politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s big speech – David Herdson’s take
Options
Comments
-
So the question is, does a person exercise their Treaty freedoms or their right under the 2005 directive?Chris_A said:Interesting tweet thread from a |Commons clerk. Showing that Patel and Johnson are all mindless soundbites indifferent to whether their actions are legal or not. https://twitter.com/woodstockjag/status/1163464481923588096?s=20
Or neither? Or both?0 -
They are going to hurt everybody with No Deal! They are wrong and extreame!Beibheirli_C said:
Except these are adults. If they want to hurl themselves of the Brexit cliff then I shall watch disinterestedly...Peter_the_Punter said:
Those of us that have had the experience of bringing up children will know exactly how you feel. Yes, there is much to be said for letting them learn by experience, but not at the cost of letting them do themselves irretrievable harm.Beibheirli_C said:
I have joined the "Shrug" Cult. These days I just shrug and say "Go on then... do it and see what happens" because, quite frankly, a lot of people only learn the hard way.Peter_the_Punter said:
It is extraordinary how the cultishness cuts across traditional ties. I really cannot think of any historic parallel since the Civil War, when brother fought against brother across the parliamentary divide.Beibheirli_C said:Peter_the_Punter said:
And they have been unable to deliver. So now what do you do?Currystardog said:So 86% of people voted for parties that said they would respect the referendum and ensure Brexit happened!
The default position is No Deal, but that has the support of less than half of the public, and MPs. It is also widely believed to be an extremely damging course of action for the country as a whole.
You wish to proceed? [Please don't mutter 'Will Of The People' , like some religious incantation. This is real life, with real consequences.]
Brexit is a secular religion and religious zealots never depend on reason. They follow dogma and show their piety via unwavering belief.
No one has ever answered me in even the slightest detail how putting up barriers to our major export market makes the UK richer, safer and better.
All I get is horsesh*t about how we can shiver in electric brownouts / blackouts but at least we will have our blue passports.
One complete fool on here even told me that "Yes - it may be a disaster, but at least we chose do to it"0 -
I understand. I saw your post about essential medicines and I am in a similar, though less critical, position.The_Taxman said:
They are going to hurt everybody with No Deal! They are wrong and extreame!Beibheirli_C said:
Except these are adults. If they want to hurl themselves of the Brexit cliff then I shall watch disinterestedly...Peter_the_Punter said:
Those of us that have had the experience of bringing up children will know exactly how you feel. Yes, there is much to be said for letting them learn by experience, but not at the cost of letting them do themselves irretrievable harm.Beibheirli_C said:
I have joined the "Shrug" Cult. These days I just shrug and say "Go on then... do it and see what happens" because, quite frankly, a lot of people only learn the hard way.Peter_the_Punter said:
It is extraordinary how the cultishness cuts across traditional ties. I really cannot think of any historic parallel since the Civil War, when brother fought against brother across the parliamentary divide.Beibheirli_C said:Peter_the_Punter said:
And they have been unable to deliver. So now what do you do?Currystardog said:So 86% of people voted for parties that said they would respect the referendum and ensure Brexit happened!
The default position is No Deal, but that has the support of less than half of the public, and MPs. It is also widely believed to be an extremely damging course of action for the country as a whole.
You wish to proceed? [Please don't mutter 'Will Of The People' , like some religious incantation. This is real life, with real consequences.]
Brexit is a secular religion and religious zealots never depend on reason. They follow dogma and show their piety via unwavering belief.
No one has ever answered me in even the slightest detail how putting up barriers to our major export market makes the UK richer, safer and better.
All I get is horsesh*t about how we can shiver in electric brownouts / blackouts but at least we will have our blue passports.
One complete fool on here even told me that "Yes - it may be a disaster, but at least we chose do to it"
The lunatics are charge and there seems to be no way to stop them.0 -
"Make Thee Mightier Yet - Again."rawzer said:
Doesnt work because its missing the call back to a lost / stolen golden age that gives power to slogans like 'Take BACK control' and 'Make America Great AGAIN'. 'Take Control' and 'Make America Great' wouldn't have hooked the same mindset.rottenborough said:0 -
Boris Johnson, who is currently imposing a hugely controversial policy without a mandate while labelling sceptics collaborators, currently occupies the top slot.Omnium said:
Corbyn is the second most divisive mainstream politician of our times. The first being McDonnell.FF43 said:I mostly disagree with David's take on Corbyn.
Firstly that Corbyn is attacking the Conservative Party that he would like it to be and not what it it is. Johnson's coterie and the Brexiteer prime movers are rampant disaster capitalists, who have adopted an anti austerity veneer to appeal to Brexit Party nativists. Corbyn's attack will work if people disbelieve the veneer is genuine. At the same time Johnson et al are not in a good place to attack Corbyn on wasting tax payers money.
I don't agree Corbyn is particularly divisive, unless attacking bankers and polluters counts as divisive.
Corbyn implies he is in favour of a sensible Brexit. Whether that's what people want, or is even possible, is maybe unclear.
What sort of frothing loon makes it over the line for you to feel they're divisive?
Admittedly your not alone. When you can wake up to the Today programme attempting to give a serious interview to Caroline Lucas then you know that coffee won't be the complete solution.0 -
Ebor gum! I'll go to t'foot of our stairs!stodge said:
Far from the most important sporting event this week in Yorkshire. Of much more interest is the York Ebor Festival starting on Wednesday.SandyRentool said:
On the dry side of the Pennines. Set fair for all 5 days.JBriskinindyref2 said:Did anyone watch Countryfile last night for the 7 day forecast?
Am I laying the draw again?0 -
Indeed, as did Theresa May's 'Strong and Stable' .rottenborough said:
Also may look very odd, when there is mass civil disorder over food rationing, med supply issues etc etc.rawzer said:
Doesnt work because its missing the call back to a lost / stolen golden age that gives power to slogans like 'Take BACK control' and 'Make America Great AGAIN'. 'Take Control' and 'Make America Great' wouldn't have hooked the same mindset.rottenborough said:0 -
"‘People don’t want to be stupid twice’: Foreign diplomats brace for Trump 2020 win
The expectation that Trump will win could affect how allies and adversaries approach negotiations with the U.S.""
