That's quite a leap though! I remember in 2017 ideas that May would pivot to soft Brexit with a good majority, we never got to test that as she remained an ERG hostage. The same could happen to Johnson (if he just scraped a majority, say) even if his wish would be to switch to a deal.
Given the choice, I'd take Corbyn. The parliamentary labour party may or may not have the balls to rein in a majority Corbyn government, but there are still sensible people in the PLP; what remains of the parliamentary Conservative party seems fully signed up to follow Johnson over any cliff he likes.
So that's another (1).
Making 2 of those (you, noo) and 2 x (3)s (pulp, topping).
Dead heat. Hung Parliament.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I was voting Labour. It's likely I'll vote Lib Dem, but I won't make up my mind until shortly before I go to the polling station / fill out my postal ballot. Green and Labour are in contention, plus if there's some really interesting independent I'll check them out but probably not. The only certainties are Ukip, Brexit and Tories are ruled out. If it was today, it'd be Lib Dem but I'll keep an open mind.
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.
There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.
Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.
We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
Of course. What do you think humans ate back then?
Sorry to be a pedant, but dinosaurs predated homo sapiens. On the subject of meat being un-environmental, this is partly misleading as many ecologies would cease to exist if meat production stopped, and many grass habitats would be replaced by cereal production. As with all things, it is all a bit more complex than vegan eco-warriors with their own political agendas would have us believe.
If only I wasn’t joking 🤣
I really didn’t think anyone would be fool enough to correct me there 🤷🏻♂️
Come the GE, people will fall into one of the following categories -
1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn. 2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum. 3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit.
Tough choices but them's the rules on this one.
I am in (2). I want a Labour government more than I do not want Ref2.
But that's me. I'm a bit niche, I think. (2) will be the smallest group.
By contrast (1) and (3) will describe many millions and their relative size will determine the election result.
If (1) is bigger than (3) - it's Lab minority govt. If (3) is bigger than (1) - it's Con majority.
This is simplifying, obviously, but IMO in a useful way.
(According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".
So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.
But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.
I think to prove how respectful we are, we should all learn the plural 'taoisigh' just in case. Then it's also important to know whether you're talking to a mainly northern and western Irish audience (and so pronounce it "Teeshee"), or a southern Irish one (for "Teesheeg")
True :-)
It would also be interesting to know the words used in Ireland to refer to our current prime minister (although most of them probably not printable, I'd guess!)
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.
There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.
Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.
We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
Of course. What do you think humans ate back then?
Sorry to be a pedant, but dinosaurs predated homo sapiens...
Yes, that's what predators do. Good thing we were able to fight back.
Here’s a question. Imagine Britain does not leave the EU on 31 October. Imagine further that you are Jeremy Corbyn. Do you want to have an election immediately and if so do you want a short or long campaign?
How do you go about laying for decent dough that the GE won’t take place this year?
If you hit the bids, there isn’t much money there and you’re giving away a few %, but if you leave an offer up and something happens that makes a GE more likely while you’re not monitoring Betfair, you get hoovered
Giving up a couple of % by hitting the bids would seem safer in this game considering there could be a sudden "event" that would indeed flatten your position.
That's quite a leap though! I remember in 2017 ideas that May would pivot to soft Brexit with a good majority, we never got to test that as she remained an ERG hostage. The same could happen to Johnson (if he just scraped a majority, say) even if his wish would be to switch to a deal.
Given the choice, I'd take Corbyn. The parliamentary labour party may or may not have the balls to rein in a majority Corbyn government, but there are still sensible people in the PLP; what remains of the parliamentary Conservative party seems fully signed up to follow Johnson over any cliff he likes.
So that's another (1).
Making 2 of those (you, noo) and 2 x (3)s (pulp, topping).
Dead heat. Hung Parliament.
It would be nice to have the ability to proactively vote for a hung parliament to express disdain at the two fuckwits that lead the two main parties.
Taoiseach or not? If referring to him directly then yes, if reporting about him in the UK to a UK audience, PM is fine, it isn't incumbent on British citizens to know what the Irish Gaelic term for their chief minister is, but it is useful for the press to refer to him by terms their readership are most likely to understand
I think you missed the link earlier saying that it's his title in English too. Ireland is an English speaking country. It's of no consequence that the word has entered the English language from Gaelic. We use words from French like parliament or representative, or from Latin like congress and senate. Now we have one from Gaelic.
That's all fine. However there is no problem imo referring to him in terms people are more likely to understand in the media. We dont always use the legally official titles of people. I mean it's the Queen, not Elizabeth II, by the grace of God etc etc here or anywhere else in general
Come the GE, people will fall into one of the following categories -
1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn. 2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum. 3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit.
Tough choices but them's the rules on this one.
I am in (2). I want a Labour government more than I do not want Ref2.
But that's me. I'm a bit niche, I think. (2) will be the smallest group.
By contrast (1) and (3) will describe many millions and their relative size will determine the election result.
If (1) is bigger than (3) - it's Lab minority govt. If (3) is bigger than (1) - it's Con majority.
This is simplifying, obviously, but IMO in a useful way.
4. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and reckon he tilts to a deal post election with a good majority.
Your group 4 is simply a subset of group 3 with an enhanced capacity for self-delusion.
If we're still in the EU AND Johnson gets a majority do you honestly think he'll charge headlong to the WTO exits ?
We'll be out with something like the May deal. Clearly the pivot toward "No deal" is needed right now to try and get Brexiteer votes onside. Why do you think he wanted an election on 14th October. So he could extend after gaining a majority. That was an optimistic plan A; he wants to leave with a deal and post election he can give away far more than he can pre-election.
It's possible. But I think you are underestimating the degree of radicalisation occuring in the Tory party and overestimating their ability to win a serious majority. The Tories are becoming the Brexit party and will embrace no deal. The choice really is Corbyn or no deal, I'm afraid, and I know which side of that choice I am on.
(According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".
So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.
But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.
I think to prove how respectful we are, we should all learn the plural 'taoisigh' just in case. Then it's also important to know whether you're talking to a mainly northern and western Irish audience (and so pronounce it "Teeshee"), or a southern Irish one (for "Teesheeg")
True :-)
It would also be interesting to know the words used in Ireland to refer to our current prime minister (although most of them probably not printable, I'd guess!)
They've probably paid the UK the compliment of using some prime Anglo Saxon.
I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.
And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.
It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.
