politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Brexit doesn’t happen on the March 29th Article 50 deadline

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. W, in the short term.

Longer term, that scenario could easily play into the hands of the far right.

We have already played into the hands of the far right and their backers in Moscow. It was called Brexit.

Philip_Thompson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Endillion said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

Stereotomy said:

Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop

Up to a point, she did.

I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.

There is though enough in it that sensible people can object to.

I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.

Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?

The other 27 countries currently in the EU. For starters.

Edit: yes, technically Article 50 is an exit clause, but it doesn't seem to work particularly well in practice.

Its more than just a technicality, Article 50 is an exit clause full stop. The fact our government has been so incompetent is neither here nor there. Plus under the EU membership we have a say in the rules.

Is there an example of anywhere were a third party determines the rules, without you getting a say, and without an exit clause? That's how colonies were treated not modern nations.

Do you genuinely think that the EU would be happy to keep the UK in the backstop indefinitely?

Yes, which is why they are prepared for it to be indefinite and not have an end date or exit clause. If they weren't happy to do that, then they wouldn't be insisting it is permanent with no end date or exit clause.

(Sharp intake of breath) Those dastardly furriners, the fiends! There out to get us y'know. Paranoid? No not us!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10218835769029050&set=pcb.10218835776469236&type=3&theater

I was thinking that this childrens' book could be used at that school in Birmingham where all the protests are taking place.

Philip_Thompson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Endillion said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

Stereotomy said:

Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop

Up to a point, she did.

I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.

There is though enough in it that sensible people can object to.

I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.

Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?

The other 27 countries currently in the EU. For starters.

Edit: yes, technically Article 50 is an exit clause, but it doesn't seem to work particularly well in practice.

Its more than just a technicality, Article 50 is an exit clause full stop. The fact our government has been so incompetent is neither here nor there. Plus under the EU membership we have a say in the rules.

Is there an example of anywhere were a third party determines the rules, without you getting a say, and without an exit clause? That's how colonies were treated not modern nations.

Do you genuinely think that the EU would be happy to keep the UK in the backstop indefinitely?

Yes, which is why they are prepared for it to be indefinite and not have an end date or exit clause. If they weren't happy to do that, then they wouldn't be insisting it is permanent with no end date or exit clause.

Why do you think the EU initially proposed that the backstop only cover NI?

Philip_Thompson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Endillion said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

Stereotomy said:

Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop

Up to a point, she did.

I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.

There is though enough in it that sensible people can object to.

I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.

Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?

The other 27 countries currently in the EU. For starters.

Edit: yes, technically Article 50 is an exit clause, but it doesn't seem to work particularly well in practice.

Its more than just a technicality, Article 50 is an exit clause full stop. The fact our government has been so incompetent is neither here nor there. Plus under the EU membership we have a say in the rules.

Is there an example of anywhere were a third party determines the rules, without you getting a say, and without an exit clause? That's how colonies were treated not modern nations.

Do you genuinely think that the EU would be happy to keep the UK in the backstop indefinitely?

Yes, which is why they are prepared for it to be indefinite and not have an end date or exit clause. If they weren't happy to do that, then they wouldn't be insisting it is permanent with no end date or exit clause.

Well quite, we'd be locked into vassal statehood indefinitely.

I can't believe I'm the only one who thinks that every piece of EU legislation proposed after we leave the political representation is going to have a 'F... the British' clause in it, something that serves no purpose other than for the EU to demonstrate what happens to states that leave?

_Anazina_ said:

Phil said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

OldKingCole said:

James O'Brien is apparently saying that the backstop was a British proposal.

Zat so?

This is why they are now so astonished by the UK trying to renegotiate it. They let us pick the cherries they vowed they would never allow us to pick, and now we're bitching about it.

The evidence that the ERG are secretly working as fifth columnists for Remain continues to mount.

This is (and to Richard’s OP) is what genuinely baffles me about the Ergers. The backstop is the best bit of the deal. And it is limited until such a time as a solution can be found to the Irish border. So, what is the effing problem? I know the ERG are utterly mad, but even within the normal parameters of crazy their opposition presents as sheer lunacy.

They are professional naysayers. They are cut from the same cloth as Corbyn. They think being contrary makes them look intelligent, because their fundamental insecurity is that they know they really are not that bright.

So this thread is sort of saying that Theresa's a bit rubbish at politics?

Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.

Expecting wisdom from Lammy is like expecting snow in June. It might happen. But not very often.

He has form on racial bullshit, though. My favourite was his Pope smoke idiocy. More recently one of the adjectives he used when describing why he thought the Grenfell Inquiry judge was unsuitable was 'white'.

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

David Lammy's explanation leaves me even more confused than I was before:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1103680613922557952

Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?

People of colour is an Americanism, isn’t it?
I’ve never heard anyone use it here. Black and coloured I have heard a fair amount. Coloured also seems to be used in preference to “mixed race” which now sounds vaguely eugenicist but describes a reality which is now totally mainstream.

It’s all a bit of a minefield and one would have hoped Mr Lammy to have been more charitable.

Coloured is generally seen as pejorative as it had pretty unpleasant connotations in S Africa during Apartheid. I like Rudd, and she has apologised, but she should not have used the term, and Lammy is right. Move on!

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

David Lammy's explanation leaves me even more confused than I was before:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1103680613922557952

Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?

because it assumes being white is somehow normal !

In my naivety, I would have thought that 'people' without any epithet referred to all people, 'white people' referred specifically to the subset who have white skin, 'small people' referred to the subset who are below average height, etc. In that framework 'coloured people' is a harmless synonym for 'non-white people' (which I think is still allowed, right?), and indistinguishable from the clumsy 'people of colour' (still allowed, in fact now preferred?). But the English language seems to have been redefined in mysterious ways, by mysterious people, who not only take mysterious offence but also seem to regard any transgression of the arcane rules someone has made up as proof of prejudice.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

David Lammy's explanation leaves me even more confused than I was before:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1103680613922557952

Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?

People of colour is an Americanism, isn’t it?
I’ve never heard anyone use it here. Black and coloured I have heard a fair amount. Coloured also seems to be used in preference to “mixed race” which now sounds vaguely eugenicist but describes a reality which is now totally mainstream.

It’s all a bit of a minefield and one would have hoped Mr Lammy to have been more charitable.

Coloured is generally seen as pejorative as it had pretty unpleasant connotations in S Africa during Apartheid. I like Rudd, and she has apologised, but she should not have used the term, and Lammy is right. Move on!

Though it does also describe one of South Africa's ethnic groups.

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

David Lammy's explanation leaves me even more confused than I was before:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1103680613922557952

Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?

Is it not normal to be white?

Most people in the world aren't, so.. Unusual?

Sean_F said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

David Lammy's explanation leaves me even more confused than I was before:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1103680613922557952

Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?

People of colour is an Americanism, isn’t it?
I’ve never heard anyone use it here. Black and coloured I have heard a fair amount. Coloured also seems to be used in preference to “mixed race” which now sounds vaguely eugenicist but describes a reality which is now totally mainstream.

It’s all a bit of a minefield and one would have hoped Mr Lammy to have been more charitable.

Coloured is generally seen as pejorative as it had pretty unpleasant connotations in S Africa during Apartheid. I like Rudd, and she has apologised, but she should not have used the term, and Lammy is right. Move on!

Though it does also describe one of South Africa's ethnic groups.

Do they still refer to them as such? I know my SA friends avoid the term.

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

David Lammy's explanation leaves me even more confused than I was before:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1103680613922557952

Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?

People of colour is an Americanism, isn’t it?
I’ve never heard anyone use it here. Black and coloured I have heard a fair amount. Coloured also seems to be used in preference to “mixed race” which now sounds vaguely eugenicist but describes a reality which is now totally mainstream.

It’s all a bit of a minefield and one would have hoped Mr Lammy to have been more charitable.

As a person of colour I'm fine with it.

There's some real racism in the world, try focussing on that Mr Lammy.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sean_F said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

David Lammy's explanation leaves me even more confused than I was before:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1103680613922557952

Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?

People of colour is an Americanism, isn’t it?
I’ve never heard anyone use it here. Black and coloured I have heard a fair amount. Coloured also seems to be used in preference to “mixed race” which now sounds vaguely eugenicist but describes a reality which is now totally mainstream.

It’s all a bit of a minefield and one would have hoped Mr Lammy to have been more charitable.

Coloured is generally seen as pejorative as it had pretty unpleasant connotations in S Africa during Apartheid. I like Rudd, and she has apologised, but she should not have used the term, and Lammy is right. Move on!

