need to start again. However, I think we will leave without a deal.Yorkcity said:
True , however there is only Mays deal or no deal currently on the cards.SouthamObserver said:
Over 50% of voters at the last election backed parties that ruled out a No Deal Brexit. All opinion polls show that voters are opposed to a No Deal Brexit. The will of the people is not to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. Mrs May's deal is not the only way to prevent a No Deal. It is the only way to prevent one based on the prejudices that Mrs May has.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Tokyo, the electorate voted for:
a party promising a referendum to have a majority
MPs who backed a referendum
to Leave in said referendum
MPs then backed the result of the referendum
two main parties in another election, both of whom backed leaving the EU
The idea there's going to be anything other than a severely disgruntled, and understandably disgruntled, electorate if we end up remaining (especially without another referendum) is optimistic beyond the bounds of reason.
Therefore without another deal MPs should vote for it imo.
0 -
In your view, the basis for which we have already established is flawed. Hilarious.IanB2 said:
Her deal is better than anything else on offer, other than abandoning the whole thing as a horrendous mistake. That's as far as it goes.AmpfieldAndy said:
But you still trust her deal. Trusting someone you believe to be a liar seems insane to me.IanB2 said:
If you mean that her slogans are essentially meaningless, for sure.AmpfieldAndy said:
No - you implied she was a liar.IanB2 said:
I never said she was a good PM (although I do think she is underestimated on narrow tactics). Nevertheless her deal remains better than a no deal exit in two and a bit months' time. And we have common ground that no Brexit is better.AmpfieldAndy said:
So she is a liar is she ? Hardly a ringing endorsement of her fitness for the task entrusted to her.IanB2 said:
That was just a slogan, intended to defer the day when her headbangers had their appointment with reality.AmpfieldAndy said:
“No deal is better than a bad deal” was one of her quotes. Now she seems to have negotiated a deal on the basis that any deal, even one dictated by the EU that offers us nothing,IanB2 said:AmpfieldAndy said:
Nonsense. May’s deal does nothing on trade which is not part of her deal and it’s her own gross negligence that has led to the failure to prepare for no deal.IanB2 said:
still.AmpfieldAndy said:
Both no deal and no Brexit are better than May’s “deal”.Sean_F said:
My lack of respect for people like Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, and Boris Johnson is boundless.Big_G_NorthWales said:
History will show that TM achieved a Brexit deal with the 27 Countries of Europe and if brexit falls it will be the responsibility, ironically, of the ERG membersOldKingCole said:
She did, 29th March without one.Big_G_NorthWales said:It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps
0 -
Survation
Deal 41% No Deal 32%
Deal 40% Remain 40%
Remain 46% No Deal 41%
https://mobile.twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/10840475148509962240 -
Just look at the many organisations around the world - the ones where the EU talks in our place rather than allowing us to make our own case and have our own vote. People around the world look at the EU and they see an inward looking protectionist bloc putting up walls against the emerging nations and desperately clinging to their belief in some divine right to dominate. Even the language used by the EU of challenging the US and China is arrogant in the extreme. Britain and the other forward looking European countries have a place in the world but it certainly isn't one based on the outdated concepts that still drive the EU.IanB2 said:
Then I apologise if you are indeed well travelled. Although returning the same misconception makes us equally wrong.Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. I spend a lot more time abroad and talking to people from other countries than almost anyone else here. You need to try and get your information from somewhere other than the lower end of the internet.IanB2 said:
Auditioning to be the self harming idiot of the world isn't going to increase our influence. You clearly haven't been abroad recently; we are progressively trashing our national reputation for pragmatism and common sense.Richard_Tyndall said:
Wrong in all three cases. It will increase our influence, improve our trade and make the country wealthier. This lunatic obsession you Eurofanatics have with 6% of the world's population as if there is nothing else out there beyond Europe but seabeasts and dragons really is bizarre.Beverley_C said:
May's Deal is not "pure" enough for the Brexiteers. It doe snot matter what it achieves when it is the wrong kind of Brexit.
