Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the Johnson/Cummings “ignore the treaty” move sets bad pre

123578

Comments

  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,784
    If you want a laugh Google 'HYUFD meaning'. You needn't go past the first link.
  • Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland.
    I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.
  • eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    That the government stated openly that the plan is to flout international law "in a specific and limited way" in order to pursue the national interest at the potential expense of Brussels (last bit not said but implied and will no doubt be briefed) imo tells us what is really going on here.

    It's yet another piece of tedious "We are Millwall aka the People's government and we don't care" jingo confected quite deliberately to wind up effete Remainy liberals and get their own side, the Salt of the Earth Leavers. pumped up and loving "Boris" and the Brexit all over again. Perhaps Cummings & Co were worried that passions were cooling. They don't want that obviously. If that happens, more people might notice other things, none of which speak well of the government they elected so recently.

    Yep. So this is what I think is happening. PR and nothing else. They're feeding the fish. It won't change the Brexit outcome by one iota. No Deal is still a Not Happening event. There will still be major late compromise from us that ensures continuing close alignment with the EU and no border in Ireland (thus one in the Irish Sea) after 1 Jan 2021. But the Gang decided they needed a fresh dose of the Old Familiar right now. It's tedious for the rest of us but they know it works.

    So, given that, I'm not playing. I'm not outraged. I'm not even interested.

    The actual issue isn't that important - it's the impact on our global reputation that is important - and in 1 sentence this afternoon a Government minister destroyed it.
    It's a feature of the internet age that what actually happens is not nearly as important as what is memorable.

    So, it's still possible that, by the time the text of the Bill is published, it won't contain anything that breaches our existing treaty commitments, or if it does, that the government will be defeated in the Commons, and so we will never, in fact, break our existing treaty commitment. And yet, "we will break the law in a specific and limited way," may well be remembered as part of the fifteen second summary of Brexit. Fabulous.
    And the ultimate irony is that the apex of this government is people who have a talent for summing up their case in a soundbite that, if it tells the truth, certainly doesn't tell the whole truth.

    Now they're being run over by their own bus. Heart of stone etc...
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited September 2020
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    It's early days yet.

    The government has to shed either Tory remainer or core Brexiter support over the next few months depending on its Brexit policy, and then deal with the fallout of the end of the furlough scheme at the same time.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland.
    I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.

    Probably a touch preoccupied given that she has just given birth?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,584

    Cyclefree said:



    So even Government ministers worry about this action.

    Yet they do nothing, cowardice

    They don’t worry about legality. So they’ll fold.

    The only Tory MP who today, both inside and outside Parliament, spoke with any shred of integrity and understanding was Sir Bob Neill.
    I would almost add Mrs May to that list of one.
    Thank goodness she's not PM anymore.
    As you know, I am not a Conservative, but I would happily agree to another 25 years of a Mrs May Government over another 25 days of the Dangerous Brothers (Johnson and Cummings).
    That kind of says it all doesn't it?
    What it says is despite not approving of Mrs May, she is preferable to Johnson. I am scared stiff as to what Johnson is doing to my country.
    Whereas I'm delighted. Considering we have opposing POVs on politics that's quite reasonable.

    Boris is shaping up to be the best PM since Thatcher.
    Where is this parallel universe of which you speak?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    RobD said:

    https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1303425166073102339

    The Labour narrative of the next five years is going to be to attempt to do what the Tories did from 2008, 2008 onwards was Labour crashed the car, Labour is going to try incompetence is holding Britain back

    Being at capacity means it is on the verge of collapse? A bit of a stretch!
    It means it is unable to cope with a further increase in demand. Yes.
  • MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.

    Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
    And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
  • Biden must win Penn imho.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,735

    Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland.
    I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.

    Someone hinted that before the holiday, but then there was the obligatory on holiday together pic
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited September 2020
    MaxPB said:

    Oh we're up to first strike on a non nuclear nation already? It's sad what the party has turned into. Hopefully they'll be cleared away once Boris falls and takes that c*** Dom with him.

    No we are up to defending British territory no matter what the cost, if you would hand the Falklands over to Argentina without a fight we are better off as a party without you anyway.
  • The I stole my post without credit!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    If Starmer drops all of the culture war woke stuff I think I'd be comfortable voting for him. As it stands I don't think I could vote for a party or leader that will allow biological men into women only spaces.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,056
    Chris said:

    I think the real problem is that so many people are losing the will to live that there is very little incentive to comply with anti-coronavirus guidance.

