Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Let’s not forget that Johnson’s precarious parliamentary situa

1246789

Comments

  • So much for a union of equals.

    Why would we be equals?

    You're not even equal to the North West of England, let alone England!
    Oooh, he's got his English nationalist hat on today!
    Its always on. When do you take your Scottish Nationalist hat off?
    I have never seen TUD claim that Scotland was 'better' than any other part of the UK simply because of numbers. (Or for any other reason for that matter though I am sure he would rather live in Scotland than England).

    I thought you were one of those who believed that the same philosophical arguments for Brexit also apply to Scottish Independence?
    I never said that England is 'better' than Scotland, I said its not equal. I have never believed that inequality means one thing is better than another.

    Manchester is not equal to London, Warrington is not equal to Edinburgh, England is not equal to the EU27, the UK is not equal to the Eurozone, cricket is not equal to football. Bigger does not mean better though. I never used the words better or worse, I just said not equal.

    Scotland will never be equal to England within the UK Parliament for the same reason the UK would never be equal to the Eurozone in the European Parliament and yes I believe the same philosophical arguments apply to both. That it is not a pejorative.

    I think independence will be good for Scotland for the same reason I think independence will be good for the UK and I think that if independence is denied then neither will ever be equal. They are unions of unequals and that is why I think the unions should end.
    Which is why you are, like those that share you foolish views, not equal to those who think about these things a little more deeply. You may well be very likeable in many other ways, but in your divisive and simplistic analysis is nothing less than dumb, and suitable for someone that thinks the phrase "nationalist" is a compliment.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    HYUFD said:

    So much for a union of equals.

    Why would we be equals?

    You're not even equal to the North West of England, let alone England!
    Oooh, he's got his English nationalist hat on today!
    Its always on. When do you take your Scottish Nationalist hat off?
    I have never seen TUD claim that Scotland was 'better' than any other part of the UK simply because of numbers. (Or for any other reason for that matter though I am sure he would rather live in Scotland than England).

    I thought you were one of those who believed that the same philosophical arguments for Brexit also apply to Scottish Independence?
    I never said that England is 'better' than Scotland, I said its not equal. I have never believed that inequality means one thing is better than another.

    Manchester is not equal to London, Warrington is not equal to Edinburgh, England is not equal to the EU27, the UK is not equal to the Eurozone, cricket is not equal to football. Bigger does not mean better though. I never used the words better or worse, I just said not equal.

    Scotland will never be equal to England within the UK Parliament for the same reason the UK would never be equal to the Eurozone in the European Parliament and yes I believe the same philosophical arguments apply to both. That it is not a pejorative.

    I think independence will be good for Scotland for the same reason I think independence will be good for the UK and I think that if independence is denied then neither will ever be equal. They are unions of unequals and that is why I think the unions should end.
    On that basis so should the USA end as Wyoming and Vermont will never be equal to California and Texas
    Key differences: US states exist in a federal structure and states have equal rights to one another in some respects (e.g. the number of senators). Similarly with EU member states, the council is one head of government per state.
    Scotland does not have that. You can debate the rights and wrongs of that situation, but the heavy implication from the 2014 indyref was that something much closer to federalism would come along to help fix some of the problems that Scots feel exist in the current settlement. Clearly that has not come about, so the question is fair: would Scotland be better having a greater share of autonomy -- a la Wyoming or Luxembourg -- or not?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Nigelb said:

    So much for a union of equals.

    Why would we be equals?

    You're not even equal to the North West of England, let alone England!
    Oooh, he's got his English nationalist hat on today!
    Its always on. When do you take your Scottish Nationalist hat off?
    I have never seen TUD claim that Scotland was 'better' than any other part of the UK simply because of numbers. (Or for any other reason for that matter though I am sure he would rather live in Scotland than England).

    I thought you were one of those who believed that the same philosophical arguments for Brexit also apply to Scottish Independence?
    I never said that England is 'better' than Scotland, I said its not equal. I have never believed that inequality means one thing is better than another.

    Manchester is not equal to London, Warrington is not equal to Edinburgh, England is not equal to the EU27, the UK is not equal to the Eurozone, cricket is not equal to football. Bigger does not mean better though. I never used the words better or worse, I just said not equal.

    Scotland will never be equal to England within the UK Parliament for the same reason the UK would never be equal to the Eurozone in the European Parliament and yes I believe the same philosophical arguments apply to both. That it is not a pejorative.

    I think independence will be good for Scotland for the same reason I think independence will be good for the UK and I think that if independence is denied then neither will ever be equal. They are unions of unequals and that is why I think the unions should end.
    But this is just incoherent rubbish.

    On the basis of the Boris deal which you support, which effectively places NI outside of the UK, and encouraging Scottish independence, what is this UK for which "independence" is going to be so good ?
    The Boris Deal reduces the chances of Scottish independence by avoiding No Deal and reduces the chances of a united Ireland by avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland leading to Catholics anger in Northern Ireland pushing for Irish unity
  • TOPPING said:

    You really lack so much confidence that we will be able to agree a trade deal with the EU?

    That's not in our control. It takes two to tango.

    I want to take confidence in our actions and not the actions of others. I'm reasonably confident that without having entrapped ourselves in the backstop we can agree a trade deal with the EU. And if we can't, the choice is ours, we can extend or we can rejoin or we can walk away and we can decide that democratically.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,759
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:


    May never came as close as Boris has to getting a deal through Parliament.

    That’s because the Tory party prevented her from bringing her WAB to Parliament.
    Because her WAB was a disgrace and Boris has a far better one. The Tory rebels who blocked her were principled heroes in doing so.
    No,they were completely wrong. They were people who thought that 52% was a sufficient basis for extreme forms of Brexit. It wasn't and isn't. We need to leave. Everything else should be up for grabs and a decision for a future consensus. By insisting on their extreme version they have deeply divided our country. It was shameful, partisan and very likely self defeating.
    Having consent over the laws that affect you is not "extreme" it is democracy. The backstop was inexcusable, we were told under May it was necessary and there was no alternative, under Boris it is gone and good riddance!

    That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.

    Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!

    And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
    I get why you like this deal better than May's. Do you get why this deal is less attractive to remainers than May's was and less likely to achieve a consensus?
    And considerably less attractive to the majority in NI, while apparently still alienating the DUP. So not just 'remainers'.

    As for "throwing the UK under a bus", how on earth is this deal any better in that respect ?
    I think Philip means throwing his own personal concerns under the bus, which is a slightly different thing.
    In an ideal world I would prefer this deal to May's. It gives us much more room for maneuver and flexibility going forwards. But for me the differences are not worth the greater divisions it will cause. I would have been content for us to leave, to remain in May's "special relationship" with the EU and for future generations to decide whether to wind down that relationship or reapply for membership as they see fit. A war to the death is not the answer here.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042
    edited October 2019
    Noo said:

    So much for a union of equals.

    Why would we be equals?

    You're not even equal to the North West of England, let alone England!
    Oooh, he's got his English nationalist hat on today!
    Its always on. When do you take your Scottish Nationalist hat off?
    Nationalism is a divisive poisonous creed which ever variety you make your excuses for.
    It can be. But it's also the force that liberated large parts of the world from colonial imperialism.
    Nationalism is a tool, like a hammer. You can use it stave someone's head in, or you can use it to build something useful. It's the person wielding it that counts.
    It is a feature of all nationalisms that people see their own brand as the cuddly sort.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited October 2019
    Noo said:

    HYUFD said:

    So much for a union of equals.

    Why would we be equals?

    You're not even equal to the North West of England, let alone England!
    Oooh, he's got his English nationalist hat on today!
    Its always on. When do you take your Scottish Nationalist hat off?
    I have never seen TUD claim that Scotland was 'better' than any other part of the UK simply because of numbers. (Or for any other reason for that matter though I am sure he would rather live in Scotland than England).

    I thought you were one of those who believed that the same philosophical arguments for Brexit also apply to Scottish Independence?
    I never said that England is 'better' than Scotland, I said its not equal. I have never believed that inequality means one thing is better than another.

    Manchester is not equal to London, Warrington is not equal to Edinburgh, England is not equal to the EU27, the UK is not equal to the Eurozone, cricket is not equal to football. Bigger does not mean better though. I never used the words better or worse, I just said not equal.

    Scotland will never be equal to England within the UK Parliament for the same reason the UK would never be equal to the Eurozone in the European ould end.
    On that basis so should the USA end as Wyoming and Vermont will never be equal to California and Texas
    Key differences: US states exist in a federal structure and states have equal rights to one another in some respects (e.g. the number of senators). Similarly with EU member states, the council is one head of government per state.
    Scotland does not have that. You can debate the rights and wrongs of that situation, but the heavy implication from the 2014 indyref was that something much closer to federalism would come along to help fix some of the problems that Scots feel exist in the current settlement. Clearly that has not come about, so the question is fair: would Scotland be better having a greater share of autonomy -- a la Wyoming or Luxembourg -- or not?
    Scotland has its own Parliament unlike England, Northern Ireland has its own Assembly.

    In the US Electoral College and the House of Representatives big states have far more representation than small states. In Canada Ontario and Quebec re elected Trudeau whatever the rural West thought.

    In the EU QMV also benefits the big states who are also over represented in the European Parliament compared to small states
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_P said:
    I thought they were going to bash all this through in three days ?
    That "do or die" BS has really come back to bite Boris on his fat arse.
  • Nigelb said:

    So much for a union of equals.

    Why would we be equals?

    You're not even equal to the North West of England, let alone England!
    Oooh, he's got his English nationalist hat on today!
    Its always on. When do you take your Scottish Nationalist hat off?
    I have never seen TUD claim that Scotland was 'better' than any other part of the UK simply because of numbers. (Or for any other reason for that matter though I am sure he would rather live in Scotland than England).