Do not expect reason. Brexit is, by any measure, national insanity. It loses us influence, worsens our trade and makes us poorer.
I am mystified at how anyone can think Brexit will increase our national influence. Brexiters will get their wish in one respect, at least, in that it is quite likely that we return to the 1970s position of being the sick man of Europe, which was a key reason why we joined in the first place.
And being the sick man of Europe had nothing to do with being inside or outside the EU. Indeed we remained the sick man of Europe until the Thatcher reforms which made us less like Europe and more like the US. That is what changed everything for us, not membership of the EEC/EU.
0 -
Former Labour Party Deputy Leader Roy Hattersley backs a second EU referendum
https://mobile.twitter.com/LabPeoplesVote/status/10840482432086548480 -
Please note I was commenting on the Symphonies.Richard_Tyndall said:
Once again proving you have no soul.Beverley_C said:IanB2 said:
..provided you have a high tolerance for repetition, I guess.Beverley_C said:
Mozart was the greatest composer ever. That is all that matters!Foxy said:Mozart was a German Austrian, a subject of the Hapsburg monarchy.
Which presumably must include any regular PB'er.
Beethoven is stodgy as far as symphonies go. Some of his piano sonatas are ok. There is no finer composer in the history of the world that Beethoven. And the greatest piece of music ever written is his Violin Concerto Opus 61. Preferably as played by Leonid Kogan.
Franz Welser-Most's version of Mozart's Requiem is sublime, but I think the real trick is to avoid American orchestras who seem to pick up the tempo and play too quick and with rather overpowering brass sections0 -
And of course I was only joking. Hence the smiley. I do think Beethoven the greatest composer ever but do understand others might not share that view....Beverley_C said:
Please note I was commenting on the Symphonies.Richard_Tyndall said:
Once again proving you have no soul.Beverley_C said:IanB2 said:
..provided you have a high tolerance for repetition, I guess.Beverley_C said:
Mozart was the greatest composer ever. That is all that matters!Foxy said:Mozart was a German Austrian, a subject of the Hapsburg monarchy.
Which presumably must include any regular PB'er.
Beethoven is stodgy as far as symphonies go. Some of his piano sonatas are ok. There is no finer composer in the history of the world that Beethoven. And the greatest piece of music ever written is his Violin Concerto Opus 61. Preferably as played by Leonid Kogan.
Franz Welser-Most's version of Mozart's Requiem is sublime, but I think the real trick is to avoid American orchestras who seem to pick up the tempo and play too quick and with rather overpowering brass sections
...must resist making sarky comment to finish reply....0 -
Really? How?Richard_Tyndall said:
Wrong in all three cases. It will increase our influence, improve our trade and make the country wealthier.
Concrete examples please, not arm-waving, vague promises.
Remember - we are about to make it harder to deal with our biggest customer.0 -
I think the problems with No Deal at the ports etc will be short term, and even I can survive without salad for a few weeks. The damage will be long term rather than short term, and the benefits illusory as we will not get better trading arrangements than we currently have via EU mediated deals.Chris said:
I just wonder whether any of the people who think No Deal won't be a disaster have any evidence to back up that view. If so, it would be useful information. I remember a lot of assertions that No Deal will be fine. But I can't remember any evidence to back them up.Foxy said:
I have long thought that likely, though No Deal is going to be Brexit with a whimper rather than a bang.SouthamObserver said:
That's why we need to start again. However, I think we will leave without a deal.Yorkcity said:
True , however there is only Mays deal or no deal currently on the cards.SouthamObserver said:
Over 50% of voters at the last election backed parties that ruled out a No Deal Brexit. All opinion polls show that voters are opposed to a No Deal Brexit. The will of the people is not to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. Mrs May's deal is not the only way to prevent a No Deal. It is the only way to prevent one based on the prejudices that Mrs May has.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Tokyo, the electorate voted for:
a party promising a referendum to have a majority
MPs who backed a referendum
to Leave in said referendum
MPs then backed the result of the referendum
two main parties in another election, both of whom backed leaving the EU
The idea there's going to be anything other than a severely disgruntled, and understandably disgruntled, electorate if we end up remaining (especially without another referendum) is optimistic beyond the bounds of reason.