Though it does also describe one of South Africa's ethnic groups.

Do they still refer to them as such? I know my SA friends avoid the term.

As far as I know, Cape Coloureds call themselves such, and prefer others to use the term.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.

That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.

My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.

No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.

I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.

How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?

I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.

_Anazina_ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Endillion said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

Stereotomy said:

Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop

Up to a point, she did.

I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.

There is though enough in it that sensible people can object to.

I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.

Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?

The other 27 countries currently in the EU. For starters.

Edit: yes, technically Article 50 is an exit clause, but it doesn't seem to work particularly well in practice.

Its more than just a technicality, Article 50 is an exit clause full stop. The fact our government has been so incompetent is neither here nor there. Plus under the EU membership we have a say in the rules.

Is there an example of anywhere were a third party determines the rules, without you getting a say, and without an exit clause? That's how colonies were treated not modern nations.

Do you genuinely think that the EU would be happy to keep the UK in the backstop indefinitely?

Yes, which is why they are prepared for it to be indefinite and not have an end date or exit clause. If they weren't happy to do that, then they wouldn't be insisting it is permanent with no end date or exit clause.

It's not a backstop if it is time-limited.

It's not a backstop if you can abrogate it.

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

David Lammy's explanation leaves me even more confused than I was before:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1103680613922557952

Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?

Is it not normal to be white?

I have half-Thai grandchildren. Their skins are not 'white'...... or the slightly off-pink, as their father and paternal grandparents are, ....... but a rather nice honey colour. Can't be described as black.
How does one describe them? It's sometimes quite amusing when we show their pictures to new acquaintances, and listen to the er's and stutters.

Have you tried asking Angela Smith ?

Talking of political correctness gone mad, I was talking to a friend who until recently worked for the NHS who told me that he got into trouble with the diversity police for using the word 'gobbledygook' in an email.

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1103660208558100486

Well, there is a vacancy for Head of Complaints with Labour.

What happened to the twentysomething union boss's daughter who was doing it a few days ago?

I'm surprised Len might be going. Surely there will be a battle royal over replacement and by proxy it will become Watson vs Jezza surely?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

David Lammy's explanation leaves me even more confused than I was before:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1103680613922557952

Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?

People of colour is an Americanism, isn’t it?
I’ve never heard anyone use it here. Black and coloured I have heard a fair amount. Coloured also seems to be used in preference to “mixed race” which now sounds vaguely eugenicist but describes a reality which is now totally mainstream.

It’s all a bit of a minefield and one would have hoped Mr Lammy to have been more charitable.

As a person of colour I'm fine with it.

There's some real racism in the world, try focussing on that Mr Lammy.

Another comma in that final sentence might've been a good idea.

rottenborough said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1103660208558100486

Well, there is a vacancy for Head of Complaints with Labour.

He's not eligible. He's not directly related to anyone in the leader's inner circle.

He's Formby's ex-husband!

Which I think was her eligibility criterion in the first place (ie being Len's ex-wife).

OldKingCole said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Talking of political correctness gone mad, I was talking to a friend who until recently worked for the NHS who told me that he got into trouble with the diversity police for using the word 'gobbledygook' in an email.

What on earth is the matter with gobbledygook?
Apart from the obvious.

Absolutely nothing whatsoever, which is exactly the point. These people are mad.

_Anazina_ said:

It's not a backstop if it is time-limited.

Sure it is. It is just a time-limited backstop. They can quite reasonably say that if the backstop time expires without a deal they will cease and desist all trade and co-operation deals with us and will put us back into a no deal scenario unless \we renew the backstop or sign an alternative.

We would then be back to where we are now and able to democratically determine whether to renew the backstop, adopt no deal at that time, or ratify an alternative deal. How would that put the EU in any worse a position than it is now or was any time since Article 50 was created by the Lisbon Treaty? Any co-operation becomes conditional then upon the backstop or better being agreed, while leaving us the ability to walk away if that is what we democratically determine is better - in the full knowledge that is then a no deal scenario so would be a last resort.

The irony of the outrage over Rudd comment is that she was rising above party politics and actually sticking up for a member of the other team i.e. Abbott over the abuse she has received.

Its not like she was attacking somebody because they are the wrong skin colour, you know like Lammy over comic relief.