    I thought you were one of those who believed that the same philosophical arguments for Brexit also apply to Scottish Independence?
    I never said that England is 'better' than Scotland, I said its not equal. I have never believed that inequality means one thing is better than another.

    Manchester is not equal to London, Warrington is not equal to Edinburgh, England is not equal to the EU27, the UK is not equal to the Eurozone, cricket is not equal to football. Bigger does not mean better though. I never used the words better or worse, I just said not equal.

    Scotland will never be equal to England within the UK Parliament for the same reason the UK would never be equal to the Eurozone in the European Parliament and yes I believe the same philosophical arguments apply to both. That it is not a pejorative.

    I think independence will be good for Scotland for the same reason I think independence will be good for the UK and I think that if independence is denied then neither will ever be equal. They are unions of unequals and that is why I think the unions should end.
    But this is just incoherent rubbish.

    On the basis of the Boris deal which you support, which effectively places NI outside of the UK, and encouraging Scottish independence, what is this UK for which "independence" is going to be so good ?
    We can control our own laws, our own trade deals and our own taxes and expenditure.

    NI is inside the UK and can vote to end these arrangements. If they don't do so, that's their devolved choice. I'm content to let them decide, I seek no desire to make the choice for them. Same for Scotland, if they choose to go that is their choice - I hope they do as I think it will be good for them, and I think it will be better for them than it is for us so its a selfless thought, but I respect their right to decide.

    In short, whatever the Scots and NI voters vote for I will respect it.
  • TOPPING said:

    Noo said:

    DavidL said:

    Animal_pb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:


    May never came as close as Boris has to getting a deal through Parliament.

    That’s because the Tory party prevented her from bringing her WAB to Parliament.
    Because her WAB was a disgrace and Boris has a far better one. The Tory rebels who blocked her were principled heroes in doing so.
    No,they were complely self defeating.
    Having consent over the laws that affect you is not "extreme" it is democracy. The backstop was inexcusable, we were told under May it was necessary and there was no alternative, under Boris it is gone and good riddance!

    That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.

    Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!

    And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
    I get why you like this deal better than May's. Do you get why this deal is less attractive to remainers than May's was and less likely to achieve a consensus?
    The problem, though, was that most of the Remainers sit in the Opposition benches, and weren't going to vote for *any* Tory Brexit. So, in real terms, no, it's not actually less likely to achieve consensus; that is, to use a favourite Remainer term, a "unicorn".
    The remainers made an enormous mistake in voting down May's deal. As did the ERG of course. But going to harder versions of Brexit is really not the answer.
    Remainers don't want Brexit. You think their goals would have been helped by delivering the very thing they're opposed to?
    Many Brexiteers see it as the responsibility of Remainers to prevent them from having to take responsibility for their own project.
    James Cleverly told us this morning that if only it wasn't for the pesky opposition the government would have achieved all its aims with time to spare.
    Kim Yong Jun has a simple solution to such inconvenience and impertinence. Just have them all shot. There are probably a reasonable number of Leave supporters who would think this might be a good idea.
  • Scott_P said:
    It is not solvable by good will and negotiation. We have to make choices and know what the options are, no deal, Boris deal, May deal, SM/CM deal, remain. In none of them are both DUP and rest of Ireland both happy. The latter two come closest to achieving that.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Scott_P said:
    Except that is exactly what happened.
  • Nigelb said:

    So much for a union of equals.

    Why would we be equals?

    You're not even equal to the North West of England, let alone England!
    Oooh, he's got his English nationalist hat on today!
    Its always on. When do you take your Scottish Nationalist hat off?
    I have never seen TUD claim that Scotland was 'better' than any other part of the UK simply because of numbers. (Or for any other reason for that matter though I am sure he would rather live in Scotland than England).

    I thought you were one of those who believed that the same philosophical arguments for Brexit also apply to Scottish Independence?
    I never said that England is 'better' than Scotland, I said its not equal. I have never believed that inequality means one thing is better than another.

    Manchester is not equal to London, Warrington is not equal to Edinburgh, England is not equal to the EU27, the UK is not equal to the Eurozone, cricket is not equal to football. Bigger does not mean better though. I never used the words better or worse, I just said not equal.

    Scotland will never be equal to England within the UK Parliament for the same reason the UK would never be equal to the Eurozone in the European Parliament and yes I believe the same philosophical arguments apply to both. That it is not a pejorative.

    I think independence will be good for Scotland for the same reason I think independence will be good for the UK and I think that if independence is denied then neither will ever be equal. They are unions of unequals and that is why I think the unions should end.
    But this is just incoherent rubbish.

    On the basis of the Boris deal which you support, which effectively places NI outside of the UK, and encouraging Scottish independence, what is this UK for which "independence" is going to be so good ?
    We can control our own laws, our own trade deals and our own taxes and expenditure.

    NI is inside the UK and can vote to end these arrangements. If they don't do so, that's their devolved choice. I'm content to let them decide, I seek no desire to make the choice for them. Same for Scotland, if they choose to go that is their choice - I hope they do as I think it will be good for them, and I think it will be better for them than it is for us so its a selfless thought, but I respect their right to decide.

    In short, whatever the Scots and NI voters vote for I will respect it.
    they will be greatly relieved and eternally grateful I am sure for such a ringing endorsement.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    Scott_P said:
    There’s nothing the government can do . The WA is legally binding .
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:


    May never came as close as Boris has to getting a deal through Parliament.

    That’s because the Tory party prevented her from bringing her WAB to Parliament.
    Because her WAB was a disgrace and Boris has a far better one. The Tory rebels who blocked her were principled heroes in doing so.
    No,they were completely wrong. They were people who thought that 52% was a sufficient basis for extreme forms of Brexit. It wasn't and isn't. We need to leave. Everything else should be up for grabs and a decision for a future consensus. By insisting on their extreme version they have deeply divided our country. It was shameful, partisan and very likely self defeating.
    Having consent over the laws that affect you is not "extreme" it is democracy. The backstop was inexcusable, we were told under May it was necessary and there was no alternative, under Boris it is gone and good riddance!

    That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.

    Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!

    And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
    I get why you like this deal better than May's. Do you get why this deal is less attractive to remainers than May's was and less likely to achieve a consensus?
    And considerably less attractive to the majority in NI, while apparently still alienating the DUP. So not just 'remainers'.

    As for "throwing the UK under a bus", how on earth is this deal any better in that respect ?
    I think Philip means throwing his own personal concerns under the bus, which is a slightly different thing.
    The current arrangement negotiated by Johnson means the unelected Joint Committee, that will meet in confidential session (ie in secret) and is able amend certain parts of the withdrawal agreement, largely pertaining to NI, that will then be legally binding on both parties. How can Philip possibly say that Johnson’s amended version is more “democratic” than May’s version? It’s an unsustainable position to take. This agreement is, if anything, makes the agreement far less democratic
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    Scott_P said:
    They seem to be backing themselves into the same cul-de-sac of indecision that finished Theresa May.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,759
    nico67 said:

    Scott_P said:
    There’s nothing the government can do . The WA is legally binding .
    No it's not. But it is an agreed text which the government cannot change without the consent of the counterparty. Who have already changed it substantially at our request and are getting a bit fed up.
  • Scott_P said:
    They seem to be backing themselves into the same cul-de-sac of indecision that finished Theresa May.
    Boris was always the continuity May candidate (albeit with added flair). Declare absurd commitment to an arbitrary date that could not be met, keep negotiations to yourself without input from swing votes in parliament and scream its unfair when reality reveals itself.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Noo said:

    So much for a union of equals.

    Why would we be equals?

    You're not even equal to the North West of England, let alone England!
    Oooh, he's got his English nationalist hat on today!
    Its always on. When do you take your Scottish Nationalist hat off?
    Nationalism is a divisive poisonous creed which ever variety you make your excuses for.
    It can be. But it's also the force that liberated large parts of the world from colonial imperialism.
    Nationalism is a tool, like a hammer. You can use it stave someone's head in, or you can use it to build something useful. It's the person wielding it that counts.
    It is a feature of all nationalisms that people see their own brand as the cuddly sort.
    Depends what you mean by "their own". I find current British nationalism repellent. I find current Kurdish nationalism attractive. It's a little more complex than just whether it's "mine" or "not mine". It depends very much on the values it carries and those which it is rebelling against. Those values can change over time, which means the same nationalism can change from ugly to attractive and back again. It's probably wisest not to get too attached to any nation or nationalism but to see it as a vehicle for other political values like liberalism, equality, good governance and so on. Like I said, a tool.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Boris was always the continuity May candidate (albeit with added flair). Declare absurd commitment to an arbitrary date that could not be met, keep negotiations to yourself without input from swing votes in parliament and scream its unfair when reality reveals itself.

    Exactly

    "Hey lads, I signed the deal that May refused to" was never really a credible rallying cry
  • HYUFD said:

    So much for a union of equals.

    Why would we be equals?

    You're not even equal to the North West of England, let alone England!
    Oooh, he's got his English nationalist hat on today!
    Its always on. When do you take your Scottish Nationalist hat off?
    I have never seen TUD claim that Scotland was 'better' than any other part of the UK simply because of numbers. (Or for any other reason for that matter though I am sure he would rather live in Scotland than England).

    I thought you were one of those who believed that the same philosophical arguments for Brexit also apply to Scottish Independence?
    I never said that England is 'better' than Scotland, I said its not equal. I have never believed that inequality means one thing is better than another.

    Manchester is not equal to London, Warrington is not equal to Edinburgh, England is not equal to the EU27, the UK is not equal to the Eurozone, cricket is not equal to football. Bigger does not mean better though. I never used the words better or worse, I just said not equal.