Therefore without another deal MPs should vote for it imo.
Hence I think the Brexit induced decline in Britain from reputational and economic causes will be death by a thousand cuts as a whimper rather than a bang.
Off to the footy now, to take my mind off my tax bill!0 -
Mozart was the greatest composer ever. Mozart was the greatest composer ever. The greatest composer, he was. The greatest, he was. The greatest composer ever was Mozart. Mozart, the greatest composer ever.Beverley_C said:
Please note I was commenting on the Symphonies.Richard_Tyndall said:
Once again proving you have no soul.Beverley_C said:IanB2 said:
..provided you have a high tolerance for repetition, I guess.Beverley_C said:
Mozart was the greatest composer ever. That is all that matters!Foxy said:Mozart was a German Austrian, a subject of the Hapsburg monarchy.
Which presumably must include any regular PB'er.
Beethoven is stodgy as far as symphonies go. Some of his piano sonatas are ok. There is no finer composer in the history of the world that Beethoven. And the greatest piece of music ever written is his Violin Concerto Opus 61. Preferably as played by Leonid Kogan.
Franz Welser-Most's version of Mozart's Requiem is sublime, but I think the real trick is to avoid American orchestras who seem to pick up the tempo and play too quick and with rather overpowering brass sections
And repeat.0 -
Anyone who thinks anyone other than JSB is the greatest composer of all time is I fear Baching up the wrong tree.Richard_Tyndall said:
And of course I was only joking. Hence the smiley. I do think Beethoven the greatest composer ever but do understand others might not share that view....Beverley_C said:
Please note I was commenting on the Symphonies.Richard_Tyndall said:
Once again proving you have no soul.Beverley_C said:IanB2 said:
..provided you have a high tolerance for repetition, I guess.Beverley_C said:
Mozart was the greatest composer ever. That is all that matters!Foxy said:Mozart was a German Austrian, a subject of the Hapsburg monarchy.
Which presumably must include any regular PB'er.
Beethoven is stodgy as far as symphonies go. Some of his piano sonatas are ok. There is no finer composer in the history of the world that Beethoven. And the greatest piece of music ever written is his Violin Concerto Opus 61. Preferably as played by Leonid Kogan.
Franz Welser-Most's version of Mozart's Requiem is sublime, but I think the real trick is to avoid American orchestras who seem to pick up the tempo and play too quick and with rather overpowering brass sections
...must resist making sarky comment to finish reply....0 -
I think most people look at the EU as the richest single market in the world and would love the kind of access to that market that Britain currently enjoys. If it is inward looking and protectionist, which doesn't match my experience by the way, all the more the reason not to give up the beneficial position we have at the moment.Richard_Tyndall said:
Just look at the many organisations around the world - the ones where the EU talks in our place rather than allowing us to make our own case and have our own vote. People around the world look at the EU and they see an inward looking protectionist bloc putting up walls against the emerging nations and desperately clinging to their belief in some divine right to dominate.IanB2 said:
Then I apologise if you are indeed well travelled. Although returning the same misconception makes us equally wrong.Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. I spend a lot more time abroad and talking to people from other countries than almost anyone else here. You need to try and get your information from somewhere other than the lower end of the internet.IanB2 said:
Auditioning to be the self harming idiot of the world isn't going to increase our influence. You clearly haven't been abroad recently; we are progressively trashing our national reputation for pragmatism and common sense.Richard_Tyndall said:
Wrong in all three cases. It will increase our influence, improve our trade and make the country wealthier. This lunatic obsession you Eurofanatics have with 6% of the world's population as if there is nothing else out there beyond Europe but seabeasts and dragons really is bizarre.Beverley_C said:
May's Deal is not "pure" enough for the Brexiteers. It doe snot matter what it achieves when it is the wrong kind of Brexit.