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/18/foreign-diplomats-donald-trump-2020-14590690 -
As a matter of interest, I asked a couple of our EU staff if they had registered. Neither had, the Nurse because she was told that she has until Dec 2020 to register*, and next year has five years residence so was planning to go straight to Permanent Residence. The Doctor has a job to go back to next year. PP enforcing 31 Oct will catch them both.TheWhiteRabbit said:
So the question is, does a person exercise their Treaty freedoms or their right under the 2005 directive?Chris_A said:Interesting tweet thread from a |Commons clerk. Showing that Patel and Johnson are all mindless soundbites indifferent to whether their actions are legal or not. https://twitter.com/woodstockjag/status/1163464481923588096?s=20
Or neither? Or both?
*that is still the date on the government website.0 -
I do wonder... if they are issuing gagging orders and stopping open discussion of problems in order to get No Deal through, what do they think will happen if they succeed in No-Dealing? Do they think we will not notice when everything screws up?rottenborough said:
Also may look very odd, when there is mass civil disorder over food rationing, med supply issues etc etc.rawzer said:
Doesnt work because its missing the call back to a lost / stolen golden age that gives power to slogans like 'Take BACK control' and 'Make America Great AGAIN'. 'Take Control' and 'Make America Great' wouldn't have hooked the same mindset.rottenborough said:
And if they are actively surpressing information that would stop a No Deal, what do they think will happen to those responsible? Do they imagine it will enhance their reputation? Do they think we will be grateful if they push us into an avoidable mess?
It is the most incredible FUBAR situation ever.
0 -
Doesn't that sound rather as though they've been told they do need primary legislation to abolish freedom of movement? So instead they are going to abolish "freedom of movement as it stands," by doing some stuff they're already allowed to do.Chris_A said:Interesting tweet thread from a |Commons clerk. Showing that Patel and Johnson are all mindless soundbites indifferent to whether their actions are legal or not. https://twitter.com/woodstockjag/status/1163464481923588096?s=20
0 -
Corbyn's speech does not merit a mention on the front pages of either bbc.co.uk nor guardian.com. Is Jezza fast becoming an irrelvance?0
-
There was an interesting opinion piece in the STimes yesterday from a former diplomat and remain voter. Basically said that the EU acted in bad faith when they set their negotiating guidelines and it destroyed any hope of a deal: they wanted the U.K. to capitulate rather than negotiatedavid_herdson said:
I assume that's posted in irony but on the off-chance it's not, Vote Leave consistently criticised the EU for putting ideology and politics ahead of pragmatism, the economy and subsidiarity. Of all the people involved, they have least scope to complain about how the EU has acted.JBriskinindyref2 said:
How were Vote Leave to know that the EU would act in such bad faith? No Article 50 had been delivered before. I think we can forgive them for their naivety.AlastairMeeks said:
Your argument is bunk. Vote Leave's entire prospectus was built around them delivering a deal. The fact that their prospectus has been shown to be a shambles does not legitimise them implementing a still more extreme version of their mad obsession.algarkirk said:
Perhaps what Vote Leave said was in the strictest sense true, but as was made clear, would require both parties to want it. Not a safe basis for voting. Art 50 is short, clear and to the point and my argument is sound!AlastairMeeks said:FPT:
algarkirk said:
When people voted in the referendum they knew that after two years we left with or without a deal and that any extra time was not in the UKs gift. You cannot have voted leave without embracing the possibility of no deal. It is a logical impossibility.eek said:
They stated that we wouldn't be leaving without a deal.RobD said:
The Leave campaign said there wouldn’t be an end to freedom of movement? Or that it wouldn’t affect the people already in the UK?Cyclefree said:
This proposal is a complete breach of the very clear promise made by the official Leave campaign during the referendum. So yet another example of them trying to do something for which they have no mandate.
Why isn’t the press picking them up on this?
Vote Leave explicitly denied that triggering Article 50 was required, see here:
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
"We do not necessarily have to use Article 50 - we may agree with the EU another path that is in both our interests."
Besides, there is a deal.0 -
Take back control was a rubbish slogan. Nobody wants control, especially not over something as complicated as politics. They also don't want to be ignored, but they don't want to be left in the driving seat. It is reminiscent of 'The Big Society'. That idea was attacked in 2010 using PPBs featuring harrassed mothers having to go on volunteer police patrols etc., and those ads in my opinion were effective in alarming voters to the point where the Tories failed to win a majority. Take Back Control is an enthralling prospect if you're Michael Gove or Claire Fox, but to non geeks it is alarming. It's silly how Vote Leave has been turned into some work of demonic genius by remainers (who were laughing at its ineptitude daily during the campaign). I think they cost Leave points.Benpointer said:
Indeed, as did Theresa May's 'Strong and Stable' .rottenborough said:
Also may look very odd, when there is mass civil disorder over food rationing, med supply issues etc etc.rawzer said:
Doesnt work because its missing the call back to a lost / stolen golden age that gives power to slogans like 'Take BACK control' and 'Make America Great AGAIN'. 'Take Control' and 'Make America Great' wouldn't have hooked the same mindset.rottenborough said:0 -
It really is time to let them get on with it, they won’t listen and for every prediction of x happening then x-1 will be heralded as a victory. Just shut down,ignore them and let them get on with it.Beibheirli_C said:
I do wonder... if they are issuing gagging orders and stopping open discussion of problems in order to get No Deal through, what do they think will happen if they succeed in No-Dealing? Do they think we will not notice when everything screws up?rottenborough said:
Also may look very odd, when there is mass civil disorder over food rationing, med supply issues etc etc.rawzer said:
Doesnt work because its missing the call back to a lost / stolen golden age that gives power to slogans like 'Take BACK control' and 'Make America Great AGAIN'. 'Take Control' and 'Make America Great' wouldn't have hooked the same mindset.rottenborough said:
And if they are actively surpressing information that would stop a No Deal, what do they think will happen to those responsible? Do they imagine it will enhance their reputation? Do they think we will be grateful if they push us into an avoidable mess?
It is the most incredible FUBAR situation ever.0 -
yesBenpointer said:Corbyn's speech does not merit a mention on the front pages of either bbc.co.uk nor guardian.com. Is Jezza fast becoming an irrelvance?
0 -
Actually - sadly - they can and have been doing so quite effectivelydavid_herdson said:
Coming down, as a share of GDP.SandyRentool said:
Where is the national debt?Currystardog said:
So where is the deficit now say compared to when Labour were last in power?not_on_fire said:The Tories have lost any ability to criticise Labour for excessive spending. The billions spunked up the wall on Brexit and no-deal preparations are far worse uses of money than any of Labour’s proposals.
