politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The “Led by Donkeys” billboards probably won’t stop Brexit but

ydoethur said:

bigjohnowls said:

kle4 said:

bigjohnowls said:

kle4 said:

IanB2 said:

Intense discussions are taking place at Westminster that could lead to the emergence of a new centrist party consisting of six or more disaffected anti-Brexit Labour MPs along with the involvement of some Conservatives and the backing of the Liberal Democrats.

Labour MPs reported that some of those involved had lobbied backbench colleagues they thought were sympathetic as to how they could “make the shift” away from a tribal loyalty to the party.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/15/uk-mps-intense-talks-setting-up-new-centrist-party-labour

They really do think we're really dumb, don't they?

I thought you might have been in favour of a new Centrist Party??

I'm not opposed to the idea of a realignment in our politics. I find the endless bleating of cowardly MPs who have been talking about doing it for years tiresome and am not at all convinced that this time they mean it, particularly when their loyalties still appear to be to their existing brands and so any attempt to work with former Tories/Labour will fail very quickly, given they are not united in ideology, only by momentary circumstance, and their hatred of their former opponents remains.

IMO the realignment happened in 2016.

The day someone was elected who was on the side of the Many rather than the few, unlike all leaders and PMs since at least Thatcher

Never knew you thought so highly of May.

Titter

https://twitter.com/NickyMorgan01/status/1096442908083978240

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/NickyMorgan01/status/1096442908083978240

Don't be silly, Nicky.

All teachers will remember your promotion of someone who had shown she was arrogant, stupid and completely incompetent by her many and crass failures at OFQUAL to head up OFSTED and destroy that as well.

And we will not be kind.

kle4 said:

bigjohnowls said:

kle4 said:

bigjohnowls said:

kle4 said:

IanB2 said:

Intense discussions are taking place at Westminster that could lead to the emergence of a new centrist party consisting of six or more disaffected anti-Brexit Labour MPs along with the involvement of some Conservatives and the backing of the Liberal Democrats.

Labour MPs reported that some of those involved had lobbied backbench colleagues they thought were sympathetic as to how they could “make the shift” away from a tribal loyalty to the party.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/15/uk-mps-intense-talks-setting-up-new-centrist-party-labour

They really do think we're really dumb, don't they?

I thought you might have been in favour of a new Centrist Party??

I'm not opposed to the idea of a realignment in our politics. I find the endless bleating of cowardly MPs who have been talking about doing it for years tiresome and am not at all convinced that this time they mean it, particularly when their loyalties still appear to be to their existing brands and so any attempt to work with former Tories/Labour will fail very quickly, given they are not united in ideology, only by momentary circumstance, and their hatred of their former opponents remains.

IMO the realignment happened in 2016.

The day someone was elected who was on the side of the Many rather than the few, unlike all leaders and PMs since at least Thatcher

I think it is rather insulting to suggest no party leaders and PMs have cared about the many. It also seems very unlikely since getting the support of as many of the many as possible is how leaders and PMs stay in post.

Regardless, even if your premise was correct that is not a realignment, it's still tribal loyalty to one party and tribal loyalty to another, and that utter hatred of another party means one can never leave a party which is not the same as it used to be.

I left after Iraq and only rejoined in 2015

algarkirk said:

The_Taxman said:

Recidivist said:

The_Taxman said:

Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6708135/Terry-Christian-says-bosses-forced-lay-people-start-Leave-voters.html

We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.

I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.

I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!

And if massive youth unemployment in Italy or Spain is the consequence of being in the EU and in the Euro? This sort of argument is useless. All actions, and non actions, have consequences some of which are good and some bad.

Indeed. But you still have to choose. And it is those choices that define us.

(Sorry. Got a bit "Call the Midwife" there... )

Floater said:

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/editorial-eu-cannot-allow-us-to-burn-as-may-fiddles-over-brexit-37818812.html

The thing that made me laugh about the "searing" editorial in the Irish Independent is :

"Ireland has stood by the EU and should not be made to pay the price for another member storming out. We saddled our future generations with debt to protect the euro when the dam threatened to burst a decade ago. Small nations within the EU will be watching closely to see how we are treated."