Do not expect reason. Brexit is, by any measure, national insanity. It loses us influence, worsens our trade and makes us poorer.
I am mystified at how anyone can think Brexit will increase our national influence. Brexiters will get their wish in one respect, at least, in that it is quite likely that we return to the 1970s position of being the sick man of Europe, which was a key reason why we joined in the first place.
0 -
Leavers love to create their excuse myths. The deal would have been fine if only it had been negotiated by a leaver and no deal would have been if only we had planned for it.AmpfieldAndy said:
Nonsense. May’s deal does nothing on trade which is not part of her deal and it’s her own gross negligence that has led to the failure to prepare for no deal.IanB2 said:
Nonsense. May's deal avoids most of the cliffedge crises that would arise from a no deal exit, and therefore is clearly better. You are right however that no Brexit is better still.AmpfieldAndy said:
But do you have any more respect for either May, Hammond or Clark who have negotiated a deal that is simply a white flag that does nothing for us or for arch Remainers like Grieve, Soubry, and Greening who are openly trying to thwart the referendum. I don’t.Sean_F said:
My lack of respect for people like Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, and Boris Johnson is boundless.Big_G_NorthWales said:
History will show that TM achieved a Brexit deal with the 27 Countries of Europe and if brexit falls it will be the responsibility, ironically, of the ERG membersOldKingCole said:
She did, after all, campaign as enthusiastically as she ever does, for Remain. And her Deal is better than Leaving on 29th March without one.Big_G_NorthWales said:It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps share responsibility
However, I still believe TM will not allow no deal but will continue to keep it on the table until either amendments to the vote or subsequent actions in the HOC give her the space to remove it without ERG being able to accuse her directly.
The ERG can be rightly criticised for being utterly clueless on the type of Brexit they want and for failingto put in the hard work to prepare one but to put together a “deal” that is clearly worse than no deal is an abdication of responsibility.
Both no deal and no Brexit are better than May’s “deal”.
What evidence is there that the EU would have offered Johnson or Mogg a better deal than the one we have?
A few months more planning might have mitigated some of the worst impact of a No Deal but it wouldn't have miraculously turned it into a success.
One thing we do know for certain is that whatever bad effects stem from Brexit the leavers will have n excuse as to why it's not actually their fault. Bit like death and taxes.0 -
Turning to politics for a moment (apologies), one of the most regretful aspects of Brexit is the problems it may cause classical musicians performing and collaborating across Europe.
Losing the EU Baroque Orchestra doesn’t get as many headlines as the EMA, but it’s still a terrible shame.
The price of Brexit. Worth paying, but high indeed.0 -
Still living in the past aren't you. The EU is becoming an increasing irrelevance in the world - where the 94% of people who aren't part of the EU live. You little Europeans need to wake up and start thinking about tomorrow instead of yesterday.Recidivist said:
I think most people look at the EU as the richest single market in the world and would love the kind of access to that market that Britain currently enjoys. If it is inward looking and protectionist, which doesn't match my experience by the way, all the more the reason not to give up the beneficial position we have at the moment.Richard_Tyndall said:
Just look at the many organisations around the world - the ones where the EU talks in our place rather than allowing us to make our own case and have our own vote. People around the world look at the EU and they see an inward looking protectionist bloc putting up walls against the emerging nations and desperately clinging to their belief in some divine right to dominate.IanB2 said:
Then I apologise if you are indeed well travelled. Although returning the same misconception makes us equally wrong.Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. I spend a lot more time abroad and talking to people from other countries than almost anyone else here. You need to try and get your information from somewhere other than the lower end of the internet.IanB2 said:
Auditioning to be the self harming idiot of the world isn't going to increase our influence. You clearly haven't been abroad recently; we are progressively trashing our national reputation for pragmatism and common sense.Richard_Tyndall said:
Wrong in all three cases. It will increase our influence, improve our trade and make the country wealthier. This lunatic obsession you Eurofanatics have with 6% of the world's population as if there is nothing else out there beyond Europe but seabeasts and dragons really is bizarre.Beverley_C said:
May's Deal is not "pure" enough for the Brexiteers. It doe snot matter what it achieves when it is the wrong kind of Brexit.