But Labour can't criticise both that the deficit reduction was too slow ("debt is too high"), and that it was too fast ("austerity!!"). They do need to get their story straight.0 -
who?Benpointer said:Corbyn's speech does not merit a mention on the front pages of either bbc.co.uk nor guardian.com. Is Jezza fast becoming an irrelvance?
0 -
They're like gamblers staking everything on one last desperate bet, and hoping against hope that they'll win.Beibheirli_C said:
I do wonder... if they are issuing gagging orders and stopping open discussion of problems in order to get No Deal through, what do they think will happen if they succeed in No-Dealing? Do they think we will not notice when everything screws up?rottenborough said:
Also may look very odd, when there is mass civil disorder over food rationing, med supply issues etc etc.rawzer said:
Doesnt work because its missing the call back to a lost / stolen golden age that gives power to slogans like 'Take BACK control' and 'Make America Great AGAIN'. 'Take Control' and 'Make America Great' wouldn't have hooked the same mindset.rottenborough said:
And if they are actively surpressing information that would stop a No Deal, what do they think will happen to those responsible? Do they imagine it will enhance their reputation? Do they think we will be grateful if they push us into an avoidable mess?
It is the most incredible FUBAR situation ever.
It's an entirely avoidable mess but for them, avoiding it will end their careers.0 -
-
Looks like we are still going to need lawyers. BTW it is hard to imagine this transition occurring without both lots of white noise from worried people - quite understandable - and real confusions as intersecting systems change. FWIW I think we can rely on the legendary incompetence of the Home Office to leave the Albanian criminal gangs at large while forcing EU brain surgeons and midwives who have overstayed their welcome by 24 hours into Gulags set up for the purpose.Chris_A said:Interesting tweet thread from a |Commons clerk. Showing that Patel and Johnson are all mindless soundbites indifferent to whether their actions are legal or not. https://twitter.com/woodstockjag/status/1163464481923588096?s=20
0 -
Delivering it might end their careers too...Chris said:
They're like gamblers staking everything on one last desperate bet, and hoping against hope that they'll win.Beibheirli_C said:
I do wonder... if they are issuing gagging orders and stopping open discussion of problems in order to get No Deal through, what do they think will happen if they succeed in No-Dealing? Do they think we will not notice when everything screws up?rottenborough said:
Also may look very odd, when there is mass civil disorder over food rationing, med supply issues etc etc.rawzer said:
Doesnt work because its missing the call back to a lost / stolen golden age that gives power to slogans like 'Take BACK control' and 'Make America Great AGAIN'. 'Take Control' and 'Make America Great' wouldn't have hooked the same mindset.rottenborough said:
And if they are actively surpressing information that would stop a No Deal, what do they think will happen to those responsible? Do they imagine it will enhance their reputation? Do they think we will be grateful if they push us into an avoidable mess?
It is the most incredible FUBAR situation ever.
It's an entirely avoidable mess but for them, avoiding it will end their careers.
0 -
That is more or less the point I have reached.nichomar said:
It really is time to let them get on with it, they won’t listen and for every prediction of x happening then x-1 will be heralded as a victory. Just shut down,ignore them and let them get on with it.Beibheirli_C said:
I do wonder... if they are issuing gagging orders and stopping open discussion of problems in order to get No Deal through, what do they think will happen if they succeed in No-Dealing? Do they think we will not notice when everything screws up?rottenborough said:
Also may look very odd, when there is mass civil disorder over food rationing, med supply issues etc etc.rawzer said:
Doesnt work because its missing the call back to a lost / stolen golden age that gives power to slogans like 'Take BACK control' and 'Make America Great AGAIN'. 'Take Control' and 'Make America Great' wouldn't have hooked the same mindset.rottenborough said:
And if they are actively surpressing information that would stop a No Deal, what do they think will happen to those responsible? Do they imagine it will enhance their reputation? Do they think we will be grateful if they push us into an avoidable mess?
It is the most incredible FUBAR situation ever.-1 -
It was on both earlier.Benpointer said:Corbyn's speech does not merit a mention on the front pages of either bbc.co.uk nor guardian.com. Is Jezza fast becoming an irrelvance?
0 -
Yes - but it didn't persist. That is the point being made. If it was a significant contribution to the national debate, it wouldn't have fallen off the front page within hours.justin124 said:
It was on both earlier.Benpointer said:Corbyn's speech does not merit a mention on the front pages of either bbc.co.uk nor guardian.com. Is Jezza fast becoming an irrelvance?
0 -
Anyone know what the odds are for best in show at next crufts?Beibheirli_C said:
That is more or less the point I have reached.nichomar said:
It really is time to let them get on with it, they won’t listen and for every prediction of x happening then x-1 will be heralded as a victory. Just shut down,ignore them and let them get on with it.Beibheirli_C said:
I do wonder... if they are issuing gagging orders and stopping open discussion of problems in order to get No Deal through, what do they think will happen if they succeed in No-Dealing? Do they think we will not notice when everything screws up?rottenborough said:
Also may look very odd, when there is mass civil disorder over food rationing, med supply issues etc etc.rawzer said:
Doesnt work because its missing the call back to a lost / stolen golden age that gives power to slogans like 'Take BACK control' and 'Make America Great AGAIN'. 'Take Control' and 'Make America Great' wouldn't have hooked the same mindset.rottenborough said:
And if they are actively surpressing information that would stop a No Deal, what do they think will happen to those responsible? Do they imagine it will enhance their reputation? Do they think we will be grateful if they push us into an avoidable mess?
It is the most incredible FUBAR situation ever.0 -
Agreed. There's method to both crap leaders' plans right now, even though both could also blow up in their faces.AlastairMeeks said:Jeremy Corbyn doesn't need to build a consensus. He needs only to gather more people in his tent than Boris Johnson gets in his. He reckons he can do this by preaching to the choir. He might well be right.
0 -
Anyone investing in those companies will no doubt have nmade piles of cash among other things.Peter_the_Punter said:
Rubbish. There are very good treatments available these days for haemorrhoids.The_Taxman said:Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn are like a pair of painful hemeriods. A complete pain in the arse without ointment! Both are complete dipsticks who demean politics! What have we come too...
0 -
It is actually covered in the BBC's leading piece re- Johnson.oxfordsimon said:
Yes - but it didn't persist. That is the point being made. If it was a significant contribution to the national debate, it wouldn't have fallen off the front page within hours.justin124 said:
It was on both earlier.Benpointer said:Corbyn's speech does not merit a mention on the front pages of either bbc.co.uk nor guardian.com. Is Jezza fast becoming an irrelvance?