Past behaviour really is a good predictor of future behaviour in the case of the EU.

The EU has stood by Ireland in their demands for a backstop.

But you could equally turn it around, and say that by insisting on the backstop, the EU has abrogated its responsibilities to Spain and Portugal.

Guess what, the real world is complex, and the EU has to juggle the demands and desires of countries with different wants and needs.

May and the equally useless Barclay are fooling no one . This is just running down the clock and pretending to negotiate .

Of course the BBC continue to peddle the narrative of May , the great fighter who keeps getting knocked down but channels her inner boadecia !

I expect the EU will throw her under a bus next week and big up Corbyns plan even more as a way of breaking the impasse.

Her pathetic attempts to suggest there’s a majority for her latest Unicorn fell to pieces last night.

She must go down as the most spineless and clueless PM of recent times . Her survival is simply a case of no one else wanting the job otherwise she would have been shown the door after the last election .

@The_Taxman - I know one leave voter who's been wanting redundancy for years. Personally, I wouldn't mind it too much as I'm living with my parents and don't have a mortgage.

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Recidivist said:

SunnyJim said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/rsylvestertimes/status/1096458415843524608?s=21

IF May gets her/a deal through parliament then my belief is that the likes of Boles, Soubry, Grieve, Woolaston etc are going to find it a challenge to stay inside the Tory tent.

There is going to be electoral gold in threatening to turn the ratchet in the UK's favour against the 'bullying' EU and every GE will play out against a backdrop of where your loyalties lie.

There is next to zero chance of any future Tory leader supporting re-joining leaves Labour in an awful position if trying to decide whether it supports re-joining or not and all the internal problems that would bring for the party.

And even if they do decide on some half-way house then why would a voter opt for that when they have the full fat versions at either end with the Tories or LD's?

And that's before we start with the possibility of Scotland leaving the union which would be the final dagger in Labour hearts as their only realistic chance of a coalition government would slip beneath the waves.

Getting a deal through, or not, is absolutely crucial to both parties future.

I am not so sure about that.

The only force against it is the Tory Party membership. But let's see what happens there. Parties can change surprisingly quickly.

I don’t think the EU would ever offer us terms to rejoin that could pass a popular referendum in the UK. It’s a political project and it’ll be standard terms, and a debate on QMV weightings and MEPs, or nothing. That means a commitment to join both the Euro and Schengen and, by then, taxation, social union, eurozone chancellor, European army. Everything.

Of course, it’s possible a Lab/LD majority could force through the treaty and necessary parliamentary legislation with just a GE mandate, but i suggest that would be “brave”.

Yes, it would be far simpler to simply stay in, but those are a bunch of straw men that you are putting up. Euro Army is optional and actually HMS QE needs european escorts any way, the choice is Schengen or CTA, and joining the Euro is effectively optional with no obligation to make progress at all.

I am sure that we will rejoin, initially EFTA before the whole shebang.

Not a straw man at all. The EU will develop in our absence, all of that is its declares intent and a rejoin negotiation wouldn't get going until, at the earliest, about 2023.

By then, the offer on the table would be standard terms.

Only 6 Labour splitters according to this. I think between 20 to 30 myself,

https://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/opinion/kevin-maguire-labour-split-latest-its-still-full-steam-ahead

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Recidivist said:

SunnyJim said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/rsylvestertimes/status/1096458415843524608?s=21

IF May gets her/a deal through parliament then my belief is that the likes of Boles, Soubry, Grieve, Woolaston etc are going to find it a challenge to stay inside the Tory tent.

There is going to be electoral gold in threatening to turn the ratchet in the UK's favour against the 'bullying' EU and every GE will play out against a backdrop of where your loyalties lie.

There is next to zero chance of any future Tory leader supporting re-joining leaves Labour in an awful position if trying to decide whether it supports re-joining or not and all the internal problems that would bring for the party.

And even if they do decide on some half-way house then why would a voter opt for that when they have the full fat versions at either end with the Tories or LD's?

And that's before we start with the possibility of Scotland leaving the union which would be the final dagger in Labour hearts as their only realistic chance of a coalition government would slip beneath the waves.

Getting a deal through, or not, is absolutely crucial to both parties future.