Do not expect reason. Brexit is, by any measure, national insanity. It loses us influence, worsens our trade and makes us poorer.
I am mystified at how anyone can think Brexit will increase our national influence. Brexiters will get their wish in one respect, at least, in that it is quite likely that we return to the 1970s position of being the sick man of Europe, which was a key reason why we joined in the first place.0 -
Those figures are very tight and based on them there's every chance some version of Leave would win a second referendum. Thoughtful remainers like Philip Collins of the Times have always cautioned going down that route as does Craig Oliver suggesting it may be preferable to accept the WA to prevent the possibility of no deal.HYUFD said:Survation
Deal 41% No Deal 32%
Deal 40% Remain 40%
Remain 46% No Deal 41%
https://mobile.twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/10840475148509962240 -
You are arguing against yourself. If the EU is insignificant at only 6% of the world's population, what does that make the UK? With China rapidly developing its industrial base and its billion plus economically active consumers and workers, do you really think now is a good time to cut down on co-operating with our neighbours?Richard_Tyndall said:
Still living in the past aren't you. The EU is becoming an increasing irrelevance in the world - where the 94% of people who aren't part of the EU live. You little Europeans need to wake up and start thinking about tomorrow instead of yesterday.Recidivist said:
I think most people look at the EU as the richest single market in the world and would love the kind of access to that market that Britain currently enjoys. If it is inward looking and protectionist, which doesn't match my experience by the way, all the more the reason not to give up the beneficial position we have at the moment.Richard_Tyndall said:
Just look at the many organisations around the world - the ones where the EU talks in our place rather than allowing us to make our own case and have our own vote. People around the world look at the EU and they see an inward looking protectionist bloc putting up walls against the emerging nations and desperately clinging to their belief in some divine right to dominate.IanB2 said:
Then I apologise if you are indeed well travelled. Although returning the same misconception makes us equally wrong.Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. I spend a lot more time abroad and talking to people from other countries than almost anyone else here. You need to try and get your information from somewhere other than the lower end of the internet.IanB2 said:
Auditioning to be the self harming idiot of the world isn't going to increase our influence. You clearly haven't been abroad recently; we are progressively trashing our national reputation for pragmatism and common sense.Richard_Tyndall said:
Wrong in all three cases. It will increase our influence, improve our trade and make the country wealthier. This lunatic obsession you Eurofanatics have with 6% of the world's population as if there is nothing else out there beyond Europe but seabeasts and dragons really is bizarre.Beverley_C said:
May's Deal is not "pure" enough for the Brexiteers. It doe snot matter what it achieves when it is the wrong kind of Brexit.
Do not expect reason. Brexit is, by any measure, national insanity. It loses us influence, worsens our trade and makes us poorer.
.0 -
Prague is a remarkable city for music lovers. I saw Don Giovanni in the Opera House where it was first performed.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ah. Cheers. That makes more sense.ydoethur said:
You've missed half the conversation. It was Beethoven, not Mozart. Who was born in Bonn in the Holy Roman Empire (see above) before moving to Vienna, where following the dissolution of the Empire he died an Austrian.Richard_Tyndall said:
It was always said jokingly that Austria had the best PR man in history. He managed to convince the world that Mozart was Austrian and Hitler was German.ydoethur said:
Well, German history is incredibly complicated in terms of delineating political boundaries. Technically there was no state of 'Germany' until 1871. Although Mozart was Austrian, his father was Bavarian and both were at that time part of the Holy Roman Empire which technically included most of Germany, albeit in a very loose confederation. Even after the dissolution of the Empire in 1806, there was always a widespread belief (and not just in Germany) that Austria was a German state that just didn't happen to be part of Germany.DecrepitJohnL said:Voting for the "best German of all time" got off to a shaky start yesterday after the Austrian ambassador to Germany complained that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, whose name appears on a list of eligible candidates, is Austrian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/07/arts.germany
Therefore at the time Bach was born Eisenach was part of the state that later transformed into the Empire of Austria (sorry @RoyalBlue)!