I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.
Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.
Enjoy your pig!, but farming is farming...
A traveller stopped by a farm, and the farmer was feeding his pigs in the yard. He noted that one of the pigs had a wooden leg, and couldn't resist asking why.
The farmer replied "that pig saved my life, when I fell in the pond, he grabbed hold of my jacket, and pulled me to safety"
Traveller: "is that how he came to injure his leg?"
Farmer. "No, he wasn't injured at all, but a pig that good you shouldn't eat all at once..."
(According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".
So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.
But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.
I think to prove how respectful we are, we should all learn the plural 'taoisigh' just in case. Then it's also important to know whether you're talking to a mainly northern and western Irish audience (and so pronounce it "Teeshee"), or a southern Irish one (for "Teesheeg")
True :-)
It would also be interesting to know the words used in Ireland to refer to our current prime minister (although most of them probably not printable, I'd guess!)
They've probably paid the UK the compliment of using some prime Anglo Saxon.
Fecking ejit is probably the most likely description.
I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.
And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.
It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.
I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.
Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.
Your chickens will finish all your kitchen scraps not sure what you'll do with the pig (singular).
I know four people who raised their own chickens. In one case the exercise in sustainability even lasted three or four years. Stick to buying lion-marked eggs imo, assuming some idiot hasn't come along and stopped the practice as part of an American free trade deal.
Come the GE, people will fall into one of the following categories -
1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn. 2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum. 3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit.
Tough choices but them's the rules on this one.
I am in (2). I want a Labour government more than I do not want Ref2.
But that's me. I'm a bit niche, I think. (2) will be the smallest group.
By contrast (1) and (3) will describe many millions and their relative size will determine the election result.
If (1) is bigger than (3) - it's Lab minority govt. If (3) is bigger than (1) - it's Con majority.
This is simplifying, obviously, but IMO in a useful way.
4. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and reckon he tilts to a deal post election with a good majority.
Your group 4 is simply a subset of group 3 with an enhanced capacity for self-delusion.
If we're still in the EU AND Johnson gets a majority do you honestly think he'll charge headlong to the WTO exits ?
We'll be out with something like the May deal. Clearly the pivot toward "No deal" is needed right now to try and get Brexiteer votes onside. Why do you think he wanted an election on 14th October. So he could extend after gaining a majority. That was an optimistic plan A; he wants to leave with a deal and post election he can give away far more than he can pre-election.
It's possible. But I think you are underestimating the degree of radicalisation occuring in the Tory party and overestimating their ability to win a serious majority. The Tories are becoming the Brexit party and will embrace no deal. The choice really is Corbyn or no deal, I'm afraid, and I know which side of that choice I am on.
A thin Tory majority might precipitate "No deal", a good one certainly wouldn't.
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.
There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.
Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.
We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
Of course. What do you think humans ate back then?
Sorry to be a pedant, but dinosaurs predated homo sapiens. On the subject of meat being un-environmental, this is partly misleading as many ecologies would cease to exist if meat production stopped, and many grass habitats would be replaced by cereal production. As with all things, it is all a bit more complex than vegan eco-warriors with their own political agendas would have us believe.
If only I wasn’t joking 🤣
I really didn’t think anyone would be fool enough to correct me there 🤷🏻♂️
As you are a Brexiteer I assumed you would believe cartoon characters were real.
Johnson's current plan is to seemingly push as hard as he can for "No deal" with the hope that in extremis the 'remain forces' in parliament together with the EU can and will prevent the UK leaving on October 31st. It makes him look a touch foolish heading into a GE campaign but can be spun as THEY won't let us leave which keeps the Brexit party at a manageable slice of the 47% the Tories + Brexit I reckon are heading for. He must be sweating slightly given the lack of remain organisation right now but they should come good in the end.
I suspect Dominic Cummings would be a strong Diplomacy player.
If he has to extend TBP will say Johnson has failed to deliver on his promise, if Johnson campaigns on no deal no talks TBP will say (rightly) you can’t trust him he lied about do or die the only guaranteed way of definitely leaving is by voting TBP. that message will go down well enough to inflict serious damage to the Torys
(According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".
So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.
But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.
I think to prove how respectful we are, we should all learn the plural 'taoisigh' just in case. Then it's also important to know whether you're talking to a mainly northern and western Irish audience (and so pronounce it "Teeshee"), or a southern Irish one (for "Teesheeg")
True :-)
It would also be interesting to know the words used in Ireland to refer to our current prime minister (although most of them probably not printable, I'd guess!)
They've probably paid the UK the compliment of using some prime Anglo Saxon.
Fecking ejit is probably the most likely description.
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.
There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.
Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.
We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
Of course. What do you think humans ate back then?
Sorry to be a pedant, but dinosaurs predated homo sapiens. On the subject of meat being un-environmental, this is partly misleading as many ecologies would cease to exist if meat production stopped, and many grass habitats would be replaced by cereal production. As with all things, it is all a bit more complex than vegan eco-warriors with their own political agendas would have us believe.
See previous posts. It was joke. Really regretting this now. It wasn't even very good.
Johnson's current plan is to seemingly push as hard as he can for "No deal" with the hope that in extremis the 'remain forces' in parliament together with the EU can and will prevent the UK leaving on October 31st. It makes him look a touch foolish heading into a GE campaign but can be spun as THEY won't let us leave which keeps the Brexit party at a manageable slice of the 47% the Tories + Brexit I reckon are heading for. He must be sweating slightly given the lack of remain organisation right now but they should come good in the end.
I suspect Dominic Cummings would be a strong Diplomacy player.
If he has to extend TBP will say Johnson has failed to deliver on his promise, if Johnson campaigns on no deal no talks TBP will say (rightly) you can’t trust him he lied about do or die the only guaranteed way of definitely leaving is by voting TBP. that message will go down well enough to inflict serious damage to the Torys
Problem - Farage doesn't want Brexit. It means he can't moan anymore.
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.
There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.
Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.
We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
The decision not to eat parts of a dead animal is often made for ethical reasons. Because you are happy to eat meat, it does not mean this is not an ethical issue.
It’s a choice.
Fundamentally there are no ethical issues.
Have you never wondered what sort of life that piece of meet had? How it lived, how it died? I have loved eating meat all my life, but even I used to get the odd pang of guilt when factory farming cruelty has been highlighted in the media. I've stopped eating meat on health grounds ultimately, but the ethical side of it is a bonus for me. As you say, it's a choice, and people shouldn't be vilified or judged on their preferred diet. Unless you're a Tory, as eating babies is bad.