I am not so sure about that.

The only force against it is the Tory Party membership. But let's see what happens there. Parties can change surprisingly quickly.

I don’t think the EU would ever offer us terms to rejoin that could pass a popular referendum in the UK. It’s a political project and it’ll be standard terms, and a debate on QMV weightings and MEPs, or nothing. That means a commitment to join both the Euro and Schengen and, by then, taxation, social union, eurozone chancellor, European army. Everything.

Of course, it’s possible a Lab/LD majority could force through the treaty and necessary parliamentary legislation with just a GE mandate, but i suggest that would be “brave”.

Yes, it would be far simpler to simply stay in, but those are a bunch of straw men that you are putting up. Euro Army is optional and actually HMS QE needs european escorts any way, the choice is Schengen or CTA, and joining the Euro is effectively optional with no obligation to make progress at all.

I am sure that we will rejoin, initially EFTA before the whole shebang.

Not a straw man at all. The EU will develop in our absence, all of that is its declares intent and a rejoin negotiation wouldn't get going until, at the earliest, about 2023.

By then, the offer on the table would be standard terms.

Standard terms includes the CTA, opting out of a Euro military, and defacto opting out of the Euro. Though all these things have their merits that we should consider.

El_Capitano said:

Ooops. Looks like Mr Marshall Plan is running scared.

https://twitter.com/catherinemep/status/1096475848931201025

When Brexit reared its ugly head, Leavers bravely turned and fled...

Interesting that Diane Abbott is tweeting this.

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1096423888626569216

viewcode said:

algarkirk said:

The_Taxman said:

Recidivist said:

The_Taxman said:

Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6708135/Terry-Christian-says-bosses-forced-lay-people-start-Leave-voters.html

We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.

I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.

I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!

And if massive youth unemployment in Italy or Spain is the consequence of being in the EU and in the Euro? This sort of argument is useless. All actions, and non actions, have consequences some of which are good and some bad.

Indeed. But you still have to choose. And it is those choices that define us.

(Sorry. Got a bit "Call the Midwife" there... )

"It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you."

williamglenn said:

Interesting that Diane Abbott is tweeting this.

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1096423888626569216

Remarkably unselfaware as well.

Foxy said:

OldKingCole said:

viewcode said:

kinabalu said:

anothernick said:

If he really believed the opposite of what he was saying in public then he's a hypocritical scumbag who deserves no sympathy. But actually I think he, and a lot of other leavers, really did believe that the EU would fold if the UK voted to leave. There is a certain group in the population who are very anglocentric, probably do not travel abroad much and certainly do not understand foreigners (Gove is known to hate flying) and find it hard to imagine themselves on the other side of a negotiation process and so do not understand where their interlocutors are coming from. I think Gove is one such person.

That is very plausible.

Or perhaps what truly drove his desire to Leave was the event in his early life to which he often makes reference - the ruination of his Father's fishing business at the hands of restrictive EU regulation.

Intellectuals are not always cool and rational. They can be consumed with unruly passions. There are many examples of this (Satre, Kubrick, Simon Schama) and it could be that Gove is another.

Weirdly, I think he's wrong about the fishing. The thing that did for the GB fishing fleet was the increased availability of refrigerated trucks and storage and a much-improved road network. Why operate lots of little boats when you can get one humungeous factory ship, land it in one place, then truck the results safely across land? People forget that the road and rail network used to be so bad that moving stuff intra-GB by sea was a viable option. If this was his geas binding him to Leave, he's going to be sorely disappointed.

There was a report on BBC a day or so making that very point. A wholesale fish buyer was talking about loading the fish on to lorries and getting them from Peterhead to France in a day or so. No way is that possible by sea.

Smarter to land the fish in Normandy direct.

Quicker to unload and turn around in Peterhead and transport by lorry to France... Remember boats are slower than lorries and you need to travel to the fishing areas...

rcs1000 said:

Floater said:

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/editorial-eu-cannot-allow-us-to-burn-as-may-fiddles-over-brexit-37818812.html

The thing that made me laugh about the "searing" editorial in the Irish Independent is :

"Ireland has stood by the EU and should not be made to pay the price for another member storming out. We saddled our future generations with debt to protect the euro when the dam threatened to burst a decade ago. Small nations within the EU will be watching closely to see how we are treated."