So I can see how Mozart might be claimed as German, or very cheekily Bach as Austrian. I can also say I think for the time period we're talking about such labels are anachronistic. Nationality mattered less than language in that place and period. From that point of view, both were German.
As a general point if ever anyone goes to Prague and visits the castle, do make a point of hunting down and visiting the private Lobkowicz Palace. It has a museum which contains the original hand written scores of Beethoven's 3rd, 4th and 5th Symphonies as well as Mozart's orchestration of Handel's messiah with all his corrections scrawled all over it. It really is remarkable and surprisingly moving to see these pieces of music written in the hand of their composers.0 -
I know everyone has an opinion about it, but - without wishing to be rude - my question was whether anyone could come up with evidence to back the opinion up.Foxy said:
I think the problems with No Deal at the ports etc will be short term, and even I can survive without salad for a few weeks. The damage will be long term rather than short term, and the benefits illusory as we will not get better trading arrangements than we currently have via EU mediated deals.Chris said:
I just wonder whether any of the people who think No Deal won't be a disaster have any evidence to back up that view. If so, it would be useful information. I remember a lot of assertions that No Deal will be fine. But I can't remember any evidence to back them up.Foxy said:
I have long thought that likely, though No Deal is going to be Brexit with a whimper rather than a bang.SouthamObserver said:
That's why we need to start again. However, I think we will leave without a deal.Yorkcity said:
True , however there is only Mays deal or no deal currently on the cards.SouthamObserver said:
Over 50% of voters at the last election backed parties that ruled out a No Deal Brexit. All opinion polls show that voters are opposed to a No Deal Brexit. The will of the people is not to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. Mrs May's deal is not the only way to prevent a No Deal. It is the only way to prevent one based on the prejudices that Mrs May has.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Tokyo, the electorate voted for:
a party promising a referendum to have a majority
MPs who backed a referendum
to Leave in said referendum
MPs then backed the result of the referendum
two main parties in another election, both of whom backed leaving the EU
The idea there's going to be anything other than a severely disgruntled, and understandably disgruntled, electorate if we end up remaining (especially without another referendum) is optimistic beyond the bounds of reason.
Therefore without another deal MPs should vote for it imo.
Hence I think the Brexit induced decline in Britain from reputational and economic causes will be death by a thousand cuts as a whimper rather than a bang.
Off to the footy now, to take my mind off my tax bill!
It's noticeable that your first two paragraphs begin with "I think".0 -
Saw this. Thought of you.
0 -
NEW THREAD Comrades0
-
Unless and until it happens, there can be no evidence. But, I think Robert Smithson's 's video about No Deal is plausible. It causes genuine, avoidable, problems for us, without fulfilling the more lurid predictions of disaster.Chris said:
I know everyone has an opinion about it, but - without wishing to be rude - my question was whether anyone could come up with evidence to back the opinion up.Foxy said:
I think the problems with No Deal at the ports etc will be short term, and even I can survive without salad for a few weeks. The damage will be long term rather than short term, and the benefits illusory as we will not get better trading arrangements than we currently have via EU mediated deals.Chris said:
I just wonder whether any of the people who think No Deal won't be a disaster have any evidence to back up that view. If so, it would be useful information. I remember a lot of assertions that No Deal will be fine. But I can't remember any evidence to back them up.Foxy said:
I have long thought that likely, though No Deal is going to be Brexit with a whimper rather than a bang.SouthamObserver said:
That's why we need to start again. However, I think we will leave without a deal.Yorkcity said:
True , however there is only Mays deal or no deal currently on the cards.SouthamObserver said:
Over 50% of voters at the last election backed parties that ruled out a No Deal Brexit. All opinion polls show that voters are opposed to a No Deal Brexit. The will of the people is not to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. Mrs May's deal is not the only way to prevent a No Deal. It is the only way to prevent one based on the prejudices that Mrs May has.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Tokyo, the electorate voted for:
a party promising a referendum to have a majority
MPs who backed a referendum
to Leave in said referendum
MPs then backed the result of the referendum
two main parties in another election, both of whom backed leaving the EU
The idea there's going to be anything other than a severely disgruntled, and understandably disgruntled, electorate if we end up remaining (especially without another referendum) is optimistic beyond the bounds of reason.