    Scotland will never be equal to England within the UK Parliament for the same reason the UK would never be equal to the Eurozone in the European Parliament and yes I believe the same philosophical arguments apply to both. That it is not a pejorative.

    I think independence will be good for Scotland for the same reason I think independence will be good for the UK and I think that if independence is denied then neither will ever be equal. They are unions of unequals and that is why I think the unions should end.
    On that basis so should the USA end as Wyoming and Vermont will never be equal to California and Texas
    California has 53/435 Representatives, 2/100 Senators and 55/538 Electoral Votes.
    Scotland has 59/643 sitting MPs.
    England has 533/643 sitting MPs.

    Scotland is closer to California than England is. Its more like about 45/50 US States were merged into one leaving California dwarfed by a superstate within the union and completely outnumbered without any protection from the Senate.
  • Flanner said:

    Banterman said:
    Had not heard of Ditchley before, but what is interesting about them? Apart from they would make a suitable cabinet for a cross party remain govt.
    One of Ditchley's claims to fame is that Churchill used it as an alternative country house because both Blenheim and Chequers were thought to be too easily targetted by the Luftwaffe. It's now a foundation about getting expertise (originally Brit and American) to talk to each other about common concerns. You can usually hazard a guess what the current Big Concern is by clocking the faces at the local (and IK Brunel original) station.

    Their sessions are almost always closed and subject to Chatham House rules, but they do get A list politicos

    The estate's also among my dogs' favourite walks. They get extra treats if they attack a politician we don't like.

    Your dogs must be very fat.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557

    Nigelb said:


    I have never seen TUD claim that Scotland was 'better' than any other part of the UK simply because of numbers. (Or for any other reason for that matter though I am sure he would rather live in Scotland than England).

    I thought you were one of those who believed that the same philosophical arguments for Brexit also apply to Scottish Independence?

    I never said that England is 'better' than Scotland, I said its not equal. I have never believed that inequality means one thing is better than another.

    Manchester is not equal to London, Warrington is not equal to Edinburgh, England is not equal to the EU27, the UK is not equal to the Eurozone, cricket is not equal to football. Bigger does not mean better though. I never used the words better or worse, I just said not equal.

    Scotland will never be equal to England within the UK Parliament for the same reason the UK would never be equal to the Eurozone in the European Parliament and yes I believe the same philosophical arguments apply to both. That it is not a pejorative.

    I think independence will be good for Scotland for the same reason I think independence will be good for the UK and I think that if independence is denied then neither will ever be equal. They are unions of unequals and that is why I think the unions should end.
    But this is just incoherent rubbish.

    On the basis of the Boris deal which you support, which effectively places NI outside of the UK, and encouraging Scottish independence, what is this UK for which "independence" is going to be so good ?
    We can control our own laws, our own trade deals and our own taxes and expenditure.

    NI is inside the UK and can vote to end these arrangements. If they don't do so, that's their devolved choice. I'm content to let them decide, I seek no desire to make the choice for them. Same for Scotland, if they choose to go that is their choice - I hope they do as I think it will be good for them, and I think it will be better for them than it is for us so its a selfless thought, but I respect their right to decide.

    In short, whatever the Scots and NI voters vote for I will respect it.
    What you are arguing for is a settlement effectively imposed by England against the strong opposition of both Scotland and NI.
    It meets your parochial concerns but shows a degree of contempt for the UK. The NI electorate strongly favoured May's deal, and you did not respect that in the least.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    nichomar said:

    Mango said:


    Blinkered, empire-nostalgic idiots.

    Most mentions of “empire” come from Remainers - usually with gratuitous insults they somehow believe reflect on their target rather than themselves...
    Empire 2.0 and CANZUK are very much (very batty) Leaver ideas.
    Empire 2.0 is. A closer relationship with Canada, Australia and New Zealand (including free movement of workers) is very much on the table.
    Is there a subtle difference between people and works that you hope you can then use to humiliate the person that accuses you of suggesting stopping one just to have another?
    I don’t understand what you’re getting at.
    You, in your post talked about free movement for workers I wondered if that was different to people ie retirees families etc that’s all
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    So much for a union of equals.

    Why would we be equals?

    You're not even equal to the North West of England, let alone England!
    Oooh, he's got his English nationalist hat on today!
    Its always on. When do you take your Scottish Nationalist hat off?
    I have never seen TUD claim that Scotland was 'better' than any other part of the UK simply because of numbers. (Or for any other reason for that matter though I am sure he would rather live in Scotland than England).

    I thought you were one of those who believed that the same philosophical arguments for Brexit also apply to Scottish Independence?

    Manchester is not equal to London, Warrington is not equal to Edinburgh, England is not equal to the EU27, the UK is not equal to the Eurozone, cricket is not equal to football. Bigger does not mean better though. I never used the words better or worse, I just said not equal.

    Scotland will never be equal to England within the UK Parliament for the same reason the UK would never be equal to the Eurozone in the European Parliament and yes I believe the same philosophical arguments apply to both. That it is not a pejorative.

    I think independence will be good for Scotland for the same reason I think independence will be good for the UK and I think that if independence is denied then neither will ever be equal. They are unions of unequals and that is why I think the unions should end.
    But this is just incoherent rubbish.

    On the basis of the Boris deal which you support, which effectively places NI outside of the UK, and encouraging Scottish independence, what is this UK for which "independence" is going to be so good ?
    The Boris Deal reduces the chances of Scottish independence by avoiding No Deal and reduces the chances of a united Ireland by avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland leading to Catholics anger in Northern Ireland pushing for Irish unity
    Boris' deal means the North and South of Ireland are more closely aligned. There will be a border down the Irish Sea with paperwork required between GB and Northern Ireland. GB and Northern Ireland have become two more separate entities as you acknowledged in your post the other day, as does CCHQ.

    Boris Johnson said that a border down the Irish Sea was something that no British PM could sign up to. And he has just signed up to it.

    Other than that, good post.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    Still not got to grips with this whole "party politics" thing I see, David. Remainers or Leavers why on earth should Labour MPs support the government. It's not in their job description to do so.

    At the risk of being naive, the national interest? Their manifesto promise when they were elected? Because things would get worse if they didn't?
    This promise?

    "We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union."
    Yes, because that is what May's UK wide backstop did. Which is why the ERG (and Philip) didn't like it of course.
    May's backstop was intended never to come into effect.
    I don't believe that and it doesn't matter either.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,846
    TOPPING said:

    That is disappointing to hear. If bona fide members of the northern workong class turned metropolitan elite start to fall out with each other surely that is the end of days.

    Yes it is. I don't like being at odds with Owen. It feels uncomfortable. I suppose it's the same for him.

    On another point, Ref2 -

    Still IMO a 'Not Happening' event - and I'm delighted to be able to lay it at 3 on the new Betfair market - but it does strike me that with this Boris Deal one of the main flaws with the idea has been largely removed. The May Deal was not supported by the Leave community and therefore a Ref2 on it was open to the charge of Fix! That is not the case with this one. You could have Boris Deal vs Remain on the ballot and at least it would be a proper contest in which Leave would have a chance - especially with the Great Man himself campaigning for it.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    HYUFD said:

    Scotland has its own Parliament unlike England, Northern Ireland has its own Assembly.

    In the US Electoral College and the House of Representatives big states have far more representation than small states. In Canada Ontario and Quebec re elected Trudeau whatever the rural West thought.

    In the EU QMV also benefits the big states who are also over represented in the European Parliament compared to small states

    Yes, I'm very well aware of all these things. But you cannot deny that Scotland's status is less federal than those of a US state or an EU member state. You can point to the non-federal aspects and I acknowledge them. But facts and opinions about Scotland do not map easily onto EU membership or US statehood, or vice versa. At least, not as easily as some people would like to pretend.
  • Scott_P said:
    They seem to be backing themselves into the same cul-de-sac of indecision that finished Theresa May.
    Boris was always the continuity May candidate (albeit with added flair). Declare absurd commitment to an arbitrary date that could not be met, keep negotiations to yourself without input from swing votes in parliament and scream its unfair when reality reveals itself.
    Boris has the charisma that TMay lacked, but lacks the decency and honesty. Personally I prefer the latter.

    Where they are similar is their inability to reach beyond their own comfort zone, and this is the basic reason why both of them are hopeless as leaders.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Mr. Meeks, 'the white empire'?

    A short time ago you were lamenting how febrile political discourse is now and the increased hurling of insults.

    What is incorrect about his evaluation?

    It is a very selective number of former colonies, noticeable for the exclusion of other members of the commonwealth that are majority non white.

    It seems pretty obvious to me that the idea of a Australia, NZ, Canada, UK FoM zone is centred around whiteness rather than anything else.
    “Anything else”?

    Like similar levels of economic development and relatively small populations, for example?

    Or do you think we should have FOM with 1.4 billion Indians where GDP/capita is one twentieth of the UK?

    In any case the “old Commonwealth” countries are far from “white” and I doubt would be keen on FoM with us.....
    This is not an economic argument, this is just a fancier way of saying "if we have FoM with India lots of poor brown people will come to the UK for better jobs, and that is unacceptable, but the potential for movement of middle class white people is fine"
    If you check the “British Diaspora” - where Brits have chosen to go and live - you will see that Australia New Zealand and Canada are many orders of magnitude more popular than “New Commonwealth” countries. Indeed, more have chosen Australia than the entire EU. Why not aim for FOM with countries where people want to go and live? The “geographical proximity” argument which may apply to trade does not apply here - the most popular destination for Brits could hardly be further away!
    If more Londoners migrate to Sydney than to Northern Ireland, is it an argument against free movement within the UK?
    Since no one is arguing about freedom of movement within countries it is another of your pointless questions.
    Ma patrie, c’est l’Europe!
    And that is where the root of all your errors lies.
    My identity cannot be an error. It is what it is.
    It is a myth
    I can assure you I'm a living and breathing person.
    No, no, that can’t be correct. Surely we’re all persona @SeanT has created and this forum is largely @SeanT (currently in New Orleans and being scared by antique dolls on Twitter) talking to himself ......