Past behaviour really is a good predictor of future behaviour in the case of the EU.

The EU has stood by Ireland in their demands for a backstop.

But you could equally turn it around, and say that by insisting on the backstop, the EU has abrogated its responsibilities to Spain and Portugal.

Guess what, the real world is complex, and the EU has to juggle the demands and desires of countries with different wants and needs.

Yes - and it throws small countries under the bus when it suits.

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Floater said:

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/editorial-eu-cannot-allow-us-to-burn-as-may-fiddles-over-brexit-37818812.html

The thing that made me laugh about the "searing" editorial in the Irish Independent is :

"Ireland has stood by the EU and should not be made to pay the price for another member storming out. We saddled our future generations with debt to protect the euro when the dam threatened to burst a decade ago. Small nations within the EU will be watching closely to see how we are treated."

Past behaviour really is a good predictor of future behaviour in the case of the EU.

The EU has stood by Ireland in their demands for a backstop.

But you could equally turn it around, and say that by insisting on the backstop, the EU has abrogated its responsibilities to Spain and Portugal.

Guess what, the real world is complex, and the EU has to juggle the demands and desires of countries with different wants and needs.

My son was doing a piece on the effects of the US/ China tariff war for his economics class and found your piece on it really helpful. Are you still doing these? I haven’t seen a new one for a while.

I've started a new business, so I haven't been making videos.

I'm going to change the world*.

* Of auto insurance.

How many businesses do you have now?

williamglenn said:

Interesting that Diane Abbott is tweeting this.

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1096423888626569216

......and Clive Lewis predicting a European war. The ante is being raised

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-labour-mp-clive-lewis-13999361

Floater said:

rcs1000 said:

Floater said:

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/editorial-eu-cannot-allow-us-to-burn-as-may-fiddles-over-brexit-37818812.html

The thing that made me laugh about the "searing" editorial in the Irish Independent is :

"Ireland has stood by the EU and should not be made to pay the price for another member storming out. We saddled our future generations with debt to protect the euro when the dam threatened to burst a decade ago. Small nations within the EU will be watching closely to see how we are treated."

Past behaviour really is a good predictor of future behaviour in the case of the EU.

The EU has stood by Ireland in their demands for a backstop.

But you could equally turn it around, and say that by insisting on the backstop, the EU has abrogated its responsibilities to Spain and Portugal.

Guess what, the real world is complex, and the EU has to juggle the demands and desires of countries with different wants and needs.

Yes - and it throws small countries under the bus when it suits.

The power of a union is in solidarity, making it possible for small states to stand up against larger hegemonic neighbours. One can argue with Irelands stance, but you cannot fault the EU for sticking by the decisions of the sovereign government of Ireland.

Floater said:

The_Taxman said:

algarkirk said:

The_Taxman said:

Recidivist said:

The_Taxman said:

Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6708135/Terry-Christian-says-bosses-forced-lay-people-start-Leave-voters.html

We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.

I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.

I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!

And if massive youth unemployment in Italy or Spain is the consequence of being in the EU and in the Euro? This sort of argument is useless. All actions, and non actions, have consequences some of which are good and some bad.

Membership of the Euro is a different question, the UK is not and has never been a member of the Euro. Unemployment in Italy and Spain or even Greece are an internal matter and should not be conflated with the trading prospects of the UK currently or post Brexit.

Unemployment in those countries has nothing to do with the Euro and EU economic policy?

hmmmmmmmm

Spain's unemployment rate followed a similar pattern before the Euro and is falling steeply.



https://tradingeconomics.com/spain/unemployment-rate

Floater said:

The_Taxman said:

algarkirk said:

The_Taxman said:

Recidivist said:

The_Taxman said:

Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6708135/Terry-Christian-says-bosses-forced-lay-people-start-Leave-voters.html

We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.

I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.

I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!

And if massive youth unemployment in Italy or Spain is the consequence of being in the EU and in the Euro? This sort of argument is useless. All actions, and non actions, have consequences some of which are good and some bad.