"1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn. 2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum. 3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit."
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.
There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.
Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.
We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
Of course. What do you think humans ate back then?
Sorry to be a pedant, but dinosaurs predated homo sapiens. On the subject of meat being un-environmental, this is partly misleading as many ecologies would cease to exist if meat production stopped, and many grass habitats would be replaced by cereal production. As with all things, it is all a bit more complex than vegan eco-warriors with their own political agendas would have us believe.
If only I wasn’t joking 🤣
I really didn’t think anyone would be fool enough to correct me there 🤷🏻♂️
As you are a Brexiteer I assumed you would believe cartoon characters were real.
Well that was boringly predictable! 🤣
Honest to God I was hoping you wouldn’t try to wriggle out of it with an insult so I could think slightly better of you.
(According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".
So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.
But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.
I think PM is fine for Leo - best not to encourage the use of twee dead languages.
English is a twee dead language?
Use of English is cultural appropriation by the Irish - they should be cancelled.
In other news - Rooney vs Vardy - lol.
Maybe English people shouldn't refer to Irish as a "twee dead language" and joke about cultural appropriation as it was English legislation that attempted to murder the language and culture of the peoples colonised.
I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.
And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.
It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.
I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.
Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.
It sounds like a great plan
Make sure the local foxes do not enjoy your chickens. How is the post-Brexit apocalyptic redoubt coming along? IIRC, you move in soon...
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.
There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.
Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.
We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
The decision not to eat parts of a dead animal is often made for ethical reasons. Because you are happy to eat meat, it does not mean this is not an ethical issue.
It’s a choice.
Fundamentally there are no ethical issues.
Have you never wondered what sort of life that piece of meet had? How it lived, how it died? I have loved eating meat all my life, but even I used to get the odd pang of guilt when factory farming cruelty has been highlighted in the media. I've stopped eating meat on health grounds ultimately, but the ethical side of it is a bonus for me. As you say, it's a choice, and people shouldn't be vilified or judged on their preferred diet. Unless you're a Tory, as eating babies is bad.
I stopped eating chicken when Sainsbury's withdrew the higher welfare option.
If we're still in the EU AND Johnson gets a majority do you honestly think he'll charge headlong to the WTO exits ?
We'll be out with something like the May deal. Clearly the pivot toward "No deal" is needed right now to try and get Brexiteer votes onside. Why do you think he wanted an election on 14th October. So he could extend after gaining a majority. That was an optimistic plan A; he wants to leave with a deal and post election he can give away far more than he can pre-election.
This might be correct, I'm not sure. If it is it begs an interesting question -
Imagine that the opposition had held off on all of the resistance activity, just allowed Johnson to plough on with his Do or Die gambit. He then fails to get his Deal and must decide off his own bat - no duress - what to do about 31 Oct.
Does he crash us out on WTO? Or does he ask for an extension for more talks?
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.
There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.
Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.
We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
The decision not to eat parts of a dead animal is often made for ethical reasons. Because you are happy to eat meat, it does not mean this is not an ethical issue.
It’s a choice.
Fundamentally there are no ethical issues.
Have you never wondered what sort of life that piece of meet had? How it lived, how it died? I have loved eating meat all my life, but even I used to get the odd pang of guilt when factory farming cruelty has been highlighted in the media. I've stopped eating meat on health grounds ultimately, but the ethical side of it is a bonus for me. As you say, it's a choice, and people shouldn't be vilified or judged on their preferred diet. Unless you're a Tory, as eating babies is bad.
I personally believe it is unethical to be a vegetarian.
Looks like the Scottish court has said they won't compel the PM in advance to write The Letter, but the appellants can come back in a couple of weeks if he hasn't. Someone with a better understanding of these things help out here?
I think it's pretty weird to blame modern day Britons for the decision of Henry II to give responsibility for taking/holding Ireland to John Lackland.
Yesterday everyone here was united condemning the ridiculous Leave.EU poster that referenced Merkel and WWII. It was clearly, and rightly, seen as ridiculous to cling to grudges of WWII, which ended less than a century ago.
Yet some think it's clever, or wise, or witty, to hark back to the doings of the Angevins in the 12th century. As if that's remotely relevant to or the responsibility of anyone around today.
Why not go back one more century and attack the Normans for the Harrying of the North? Or a century further back and attack the Scandinavians for Viking naughtiness?
Well said.
There is a relevance to knowing the history, long and short term, but people pick and choose when to make it ok to focus so heavily on it, usually for political advantage.
The key thing is perception in Ireland. In my experience there is a strong difference in the minds of Irish people between English/British people (many of whom they know, are related to, and deal with on a daily basis) and the British Government. Talking of 1169 and all that is all very well but the subsequent 8 centuries, through Cromwell and the Famine, up to, including and beyond Bloody Sunday (which resulted in the burning down of the U.K. Embassy) has left an intractable subconscious mistrust of our government there. Whatever the political realities they also regard the 6 counties as part of the “land” to which they beyond, whatever State it belongs to.
So they are not blaming English or British people. History, however, has resulted in a stereotype of the Government that is as deeply ingrained, if not more, than the perceptions of the German Government here (as we saw yesterday) that may be equally invalid. It is that lack of trust in the Government, which has let them down time and time again over many centuries, that has led to the demand for the backstop. Whether that is “fair” to us as a people, or not, is somewhat irrelevant. We are negotiating with them and we have to understand that perspective and come to an accommodation with it if we want a deal.
If we're still in the EU AND Johnson gets a majority do you honestly think he'll charge headlong to the WTO exits ?
We'll be out with something like the May deal. Clearly the pivot toward "No deal" is needed right now to try and get Brexiteer votes onside. Why do you think he wanted an election on 14th October. So he could extend after gaining a majority. That was an optimistic plan A; he wants to leave with a deal and post election he can give away far more than he can pre-election.
This might be correct, I'm not sure. If it is it begs an interesting question -
Imagine that the opposition had held off on all of the resistance activity, just allowed Johnson to plough on with his Do or Die gambit. He then fails to get his Deal and must decide off his own bat - no duress - what to do about 31 Oct.
Does he crash us out on WTO? Or does he ask for an extension for more talks?
You must have an opinion on this?
Good question. Trouble is, he has the likes of Priti Patel and JRM in, or close to, the Cabinet urging him on to OUT.