    😉
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,759

    TOPPING said:

    Noo said:

    DavidL said:

    Animal_pb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    Having consent over the laws that affect you is not "extreme" it is democracy. The backstop was inexcusable, we were told under May it was necessary and there was no alternative, under Boris it is gone and good riddance!

    That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.

    Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!

    And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
    I get why you like this deal better than May's. Do you get why this deal is less attractive to remainers than May's was and less likely to achieve a consensus?
    The problem, though, was that most of the Remainers sit in the Opposition benches, and weren't going to vote for *any* Tory Brexit. So, in real terms, no, it's not actually less likely to achieve consensus; that is, to use a favourite Remainer term, a "unicorn".
    The remainers made an enormous mistake in voting down May's deal. As did the ERG of course. But going to harder versions of Brexit is really not the answer.
    Remainers don't want Brexit. You think their goals would have been helped by delivering the very thing they're opposed to?
    Many Brexiteers see it as the responsibility of Remainers to prevent them from having to take responsibility for their own project.
    James Cleverly told us this morning that if only it wasn't for the pesky opposition the government would have achieved all its aims with time to spare.
    Kim Yong Jun has a simple solution to such inconvenience and impertinence. Just have them all shot. There are probably a reasonable number of Leave supporters who would think this might be a good idea.
    Not even you Nigel. Not even you.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059



    Yes of course. But one is democratic and can be changed democratically, the other is not.

    But the difference between this deal and the backstop is that if opponents of this deal win a future election they can change it. They can seek to rejoin, get a closer deal, further alignment.

    As the Attorney General made clear even if opponents of the backstop won future elections they could not legally change it, there was no way out and no reason for the EU to let us out.

    If in the future Rejoiners win an election and take us back in so be it that is democracy. If in the even further future Leavers win and take us back out so be it that is democracy. My hardline is not whether we are in or out, close or far, aligned or independent - it is whether we have democratic control. As members we do, in Boris's deal we do, in the backstop we did not and that is never OK under any circumstances.

    Mr Johnson’s Joint Committee is an unelected law making body that removes democratic control. It is outrageous, utterly outrageous, that you pontificate about “democracy” when the man you idolise is giving it away and sought to prevent Parliamentary oversight of him doing so. He’s a dangerous authoritarian crackpot. He is not, by any definition, a champion of democracy.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,448
    edited October 2019
    Scott_P said:

    Boris was always the continuity May candidate (albeit with added flair). Declare absurd commitment to an arbitrary date that could not be met, keep negotiations to yourself without input from swing votes in parliament and scream its unfair when reality reveals itself.

    Exactly

    "Hey lads, I signed the deal that May refused to" was never really a credible rallying cry
    It almost worked! Then he started falling out with everyone over a matter of a few more days scrutiny which likely means the earliest brexit is now Feb 2020 instead of Nov 2019.
  • So much for a union of equals.

    Why would we be equals?

    You're not even equal to the North West of England, let alone England!
    Oooh, he's got his English nationalist hat on today!
    Its always on. When do you take your Scottish Nationalist hat off?
    I have never seen TUD claim that Scotland was 'better' than any other part of the UK simply because of numbers. (Or for any other reason for that matter though I am sure he would rather live in Scotland than England).

    I thought you were one of those who believed that the same philosophical arguments for Brexit also apply to Scottish Independence?
    I never said that England is 'better' than Scotland, I said its not equal. I have never believed that inequality means one thing is better than another.

    Manchester is not equal to London, Warrington is not equal to Edinburgh, England is not equal to the EU27, the UK is not equal to the Eurozone, cricket is not equal to football. Bigger does not mean better though. I never used the words better or worse, I just said not equal.

    Scotland will never be equal to England within the UK Parliament for the same reason the UK would never be equal to the Eurozone in the European Parliament and yes I believe the same philosophical arguments apply to both. That it is not a pejorative.

    I think independence will be good for Scotland for the same reason I think independence will be good for the UK and I think that if independence is denied then neither will ever be equal. They are unions of unequals and that is why I think the unions should end.
    Which is why you are, like those that share you foolish views, not equal to those who think about these things a little more deeply. You may well be very likeable in many other ways, but in your divisive and simplistic analysis is nothing less than dumb, and suitable for someone that thinks the phrase "nationalist" is a compliment.
    Nationalist is neither compliment nor insult.

    I am a democrat first and foremost. My country is the United Kingdom and I couldn't care less if it ceases to exist. If part of England voted to leave, I wouldn't object. If Newcastle decided it would rather be Scottish and the Scots were willing to take it I'd have no objection.

    I believe in self-determination. So some "nationalist" as you pejoratively mean it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,759
    DougSeal said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    Having consent over the laws that affect you is not "extreme" it is democracy. The backstop was inexcusable, we were told under May it was necessary and there was no alternative, under Boris it is gone and good riddance!

    That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.

    Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!

    And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
    I get why you like this deal better than May's. Do you get why this deal is less attractive to remainers than May's was and less likely to achieve a consensus?
    And considerably less attractive to the majority in NI, while apparently still alienating the DUP. So not just 'remainers'.

    As for "throwing the UK under a bus", how on earth is this deal any better in that respect ?
    I think Philip means throwing his own personal concerns under the bus, which is a slightly different thing.
    The current arrangement negotiated by Johnson means the unelected Joint Committee, that will meet in confidential session (ie in secret) and is able amend certain parts of the withdrawal agreement, largely pertaining to NI, that will then be legally binding on both parties. How can Philip possibly say that Johnson’s amended version is more “democratic” than May’s version? It’s an unsustainable position to take. This agreement is, if anything, makes the agreement far less democratic
    We have increased our democratic freedom for our elected officials at the cost of freedom and democratic control in NI. We have also accepted a remarkable impediment to the unity of the UK. I can see why he has done it, it preserves the all Ireland economy, but I can also see why the DUP are seriously pissed.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2019
    DougSeal said:



    Yes of course. But one is democratic and can be changed democratically, the other is not.

    But the difference between this deal and the backstop is that if opponents of this deal win a future election they can change it. They can seek to rejoin, get a closer deal, further alignment.

    As the Attorney General made clear even if opponents of the backstop won future elections they could not legally change it, there was no way out and no reason for the EU to let us out.

    If in the future Rejoiners win an election and take us back in so be it that is democracy. If in the even further future Leavers win and take us back out so be it that is democracy. My hardline is not whether we are in or out, close or far, aligned or independent - it is whether we have democratic control. As members we do, in Boris's deal we do, in the backstop we did not and that is never OK under any circumstances.

    Mr Johnson’s Joint Committee is an unelected law making body that removes democratic control. It is outrageous, utterly outrageous, that you pontificate about “democracy” when the man you idolise is giving it away and sought to prevent Parliamentary oversight of him doing so. He’s a dangerous authoritarian crackpot. He is not, by any definition, a champion of democracy.
    Every QUANGO is undemocratic, what matters is if elected people can change or abolish it.

    If the people of NI vote to continue the arrangements the arrangements continue.
    If the people of NI vote to end the arrangements the arrangements end.

    Their choice. I respect it either way.
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:


    I have never seen TUD claim that Scotland was 'better' than any other part of the UK simply because of numbers. (Or for any other reason for that matter though I am sure he would rather live in Scotland than England).

    I thought you were one of those who believed that the same philosophical arguments for Brexit also apply to Scottish Independence?

    I never said that England is 'better' than Scotland, I said its not equal. I have never believed that inequality means one thing is better than another.

    Manchester is not equal to London, Warrington is not equal to Edinburgh, England is not equal to the EU27, the UK is not equal to the Eurozone, cricket is not equal to football. Bigger does not mean better though. I never used the words better or worse, I just said not equal.

    Scotland will never be equal to England within the UK Parliament for the same reason the UK would never be equal to the Eurozone in the European Parliament and yes I believe the same philosophical arguments apply to both. That it is not a pejorative.

    I think independence will be good for Scotland for the same reason I think independence will be good for the UK and I think that if independence is denied then neither will ever be equal. They are unions of unequals and that is why I think the unions should end.
    But this is just incoherent rubbish.

    On the basis of the Boris deal which you support, which effectively places NI outside of the UK, and encouraging Scottish independence, what is this UK for which "independence" is going to be so good ?
    We can control our own laws, our own trade deals and our own taxes and expenditure.

    NI is inside the UK and can vote to end these arrangements. If they don't do so, that's their devolved choice. I'm content to let them decide, I seek no desire to make the choice for them. Same for Scotland, if they choose to go that is their choice - I hope they do as I think it will be good for them, and I think it will be better for them than it is for us so its a selfless thought, but I respect their right to decide.

    In short, whatever the Scots and NI voters vote for I will respect it.
    What you are arguing for is a settlement effectively imposed by England against the strong opposition of both Scotland and NI.
    It meets your parochial concerns but shows a degree of contempt for the UK. The NI electorate strongly favoured May's deal, and you did not respect that in the least.
    If either NI or Scotland wishes to leave Boris's settlement they can. Their choice which I respect either way.

    How is that imposed? How is that contempt? I respect their choice.
  • Streeter said:
    Whats the latest timescales for a first half of December election? If its not next week is that pushing it to 2020?
  • Mr Thompson, please do define "democrat" from your perspective. Is it similar to those that call themselves "English Democrats"? All of your posts that I have read (which I accept will be a minority of them as you seem quite prolific) point to you being an English nationalist. I would not regard that as a compliment, as it is a doctrine that is normally associated with people that find thuggery and unpleasantness acceptable if it provides a means to a particular end.
  • DougSeal said:



    Yes of course. But one is democratic and can be changed democratically, the other is not.