Membership of the Euro is a different question, the UK is not and has never been a member of the Euro. Unemployment in Italy and Spain or even Greece are an internal matter and should not be conflated with the trading prospects of the UK currently or post Brexit.

Unemployment in those countries has nothing to do with the Euro and EU economic policy?

hmmmmmmmm

The question is : have employment and unemployment trends been worse in the EU and the Eurozone than in other advanced economies with similar demographics and social systems?

El_Capitano said:

Ooops. Looks like Mr Marshall Plan is running scared.

https://twitter.com/catherinemep/status/1096475848931201025

Was the RSPCA involved?

DecrepitJohnL said:

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

Interesting that Diane Abbott is tweeting this.

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1096423888626569216

......and Clive Lewis predicting a European war. The ante is being raised

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-labour-mp-clive-lewis-13999361

Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.

Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

Interesting that Diane Abbott is tweeting this.

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1096423888626569216

......and Clive Lewis predicting a European war. The ante is being raised

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-labour-mp-clive-lewis-13999361

Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.

Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.

George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

Interesting that Diane Abbott is tweeting this.

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1096423888626569216

......and Clive Lewis predicting a European war. The ante is being raised

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-labour-mp-clive-lewis-13999361

Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.

Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.

George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.

Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)

Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

Interesting that Diane Abbott is tweeting this.

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1096423888626569216

......and Clive Lewis predicting a European war. The ante is being raised

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-labour-mp-clive-lewis-13999361

Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.

Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.

George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.

Neil Hamilton went to Cambridge (and Aberystwyth).

Well, even the best universities can sometimes make mistakes.

Cyclefree said:

The_Taxman said:

Recidivist said:

The_Taxman said:

Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6708135/Terry-Christian-says-bosses-forced-lay-people-start-Leave-voters.html

We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.

I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.

I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!

Could we adopt this policy for other political decisions? Eg if Labour forms the next government and imposes a 20% wealth tax (as suggested in today's Times) it should be levied on Labour voters first.

After all, if a Corbyn-led Labour government would be as bad for the economy as some of us believe, it would only be right, would it not, for the costs of it to be borne by those who voted for it?

That would involve the electorate recognising that they are sentient adults who should take responsibility for their own decisions. I’m afraid that it won’t catch on.

viewcode said:

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

Interesting that Diane Abbott is tweeting this.

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1096423888626569216

......and Clive Lewis predicting a European war. The ante is being raised

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-labour-mp-clive-lewis-13999361

Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.

Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.

George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.

Neil Hamilton went to Cambridge (and Aberystwyth).

Given his career pathway, whilst he did not scale the heights (or even the middles) he has managed to maintain a steady earnings over many years in a remarkably unforgiving profession. I dislike him but he has survived blows that would have flattened others.

Although he did inflict most of them on himself.

Cyclefree said:

The_Taxman said:

Recidivist said:

The_Taxman said:

Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6708135/Terry-Christian-says-bosses-forced-lay-people-start-Leave-voters.html

We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.

I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.

I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!

Could we adopt this policy for other political decisions? Eg if Labour forms the next government and imposes a 20% wealth tax (as suggested in today's Times) it should be levied on Labour voters first.

After all, if a Corbyn-led Labour government would be as bad for the economy as some of us believe, it would only be right, would it not, for the costs of it to be borne by those who voted for it?

The sad thing about a Corbyn Government is the rich will find ways to get around the wealth tax. Like in Venezuela the poor will be the ones to suffer.

The issue as a consequence of Brexit with the resulting divergence with our nearest developed markets will be lowering our fundamental ability to grow in the future. The contempt for those who will lose their jobs by those who persist in advocating No Deal and the like seems perverse to say the least. I find it distasteful the way decent jobs and hard working people are going to be thrown to the wolves for Brexit and yet the very ills that caused the EU referendum result will remain and intensify as European immigrants are replaced with those from elsewhere in the world, the economic disparities in the UK will in all likelihood get worse and we will have suffered a diminution in economic power and influence for no reason.

The_Taxman said:

Cyclefree said:

The_Taxman said:

Recidivist said:

The_Taxman said:

Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6708135/Terry-Christian-says-bosses-forced-lay-people-start-Leave-voters.html

We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.

I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.

I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!