"1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn. 2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum. 3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit."
What if one`s priority is to protect the Union?
Then you are screwed.
1) PM Corbyn requires the SNP so a referendum. 2) PM Corbyn requires the SNP so a referendum. 3) Any deal requires treating NI differently which will result in additional pressure for a Scottish Referendum.
Basically unless we revoke the chances are Scotland will want to leave.
Johnson's current plan is to seemingly push as hard as he can for "No deal" with the hope that in extremis the 'remain forces' in parliament together with the EU can and will prevent the UK leaving on October 31st. It makes him look a touch foolish heading into a GE campaign but can be spun as THEY won't let us leave which keeps the Brexit party at a manageable slice of the 47% the Tories + Brexit I reckon are heading for. He must be sweating slightly given the lack of remain organisation right now but they should come good in the end.
I suspect Dominic Cummings would be a strong Diplomacy player.
If he has to extend TBP will say Johnson has failed to deliver on his promise, if Johnson campaigns on no deal no talks TBP will say (rightly) you can’t trust him he lied about do or die the only guaranteed way of definitely leaving is by voting TBP. that message will go down well enough to inflict serious damage to the Torys
Problem - Farage doesn't want Brexit. It means he can't moan anymore.
That’s why he will do his best to ruin the Torys chances and he can enjoy not doing any work and getting well paid for it whilst still continuing to moan.
Looks like the Scottish court has said they won't compel the PM in advance to write The Letter, but the appellants can come back in a couple of weeks if he hasn't. Someone with a better understanding of these things help out here?
Presumably means the SC cannot now get involved before the event either
If we're still in the EU AND Johnson gets a majority do you honestly think he'll charge headlong to the WTO exits ?
We'll be out with something like the May deal. Clearly the pivot toward "No deal" is needed right now to try and get Brexiteer votes onside. Why do you think he wanted an election on 14th October. So he could extend after gaining a majority. That was an optimistic plan A; he wants to leave with a deal and post election he can give away far more than he can pre-election.
This might be correct, I'm not sure. If it is it begs an interesting question -
Imagine that the opposition had held off on all of the resistance activity, just allowed Johnson to plough on with his Do or Die gambit. He then fails to get his Deal and must decide off his own bat - no duress - what to do about 31 Oct.
Does he crash us out on WTO? Or does he ask for an extension for more talks?
You must have an opinion on this?
Oh we'd be out I expect. But that's not the primary plan. The primary plan is to be stopped by a combination of the remain parliament opposition and the courts.
"1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn. 2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum. 3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit."
What if one`s priority is to protect the Union?
Then you are screwed.
1) PM Corbyn requires the SNP so a referendum. 2) PM Corbyn requires the SNP so a referendum. 3) Any deal requires treating NI differently which will result in additional pressure for a Scottish Referendum.
Basically unless we revoke the chances are Scotland will want to leave.
How about...... possibly a revolutionary idea...... asking the people of N. Ireland, possibly county by county:
Leave the EU under whatever conditions rUK achieves..... customs posts, whatever
Or
Remain in the EU as part of the RoI.
If as HYUFD has suggested, Antrim still votes to stay in the UK then treat it like Gibraltar.
Looks like the Scottish court has said they won't compel the PM in advance to write The Letter, but the appellants can come back in a couple of weeks if he hasn't. Someone with a better understanding of these things help out here?
They’ve delayed the judgement on whether to issue an order and also on the nobile officium until the 21st October .
If Bozo doesn’t ask for an extension or tries to obstruct the Act then he’s toast on that day . The court will provide remedy then .
And because he’s given written undertakings to obey the law then he’s in serious trouble if he doesn’t .
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I was voting Labour. It's likely I'll vote Lib Dem, but I won't make up my mind until shortly before I go to the polling station / fill out my postal ballot. Green and Labour are in contention, plus if there's some really interesting independent I'll check them out but probably not. The only certainties are Ukip, Brexit and Tories are ruled out. If it was today, it'd be Lib Dem but I'll keep an open mind.
No I didn't assume that. It's about whether the vote you cast makes PM Johnson or PM Corbyn more likely. Which depends on your seat dynamics.
For example - if it's a seat where Lab has a chance to beat Con and the LDs don't, and you STILL vote LD, that's great but you would not then be a (1).
Looks like the Scottish court has said they won't compel the PM in advance to write The Letter, but the appellants can come back in a couple of weeks if he hasn't. Someone with a better understanding of these things help out here?
Presumably means the SC cannot now get involved before the event either
As I understand it he gave undertakings (or their Scottish equivalent) to the Court. If there is a breach of those undertakings (again, apologies for my ignorance of Scots terminology here) the persuers can come back and seek an order.
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.
There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.
Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.
We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
The decision not to eat parts of a dead animal is often made for ethical reasons. Because you are happy to eat meat, it does not mean this is not an ethical issue.
It’s a choice.
Fundamentally there are no ethical issues.
Have you never wondered what sort of life that piece of meet had? How it lived, how it died? I have loved eating meat all my life, but even I used to get the odd pang of guilt when factory farming cruelty has been highlighted in the media. I've stopped eating meat on health grounds ultimately, but the ethical side of it is a bonus for me. As you say, it's a choice, and people shouldn't be vilified or judged on their preferred diet. Unless you're a Tory, as eating babies is bad.
I personally believe it is unethical to be a vegetarian.
If I said I was giving millions of quid to a charity of your choice, you'd still think I was a knuckle dragging , xenophobic racist retard, so go ram yer personal beliefs up yer jacksey
Mr iSam, it wasn't intended to be an insult, I was being sympathetic to your condition.
Enough of your trolling for now. Try to think before making silly mistakes in future
I think it was a logical conclusion, and no I am not trolling. There are a large number of people who believe that dinosaurs existed when humans were around. Too much Flintstones and Rachel Welsh movies.
Bit like there are a large number of people who think Brexit is worthwhile generally read too many war comics. 🤣 🤣
Looks like the Scottish court has said they won't compel the PM in advance to write The Letter, but the appellants can come back in a couple of weeks if he hasn't. Someone with a better understanding of these things help out here?
They’ve delayed the judgement on whether to issue an order and also on the nobile officium until the 21st October .
If Bozo doesn’t ask for an extension or tries to obstruct the Act then he’s toast on that day . The court will provide remedy then .