0 -
It isn't needed, for the simple reason that there's still a good chance the outcome of the GE would leave a parliament just as or even more divided than it is now, and the idea certain groups of fanatics would bend to the wil lof others if they are humbled at the election is not credible.rottenborough said:FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.
However, it is clearly happening and soon, and hopefully it will become official soon enough so the pretence that it is not being planned for by both sides can be dropped.0 -
And even if people take issue with the tone by which you make that point, the fundamental problem remains that the argument will now be 'Tory spending splurge good; Labour spending splurge bad' which I don't see working any better than Ed M's 'Tory cuts bad; Labour cuts good' approach.Nigel_Foremain said:The problem for the Tories now is that the "Corbyn's magic money-tree" argument holds less persuasion when your own party advocates fully rogering large sections of the economy on the insane altar of a no-deal Brexit
0 -
The sequencing was - in particular - very unhealthy, and unbalanced things from the start.Charles said:
There was an interesting opinion piece in the STimes yesterday from a former diplomat and remain voter. Basically said that the EU acted in bad faith when they set their negotiating guidelines and it destroyed any hope of a deal: they wanted the U.K. to capitulate rather than negotiatedavid_herdson said:
I assume that's posted in irony but on the off-chance it's not, Vote Leave consistently criticised the EU for putting ideology and politics ahead of pragmatism, the economy and subsidiarity. Of all the people involved, they have least scope to complain about how the EU has acted.JBriskinindyref2 said:
How were Vote Leave to know that the EU would act in such bad faith? No Article 50 had been delivered before. I think we can forgive them for their naivety.AlastairMeeks said:
Your argument is bunk. Vote Leave's entire prospectus was built around them delivering a deal. The fact that their prospectus has been shown to be a shambles does not legitimise them implementing a still more extreme version of their mad obsession.algarkirk said:
Perhaps what Vote Leave said was in the strictest sense true, but as was made clear, would require both parties to want it. Not a safe basis for voting. Art 50 is short, clear and to the point and my argument is sound!AlastairMeeks said:FPT:
algarkirk said:
When people voted in the referendum they knew that after two years we left with or without a deal and that any extra time was not in the UKs gift. You cannot have voted leave without embracing the possibility of no deal. It is a logical impossibility.eek said:
They stated that we wouldn't be leaving without a deal.RobD said:
The Leave campaign said there wouldn’t be an end to freedom of movement? Or that it wouldn’t affect the people already in the UK?Cyclefree said:
This proposal is a complete breach of the very clear promise made by the official Leave campaign during the referendum. So yet another example of them trying to do something for which they have no mandate.
Why isn’t the press picking them up on this?
Vote Leave explicitly denied that triggering Article 50 was required, see here:
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
"We do not necessarily have to use Article 50 - we may agree with the EU another path that is in both our interests."
Besides, there is a deal.
All thay being said, and I know this is a minority view, what was reached at the end was not a bad deal for the UK.0 -
I fear that is optimism at work - sure, a lot of people will say they are just BOB, and yet enough get riled up enough to encourage the fanatics of our political classes. Those fanatics are doing what they do for a reason, primarily that in addition to thinking it is best they hold no fear that the public as a whole are against them. And if the public really were BOB they would be much more willing to accept a compromise, and the politicians fear being punished for rejecting whatever compromise options there were.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Yeah maybe on PB. In the real world I think you'll find most people are just BOB (bored of Brexit)Peter_the_Punter said:
It is extraordinary how the cultishness cuts across traditional ties. I really cannot think of any historic parallel since the Civil War, when brother fought against brother across the parliamentary divide.Beibheirli_C said:Peter_the_Punter said:
And they have been unable to deliver. So now what do you do?Currystardog said:So 86% of people voted for parties that said they would respect the referendum and ensure Brexit happened!
The default position is No Deal, but that has the support of less than half of the public, and MPs. It is also widely believed to be an extremely damging course of action for the country as a whole.
You wish to proceed? [Please don't mutter 'Will Of The People' , like some religious incantation. This is real life, with real consequences.]
Brexit is a secular religion and religious zealots never depend on reason. They follow dogma and show their piety via unwavering belief.
I think what the public are is Frustrated by Brexit, not bored, because we will continue to encourage the silly posturing of the politicians and punish those who try something else.0 -
Legendary Home Office incompetence?algarkirk said:
Looks like we are still going to need lawyers. BTW it is hard to imagine this transition occurring without both lots of white noise from worried people - quite understandable - and real confusions as intersecting systems change. FWIW I think we can rely on the legendary incompetence of the Home Office to leave the Albanian criminal gangs at large while forcing EU brain surgeons and midwives who have overstayed their welcome by 24 hours into Gulags set up for the purpose.Chris_A said:Interesting tweet thread from a |Commons clerk. Showing that Patel and Johnson are all mindless soundbites indifferent to whether their actions are legal or not. https://twitter.com/woodstockjag/status/1163464481923588096?s=20
Theresa May, David Blunkett and Michael Howard were titans of reliability compared to Prissy Patel.
What no-one's noticed (least of all Johnson) is that the first day of the new "keep 'em out" regime is scheduled to be November 1st. The day almost all of Catholic Europe traditionally comes to London for the weekend, priming London's retail industry nicely for its Christmas peak.
In the days PM's went to church, it was inconceivable the Cabinet would be ignorant of the business importance of the All Saints weekend. Now of course it's run by a commercial ignoramus with zero grounding in Europe's culture.0 -
-
Could it really be MORE divided than now? Parliament is currently deadlocked, unable to coalesce around any way forward at all. I'm struggling to see how it could be more divided than it is - there can't be fewer things it can agree on than zero.kle4 said:
It isn't needed, for the simple reason that there's still a good chance the outcome of the GE would leave a parliament just as or even more divided than it is now, and the idea certain groups of fanatics would bend to the wil lof others if they are humbled at the election is not credible.rottenborough said:FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.
However, it is clearly happening and soon, and hopefully it will become official soon enough so the pretence that it is not being planned for by both sides can be dropped.