Could we adopt this policy for other political decisions? Eg if Labour forms the next government and imposes a 20% wealth tax (as suggested in today's Times) it should be levied on Labour voters first.

After all, if a Corbyn-led Labour government would be as bad for the economy as some of us believe, it would only be right, would it not, for the costs of it to be borne by those who voted for it?

The sad thing about a Corbyn Government is the rich will find ways to get around the wealth tax. Like in Venezuela the poor will be the ones to suffer.

The issue as a consequence of Brexit with the resulting divergence with our nearest developed markets will be lowering our fundamental ability to grow in the future. The contempt for those who will lose their jobs by those who persist in advocating No Deal and the like seems perverse to say the least. I find it distasteful the way decent jobs and hard working people are going to be thrown to the wolves for Brexit and yet the very ills that caused the EU referendum result will remain and intensify as European immigrants are replaced with those from elsewhere in the world, the economic disparities in the UK will in all likelihood get worse and we will have suffered a diminution in economic power and influence for no reason.

You say we are going to lose the ability to grow and there will be job losses and then you say we need more immigration.

Your arguments are illogical.

Foxy said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

Interesting that Diane Abbott is tweeting this.

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1096423888626569216

......and Clive Lewis predicting a European war. The ante is being raised

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-labour-mp-clive-lewis-13999361

Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.

It is a direct quote from the author of the article, not her words.

Yes I know that but my point remains. The first sentence should go because it is unnecessary and gives the false impression it is Abbot who lied. Most people will not follow the link for the full context.

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

Interesting that Diane Abbott is tweeting this.

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1096423888626569216

......and Clive Lewis predicting a European war. The ante is being raised

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-labour-mp-clive-lewis-13999361

Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.

Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.

George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.

Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)

Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.

Are firsts at Oxford and Cambridge quite what they used to be? I have my doubts. How comparable is David Cameron's first in PPE in the late 1980s to that obtained by Harold Wilson fifty years earlier? I am struck by how few appear to end up with Thirds there nowadays - yet not so long ago it seemed pretty common. David Dimbleby got a Third in PPE in late 1950s - Jeremy Thorpe in Jurisprudence earlier in same decade. Edward Boyle emerged with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation?
Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.

I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!

Oxford used to award fourth class degrees (apparently as prized as firsts) until the late 1960s or early 70s. Frank Bough was one such recipient.

The_Taxman said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

Interesting that Diane Abbott is tweeting this.

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1096423888626569216

......and Clive Lewis predicting a European war. The ante is being raised

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-labour-mp-clive-lewis-13999361

Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.

Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.

George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.

Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)

Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.

Are firsts at Oxford and Cambridge quite what they used to be? I have my doubts. How comparable is David Cameron's first in PPE in the late 1980s to that obtained by Harold Wilson fifty years earlier? I am struck by how few appear to end up with Thirds there nowadays - yet not so long ago it seemed pretty common. David Dimbleby got a Third in PPE in late 1950s - Jeremy Thorpe in Jurisprudence earlier in same decade. Edward Boyle emerged with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation?
Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.

I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!

Jim Hacker Got a Third from the LSE, which he wore with some pride and goaded Sir Humphrey with - any bachelor's degree is pretty straightforward though in reality - why we think a 1st in PPE or pretty much anything else makes anyone intellectually special is ridiculous.

ralphmalph said:

The_Taxman said:

Cyclefree said:

The_Taxman said:

Recidivist said:

The_Taxman said:

Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6708135/Terry-Christian-says-bosses-forced-lay-people-start-Leave-voters.html

We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.

I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.

I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!

Could we adopt this policy for other political decisions? Eg if Labour forms the next government and imposes a 20% wealth tax (as suggested in today's Times) it should be levied on Labour voters first.

After all, if a Corbyn-led Labour government would be as bad for the economy as some of us believe, it would only be right, would it not, for the costs of it to be borne by those who voted for it?

You say we are going to lose the ability to grow and there will be job losses and then you say we need more immigration.

Your arguments are illogical.

There is no inconsistency at all and I have explained this to you at least once if not twice.