    But the difference between this deal and the backstop is that if opponents of this deal win a future election they can change it. They can seek to rejoin, get a closer deal, further alignment.

    As the Attorney General made clear even if opponents of the backstop won future elections they could not legally change it, there was no way out and no reason for the EU to let us out.

    If in the future Rejoiners win an election and take us back in so be it that is democracy. If in the even further future Leavers win and take us back out so be it that is democracy. My hardline is not whether we are in or out, close or far, aligned or independent - it is whether we have democratic control. As members we do, in Boris's deal we do, in the backstop we did not and that is never OK under any circumstances.

    Mr Johnson’s Joint Committee is an unelected law making body that removes democratic control. It is outrageous, utterly outrageous, that you pontificate about “democracy” when the man you idolise is giving it away and sought to prevent Parliamentary oversight of him doing so. He’s a dangerous authoritarian crackpot. He is not, by any definition, a champion of democracy.
    Every QUANGO is undemocratic, what matters is if elected people can change or abolish it.

    If the people of NI vote to continue the arrangements the arrangements continue.
    If the people of NI vote to end the arrangements the arrangements end.

    Their choice. I respect it either way.
    Total simplistic bollocks again Mr Thompson. QUANGOs are not necessarily "undemocratic", provided they have proper democratic oversight.
  • Mr Thompson, please do define "democrat" from your perspective. Is it similar to those that call themselves "English Democrats"? All of your posts that I have read (which I accept will be a minority of them as you seem quite prolific) point to you being an English nationalist. I would not regard that as a compliment, as it is a doctrine that is normally associated with people that find thuggery and unpleasantness acceptable if it provides a means to a particular end.

    Democracy is people voting peacefully in a free and fair manner to make the decisions that affect their lives.

    I oppose all thuggery and unpleasantness which is inimicable to democracy.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:



    I get why you like this deal better than May's. Do you get why this deal is less attractive to remainers than May's was and less likely to achieve a consensus?

    And considerably less attractive to the majority in NI, while apparently still alienating the DUP. So not just 'remainers'.

    As for "throwing the UK under a bus", how on earth is this deal any better in that respect ?
    I think Philip means throwing his own personal concerns under the bus, which is a slightly different thing.
    In an ideal world I would prefer this deal to May's. It gives us much more room for maneuver and flexibility going forwards. But for me the differences are not worth the greater divisions it will cause. I would have been content for us to leave, to remain in May's "special relationship" with the EU and for future generations to decide whether to wind down that relationship or reapply for membership as they see fit. A war to the death is not the answer here.
    We come at it from very different starting points, but essentially I agree with that.

    I was prepared (reluctantly) to agree with the May deal, and still would.

    I am prepared (with very deep reluctance) to acquiesce to the Boris deal, if it settles matters, but it is becoming increasingly clear that it might not be able to support the weight of its own contradictions.
  • DougSeal said:



    Yes of course. But one is democratic and can be changed democratically, the other is not.

    But the difference between this deal and the backstop is that if opponents of this deal win a future election they can change it. They can seek to rejoin, get a closer deal, further alignment.

    As the Attorney General made clear even if opponents of the backstop won future elections they could not legally change it, there was no way out and no reason for the EU to let us out.

    If in the future Rejoiners win an election and take us back in so be it that is democracy. If in the even further future Leavers win and take us back out so be it that is democracy. My hardline is not whether we are in or out, close or far, aligned or independent - it is whether we have democratic control. As members we do, in Boris's deal we do, in the backstop we did not and that is never OK under any circumstances.

    Mr Johnson’s Joint Committee is an unelected law making body that removes democratic control. It is outrageous, utterly outrageous, that you pontificate about “democracy” when the man you idolise is giving it away and sought to prevent Parliamentary oversight of him doing so. He’s a dangerous authoritarian crackpot. He is not, by any definition, a champion of democracy.
    Every QUANGO is undemocratic, what matters is if elected people can change or abolish it.

    If the people of NI vote to continue the arrangements the arrangements continue.
    If the people of NI vote to end the arrangements the arrangements end.

    Their choice. I respect it either way.
    Total simplistic bollocks again Mr Thompson. QUANGOs are not necessarily "undemocratic", provided they have proper democratic oversight.
    Indeed and the Join Committee will both have democratic oversight and can be ended by Stormont if voters decide to do that.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669

    Scott_P said:
    It is not solvable by good will and negotiation. We have to make choices and know what the options are, no deal, Boris deal, May deal, SM/CM deal, remain. In none of them are both DUP and rest of Ireland both happy. The latter two come closest to achieving that.
    There are lots of Leave options. Taken together they are in a small majority (52:48). Any single one is a minority.
    Revoke or Referendum on ONE Leave option vs Remain cuts the Gordian Knot.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:



    But this is just incoherent rubbish.

    On the basis of the Boris deal which you support, which effectively places NI outside of the UK, and encouraging Scottish independence, what is this UK for which "independence" is going to be so good ?

    We can control our own laws, our own trade deals and our own taxes and expenditure.

    NI is inside the UK and can vote to end these arrangements. If they don't do so, that's their devolved choice. I'm content to let them decide, I seek no desire to make the choice for them. Same for Scotland, if they choose to go that is their choice - I hope they do as I think it will be good for them, and I think it will be better for them than it is for us so its a selfless thought, but I respect their right to decide.

    In short, whatever the Scots and NI voters vote for I will respect it.
    What you are arguing for is a settlement effectively imposed by England against the strong opposition of both Scotland and NI.
    It meets your parochial concerns but shows a degree of contempt for the UK. The NI electorate strongly favoured May's deal, and you did not respect that in the least.
    If either NI or Scotland wishes to leave Boris's settlement they can. Their choice which I respect either way.

    How is that imposed? How is that contempt? I respect their choice.
    Their choice is that the settlement doesn't happen.

    In the case of NI, it imposes a choice between two hated alternatives.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    Scott_P said:
    They seem to be backing themselves into the same cul-de-sac of indecision that finished Theresa May.
    It’s more sinister than that, how much of this is orchestrated I don’t know it may be the latest play in the no dealers strategy.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2019
    DavidL said:

    In an ideal world I would prefer this deal to May's. It gives us much more room for maneuver and flexibility going forwards. But for me the differences are not worth the greater divisions it will cause. I would have been content for us to leave, to remain in May's "special relationship" with the EU and for future generations to decide whether to wind down that relationship or reapply for membership as they see fit. A war to the death is not the answer here.

    Under Boris's deal we are seeking a "special relationship" that future generations can decide to wind down or reapply for membership as they see fit.

    Under May's deal how could we legally wind down our relationship, given the Attorney General said there was no legal way out of the backstop? And to do so illegally would not be a winding down it would be a nuclear option.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    kle4 said:

    alex. said:

    The EU should offer a flextension until July 2022. Effectively give the U.K. all options (statutory GE, referendum, May’s deal, Johnson’s deal - latter two with new transition periods) to sort it out themselves and tell us to come back when we’re done.

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1187259515458281472?s=20
    Yes it would, but I think they are not thinking of potential downsides. Some remainers are guilty of pretending all will be hunky dory if we stay but odds are good we will continue to be fractious and confused and cause trouble.
    There are unicorn fellators on all sides (see the 'we just need to get Brexit done' brigade so staunchly represented on here), but I sense the numbers are diminishing as they're ground down by the inexorable actualité. 'Distant albeit fading hope, hidden away' probably covers EU enthusiasm for the UK staying pretty well.
    Probably. Fortunately for remainers the EU would never take away that hope whatever the enthusiasm, but initial relief and resulting may not last long.
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:



    But this is just incoherent rubbish.

    On the basis of the Boris deal which you support, which effectively places NI outside of the UK, and encouraging Scottish independence, what is this UK for which "independence" is going to be so good ?

    We can control our own laws, our own trade deals and our own taxes and expenditure.

    NI is inside the UK and can vote to end these arrangements. If they don't do so, that's their devolved choice. I'm content to let them decide, I seek no desire to make the choice for them. Same for Scotland, if they choose to go that is their choice - I hope they do as I think it will be good for them, and I think it will be better for them than it is for us so its a selfless thought, but I respect their right to decide.

    In short, whatever the Scots and NI voters vote for I will respect it.
    What you are arguing for is a settlement effectively imposed by England against the strong opposition of both Scotland and NI.
    It meets your parochial concerns but shows a degree of contempt for the UK. The NI electorate strongly favoured May's deal, and you did not respect that in the least.
    If either NI or Scotland wishes to leave Boris's settlement they can. Their choice which I respect either way.

    How is that imposed? How is that contempt? I respect their choice.
    Their choice is that the settlement doesn't happen.

    In the case of NI, it imposes a choice between two hated alternatives.
    Sometimes alternatives are unpleasant yes, but they get to choose. That's democracy.

    NI's elected representatives opposed May's deal too but they didn't get to choose under that system.
  • Mr Thompson, please do define "democrat" from your perspective. Is it similar to those that call themselves "English Democrats"? All of your posts that I have read (which I accept will be a minority of them as you seem quite prolific) point to you being an English nationalist. I would not regard that as a compliment, as it is a doctrine that is normally associated with people that find thuggery and unpleasantness acceptable if it provides a means to a particular end.

    Democracy is people voting peacefully in a free and fair manner to make the decisions that affect their lives.