Of course, you're right it might well STILL be equally as deadlocked after an election. But it might not be. An election COULD see Brexit Party supporters break for the Tories, giving Johnson a fairly healthy mandate. It COULD see Lib Dem supporters break for Corbyn giving him the seats to extend to negotiate a socialist paradise Brexit and put it to a referendum. Or it COULD see Labour fall apart, and the Lib Dems surge towards a revoke and remain position. It might, as you say, lead to none of those and basically leave us with the same again, but it does seem to offer a reasonable chance one way or another whereas not having an election doesn't offer anything.0 -
So basically, he's second fiddle to the worst PM this country's ever had?justin124 said:
It is actually covered in the BBC's leading piece re- Johnson.oxfordsimon said:
Yes - but it didn't persist. That is the point being made. If it was a significant contribution to the national debate, it wouldn't have fallen off the front page within hours.justin124 said:
It was on both earlier.Benpointer said:Corbyn's speech does not merit a mention on the front pages of either bbc.co.uk nor guardian.com. Is Jezza fast becoming an irrelvance?
(The 1st Earl of Ripon may rest easy now he has finally after 191 years lost his crown.)0 -
So, no backstop, “something else” to give confidence, no suggestion what “something else” might be. Literally no position at all.Scott_P said:0 -
Actually it’s worse than that: the perpetual relative undervaluation of the DM vs the lira, peseta and drachma played and important part in enriching Germany and screwing the PIGS to the floor over the last 2 decadesydoethur said:
Assuming that the DM trajectory would have mirrored the Euro.surbiton19 said:
GBP = EUR 1.08. EUR = DM 1.95ydoethur said:
Really? I thought the DM ceased to exist in 1999-2002.surbiton19 said:
For all the dominance of the German economy in the Eurozone that seems a bold assumption.0 -
There’s a lot of BRA about, as well.kle4 said:
I fear that is optimism at work - sure, a lot of people will say they are just BOB, and yet enough get riled up enough to encourage the fanatics of our political classes. Those fanatics are doing what they do for a reason, primarily that in addition to thinking it is best they hold no fear that the public as a whole are against them. And if the public really were BOB they would be much more willing to accept a compromise, and the politicians fear being punished for rejecting whatever compromise options there were.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Yeah maybe on PB. In the real world I think you'll find most people are just BOB (bored of Brexit)Peter_the_Punter said:
It is extraordinary how the cultishness cuts across traditional ties. I really cannot think of any historic parallel since the Civil War, when brother fought against brother across the parliamentary divide.Beibheirli_C said:Peter_the_Punter said:
And they have been unable to deliver. So now what do you do?Currystardog said:So 86% of people voted for parties that said they would respect the referendum and ensure Brexit happened!
The default position is No Deal, but that has the support of less than half of the public, and MPs. It is also widely believed to be an extremely damging course of action for the country as a whole.
You wish to proceed? [Please don't mutter 'Will Of The People' , like some religious incantation. This is real life, with real consequences.]
Brexit is a secular religion and religious zealots never depend on reason. They follow dogma and show their piety via unwavering belief.
I think what the public are is Frustrated by Brexit, not bored, because we will continue to encourage the silly posturing of the politicians and punish those who try something else.0 -
Three pages of flannel about why the backstop is unattractive, then two bullet points with Johnson's proposals: (i) let's make a completely unenforceable "agreement to agree" so we don't need to use the backstop; (ii) er, dunno, you tell us what you reckon.Scott_P said:
Absolutely pathetic - a basis for nothing.0 -
The whole point of the backstop is that it would kick in if "alternative arrangements by end of transition period" aren't ready. Given that's why it exists in the first place, if logically follows that you can't replace the backstop with the very thing it is intended to backstop.Scott_P said:1 -
Seems clear to me that he wants it gone from the transition period:AlastairMeeks said:
So, no backstop, “something else” to give confidence, no suggestion what “something else” might be. Literally no position at all.Scott_P said:
"* Says it should be replaced with commitment to alternative arrangements by end of transition period"
Of course you can say it won't be accepted and it probably won't but it is clear.0 -
You what? "The day almost all of Catholic Europe traditionally comes to London for the weekend, priming London's retail industry nicely for its Christmas peak." The *business* importance of a religious holiday? I am an ignorant non church going provincial, but that all sounds like world- building for a Michael Moorcock alternate history novel where the Pope is a warlord with a college of cardinals who are an elite military unit who go around bombing the shit out of people from helium dirigibles. WTF are you on about?Flanner said:
Legendary Home Office incompetence?algarkirk said:
Looks like we are still going to need lawyers. BTW it is hard to imagine this transition occurring without both lots of white noise from worried people - quite understandable - and real confusions as intersecting systems change. FWIW I think we can rely on the legendary incompetence of the Home Office to leave the Albanian criminal gangs at large while forcing EU brain surgeons and midwives who have overstayed their welcome by 24 hours into Gulags set up for the purpose.Chris_A said:Interesting tweet thread from a |Commons clerk. Showing that Patel and Johnson are all mindless soundbites indifferent to whether their actions are legal or not. https://twitter.com/woodstockjag/status/1163464481923588096?s=20
Theresa May, David Blunkett and Michael Howard were titans of reliability compared to Prissy Patel.
What no-one's noticed (least of all Johnson) is that the first day of the new "keep 'em out" regime is scheduled to be November 1st. The day almost all of Catholic Europe traditionally comes to London for the weekend, priming London's retail industry nicely for its Christmas peak.
In the days PM's went to church, it was inconceivable the Cabinet would be ignorant of the business importance of the All Saints weekend. Now of course it's run by a commercial ignoramus with zero grounding in Europe's culture.0 -
Stop bringing logic into these things. How can you ask Johnson to be logical? It would be like asking a tortoise to win the 100 metres sprint against a cheetah.glw said:
The whole point of the backstop is that it would kick in if "alternative arrangements by end of transition period" aren't ready. Given that's why it exists in the first place, if logically follows that you can't replace the backstop with the very thing it is intended to backstop.Scott_P said:
Next you'll be saying you expect Cummings only to say things that are intelligent.1 -
What you could do is extend the transition period (to say three years) to ensure they are in place, which seems like a fairly sensible proposal.glw said:
The whole point of the backstop is that it would kick in if "alternative arrangements by end of transition period" aren't ready. Given that's why it exists in the first place, if logically follows that you can't replace the backstop with the very thing it is intended to backstop.Scott_P said:1 -
The irony is even more delicious than that.Beibheirli_C said:
I do wonder... if they are issuing gagging orders and stopping open discussion of problems in order to get No Deal through, what do they think will happen if they succeed in No-Dealing? Do they think we will not notice when everything screws up?rottenborough said:
Also may look very odd, when there is mass civil disorder over food rationing, med supply issues etc etc.rawzer said:
Doesnt work because its missing the call back to a lost / stolen golden age that gives power to slogans like 'Take BACK control' and 'Make America Great AGAIN'. 'Take Control' and 'Make America Great' wouldn't have hooked the same mindset.rottenborough said:
And if they are actively surpressing information that would stop a No Deal, what do they think will happen to those responsible? Do they imagine it will enhance their reputation? Do they think we will be grateful if they push us into an avoidable mess?