And because he’s given written undertakings to obey the law then he’s in serious trouble if he doesn’t .
Mr iSam, it wasn't intended to be an insult, I was being sympathetic to your condition.
Enough of your trolling for now. Try to think before making silly mistakes in future
I think it was a logical conclusion, and no I am not trolling. There are a large number of people who believe that dinosaurs existed when humans were around. Too much Flintstones and Rachel Welsh movies.
Bit like there are a large number of people who think Brexit is worthwhile generally read too many war comics. 🤣 🤣
Looks like the Scottish court has said they won't compel the PM in advance to write The Letter, but the appellants can come back in a couple of weeks if he hasn't. Someone with a better understanding of these things help out here?
They’ve delayed the judgement on whether to issue an order and also on the nobile officium until the 21st October .
If Bozo doesn’t ask for an extension or tries to obstruct the Act then he’s toast on that day . The court will provide remedy then .
And because he’s given written undertakings to obey the law then he’s in serious trouble if he doesn’t .
A Scottish court delivering the extension letter would be Game Set and Match politically speaking for Johnson, providing he's still allowed into the Commons at that point.
In early August I posted the following and think it worth a re-post:
"Though I`m not a Conservative Party supporter I, like many liberals, value the Conservative Party (often secretly) as a far preferable option to a collectivist party.
Through this lens, we have four major issues which are not all solvable:
1) Brexit issue needs putting behind us fast one way or another 2) The Conservative Party`s chances of winning another election are close to nil with the upsurge of the Brexit Party. We could be witnessing the death of the Conservative Party if Brexit does not happen. 3) The threat of a Corbyn government must be extinguished 4) The Union is under threat if Brexit goes ahead
I, like many, are in despair. All because of Cameron`s dratted referendum.
Can anyone cheer me up??"
I wouln`t change a word of this. I`m beginning to think that it may (perversely) be a good thing if Corbyn became PM and, in effect, cancelled Brexit via a referendum.
Then we stay in EU, LP can take the blame, union still intact, LP get thrashed at the following GE.
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.
Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.
We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
The decision not to eat parts of a dead animal is often made for ethical reasons. Because you are happy to eat meat, it does not mean this is not an ethical issue.
It’s a choice.
Fundamentally there are no ethical issues.
Have you never wondered what sort of life that piece of meet had? How it lived, how it died? I have loved eating meat all my life, but even I used to get the odd pang of guilt when factory farming cruelty has been highlighted in the media. I've stopped eating meat on health grounds ultimately, but the ethical side of it is a bonus for me. As you say, it's a choice, and people shouldn't be vilified or judged on their preferred diet. Unless you're a Tory, as eating babies is bad.
I stopped eating chicken when Sainsbury's withdrew the higher welfare option.
Yes, that was a rare example of a blatant reversal of company policy - see my day job campaign on this:
The balance of scientific argument has moved pretty sharply against Western levels of meat consumption, even if one leaves the ethical issue to one side, because of the indirect effects of factory farming - see the EAT:Lancet report and others.
Mr iSam, it wasn't intended to be an insult, I was being sympathetic to your condition.
Enough of your trolling for now. Try to think before making silly mistakes in future
I think it was a logical conclusion, and no I am not trolling. There are a large number of people who believe that dinosaurs existed when humans were around. Too much Flintstones and Rachel Welsh movies.
Bit like there are a large number of people who think Brexit is worthwhile generally read too many war comics. 🤣 🤣
You could, I understand, find Bible Belt Americans who believe the dinosaurs died out because there was room on the Ark. Or some such twaddle.
Looks like the Scottish court has said they won't compel the PM in advance to write The Letter, but the appellants can come back in a couple of weeks if he hasn't. Someone with a better understanding of these things help out here?
They’ve delayed the judgement on whether to issue an order and also on the nobile officium until the 21st October .
If Bozo doesn’t ask for an extension or tries to obstruct the Act then he’s toast on that day . The court will provide remedy then .
And because he’s given written undertakings to obey the law then he’s in serious trouble if he doesn’t .
Which makes the likely timeline No deal can be agreed Extension requested Election called Tories stand on a leave immediately platform (with fig leaf of accept Boris offer or immediate no deal exit)
"1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn. 2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum. 3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit."
What if one`s priority is to protect the Union?
Then you are screwed.
1) PM Corbyn requires the SNP so a referendum. 2) PM Corbyn requires the SNP so a referendum. 3) Any deal requires treating NI differently which will result in additional pressure for a Scottish Referendum.
Basically unless we revoke the chances are Scotland will want to leave.
How about...... possibly a revolutionary idea...... asking the people of N. Ireland, possibly county by county:
Leave the EU under whatever conditions rUK achieves..... customs posts, whatever
Or
Remain in the EU as part of the RoI.
If as HYUFD has suggested, Antrim still votes to stay in the UK then treat it like Gibraltar.
Why county by county - you should go the whole hog and go house by house in the way Baarle-Nassau's border works.
My understanding is the English and Welsh case fronted by Liberty ( which is neutral on all aspects of Brexit ) hasn't gone to court yet. But they are near their initial crowdfunder target.
Mr iSam, it wasn't intended to be an insult, I was being sympathetic to your condition.
Enough of your trolling for now. Try to think before making silly mistakes in future
I think it was a logical conclusion, and no I am not trolling. There are a large number of people who believe that dinosaurs existed when humans were around. Too much Flintstones and Rachel Welsh movies.
Bit like there are a large number of people who think Brexit is worthwhile generally read too many war comics. 🤣 🤣
You could, I understand, find Bible Belt Americans who believe the dinosaurs died out because there was room on the Ark. Or some such twaddle.
(According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".
So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.
But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.
I think PM is fine for Leo - best not to encourage the use of twee dead languages.
D'ye want to let the members of the world's biggest Rangers supporters' club know that they speak a twee dead language?
It is a twee dead language tho. The death spiral of Irish gaelic is long and sad. Compare and contrast with Hebrew, which attempted the same thing, and delivered brilliantly.
Mr Palmer, hmm, a selective argument. The important word in your sentence was "levels". There is no genuine scientific consensus in favour of vegetarianism. It is essentially politics. I have nothing against people wanting to eat boring vegetarian food as long as they don't attempt to assume some moral superiority for doing so, or attempt to coerce and bully vulnerable teenagers into following their philosophy.
I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.
And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.
It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.
I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.
Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.