    I oppose all thuggery and unpleasantness which is inimicable to democracy.
    Democracy actually has a number of interpretations. If you believe in parliamentary liberal democracy, this may be somewhat different to the form practiced in the former GDR. Nailing it is a bit like the proverbial jelly. I asked you though, what you think being a "democrat" is, which is related but different. Many fascists (not suggesting you are) claim to be democrats as they think they represent the "will of the people". Hmm, where have I heard that recently?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2019
    This made me chuckle....taking the piss out of the Extinction Rebellion idiots who blocked the tube.

    https://youtu.be/bv_uXv04JBM
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,846
    GIN1138 said:

    I still think it'll be 31st January but it will be made clear that this is the final time they'll agree to any extenstion longer than a technical one needed to pass legislation etc.

    Many EU nations have had it with the House Of Fools and I don't blame them personally.

    I hear this a lot, and perhaps it is true, but IMO the EU will never never never refuse an extension if we ask for one. They will make noises, they will warn and cajole and complain, they will set conditions, but they will always grant it because to refuse would be to trigger a 'Not Happening' event - a No Deal exit - and what is worse be seen to be to blame for it.

    A No Deal exit is where the UK moves OVERNIGHT from frictionless trade to basic WTO terms with its largest market. I know this is not new information but I think it is sometimes worth typing it out in order to demonstrate its absurdity.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    148grss said:

    Mango said:


    Blinkered, empire-nostalgic idiots.

    Most mentions of “empire” come from Remainers - usually with gratuitous insults they somehow believe reflect on their target rather than themselves...
    Paradoxically many Remainers are more attached to the English empire on these islands than Brexiteers, who then get labelled English nationalists.
    We are not "attached" to Empire. We are just willing to talk about it because history exists and it is easy to see the connections. Denying internalised British Exceptionalism due to Empire on the part of some Leavers doesn't make it true, it just means those people are in denial.
    Maybe my point wasn’t clear. The “English empire” was a reference to the union, without which we wold apparently have “no meaningful role on the world stage”.

    https://twitter.com/sebdance/status/1186970282701004800?s=21
    The point about brexit breaking britain might be true but would have more impact were we not already told its end is inevitable. Hastening its end is also a major warning but while the warnings of its end are not just from those who hope for that end, the warnings do get lost as a result.
  • Mr Thompson, please do define "democrat" from your perspective. Is it similar to those that call themselves "English Democrats"? All of your posts that I have read (which I accept will be a minority of them as you seem quite prolific) point to you being an English nationalist. I would not regard that as a compliment, as it is a doctrine that is normally associated with people that find thuggery and unpleasantness acceptable if it provides a means to a particular end.

    Democracy is people voting peacefully in a free and fair manner to make the decisions that affect their lives.

    I oppose all thuggery and unpleasantness which is inimicable to democracy.
    Democracy actually has a number of interpretations. If you believe in parliamentary liberal democracy, this may be somewhat different to the form practiced in the former GDR. Nailing it is a bit like the proverbial jelly. I asked you though, what you think being a "democrat" is, which is related but different. Many fascists (not suggesting you are) claim to be democrats as they think they represent the "will of the people". Hmm, where have I heard that recently?
    I believe in liberal Parliamentary Democracy. I like the Westminster System.

    Let people choose their most popular local representatives. If the people change their minds, they get to choose new representatives at the next election.

    Fascists are not democratic. The will of the people is not fixed, it must be checked regularly at regular elections as the people have the right to change their minds. If people can not change their minds then the system is not democratic.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the House of Commons has refused to vote for May's Deal, has refused to vote for No Deal and is trying to amend the Boris Deal, Boris has had to act as he has to try and deliver Brexit.

    Had the 21 Tory rebels who voted for the Benn Act been allowed to stand again then even had Boris won a majority after the next general election on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal ticket, he could not deliver his manifesto. That particularly applies to the Tory MPs who voted to smrmd the Boris Deal and agsinst the Boris timetable up deliver Brexit by 31st October, again had they been allowed to stand again Boris could not deliver his Deal as stands.

    Had Boris stuck to the DUP line and refused to back a Northern Ireland only backstop the EU would also have refused a Deal anyway, while his current Deal as the polling shows is much more popular with Leavers than the May Deal, hence the big current Tory poll lead. So Boris has been absolutely right

    LOL

    Dear Mr President

    The UK parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s government to seek an extension of the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty, currently due to expire at 11pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020.

    I am writing therefore to inform the European council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the government proposes that the period should be terminated early.

    Yours sincerely,

    Prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
    That copy of the Benn Act dent unsigned and with a signed letter rejecting extension attached
    His letter did not reject an extension as I recall, that might have frustrated the Act. It said iirc that his view was one was a bad idea but it was up them to decide on parliaments request.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    DavidL said:

    As it happens I’m in Belfast today. My cabbie was very exercised about the recent law change introducing gay marriage (very firmly in favour). It was the first thing he mentioned.

    Can't help feeling (hoping) that the majority in NI will actually be grateful that these decisions (including abortion) have been made despite the tectonic plates of their politics making it so difficult.
    Such polling evidence as we have suggests that Northern Ireland is just as liberal about gay marriage as the rest of the UK. It is generally supported over here.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    Its cute that @HYUFD thinks the letter being unsigned means anything.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Mr. Meeks, 'the white empire'?

    A short time ago you were lamenting how febrile political discourse is now and the increased hurling of insults.

    What is incorrect about his evaluation?

    It is a very selective number of former colonies, noticeable for the exclusion of other members of the commonwealth that are majority non white.

    It seems pretty obvious to me that the idea of a Australia, NZ, Canada, UK FoM zone is centred around whiteness rather than anything else.
    “Anything else”?

    Like similar levels of economic development and relatively small populations, for example?

    Or do you think we should have FOM with 1.4 billion Indians where GDP/capita is one twentieth of the UK?

    In any case the “old Commonwealth” countries are far from “white” and I doubt would be keen on FoM with us.....
    This is not an economic argument, this is just a fancier way of saying "if we have FoM with India lots of poor brown people will come to the UK for better jobs, and that is unacceptable, but the potential for movement of middle class white people is fine"
    If you check the “British Diaspora” - where Brits have chosen to go and live - you will see that Australia New Zealand and Canada are many orders of magnitude more popular than “New Commonwealth” countries. Indeed, more have chosen Australia than the entire EU. Why not aim for FOM with countries where people want to go and live? The “geographical proximity” argument which may apply to trade does not apply here - the most popular destination for Brits could hardly be further away!
    If more Londoners migrate to Sydney than to Northern Ireland, is it an argument against free movement within the UK?
    Since no one is arguing about freedom of movement within countries it is another of your pointless questions.
    Ma patrie, c’est l’Europe!
    And that is where the root of all your errors lies.
    My identity cannot be an error. It is what it is.
    It is a myth
    All such identities are, to start with. I dont share his view but if thats what he feels it's real, even legal positions do not catch up.
  • Its cute that @HYUFD thinks the letter being unsigned means anything.

    Its cute that Remainers think the letter is Boris's or that Leavers will think it is Boris's.
  • Mr Thompson, please do define "democrat" from your perspective. Is it similar to those that call themselves "English Democrats"? All of your posts that I have read (which I accept will be a minority of them as you seem quite prolific) point to you being an English nationalist. I would not regard that as a compliment, as it is a doctrine that is normally associated with people that find thuggery and unpleasantness acceptable if it provides a means to a particular end.

    Democracy is people voting peacefully in a free and fair manner to make the decisions that affect their lives.

    I oppose all thuggery and unpleasantness which is inimicable to democracy.
    Democracy actually has a number of interpretations. If you believe in parliamentary liberal democracy, this may be somewhat different to the form practiced in the former GDR. Nailing it is a bit like the proverbial jelly. I asked you though, what you think being a "democrat" is, which is related but different. Many fascists (not suggesting you are) claim to be democrats as they think they represent the "will of the people". Hmm, where have I heard that recently?
    I believe in liberal Parliamentary Democracy. I like the Westminster System.

    Let people choose their most popular local representatives. If the people change their minds, they get to choose new representatives at the next election.

    Fascists are not democratic. The will of the people is not fixed, it must be checked regularly at regular elections as the people have the right to change their minds. If people can not change their minds then the system is not democratic.
    Ah, but you would be resistant to them changing their minds on the referendum in 2016? If you really are a democrat you would be happy for it to be tested again, because if it really is the will-of-the-people it will produce the same result. No doubt you will hide behind the spurious GE "argument" because that suits your undemocratic "I got the result I wanted" instinct.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880

    The 39 who lost their lives so tragically in the trailer in Essex are reported to be Chinese

    Classic Dom.
  • Its cute that @HYUFD thinks the letter being unsigned means anything.

    Its cute that Remainers think the letter is Boris's or that Leavers will think it is Boris's.
    I know you are
    You said you are
    But what am I?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    Its cute that @HYUFD thinks the letter being unsigned means anything.

    Its cute that Remainers think the letter is Boris's or that Leavers will think it is Boris's.
    No ifs or buts remember.

    Turns out there’s lots of ifs and buts.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    @HYUFD also continuously assured us that Boris would resign instead of send the letter.

    Clearly that was bollocks along with pretty much everything else.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    kle4 said:

    His letter did not reject an extension as I recall, that might have frustrated the Act. It said iirc that his view was one was a bad idea but it was up them to decide on parliaments request.

    “Dear Mr President,

    The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty's Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.

    I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.

    Yours sincerely,

    Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”

    It was the *letter* contained within the Benn Act that he was required to send. So he sent it. The letter. He sent the letter bit. In the Benn Act.

    legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/26
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    Its cute that @HYUFD thinks the letter being unsigned means anything.

    Its cute that Remainers think the letter is Boris's or that Leavers will think it is Boris's.
    No ifs or buts remember.

    Turns out there’s lots of ifs and buts.
    Too many butts though
  • Its cute that @HYUFD thinks the letter being unsigned means anything.