It is the most incredible FUBAR situation ever.
For No Deal to work well, as many people as possible need to know as much as possible about the potential bumps in the road, and how to swerve round them, with as much notice as possible.
To take the insulin example; it's one thing for the government to plan to ship it in via Hull, or wherever. The tricky bit is going to be getting all the intra-UK deliveries from there to work. Not impossible, but it needs a bit of planning and communication.
But there is an understandable fear that, if lots of people know about the potential bumps in the road, their conclusion will be "hmm, maybe we shouldn't do this after all". So the communication hasn't happened yet. The later it is left, the less effective and more costly it will be.
Conclusion: the efforts to make Halloween Hard Brexit work as a political project will make it less likely to work as a governmental project. Which will in turn confirm the views of those who (like Dominic Cummings) think that the problem with this country is the Civil Service.0 -
Any lawyer will tell you an agreement to agree is utterly meaningless, unenforceable claptrap. If you don't say what the "alternative arrangements" are - and Johnson never has - it's dangerous waffle with no legal effect whatsoever. And no different, to be honest than the May "we'll all try really hard" commitment.felix said:
Seems clear to me that he wants it gone from the transition period:AlastairMeeks said:
So, no backstop, “something else” to give confidence, no suggestion what “something else” might be. Literally no position at all.Scott_P said:
"* Says it should be replaced with commitment to alternative arrangements by end of transition period"
Of course you can say it won't be accepted and it probably won't but it is clear.0 -
Surely the extension would have to be open-ended? You wouldn't want an arbitary cut-off date as that would require a backstop.rcs1000 said:
What you could do is extend the transition period (to say three years) to ensure they are in place, which seems like a fairly sensible proposal.glw said:
The whole point of the backstop is that it would kick in if "alternative arrangements by end of transition period" aren't ready. Given that's why it exists in the first place, if logically follows that you can't replace the backstop with the very thing it is intended to backstop.Scott_P said:1 -
Bozo's letter gives us the answer - CU plus access to the Single Market. But he doesn't want that (now) so has to resort to unicorns instead.0
-
An open-ended transition is a permanent arrangement.glw said:
Surely the extension would have to be open-ended? You wouldn't want an arbitary cut-off date as that would require a backstop.rcs1000 said:
What you could do is extend the transition period (to say three years) to ensure they are in place, which seems like a fairly sensible proposal.glw said:
The whole point of the backstop is that it would kick in if "alternative arrangements by end of transition period" aren't ready. Given that's why it exists in the first place, if logically follows that you can't replace the backstop with the very thing it is intended to backstop.Scott_P said:1 -
We know the alternative arrangements are, because they are spelled out in the WA and PD:glw said:
The whole point of the backstop is that it would kick in if "alternative arrangements by end of transition period" aren't ready. Given that's why it exists in the first place, if logically follows that you can't replace the backstop with the very thing it is intended to backstop.Scott_P said:
1, either a free trade agreement that renders them unnecessary
or
2, customs checks away from the border secured by cameras at the border (i.e. the "technical solution")
It is unlikely that either 1 or 2 is going to be ready by the end of 2020. Hence the backstop.
The most sensible solution would be to extend the transition period to allow them to be put in place in time (say 3 years), but to remove the backstop.1 -
Seems to me that with goodwill on both sides it's a common-sense solution to an otherwise intractable problem. Of course tho who want either no Brexit or a punishment Brexit will never be satisfied. RCS suggestion above makes a lot of sense also.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Any lawyer will tell you an agreement to agree is utterly meaningless, unenforceable claptrap. If you don't say what the "alternative arrangements" are - and Johnson never has - it's dangerous waffle with no legal effect whatsoever. And no different, to be honest than the May "we'll all try really hard" commitment.felix said:
Seems clear to me that he wants it gone from the transition period:AlastairMeeks said:
So, no backstop, “something else” to give confidence, no suggestion what “something else” might be. Literally no position at all.Scott_P said:
"* Says it should be replaced with commitment to alternative arrangements by end of transition period"
Of course you can say it won't be accepted and it probably won't but it is clear.0 -
It was very funny when SmithKline Beecham asked Johnny Cash’s estate if they could advertise Anusol using the music “Ring of Fire”.Peter_the_Punter said:
Rubbish. There are very good treatments available these days for haemorrhoids.The_Taxman said:Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn are like a pair of painful hemeriods. A complete pain in the arse without ointment! Both are complete dipsticks who demean politics! What have we come too...
Sadly the po-faced Americans turned them down0 -
Well sure, it sounds stupid if you put it like that, but layer in some waffle about anti-democratic this and outrage that (even though he voted for it) and BoJo can sell it no doubt.glw said:
The whole point of the backstop is that it would kick in if "alternative arrangements by end of transition period" aren't ready. Given that's why it exists in the first place, if logically follows that you can't replace the backstop with the very thing it is intended to backstop.Scott_P said:0 -
And what happens if 1 or 2 aren't in place after three years, or after four years, or after 87 years? It doesn't matter how long the transition is - there still needs to be something about what happens if the transition period ends without an alternative in place. That's not a negotiating position - it's simple logic.rcs1000 said:
We know the alternative arrangements are, because they are spelled out in the WA and PD:glw said:
The whole point of the backstop is that it would kick in if "alternative arrangements by end of transition period" aren't ready. Given that's why it exists in the first place, if logically follows that you can't replace the backstop with the very thing it is intended to backstop.Scott_P said:
1, either a free trade agreement that renders them unnecessary
or
2, customs checks away from the border secured by cameras at the border (i.e. the "technical solution")
It is unlikely that either 1 or 2 is going to be ready by the end of 2020. Hence the backstop.
The most sensible solution would be to extend the transition period to allow them to be put in place in time (say 3 years), but to remove the backstop.1 -
Just been to see Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.