Tim Apple...is apparently the CEO of the maker of the iCrap.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-47485217/does-donald-trump-get-apple-boss-s-name-wrong

I see the people who become doubly incontinent on hearing the terms 'gammon' and 'Little Englander' are reacting similarly to 'coloured'.

Oh no, the other thing..

FrancisUrquhart said:

The irony of the outrage over Rudd comment is that she was rising above party politics and actually sticking up for a member of the other team i.e. Abbott over the abuse she has received.

Its not like she was attacking somebody because they are the wrong skin colour, you know like Lammy over comic relief.

No good turn goes unpunished.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nabavi, my mother used to work in a school. Brainstorming sessions had to be renamed 'brain showers'.

I suspect epileptics have rather more pressing concerns, to be honest, but there we are.

I remember this. We had the same thing in a primary school a few years ago where I was clerking the governing body. When it came up everyone else started shuffling their feet and looking sideways at me as the only epileptic in the room. I told them it was a load of cobblers but as I recall they decided to go with the PC nonsense anyway.

https://twitter.com/MatthewOToole2/status/1103701254671425538

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

A member of Labour's NEC writes:

Huda Elmi
@hudaelmi_
The Equality & Human Rights Commission is a failed experiment. If tomorrow it were to cease in existence, most of the people it was created to support wouldn’t even notice. We need to abolish it & bring back separate, well resourced governmental bodies for each equality strand!

I do not think that reasonable people can rely on voters voting Conservative to keep the Corbynites from power, but a change in the voting system to STV (or any reasonable alternative) would do so definitively.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.

That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.

My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.

No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.

I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.

How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?

I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.

Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever WANT another chance is just delusional.

That better?

OldKingCole said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.

That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.

My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.

No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.

I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.

How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?

I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.

Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever WANT another chance is just delusional.

That better?

Nope. We will very much want it in the future. We just won't be allowed it by a Parliament who will have been shaken by how close we came this time.

Democracy dies if we do not abide by the referendum result.

Anyone else missing the wingnut in chief?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.

That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.

My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.

No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.

I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.

How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?

I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.

Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever get another chance is just delusional.

Rejecting the deal is only lunacy if you think any Brexit is better than a bad Brexit.

As for never: Maybe, maybe not. Scottish devolution got stopped in the 1970s but still went ahead eventually in the 1990s.

I think if Brexit gets frustrated the idea that matters will just lie there is delusional. The issues that led to Brexit in the first place will still exist. Pent up in this nation will be a lot of annoyed people who will happily go for Brexit again if given another chance - are you suggesting if Brexit stops you'll just like down and play possum and never seek another vote or for for it if another vote happens? The EU will continue to integrate, the Eurozone will continue to integrate.

Brexit if it gets halted will only be tried again following another referendum - and that will only be called if the PM is themselves a Leaver . . . which means it should then be negotiated smarter than our Remain-backing PM has negotiated it.

Sean_F said:

brokenwheel said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.

That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.

My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.

No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.

I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.

How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?

I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.

Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever get another chance is just delusional.

The idea that the deal is leaving is lunacy. It's a trap designed by the civil service to reel us back in, with no ability to stop it. Keep trying to convince yourself but it's not going to convince anyone else.

Plainly, the deal is Leaving.

It may not be the Leave that you want, but it's certainly Leave.

Plainly it is not, it is only designed to look like leaving until the inevitable imposition of the backstop.

Sean_F said:

brokenwheel said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.

That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.

My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.

No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.

I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.

How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?

I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.

Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever get another chance is just delusional.

The idea that the deal is leaving is lunacy. It's a trap designed by the civil service to reel us back in, with no ability to stop it. Keep trying to convince yourself but it's not going to convince anyone else.

Plainly, the deal is Leaving.

It may not be the Leave that you want, but it's certainly Leave.

Agreed. I'm not suggesting its not Leave, but its not the Leave I voted for. I voted to Take Back Control not abdicate it forever.

If I'd been told in 2016 the choice was between Remain and the Backstop I'd have voted Remain.

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

brokenwheel said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.

That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.

My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.

No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.

I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.

How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?

I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.

Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever get another chance is just delusional.

The idea that the deal is leaving is lunacy. It's a trap designed by the civil service to reel us back in, with no ability to stop it. Keep trying to convince yourself but it's not going to convince anyone else.

Plainly, the deal is Leaving.

It may not be the Leave that you want, but it's certainly Leave.