Your chickens will finish all your kitchen scraps not sure what you'll do with the pig (singular).
Bacon, lots of lovely pork and the blood used for sanguinaccio, a delicious Neapolitan chocolate cake!
In short: we are very possibly headed for political violence.
Great.
Worth pointing out the journalist is at the saner end of the Remainer spectrum.
I notice that german chancellors office has said they wont comment on private conversations re yesterdays spat. I think we can take that she said basically what was leaked.
Mr iSam, it wasn't intended to be an insult, I was being sympathetic to your condition.
Enough of your trolling for now. Try to think before making silly mistakes in future
I think it was a logical conclusion, and no I am not trolling. There are a large number of people who believe that dinosaurs existed when humans were around. Too much Flintstones and Rachel Welsh movies.
Bit like there are a large number of people who think Brexit is worthwhile generally read too many war comics. 🤣 🤣
You could, I understand, find Bible Belt Americans who believe the dinosaurs died out because there was room on the Ark. Or some such twaddle.
Sadly, the Ark exhibition in Kentucky had to close due to flooding. Who says God doesn't have a sense of humour?
Funnily enough, on principle I preferred the old Brexit policy of Soft Brexit, no Ref2. But I realize it had to be ditched to stem loss of Remainer support.
Back to tactical voting though -
How would you vote if you lived in a Con/LD marginal?
Mr iSam, it wasn't intended to be an insult, I was being sympathetic to your condition.
Enough of your trolling for now. Try to think before making silly mistakes in future
I think it was a logical conclusion, and no I am not trolling. There are a large number of people who believe that dinosaurs existed when humans were around. Too much Flintstones and Rachel Welsh movies.
Bit like there are a large number of people who think Brexit is worthwhile generally read too many war comics. 🤣 🤣
You could, I understand, find Bible Belt Americans who believe the dinosaurs died out because there was room on the Ark. Or some such twaddle.
Bryonic: Indeed: Regardless of the outcome the topic of our relationship with the EU is going to be a running sore in UK politics for decades, in a way that it never was previously.
Remain/Leave is going to be the Whig/Tory of the C21st.
Around 48% say that it's either very or somewhat important that the Democratic nominee be under the age of 70 ... and a very similar distribution say it's equally important they should have "decades of political experience".
And a bare majority favour removing Trump by impeachment.
In short: we are very possibly headed for political violence.
Great.
Worth pointing out the journalist is at the saner end of the Remainer spectrum.
haha, good one. "the saner end of the remainer spectrum". Hilarious. I am sure loonies are not completely limited to supporting Leave, but I am yet to hear anyone put forward a non emotional rational argument that clearly demonstrates its benefit.
I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.
And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.
It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.
I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.
Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.
Your chickens will finish all your kitchen scraps not sure what you'll do with the pig (singular).
Bacon, lots of lovely pork and the blood used for sanguinaccio, a delicious Neapolitan chocolate cake!
Funnily enough, on principle I preferred the old Brexit policy of Soft Brexit, no Ref2. But I realize it had to be ditched to stem loss of Remainer support.
Back to tactical voting though -
How would you vote if you lived in a Con/LD marginal?
Hmm... it varies TBH sometimes LD sometimes not. I'd more happily vote SNP or Greens or PC tactically.
Mr iSam, it wasn't intended to be an insult, I was being sympathetic to your condition.
Enough of your trolling for now. Try to think before making silly mistakes in future
I think it was a logical conclusion, and no I am not trolling. There are a large number of people who believe that dinosaurs existed when humans were around. Too much Flintstones and Rachel Welsh movies.
Bit like there are a large number of people who think Brexit is worthwhile generally read too many war comics. 🤣 🤣
You could, I understand, find Bible Belt Americans who believe the dinosaurs died out because there was room on the Ark. Or some such twaddle.
Sadly, the Ark exhibition in Kentucky had to close due to flooding. Who says God doesn't have a sense of humour?
(According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".
So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.
But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.
I think PM is fine for Leo - best not to encourage the use of twee dead languages.
D'ye want to let the members of the world's biggest Rangers supporters' club know that they speak a twee dead language?
It is a twee dead language tho. The death spiral of Irish gaelic is long and sad. Compare and contrast with Hebrew, which attempted the same thing, and delivered brilliantly.
Modern Hebrew is an artificial language isn't it, which used the dead ancient Hebrew as a template. Apparently, although they had a living Jewish language to hand in Yiddish, the founders of Israel decided not to utilize it - it was considered too eastern European and a bit low brow.
If at the European Council someone, say Orban, chose to say no extension then what next?
Interesting to see a Hungarian MEP on Sky claiming she thought Orban might veto an extension as it's what Putin would want.
Good to see you as someone who is still a true believer in Brexit referring to the only person who will genuinely gain from it. Brexit: Putin's greatest ever foreign policy achievement.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I was voting Labour. It's likely I'll vote Lib Dem, but I won't make up my mind until shortly before I go to the polling station / fill out my postal ballot. Green and Labour are in contention, plus if there's some really interesting independent I'll check them out but probably not. The only certainties are Ukip, Brexit and Tories are ruled out. If it was today, it'd be Lib Dem but I'll keep an open mind.
No I didn't assume that. It's about whether the vote you cast makes PM Johnson or PM Corbyn more likely. Which depends on your seat dynamics.
For example - if it's a seat where Lab has a chance to beat Con and the LDs don't, and you STILL vote LD, that's great but you would not then be a (1).
Ultra safe Labour seat. Conservatives and Lib Dems have both been distant second places in recent years. Labour MP who is well liked, hasn't hit any controversy, and is in tune with the constituency in general policy and on Brexit. No danger whatsoever of an upset, so no reason for me to vote tactically.
I think it's pretty weird to blame modern day Britons for the decision of Henry II to give responsibility for taking/holding Ireland to John Lackland.
Yesterday everyone here was united condemning the ridiculous Leave.EU poster that referenced Merkel and WWII. It was clearly, and rightly, seen as ridiculous to cling to grudges of WWII, which ended less than a century ago.
Yet some think it's clever, or wise, or witty, to hark back to the doings of the Angevins in the 12th century. As if that's remotely relevant to or the responsibility of anyone around today.
Why not go back one more century and attack the Normans for the Harrying of the North? Or a century further back and attack the Scandinavians for Viking naughtiness?
Well said.