Superb. Tarantino on top, top form.0 -
Why would the EU accept that? The EU requires the backstop in case alternative arrangments aren't ready, that's always going to be a possibility no matter how long the transition is.rcs1000 said:
We know the alternative arrangements are, because they are spelled out in the WA and PD:glw said:
The whole point of the backstop is that it would kick in if "alternative arrangements by end of transition period" aren't ready. Given that's why it exists in the first place, if logically follows that you can't replace the backstop with the very thing it is intended to backstop.Scott_P said:
1, either a free trade agreement that renders them unnecessary
or
2, customs checks away from the border secured by cameras at the border (i.e. the "technical solution")
It is unlikely that either 1 or 2 is going to be ready by the end of 2020. Hence the backstop.
The most sensible solution would be to extend the transition period to allow them to be put in place in time (say 3 years), but to remove the backstop.0 -
-
But it simply isn't a solution, because it doesn't answer the question as to what happens if, at the end of the transition period, there is not an agreement.felix said:
Seems to me that with goodwill on both sides it's a common-sense solution to an otherwise intractable problem. Of course tho who want either no Brexit or a punishment Brexit will never be satisfied. RCS suggestion above makes a lot of sense also.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Any lawyer will tell you an agreement to agree is utterly meaningless, unenforceable claptrap. If you don't say what the "alternative arrangements" are - and Johnson never has - it's dangerous waffle with no legal effect whatsoever. And no different, to be honest than the May "we'll all try really hard" commitment.felix said:
Seems clear to me that he wants it gone from the transition period:AlastairMeeks said:
So, no backstop, “something else” to give confidence, no suggestion what “something else” might be. Literally no position at all.Scott_P said:
"* Says it should be replaced with commitment to alternative arrangements by end of transition period"
Of course you can say it won't be accepted and it probably won't but it is clear.
It isn't an answer - it's ducking the question.0 -
-
The problem with the backstop is that it removes urgency from coming to a conclusion in negotiations between the EU and the UK. Simply the backstop is more uncomfortable for the UK government, and they might therefore make concessions in a high pressure sitation to avoid it coming into being.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
And what happens if 1 or 2 aren't in place after three years, or after four years, or after 87 years? It doesn't matter how long the transition is - there still needs to be something about what happens if the transition period ends without an alternative in place. That's not a negotiating position - it's simple logic.rcs1000 said:
We know the alternative arrangements are, because they are spelled out in the WA and PD:glw said:
The whole point of the backstop is that it would kick in if "alternative arrangements by end of transition period" aren't ready. Given that's why it exists in the first place, if logically follows that you can't replace the backstop with the very thing it is intended to backstop.Scott_P said:
1, either a free trade agreement that renders them unnecessary
or
2, customs checks away from the border secured by cameras at the border (i.e. the "technical solution")
It is unlikely that either 1 or 2 is going to be ready by the end of 2020. Hence the backstop.
The most sensible solution would be to extend the transition period to allow them to be put in place in time (say 3 years), but to remove the backstop.
If you put a sensible end date on it, both the UK and the EU are incentivised to reach a deal. And the transition can always be extended if necessary.0 -
-
Is this comedian going get bored of the detail work in a fortnight or so and do one?AlastairMeeks said:
So, no backstop, “something else” to give confidence, no suggestion what “something else” might be. Literally no position at all.Scott_P said:0 -
Ah you were doing great until that last sentence where you tried to sneak in an effectively open-ended transition.rcs1000 said:The problem with the backstop is that it removes urgency from coming to a conclusion in negotiations between the EU and the UK. Simply the backstop is more uncomfortable for the UK government, and they might therefore make concessions in a high pressure sitation to avoid it coming into being.
If you put a sensible end date on it, both the UK and the EU are incentivised to reach a deal. And the transition can always be extended if necessary.
Though I do get your point about having a deadline.0 -
Because the EU wants a deal, and the alternative is No Deal.glw said:
Why would the EU accept that? The EU requires the backstop in case alternative arrangments aren't ready, that's always going to be a possibility no matter how long the transition is.rcs1000 said:
We know the alternative arrangements are, because they are spelled out in the WA and PD:glw said:
The whole point of the backstop is that it would kick in if "alternative arrangements by end of transition period" aren't ready. Given that's why it exists in the first place, if logically follows that you can't replace the backstop with the very thing it is intended to backstop.Scott_P said:
1, either a free trade agreement that renders them unnecessary
or
2, customs checks away from the border secured by cameras at the border (i.e. the "technical solution")
It is unlikely that either 1 or 2 is going to be ready by the end of 2020. Hence the backstop.
The most sensible solution would be to extend the transition period to allow them to be put in place in time (say 3 years), but to remove the backstop.
This also allows both sides to save face. The EU doesn't need the backstop as the transition has now been extended, so they can claim it all worked out according to plan. And we can say the backstop has been gotten rid of, so we can be happy too.0 -
As I have said a few times before, and now in bold for any Tory MPs reading, YOU CANNOT OUT-FARAGE FARAGE.Scott_P said:1 -
The Brexit Deal without the Backstop is still "the worst deal in history".Scott_P said:
There's a lot I need to learn about hyperbole.0 -
New market: Next GE - Kensington (Lab Maj 20, Emma Dent Coad MP)
Con 4/7
Lab 7/4
LD 6/10 -
That was a key part of the argumentrcs1000 said:
The sequencing was - in particular - very unhealthy, and unbalanced things from the start.Charles said:
There was an interesting opinion piece in the STimes yesterday from a former diplomat and remain voter. Basically said that the EU acted in bad faith when they set their negotiating guidelines and it destroyed any hope of a deal: they wanted the U.K. to capitulate rather than negotiatedavid_herdson said:
I assume that's posted in irony but on the off-chance it's not, Vote Leave consistently criticised the EU for putting ideology and politics ahead of pragmatism, the economy and subsidiarity. Of all the people involved, they have least scope to complain about how the EU has acted.JBriskinindyref2 said:
How were Vote Leave to know that the EU would act in such bad faith? No Article 50 had been delivered before. I think we can forgive them for their naivety.AlastairMeeks said:
Your argument is bunk. Vote Leave's entire prospectus was built around them delivering a deal. The fact that their prospectus has been shown to be a shambles does not legitimise them implementing a still more extreme version of their mad obsession.algarkirk said:
Perhaps what Vote Leave said was in the strictest sense true, but as was made clear, would require both parties to want it. Not a safe basis for voting. Art 50 is short, clear and to the point and my argument is sound!AlastairMeeks said:FPT:
algarkirk said:
When people voted in the referendum they knew that after two years we left with or without a deal and that any extra time was not in the UKs gift. You cannot have voted leave without embracing the possibility of no deal. It is a logical impossibility.eek said:
Vote Leave explicitly denied that triggering Article 50 was required, see here:
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
"We do not necessarily have to use Article 50 - we may agree with the EU another path that is in both our interests."