    Its cute that Remainers think the letter is Boris's or that Leavers will think it is Boris's.
    No ifs or buts remember.

    Turns out there’s lots of ifs and buts.
    There were no ifs or buts. He followed the law. Parliament sent a letter.

    If I write a post and I sign it off as Gallowgate then does that mean that you wrote it?
  • Mr Thompson, please do define "democrat" from your perspective. Is it similar to those that call themselves "English Democrats"? All of your posts that I have read (which I accept will be a minority of them as you seem quite prolific) point to you being an English nationalist. I would not regard that as a compliment, as it is a doctrine that is normally associated with people that find thuggery and unpleasantness acceptable if it provides a means to a particular end.

    Democracy is people voting peacefully in a free and fair manner to make the decisions that affect their lives.

    I oppose all thuggery and unpleasantness which is inimicable to democracy.
    Democracy actually has a number of interpretations. If you believe in parliamentary liberal democracy, this may be somewhat different to the form practiced in the former GDR. Nailing it is a bit like the proverbial jelly. I asked you though, what you think being a "democrat" is, which is related but different. Many fascists (not suggesting you are) claim to be democrats as they think they represent the "will of the people". Hmm, where have I heard that recently?
    It is a phrase that has been used by just about every US President in the 20th century. Why, do you think they were fascists too?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042
    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    So much for a union of equals.

    Why would we be equals?

    You're not even equal to the North West of England, let alone England!
    Oooh, he's got his English nationalist hat on today!
    Its always on. When do you take your Scottish Nationalist hat off?
    Nationalism is a divisive poisonous creed which ever variety you make your excuses for.
    It can be. But it's also the force that liberated large parts of the world from colonial imperialism.
    Nationalism is a tool, like a hammer. You can use it stave someone's head in, or you can use it to build something useful. It's the person wielding it that counts.
    It is a feature of all nationalisms that people see their own brand as the cuddly sort.
    Depends what you mean by "their own". I find current British nationalism repellent. I find current Kurdish nationalism attractive. It's a little more complex than just whether it's "mine" or "not mine". It depends very much on the values it carries and those which it is rebelling against. Those values can change over time, which means the same nationalism can change from ugly to attractive and back again. It's probably wisest not to get too attached to any nation or nationalism but to see it as a vehicle for other political values like liberalism, equality, good governance and so on. Like I said, a tool.
    It is perhaps a little more complex, but certainly not much. What you are expressing is your subjective preference. The values that we imbue nationalisms with are largely in the eye of the beholder. It is easy for us to look favourably upon Kurdish nationalism because Kurdish nationalists have been dealt an unfair hand, and because Kurdish nationalism carries no threat. But objectively, the phenomenon itself is not morally superior to its Russian, Syrian, Turkish or American counterparts. The aim should surely be to be proud of your own country whilst also respecting others who have different or even overlapping loyalties.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557

    Its cute that @HYUFD thinks the letter being unsigned means anything.

    Its cute that Remainers think the letter is Boris's or that Leavers will think it is Boris's.
    No ifs or buts remember.

    Turns out there’s lots of ifs and buts.
    There were no ifs or buts. He followed the law. Parliament sent a letter.

    If I write a post and I sign it off as Gallowgate then does that mean that you wrote it?
    If you are legally mandated to send a letter, and send it, then you have sent it.

    Just as if, for example, a court were to order you to serve a prison sentence, you and not the court would be serving that sentence.
  • Its cute that @HYUFD thinks the letter being unsigned means anything.

    Its cute that Remainers think the letter is Boris's or that Leavers will think it is Boris's.
    You would have to be a complete moron to think that an official letter sent with the Prime minister's name on it is not his just because he childishly didn't sign it! What next? Cover your eyes and say "la la you can't see me"? BoZo certainly knows his fan base is gullible. It would be hilarious if it were not so serious.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    Its cute that @HYUFD thinks the letter being unsigned means anything.

    Its cute that Remainers think the letter is Boris's or that Leavers will think it is Boris's.
    No ifs or buts remember.

    Turns out there’s lots of ifs and buts.
    There were no ifs or buts. He followed the law. Parliament sent a letter.

    If I write a post and I sign it off as Gallowgate then does that mean that you wrote it?
    He sent it as prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland*

    *for the moment.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2019

    Democracy actually has a number of interpretations. If you believe in parliamentary liberal democracy, this may be somewhat different to the form practiced in the former GDR. Nailing it is a bit like the proverbial jelly. I asked you though, what you think being a "democrat" is, which is related but different. Many fascists (not suggesting you are) claim to be democrats as they think they represent the "will of the people". Hmm, where have I heard that recently?

    I believe in liberal Parliamentary Democracy. I like the Westminster System.

    Let people choose their most popular local representatives. If the people change their minds, they get to choose new representatives at the next election.

    Fascists are not democratic. The will of the people is not fixed, it must be checked regularly at regular elections as the people have the right to change their minds. If people can not change their minds then the system is not democratic.
    Ah, but you would be resistant to them changing their minds on the referendum in 2016? If you really are a democrat you would be happy for it to be tested again, because if it really is the will-of-the-people it will produce the same result. No doubt you will hide behind the spurious GE "argument" because that suits your undemocratic "I got the result I wanted" instinct.

    No I'm not resistant to that! Who said I was resistant to that?

    If there is a General Election [which we could have had one by now and still might] and a mandate was won by Remainers or Rejoiners to hold a new referendum then I am OK with that.

    The 2016 referendum and the 2014 referendum both occured because a party won a majority on a pledge to hold a referendum. If any party wins a majority to hold a new one then I perfectly respect that.

    I said my prefered democracy is a liberal Parliamentary democracy, specifically the Westminster System. A vote at a GE should occur first, and could have already, which is not a spurious argument it occured before both prior votes. The government have said its ready for an election for weeks now, if Remain MPs want a new referendum they should vote for an election and win a mandate for a new referendum.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059

    DougSeal said:



    Yes of course. But one is democratic and can be changed democratically, the other is not.

    But the difference between this deal and the backstop is that if opponents of this deal win a future election they can change it. They can seek to rejoin, get a closer deal, further alignment.

    As the Attorney General made clear even if opponents of the backstop won future elections they could not legally change it, there was no way out and no reason for the EU to let us out.

    If in the future Rejoiners win an election and take us back in so be it that is democracy. If in the even further future Leavers win and take us back out so be it that is democracy. My hardline is not whether we are in or out, close or far, aligned or independent - it is whether we have democratic control. As members we do, in Boris's deal we do, in the backstop we did not and that is never OK under any circumstances.

    Mr Johnson’s Joint Committee is an unelected law making body that removes democratic control. It is outrageous, utterly outrageous, that you pontificate about “democracy” when the man you idolise is giving it away and sought to prevent Parliamentary oversight of him doing so. He’s a dangerous authoritarian crackpot. He is not, by any definition, a champion of democracy.
    Every QUANGO is undemocratic, what matters is if elected people can change or abolish it.

    If the people of NI vote to continue the arrangements the arrangements continue.
    If the people of NI vote to end the arrangements the arrangements end.

    Their choice. I respect it either way.
    Disingenuous - probably deliberately so. QUANGOs don’t make rules that are required to be enacted as legislation. This is an unelected legislative body. Furthermore it’s decisions are not limited to NI.


  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861

    Mr Thompson, please do define "democrat" from your perspective. Is it similar to those that call themselves "English Democrats"? All of your posts that I have read (which I accept will be a minority of them as you seem quite prolific) point to you being an English nationalist. I would not regard that as a compliment, as it is a doctrine that is normally associated with people that find thuggery and unpleasantness acceptable if it provides a means to a particular end.

    Democracy is people voting peacefully in a free and fair manner to make the decisions that affect their lives.

    I oppose all thuggery and unpleasantness which is inimicable to democracy.
    Democracy actually has a number of interpretations. If you believe in parliamentary liberal democracy, this may be somewhat different to the form practiced in the former GDR. Nailing it is a bit like the proverbial jelly. I asked you though, what you think being a "democrat" is, which is related but different. Many fascists (not suggesting you are) claim to be democrats as they think they represent the "will of the people". Hmm, where have I heard that recently?
    No sensible person thinks that the DDR was democratic, including the people of the DDR. I bet that Honecker and Krenz didn't belive that it was a democracy, the Elections were just for show.
  • Its cute that @HYUFD thinks the letter being unsigned means anything.

    Its cute that Remainers think the letter is Boris's or that Leavers will think it is Boris's.
    No ifs or buts remember.

    Turns out there’s lots of ifs and buts.
    There were no ifs or buts. He followed the law. Parliament sent a letter.

    If I write a post and I sign it off as Gallowgate then does that mean that you wrote it?
    Yes, I think we are all aware who wrote it, Philip. Even the EU seem to have figured it out.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042
    edited October 2019
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    Noo said:

    DavidL said:

    Animal_pb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    Having consent over the laws that affect you is not "extreme" it is democracy. The backstop was inexcusable, we were told under May it was necessary and there was no alternative, under Boris it is gone and good riddance!

    That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.

    Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!

    And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
    I get why you like this deal better than May's. Do you get why this deal is less attractive to remainers than May's was and less likely to achieve a consensus?
    The problem, though, was that most of the Remainers sit in the Opposition benches, and weren't going to vote for *any* Tory Brexit. So, in real terms, no, it's not actually less likely to achieve consensus; that is, to use a favourite Remainer term, a "unicorn".
    The remainers made an enormous mistake in voting down May's deal. As did the ERG of course. But going to harder versions of Brexit is really not the answer.
    Remainers don't want Brexit. You think their goals would have been helped by delivering the very thing they're opposed to?
    Many Brexiteers see it as the responsibility of Remainers to prevent them from having to take responsibility for their own project.
    James Cleverly told us this morning that if only it wasn't for the pesky opposition the government would have achieved all its aims with time to spare.
    Kim Yong Jun has a simple solution to such inconvenience and impertinence. Just have them all shot. There are probably a reasonable number of Leave supporters who would think this might be a good idea.
    Not even you Nigel. Not even you.
    Living with a triumphant Brexit is a far more fitting and cruel punishment. :lol:
  • Its cute that @HYUFD thinks the letter being unsigned means anything.