There is a relevance to knowing the history, long and short term, but people pick and choose when to make it ok to focus so heavily on it, usually for political advantage.
The key thing is perception in Ireland. In my experience there is a strong difference in the minds of Irish people between English/British people (many of whom they know, are related to, and deal with on a daily basis) and the British Government. Talking of 1169 and all that is all very well but the subsequent 8 centuries, through Cromwell and the Famine, up to, including and beyond Bloody Sunday (which resulted in the burning down of the U.K. Embassy) has left an intractable subconscious mistrust of our government there. Whatever the political realities they also regard the 6 counties as part of the “land” to which they beyond, whatever State it belongs to.
So they are not blaming English or British people. History, however, has resulted in a stereotype of the Government that is as deeply ingrained, if not more, than the perceptions of the German Government here (as we saw yesterday) that may be equally invalid. It is that lack of trust in the Government, which has let them down time and time again over many centuries, that has led to the demand for the backstop. Whether that is “fair” to us as a people, or not, is somewhat irrelevant. We are negotiating with them and we have to understand that perspective and come to an accommodation with it if we want a deal.
That's very fair. The British Empire was generally a brilliant thing - yes yes, whatever, sue me - but our history in Ireland is a stain.
I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.
And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.
It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.
I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.
Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.
Your chickens will finish all your kitchen scraps not sure what you'll do with the pig (singular).
Bacon, lots of lovely pork and the blood used for sanguinaccio, a delicious Neapolitan chocolate cake!
Ah yes of course that makes sense it just sounded like "I intend having a pig" that it was some kind of pet.
In short: we are very possibly headed for political violence.
Great.
Worth pointing out the journalist is at the saner end of the Remainer spectrum.
I notice that german chancellors office has said they wont comment on private conversations re yesterdays spat. I think we can take that she said basically what was leaked.
Oh, definitely. She would deny it if she could, the rest of the EU is incredulous. But she can't deny it. Why? Because she said it, or close to it, and she cannot be sure it was not recorded by the Brits. Indeed, it surely was.
Mr iSam, it wasn't intended to be an insult, I was being sympathetic to your condition.
Enough of your trolling for now. Try to think before making silly mistakes in future
I think it was a logical conclusion, and no I am not trolling. There are a large number of people who believe that dinosaurs existed when humans were around. Too much Flintstones and Rachel Welsh movies.
Bit like there are a large number of people who think Brexit is worthwhile generally read too many war comics. 🤣 🤣
You could, I understand, find Bible Belt Americans who believe the dinosaurs died out because there was room on the Ark. Or some such twaddle.
Sadly, the Ark exhibition in Kentucky had to close due to flooding. Who says God doesn't have a sense of humour?
I watched "American Animals" yesterday, set in Kentucky. A really excellent, haunting film. I appreciate that you have given up your television on account of climate change, etc but you should really try to find a way of watching it.
In short: we are very possibly headed for political violence.
Great.
Worth pointing out the journalist is at the saner end of the Remainer spectrum.
I notice that german chancellors office has said they wont comment on private conversations re yesterdays spat. I think we can take that she said basically what was leaked.
Oh, definitely. She would deny it if she could, the rest of the EU is incredulous. But she can't deny it. Why? Because she said it, or close to it, and she cannot be sure it was not recorded by the Brits. Indeed, it surely was.
Well the Americans definitely will have recorded it! And the russians, chinese, etc.
I am not sure this is news. It is the reason why so many leavers who bang on about democracy and the "will-o-the-people" are so against a second referendum, even if it were to give further clarity. They know they conned people once, but it will be hard to do it a second time.
That's probably true, not because of any love for the EU but because politicians on both sides have royally fecked things up and leaving just isn't possible, hell, it's probably not even sane to leave the EU now.
Come the GE, people will fall into one of the following categories -
1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn. 2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum. 3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit.
Tough choices but them's the rules on this one.
I am in (2). I want a Labour government more than I do not want Ref2.
But that's me. I'm a bit niche, I think. (2) will be the smallest group.
By contrast (1) and (3) will describe many millions and their relative size will determine the election result.
If (1) is bigger than (3) - it's Lab minority govt. If (3) is bigger than (1) - it's Con majority.
This is simplifying, obviously, but IMO in a useful way.
There are other categories - for example: 4. Would not vote for a party led by either Corbyn or Johnson. Full stop.
I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.
And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.
It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.
I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.
Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.
Your chickens will finish your chickens anything that has come from your kitchen all your kitchen scraps not sure what you'll do with the pig (singular).
Sorry to have to say this but that is illegal. It is to my mind a ludicrous law but it is illegal to feed your chickens anything that has passed through your kitchen. That includes for example the outer leaves of your cauliflower or the stems of your broccoli
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.
Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.
We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
The decision not to eat parts of a dead animal is often made for ethical reasons. Because you are happy to eat meat, it does not mean this is not an ethical issue.
It’s a choice.
Fundamentally there are no ethical issues.
Have you never wondered what sort of life that piece of meet had? How it lived, how it died? I have loved eating meat all my life, but even I used to get the odd pang of guilt when factory farming cruelty has been highlighted in the media. I've stopped eating meat on health grounds ultimately, but the ethical side of it is a bonus for me. As you say, it's a choice, and people shouldn't be vilified or judged on their preferred diet. Unless you're a Tory, as eating babies is bad.
I stopped eating chicken when Sainsbury's withdrew the higher welfare option.
Yes, that was a rare example of a blatant reversal of company policy - see my day job campaign on this:
The balance of scientific argument has moved pretty sharply against Western levels of meat consumption, even if one leaves the ethical issue to one side, because of the indirect effects of factory farming - see the EAT:Lancet report and others.
Regarding the ethics of meat-eating, I was interested to read recently that Richard Dawkins believes that our current treatment of animals will be viewed as morally indefensible in the future. He thinks that we should all be aspiring to be vegetarian and that this will ultimately become the norm.
In short: we are very possibly headed for political violence.
Great.
Worth pointing out the journalist is at the saner end of the Remainer spectrum.
I notice that german chancellors office has said they wont comment on private conversations re yesterdays spat. I think we can take that she said basically what was leaked.
Oh, definitely. She would deny it if she could, the rest of the EU is incredulous. But she can't deny it. Why? Because she said it, or close to it, and she cannot be sure it was not recorded by the Brits. Indeed, it surely was.