Besides, there is a deal.
All thay being said, and I know this is a minority view, what was reached at the end was not a bad deal for the UK.0 -
-
I don't think the backstop is that comfortable for the EU. It grants the UK privileged partial access to the Single Market without freedom of movement or membership fees.rcs1000 said:
The problem with the backstop is that it removes urgency from coming to a conclusion in negotiations between the EU and the UK. Simply the backstop is more uncomfortable for the UK government, and they might therefore make concessions in a high pressure sitation to avoid it coming into being.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
And what happens if 1 or 2 aren't in place after three years, or after four years, or after 87 years? It doesn't matter how long the transition is - there still needs to be something about what happens if the transition period ends without an alternative in place. That's not a negotiating position - it's simple logic.rcs1000 said:
We know the alternative arrangements are, because they are spelled out in the WA and PD:glw said:
The whole point of the backstop is that it would kick in if "alternative arrangements by end of transition period" aren't ready. Given that's why it exists in the first place, if logically follows that you can't replace the backstop with the very thing it is intended to backstop.Scott_P said:
1, either a free trade agreement that renders them unnecessary
or
2, customs checks away from the border secured by cameras at the border (i.e. the "technical solution")
It is unlikely that either 1 or 2 is going to be ready by the end of 2020. Hence the backstop.
The most sensible solution would be to extend the transition period to allow them to be put in place in time (say 3 years), but to remove the backstop.
If you put a sensible end date on it, both the UK and the EU are incentivised to reach a deal. And the transition can always be extended if necessary.0 -
Still can't believe Kensington went redStuartDickson said:New market: Next GE - Kensington (Lab Maj 20, Emma Dent Coad MP)
Con 4/7
Lab 7/4
LD 6/1
0 -
And what have they got in a No Deal Brexit? How do their red lines look then?Scott_P said:0 -
That comes across as a reasonable argumentScott_P said:0 -
The PM wouldn't have tweeted the letter unless he was either jolly sure it would be accepted or jolly sure it would be rejected.
The Commission's position to date suggests the latter, and Tice's reaction suggests the former.
We shall see.0 -
Robert’s solution, whereby we enjoy a never-ending transition, under which precisely nothing will change from the status quo, is sheer genius. He commands my full support. Boris, over to you!0
-
Steve Bell’s not a big Jo Swinson fan: “bumface”!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2019/aug/19/steve-bells-if-jo-swinson-convenes-the-weird-sisters0 -
0
-
Pharmaceutical distribution, including cold chain, is very efficient in the UK. Both AAH and UniChem could work with Hull easilyStuartinromford said:
The irony is even more delicious than that.Beibheirli_C said:
I do wonder... if they are issuing gagging orders and stopping open discussion of problems in order to get No Deal through, what do they think will happen if they succeed in No-Dealing? Do they think we will not notice when everything screws up?rottenborough said:
Also may look very odd, when there is mass civil disorder over food rationing, med supply issues etc etc.rawzer said:
Doesnt work because its missing the call back to a lost / stolen golden age that gives power to slogans like 'Take BACK control' and 'Make America Great AGAIN'. 'Take Control' and 'Make America Great' wouldn't have hooked the same mindset.rottenborough said:
And if they are actively surpressing information that would stop a No Deal, what do they think will happen to those responsible? Do they imagine it will enhance their reputation? Do they think we will be grateful if they push us into an avoidable mess?
It is the most incredible FUBAR situation ever.
For No Deal to work well, as many people as possible need to know as much as possible about the potential bumps in the road, and how to swerve round them, with as much notice as possible.
To take the insulin example; it's one thing for the government to plan to ship it in via Hull, or wherever. The tricky bit is going to be getting all the intra-UK deliveries from there to work. Not impossible, but it needs a bit of planning and communication.
But there is an understandable fear that, if lots of people know about the potential bumps in the road, their conclusion will be "hmm, maybe we shouldn't do this after all". So the communication hasn't happened yet. The later it is left, the less effective and more costly it will be.
Conclusion: the efforts to make Halloween Hard Brexit work as a political project will make it less likely to work as a governmental project. Which will in turn confirm the views of those who (like Dominic Cummings) think that the problem with this country is the Civil Service.0 -
She's got W-A-Y more teeth than that.StuartDickson said:Steve Bell’s not a big Jo Swinson fan: “bumface”!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2019/aug/19/steve-bells-if-jo-swinson-convenes-the-weird-sisters0 -
Of course it is. "Wouldn't it be easier if you just agree with me? We have a lot in common and it would be good" is an entirely reasonable argument. Unfortunately an argument has to be persuasive as well as reasonable, and to be persuasive it must contain carrot, stick, or both. It contains neither. I stopped believing in "wouldn't it be better if we all just agreed" many years ago and I suspect you did too.Charles said:
That comes across as a reasonable argumentScott_P said:0 -
I prefer the one about florets.StuartDickson said:Steve Bell’s not a big Jo Swinson fan: “bumface”!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2019/aug/19/steve-bells-if-jo-swinson-convenes-the-weird-sisters
Is that actually meant to be funny?0 -
It would seem I may require reeducation:SandyRentool said:
I prefer the one about florets.StuartDickson said:Steve Bell’s not a big Jo Swinson fan: “bumface”!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2019/aug/19/steve-bells-if-jo-swinson-convenes-the-weird-sisters
Is that actually meant to be funny?
"A charity for people with Tourette's syndrome has asked a comedian to apologise for his award-winning joke made at the Edinburgh Fringe festival." (BBC)0 -
The Leo read out was more illuminatingviewcode said:
Of course it is. "Wouldn't it be easier if you just agree with me? We have a lot in common and it would be good" is an entirely reasonable argument. Unfortunately an argument has to be persuasive as well as reasonable, and to be persuasive it must contain carrot, stick, or both. It contains neither. I stopped believing in "wouldn't it be better if we all just agreed" many years ago and I suspect you did too.Charles said:
That comes across as a reasonable argumentScott_P said:
“It won’t pass”
“We’re not changing it”
Essentially the position remains as it has been since Dec last year. The EU thinks we will fold. Because otherwise they are being silly.0 -
Because he needed to know the answer in advance. This will have been discussed in detail and drafts will have been shared with Tusk in advanceBenpointer said:0 -
This is no longer the current thread.0
-
He didn't know where he'd put his pen?Benpointer said:0
This discussion has been closed.