    Its cute that Remainers think the letter is Boris's or that Leavers will think it is Boris's.
    No ifs or buts remember.

    Turns out there’s lots of ifs and buts.
    There were no ifs or buts. He followed the law. Parliament sent a letter.

    If I write a post and I sign it off as Gallowgate then does that mean that you wrote it?
    Yes, I think we are all aware who wrote it, Philip. Even the EU seem to have figured it out.
    Gallowgate seemed to think it was Boris's letter.
  • Mr Thompson, please do define "democrat" from your perspective. Is it similar to those that call themselves "English Democrats"? All of your posts that I have read (which I accept will be a minority of them as you seem quite prolific) point to you being an English nationalist. I would not regard that as a compliment, as it is a doctrine that is normally associated with people that find thuggery and unpleasantness acceptable if it provides a means to a particular end.

    Democracy is people voting peacefully in a free and fair manner to make the decisions that affect their lives.

    I oppose all thuggery and unpleasantness which is inimicable to democracy.
    Democracy actually has a number of interpretations. If you believe in parliamentary liberal democracy, this may be somewhat different to the form practiced in the former GDR. Nailing it is a bit like the proverbial jelly. I asked you though, what you think being a "democrat" is, which is related but different. Many fascists (not suggesting you are) claim to be democrats as they think they represent the "will of the people". Hmm, where have I heard that recently?
    It is a phrase that has been used by just about every US President in the 20th century. Why, do you think they were fascists too?
    Some may have had "tendencies", most particularly the current one.

    It is a dangerous and arrogant phrase that is designed to close down debate and delegitimise minority views. It isn't necessarily "fascist", but it is "populist", so not far off.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,846
    glw said:

    That "do or die" BS has really come back to bite Boris on his fat arse.

    Yes. And he can and should be nailed with it. It was a bombastic pledge - "no ifs, no buts" - that he himself made totemic and he has failed to honour it.

    If he can now be held in aspic for a prolonged period, no Brexit, no GE, able only to trash talk, then as that magic 31 Oct date recedes into the distance, there is every chance that more and more people will start to see through him. He will be transformed from the Incredible Hulk to the Wizard of Oz, with the electorate as Dorothy.

    And when the transformation is complete, Corbyn calls that election. April 2020.
  • Its cute that @HYUFD thinks the letter being unsigned means anything.

    And it was from the PM, not parliament - it said so at the bottom of the letter that the PM sent
  • Its cute that @HYUFD thinks the letter being unsigned means anything.

    Its cute that Remainers think the letter is Boris's or that Leavers will think it is Boris's.
    You would have to be a complete moron to think that an official letter sent with the Prime minister's name on it is not his just because he childishly didn't sign it! What next? Cover your eyes and say "la la you can't see me"? BoZo certainly knows his fan base is gullible. It would be hilarious if it were not so serious.
    @Peter_the_Punter meet @Nigel_Foremain - can you two figure out between yourselves whose letter it was.

    Sincerely,
    Nigel_Foremain.

    PS this post was written by @Nigel_Foremain - it must have been, because it has his name in the signature.
  • Its cute that @HYUFD thinks the letter being unsigned means anything.

    And it was from the PM, not parliament - it said so at the bottom of the letter that the PM sent
    That's a good point.

    Sincerely,
    PeterMannion.
  • eristdoof said:

    Mr Thompson, please do define "democrat" from your perspective. Is it similar to those that call themselves "English Democrats"? All of your posts that I have read (which I accept will be a minority of them as you seem quite prolific) point to you being an English nationalist. I would not regard that as a compliment, as it is a doctrine that is normally associated with people that find thuggery and unpleasantness acceptable if it provides a means to a particular end.

    Democracy is people voting peacefully in a free and fair manner to make the decisions that affect their lives.

    I oppose all thuggery and unpleasantness which is inimicable to democracy.
    Democracy actually has a number of interpretations. If you believe in parliamentary liberal democracy, this may be somewhat different to the form practiced in the former GDR. Nailing it is a bit like the proverbial jelly. I asked you though, what you think being a "democrat" is, which is related but different. Many fascists (not suggesting you are) claim to be democrats as they think they represent the "will of the people". Hmm, where have I heard that recently?
    No sensible person thinks that the DDR was democratic, including the people of the DDR. I bet that Honecker and Krenz didn't belive that it was a democracy, the Elections were just for show.
    As a youngster, confused by the names of the two Germanies, it was helpful to be told that the one called Democratic wasn't.
  • TOPPING said:

    Its cute that @HYUFD thinks the letter being unsigned means anything.

    Its cute that Remainers think the letter is Boris's or that Leavers will think it is Boris's.
    No ifs or buts remember.

    Turns out there’s lots of ifs and buts.
    There were no ifs or buts. He followed the law. Parliament sent a letter.

    If I write a post and I sign it off as Gallowgate then does that mean that you wrote it?
    He sent it as prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland*

    *for the moment.
    Yes he sent the letter Parliament wrote and Parliament voted for despite the fact he voted against. Parliaments letter, Parliament's request, not his.

    They wrote his name, but he didn't write it. Its easily done to write someone else's name.

    Sincerely,
    Topping.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    @Philip_Thompson Boris sent the letter. Whether he wrote it or not is inconsequential. We were told repeatedly that there would be no extension and that Boris would rather resign than send the letter.

    That was clearly rubbish.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    If, as reported, the government is not going to bring forward any election motion next week, then the earliest election dates are 5 Dec for FTPA method (5 weeks) or 19 Dec for VONC method (7 weeks).

    It's going to either a January election (with a Xmas campaign) or another cliff edge on 31 January.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,955

    This made me chuckle....taking the piss out of the Extinction Rebellion idiots who blocked the tube.

    https://youtu.be/bv_uXv04JBM

    Although, it writes itself.....
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    TOPPING said:

    Its cute that @HYUFD thinks the letter being unsigned means anything.

    Its cute that Remainers think the letter is Boris's or that Leavers will think it is Boris's.
    No ifs or buts remember.

    Turns out there’s lots of ifs and buts.
    There were no ifs or buts. He followed the law. Parliament sent a letter.

    If I write a post and I sign it off as Gallowgate then does that mean that you wrote it?
    He sent it as prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland*

    *for the moment.
    Yes he sent the letter Parliament wrote and Parliament voted for despite the fact he voted against. Parliaments letter, Parliament's request, not his.

    They wrote his name, but he didn't write it. Its easily done to write someone else's name.

    Sincerely,
    Topping.
    Yes but Topping didn’t send that message. You did. Boris sent the letter, with his name on. He could have resigned. He didn’t.
  • Its cute that @HYUFD thinks the letter being unsigned means anything.

    Its cute that Remainers think the letter is Boris's or that Leavers will think it is Boris's.
    You would have to be a complete moron to think that an official letter sent with the Prime minister's name on it is not his just because he childishly didn't sign it! What next? Cover your eyes and say "la la you can't see me"? BoZo certainly knows his fan base is gullible. It would be hilarious if it were not so serious.
    @Peter_the_Punter meet @Nigel_Foremain - can you two figure out between yourselves whose letter it was.

    Sincerely,
    Nigel_Foremain.

    PS this post was written by @Nigel_Foremain - it must have been, because it has his name in the signature.
    no, duh, because it had to be authorised by Bozo for it to go! I would not authorise you sending a letter on my behalf ffs! It is a legal document that does not require his fat little hand to sign it!

    He could have chosen to resign, but instead he has lied to the gullible few who think he hasn't authorised it, when of course he had to as his only alternative was to resign which his ego refused him to do .
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,955

    Its cute that @HYUFD thinks the letter being unsigned means anything.

    Its cute that Remainers think the letter is Boris's or that Leavers will think it is Boris's.
    You would have to be a complete moron to think that an official letter sent with the Prime minister's name on it is not his just because he childishly didn't sign it! What next? Cover your eyes and say "la la you can't see me"? BoZo certainly knows his fan base is gullible. It would be hilarious if it were not so serious.
    @Peter_the_Punter meet @Nigel_Foremain - can you two figure out between yourselves whose letter it was.

    Sincerely,
    Nigel_Foremain.

    PS this post was written by @Nigel_Foremain - it must have been, because it has his name in the signature.
    Hmmm. When has Nigel Foremain ever been sincere?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Scott_P said:
    Who from Laura, who from? Given how much drivel she has put out from "Sauces" (note to pedants this this is a deliberate mis-spelling for humour value) why does she bother?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059

    Its cute that @HYUFD thinks the letter being unsigned means anything.

    And it was from the PM, not parliament - it said so at the bottom of the letter that the PM sent
    That's a good point.

    Sincerely,
    PeterMannion.
    If my client instructs me to send a letter from my firm to another party in a transaction, then it comes from my firm despite it being an outside instruction. If I don’t want to send it All I have to do is decline the instruction and lose the client - in other words I essentially resign from acting. Johnson was instructed to send the letter by the people he represents and did so when a legal alternative was open to him - resignation. Ergo he sent the f***ing letter.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    Alistair said:

    Scott_P said:
    Who from Laura, who from? Given how much drivel she has put out from "Sauces" (note to pedants this this is a deliberate mis-spelling for humour value) why does she bother?
    I hear she makes most of it up.

    That may, of course, be completely untrue, but it would be wrong to divulge my sources.
This discussion has been closed.