Yes exactly. Varadkar can say what he likes about what he said to Boris on the margins because it wasn't recorded but Merkel cannot be sure. Newsflash, foreigners lie as much as British PMs. They are politicians, hence they lie.
Comments
The only certainties are Ukip, Brexit and Tories are ruled out. If it was today, it'd be Lib Dem but I'll keep an open mind.
I really didn’t think anyone would be fool enough to correct me there 🤷🏻♂️
I'm a 2, big surprise I know...
It would also be interesting to know the words used in Ireland to refer to our current prime minister (although most of them probably not printable, I'd guess!)
A traveller stopped by a farm, and the farmer was feeding his pigs in the yard. He noted that one of the pigs had a wooden leg, and couldn't resist asking why.
The farmer replied "that pig saved my life, when I fell in the pond, he grabbed hold of my jacket, and pulled me to safety"
Traveller: "is that how he came to injure his leg?"
Farmer. "No, he wasn't injured at all, but a pig that good you shouldn't eat all at once..."
I've stopped eating meat on health grounds ultimately, but the ethical side of it is a bonus for me. As you say, it's a choice, and people shouldn't be vilified or judged on their preferred diet. Unless you're a Tory, as eating babies is bad.
2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum.
3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit."
What if one`s priority is to protect the Union?
Honest to God I was hoping you wouldn’t try to wriggle out of it with an insult so I could think slightly better of you.
You have ruined my hopes and dreams!
http://www.theirishstory.com/2018/10/11/to-extinguish-their-sinister-traditions-and-customs-the-historic-bans-on-the-legal-use-of-the-irish-and-welsh-languages/#targetText=The first British Law enacted,language when interacting with them.
Make sure the local foxes do not enjoy your chickens. How is the post-Brexit apocalyptic redoubt coming along? IIRC, you move in soon...
Imagine that the opposition had held off on all of the resistance activity, just allowed Johnson to plough on with his Do or Die gambit. He then fails to get his Deal and must decide off his own bat - no duress - what to do about 31 Oct.
Does he crash us out on WTO? Or does he ask for an extension for more talks?
You must have an opinion on this?
Someone with a better understanding of these things help out here?
So they are not blaming English or British people. History, however, has resulted in a stereotype of the Government that is as deeply ingrained, if not more, than the perceptions of the German Government here (as we saw yesterday) that may be equally invalid. It is that lack of trust in the Government, which has let them down time and time again over many centuries, that has led to the demand for the backstop. Whether that is “fair” to us as a people, or not, is somewhat irrelevant. We are negotiating with them and we have to understand that perspective and come to an accommodation with it if we want a deal.
1) PM Corbyn requires the SNP so a referendum.
2) PM Corbyn requires the SNP so a referendum.
3) Any deal requires treating NI differently which will result in additional pressure for a Scottish Referendum.
Basically unless we revoke the chances are Scotland will want to leave.
Go down the pub
Leave the EU under whatever conditions rUK achieves..... customs posts, whatever
Or
Remain in the EU as part of the RoI.
If as HYUFD has suggested, Antrim still votes to stay in the UK then treat it like Gibraltar.
If Bozo doesn’t ask for an extension or tries to obstruct the Act then he’s toast on that day . The court will provide remedy then .
And because he’s given written undertakings to obey the law then he’s in serious trouble if he doesn’t .
For example - if it's a seat where Lab has a chance to beat Con and the LDs don't, and you STILL vote LD, that's great but you would not then be a (1).
Bit like there are a large number of people who think Brexit is worthwhile generally read too many war comics. 🤣 🤣
https://twitter.com/GrayInGlasgow/status/1181874591356112896
Corbyn on his way to Downing St.
Gosh.
"Though I`m not a Conservative Party supporter I, like many liberals, value the Conservative Party (often secretly) as a far preferable option to a collectivist party.
Through this lens, we have four major issues which are not all solvable:
1) Brexit issue needs putting behind us fast one way or another
2) The Conservative Party`s chances of winning another election are close to nil with the upsurge of the Brexit Party. We could be witnessing the death of the Conservative Party if Brexit does not happen.
3) The threat of a Corbyn government must be extinguished
4) The Union is under threat if Brexit goes ahead
I, like many, are in despair. All because of Cameron`s dratted referendum.
Can anyone cheer me up??"
I wouln`t change a word of this. I`m beginning to think that it may (perversely) be a good thing if Corbyn became PM and, in effect, cancelled Brexit via a referendum.
Then we stay in EU, LP can take the blame, union still intact, LP get thrashed at the following GE.
https://www.sustainweb.org/news/apr18_shamesburys/
The balance of scientific argument has moved pretty sharply against Western levels of meat consumption, even if one leaves the ethical issue to one side, because of the indirect effects of factory farming - see the EAT:Lancet report and others.
Also I rarely vote for the winning party so I'm probably guaranteeing a Boris Majority with my vote.
No deal can be agreed
Extension requested
Election called
Tories stand on a leave immediately platform (with fig leaf of accept Boris offer or immediate no deal exit)
https://www.ft.com/content/fa53836e-e8d7-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55
In short: we are very possibly headed for political violence.
Great.
Worth pointing out the journalist is at the saner end of the Remainer spectrum.
My understanding is the English and Welsh case fronted by Liberty ( which is neutral on all aspects of Brexit ) hasn't gone to court yet. But they are near their initial crowdfunder target.
Don't have to go that far -
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/26/northern-ireland-ulster-museum-creationism
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/26/owners-replica-noahs-ark-sue-insurers-flood-damage-compensation/
Funnily enough, on principle I preferred the old Brexit policy of Soft Brexit, no Ref2. But I realize it had to be ditched to stem loss of Remainer support.
Back to tactical voting though -
How would you vote if you lived in a Con/LD marginal?
Interesting to see a Hungarian MEP on Sky claiming she thought Orban might veto an extension as it's what Putin would want.
Remain/Leave is going to be the Whig/Tory of the C21st.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016d-add6-d627-a1ed-bff795650002
Around 48% say that it's either very or somewhat important that the Democratic nominee be under the age of 70 ... and a very similar distribution say it's equally important they should have "decades of political experience".
And a bare majority favour removing Trump by impeachment.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/court-of-session
Between QE restarting in the US and negative interest rates, the economy does look to be on a rather sticky wicket.
No danger whatsoever of an upset, so no reason for me to vote tactically.
4. Would not vote for a party led by either Corbyn or Johnson. Full stop.
A not insignificant number.