Agreed. I'm not suggesting its not Leave, but its not the Leave I voted for. I voted to Take Back Control not abdicate it forever.

If I'd been told in 2016 the choice was between Remain and the Backstop I'd have voted Remain.

And, I'd have voted Leave, because I prefer some of what I what I want to none of it.

brokenwheel said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.

That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.

My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.

No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.

I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.

How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?

I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.

Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever get another chance is just delusional.

The idea that the deal is leaving is lunacy. It's a trap designed by the civil service to reel us back in, with no ability to stop it. Keep trying to convince yourself but it's not going to convince anyone else.

Rubbish. The Deal Leaving. The fact it is not the pure Brexit you want is your problem. All the reasonable Brexiteers on here accept that the Deal fulfils both the letter and the spirit of the referendum. Moreover it is all you are going to get. I don't fear a No Deal but I know it will never be allowed to happen. It is this or nothing and all the consequences of that.

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Rejecting the deal is only lunacy if you think any Brexit is better than a bad Brexit.

As for never: Maybe, maybe not. Scottish devolution got stopped in the 1970s but still went ahead eventually in the 1990s.

I think if Brexit gets frustrated the idea that matters will just lie there is delusional. The issues that led to Brexit in the first place will still exist. Pent up in this nation will be a lot of annoyed people who will happily go for Brexit again if given another chance - are you suggesting if Brexit stops you'll just like down and play possum and never seek another vote or for for it if another vote happens? The EU will continue to integrate, the Eurozone will continue to integrate.

Brexit if it gets halted will only be tried again following another referendum - and that will only be called if the PM is themselves a Leaver . . . which means it should then be negotiated smarter than our Remain-backing PM has negotiated it.

There won't be another referendum. If we do not leave now it is over for good. Like I said if you think otherwise you are delusional.

If that happens so be it. I'd rather Remain than Leave into the Backstop. But I think you're wrong. There is every chance the next Conservative PM after May [or after a Labour/other government] will be a Leaver who is better prepared and calls a referendum.

We won't be in the backstop forever. It will be in both sides interests to agree a trade deal because there are things that both sides will want that the backstop doesn't give them.

Richard_Tyndall said:

OldKingCole said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.

That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.

My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.

No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.

I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.

How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?

I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.

Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever WANT another chance is just delusional.

That better?

Nope. We will very much want it in the future. We just won't be allowed it by a Parliament who will have been shaken by how close we came this time.

Democracy dies if we do not abide by the referendum result.

The flame of democracy does not burn in your head alone, and if you lose faith it does not mean democracy is dead.

Richard_Tyndall said:

OldKingCole said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.

That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.

My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.

No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.

I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.

How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?

I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.

Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever WANT another chance is just delusional.

That better?

Nope. We will very much want it in the future. We just won't be allowed it by a Parliament who will have been shaken by how close we came this time.

Democracy dies if we do not abide by the referendum result.

Why. As others have said ad nauseam the electorate is allowed to change its mind.

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OldKingCole said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.

That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.

My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.

No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.

I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.

How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?

I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.

Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever WANT another chance is just delusional.

That better?

Nope. We will very much want it in the future. We just won't be allowed it by a Parliament who will have been shaken by how close we came this time.

Democracy dies if we do not abide by the referendum result.

The flame of democracy does not burn in your head alone, and if you lose faith it does not mean democracy is dead.

It does when 17 million people decide so.

OldKingCole said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OldKingCole said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.

That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.

My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.

No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.

I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.

How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?

I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.

Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever WANT another chance is just delusional.

That better?

Nope. We will very much want it in the future. We just won't be allowed it by a Parliament who will have been shaken by how close we came this time.

Democracy dies if we do not abide by the referendum result.

Why. As others have said ad nauseam the electorate is allowed to change its mind.

And as I have said before, democracy is asking a question and enacting the answer. Not asking the question for the sake of a veneer of democracy and then ignoring the answer. That is what dictatorships do.

Richard_Tyndall said:

brokenwheel said:

It has fuck all to do with "pure brexit", literally no one who voted to leave did so to reduce this country to vassalage with regards to our trading arrangements. It is precisely the opposite of leave. If the conservatives wish to do that then they will suffer the consequences.

And the Deal does not do that except in the minds of delusional fools like you.

As I said, keep telling yourself that.