Even in a recession you can find it hard to fill all types of jobs usually at the lower end of the spectrum but not exclusively, It can range from cleaners, agricultural workers and care home workers to skilled or professionals like doctors, nurses and laboratory staff or many other professions. There is always a basic need for some services or products such as in the NHS and the UK for whatever reason does not have a supply of the necessary experienced, qualified or experienced to fill these jobs.

The problem with Brexit is workers in Car plants like Ford, Nissan or Toyota will if they close be put out of work and do you expect someone with years of experience in manufacturing to gladly go into the fields or wipe peoples arses for a living? I think calling you obtuse is the most reasonable opinion I can bestow upon you.

The_Taxman said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

Interesting that Diane Abbott is tweeting this.

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1096423888626569216

......and Clive Lewis predicting a European war. The ante is being raised

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-labour-mp-clive-lewis-13999361

Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.

Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.

George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.

Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)

Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.

Are firsts at Oxford and Cambridge quite what they used to be? I have my doubts. How comparable is David Cameron's first in PPE in the late 1980s to that obtained by Harold Wilson fifty years earlier? I am struck by how few appear to end up with Thirds there nowadays - yet not so long ago it seemed pretty common. David Dimbleby got a Third in PPE in late 1950s - Jeremy Thorpe in Jurisprudence earlier in same decade. Edward Boyle emerged with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation?
Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.

I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!

I was a 2:1 but slap bang between a 2:1 and a first at 65%.

My strategy was highly numeric: I'd put all my effort into the exams and projects that'd give me the most credits for the least effort, although I wasn't as bad as some who looked to get just 59% and then get upgraded by performing well at the viva.

Pulpstar said:

Any fellow Archbishops here ?

That is a very strange comment on a huge number of levels.

kingbongo said:

The_Taxman said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

Interesting that Diane Abbott is tweeting this.

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1096423888626569216

......and Clive Lewis predicting a European war. The ante is being raised

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-labour-mp-clive-lewis-13999361

Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.

Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.

George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.

Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)

Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.

Are firsts at Oxford and Cambridge quite what they used to be? I have my doubts. How comparable is David Cameron's first in PPE in the late 1980s to that obtained by Harold Wilson fifty years earlier? I am struck by how few appear to end up with Thirds there nowadays - yet not so long ago it seemed pretty common. David Dimbleby got a Third in PPE in late 1950s - Jeremy Thorpe in Jurisprudence earlier in same decade. Edward Boyle emerged with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation?
Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.

I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!

Jim Hacker Got a Third from the LSE, which he wore with some pride and goaded Sir Humphrey with - any bachelor's degree is pretty straightforward though in reality - why we think a 1st in PPE or pretty much anything else makes anyone intellectually special is ridiculous.

I can confirm that a first in PPE does not make the holder intellectually special. Just read my inane posts on PB for confirmation!

dixiedean said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

Interesting that Diane Abbott is tweeting this.

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1096423888626569216

......and Clive Lewis predicting a European war. The ante is being raised

Anybody listening to Clive Lewis opinion on anything needs their head examining.

That would be "Top Labour MP Clive Lewis" would it?

Rule 7b of journalism. All politicians are "senior" or "top" when criticising their own party.

justin124 said:

The_Taxman said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

Interesting that Diane Abbott is tweeting this.

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1096423888626569216

......and Clive Lewis predicting a European war. The ante is being raised

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-labour-mp-clive-lewis-13999361

Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.

Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.

George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.

Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)

Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.

Are firsts at Oxford and Cambridge quite what they used to be? I have my doubts. How comparable is David Cameron's first in PPE in the late 1980s to that obtained by Harold Wilson fifty years earlier? I am struck by how few appear to end up with Thirds there nowadays - yet not so long ago it seemed pretty common. David Dimbleby got a Third in PPE in late 1950s - Jeremy Thorpe in Jurisprudence earlier in same decade. Edward Boyle emerged with a Third in History theDouglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation?
Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.

I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!

A few years ago I had an email exchange with Polly Toynbee of the Guardian. I challenged her assertion that Gordon Brown was the most intelligent of our postwar PMs by presenting the example of Harold Wilson. She did not exactly refute my suggestion , but did say that after Wilson became a senior politician he ceased to read widely - whereas Brown did not. I remain unconvinced by that.