Therefore without another deal MPs should vote for it imo.
Hence I think the Brexit induced decline in Britain from reputational and economic causes will be death by a thousand cuts as a whimper rather than a bang.
Off to the footy now, to take my mind off my tax bill!
It's noticeable that your first two paragraphs begin with "I think".0 -
Well in terms of influence it means we will have our own vote in organisations like the WTO, the various international fisheries bodies, the World Organisation for Animal Health, Codex Alimentarius which governs food standards and dozens of other international bodies setting standards where currently our voice and vote are controlled by the EU.Beverley_C said:
Really? How?Richard_Tyndall said:
Wrong in all three cases. It will increase our influence, improve our trade and make the country wealthier.
Concrete examples please, not arm-waving, vague promises.
Remember - we are about to make it harder to deal with our biggest customer.0 -
Not at all. We need to look to the other 94% rather than the 6%. They are the future.Recidivist said:You are arguing against yourself. If the EU is insignificant at only 6% of the world's population, what does that make the UK? With China rapidly developing its industrial base and its billion plus economically active consumers and workers, do you really think now is a good time to cut down on co-operating with our neighbours?
0 -
O/T - many people seem to have reached the conclusion that by being critical of Bercow's actions, David is defending the Government's previous actions surrounding the postponement of the vote.
I don't see it like that at all. The Government's behaviour was appalling, its conduct in refusing to publicise its legal advice on the deal was appalling. Bercow's conduct here was appalling, his own refusal to publicise his clerks' advice also appalling.
Bercow's actions are arguably much more harmful - the government can (and will in my view) be voted out but Bercow has politicised the Speaker's role forever. From now on any speaker has the right to choose which amendments to advance and which to ignore regardless of the legal advice because Bercow has set the precedent.
The fact that allowing Grieve's amendment may have righted a wrong caused by the Government in delaying the vote is irrelevant. Parliament is a rules based organisation, and precedent is extremely important in rules based organisation - therefore breaking one rule to correct the breaking of another rule will make things far worse in the long run.
I am constantly amazed at how often this is overlooked, especially by those seeking to remain in the EU.
The net result is that Parliament has been treated shamefully in this episode, by the government in its initial actions, by Bercow in making up the rules against advice, and by the labour party and tory ultra-remainers in refusing to investigate perfectly credible bullying claims against Bercow because, get this, the entirely impartial speaker will help thwart Brexit - thanks for the clear explanation Margaret.. In fact, it appears now that Parliament can decide whether to investigate its own depending on personal whim (how's that Keith Vaz investigation going while a cabinet minister was hounded to resign because he touched someone's knee 20 years ago?).
I do not know what will happen with Brexit, but whatever the end result is, Parliament has been irrevocably damaged by the petty self interest of all sides. Where that leads is a very worrying conversation indeed.0 -
more gerrymandering suggested, what happened to democracyGardenwalker said:
Although, if the ref had taken place under the rules of the Scottish devolution vote of 1979, Brexit would be deemed not to have carried sufficient support for a change.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Rook, the referendum was a perfect opportunity to express a view.
Also, to correct Mr. Divvie a bit further, more than two-thirds of the electorate voted in the referendum. So the Leave vote was a majority of a majority of the electorate, not a minority of a minority.0 -
Bercow's father was a taxi driver, of a British Jewish family in Edgware, Middlesex. His paternal grandparents were Jews who arrived in Britain from Romania a century ago.
Having settled in the UK, the family Anglicized its surname from Berkowitz to Bercow.
Source: Wikipedia0 -
I think David Allen Green nailed this issue https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/10836339057045463040
-
I'm available.... But I have no ambitions in this direction.0