Polly Toynbee's own academic record is not good.

justin124 said:

SandyRentool said:

kingbongo said:

The_Taxman said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

Interesting that Diane Abbott is tweeting this.

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1096423888626569216

......and Clive Lewis predicting a European war. The ante is being raised

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-labour-mp-clive-lewis-13999361

Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.

Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.

George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.

Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)

Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.

with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation?
Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.

I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!

Jim Hacker Got a Third from the LSE, which he wore with some pride and goaded Sir Humphrey with - any bachelor's degree is pretty straightforward though in reality - why we think a 1st in PPE or pretty much anything else makes anyone intellectually special is ridiculous.

I can confirm that a first in PPE does not make the holder intellectually special. Just read my inane posts on PB for confirmation!

By your day , had 'doing the minimum necessary to ensure a Third' ceased to be an option?

Students don't enrol with the OU just to do the minimum necessary.

The_Taxman said:

Casino_Royale said:

The_Taxman said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

Interesting that Diane Abbott is tweeting this.

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1096423888626569216

......and Clive Lewis predicting a European war. The ante is being raised

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-labour-mp-clive-lewis-13999361

Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.

Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.

George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.

Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)

of quality.

Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.

I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!

I was a 2:1 but slap bang between a 2:1 and a first at 65%.

My strategy was highly numeric: I'd put all my effort into the exams and projects that'd give me the most credits for the least effort, although I wasn't as bad as some who looked to get just 59% and then get upgraded by performing well at the viva.

That sounds like a good approach.

My strategy was just to see it through to the end!

I had a recurring nightmare for about 7 years after I graduated that I failed my degree. I'd be in the exam rooms for my finals and couldn't remember how to answer a single question.

That wasn't fun.

It happened because I only really pulled my socks up in the last 3-4 months in the lead up to my finals in my 3rd and 4th year, promptly forget most of the detail of what I'd learnt (i still understand all the principles about it) and felt guilty about the degree I'd been awarded.

justin124 said:

SandyRentool said:

justin124 said:

SandyRentool said:

kingbongo said:

The_Taxman said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

Interesting that Diane Abbott is tweeting this.

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1096423888626569216

......and Clive Lewis predicting a European war. The ante is being raised

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-labour-mp-clive-lewis-13999361

Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.

Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.

George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.

Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)

Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.

with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s.century.

I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!

Jim Hacker Got a Third from the LSE, which he wore with some pride and goaded Sir Humphrey with - any bachelor's degree is pretty straightforward though in reality - why we think a 1st in PPE or pretty much anything else makes anyone intellectually special is ridiculous.

I can confirm that a first in PPE does not make the holder intellectually special. Just read my inane posts on PB for confirmation!

By your day , had 'doing the minimum necessary to ensure a Third' ceased to be an option?

Students don't enrol with the OU just to do the minimum necessary.

I beg your pardon. And many congratulations too! I assumed you had been at Oxford.

They wouldn't let the likes of me in that place!

Pulpstar said:

Any fellow Archbishops here ?

Desmond waves.

Foxy said:

Floater said:

rcs1000 said:

Floater said:

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/editorial-eu-cannot-allow-us-to-burn-as-may-fiddles-over-brexit-37818812.html

The thing that made me laugh about the "searing" editorial in the Irish Independent is :

"Ireland has stood by the EU and should not be made to pay the price for another member storming out. We saddled our future generations with debt to protect the euro when the dam threatened to burst a decade ago. Small nations within the EU will be watching closely to see how we are treated."

Past behaviour really is a good predictor of future behaviour in the case of the EU.

The EU has stood by Ireland in their demands for a backstop.

But you could equally turn it around, and say that by insisting on the backstop, the EU has abrogated its responsibilities to Spain and Portugal.

Guess what, the real world is complex, and the EU has to juggle the demands and desires of countries with different wants and needs.

Yes - and it throws small countries under the bus when it suits.

The power of a union is in solidarity, making it possible for small states to stand up against larger hegemonic neighbours. One can argue with Irelands stance, but you cannot fault the EU for sticking by the decisions of the sovereign government of Ireland.

Are you saying the EU has never thrown any country under the bus, none at all?

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Any fellow Archbishops here ?

Bath and Wells?

Heh, yep !