    The Observer did ask a pertinent question. If the virus remains free despite national lockdown, how can less draconian measures work?

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1302474938440445952?s=09
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1303425166073102339

    The Labour narrative of the next five years is going to be to attempt to do what the Tories did from 2008, 2008 onwards was Labour crashed the car, Labour is going to try incompetence is holding Britain back

    Being at capacity means it is on the verge of collapse? A bit of a stretch!
    It means it is unable to cope with a further increase in demand. Yes.
    But collapse implies it will cease functioning. I don't think that's the case here.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741
    HYUFD said:


    They may well have done but Washington stayed neutral for a reason as both Thatcher's UK and Argentina were key allies, Reagan was also slightly scared of Thatcher so she would have not ruled it out until the islands were returned and Reagan would not have been able to do anything about it

    Washington's neutrality was, if memory serves, quite nuanced. Reagan was supportive of Thatcher but there were others in the administration who feared damaging relations across the whole of Latin America by taking too strong a pro-British stance.

    The "Bolivian Option" or indeed any diplomatic solution might well have found favour in Washington.

    There's also the rumour as to whether Chile was prepared to go to war with Argentina at the same time as to further weaken Buenos Aires and the junta.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,735
    RobD said:

    But collapse implies it will cease functioning. I don't think that's the case here.

    The people running it do
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    What does HYUFD stand for

    Nothing in particular
    Never was a truer word spoken.
    Tut,tut!
    Cyclefree, I do apologise. I have only just seen HYUFD's earlier insult. You can say what you like!
    He can say what he likes but if I am insulted I will respond, ever and always
    But when you mischaracterise others and are asked twice - as I did to you earlier this year - to apologise and withdraw your incorrect and insulting remarks, you did not have the good grace or good manners to do so.

    So tough - you’re now getting from me what you richly deserve for those earlier insults.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited September 2020

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.

    Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
    And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
    Whatever people have done in the past or will do in the future, as mentioned by many posters on here today, when it comes to international law this is not done openly or as a point of pride. This posture belongs to a Trumpian politics that may be short-lived, leaving Britain isolated.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1303425166073102339

    The Labour narrative of the next five years is going to be to attempt to do what the Tories did from 2008, 2008 onwards was Labour crashed the car, Labour is going to try incompetence is holding Britain back

    Being at capacity means it is on the verge of collapse? A bit of a stretch!
    It means it is unable to cope with a further increase in demand. Yes.
    But collapse implies it will cease functioning. I don't think that's the case here.
    If someone with symptoms can't get a test that could result in whole schools being closed for an extra day
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.

    Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
    And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
    But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.

    That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
  • Foxy said:

    Chris said:

    I think the real problem is that so many people are losing the will to live that there is very little incentive to comply with anti-coronavirus guidance.

    The Observer did ask a pertinent question. If the virus remains free despite national lockdown, how can less draconian measures work?

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1302474938440445952?s=09
    When was the goal of the whole strategy moved though? We should be told.

    The goal was to save the NHS from being swamped, flatten the sombrero of the peak and stretch things out.

    Now hospitals are empty.

    But the goal now seems to be zero covid at all costs.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited September 2020
    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    What does HYUFD stand for

    Nothing in particular
    Never was a truer word spoken.
    Well if you could cut your articles in half to make basically the same points it would help matters too
    When you are editor then you can give me instructions. OGH publishes them because he likes them.

    Perhaps you could offer us a header so that we can see the quality of your writing and thought.
    I give plenty of my writing on here already, a header would not really add much if you want to do one that is up to you but you made the first insult so don't be surprised if it was returned
    You insulted me some time ago and refused to retract despite me asking you to do so. You did it again at the time of the VE celebrations this year. I have simply bided my time for the right opportunity.

    I don’t consider your opinion on my headers an insult.

    Comments below the line are not remotely comparable to constructing and writing an argument capable of being read by someone with an attention span longer than a gnat.

    No doubt an article from you on opinion polls would be of interest to some.
    I have never personally insulted you to my knowledge at all, you may disagree with what I have posted but that is not the same thing or my opinion of your views on an issue but that is not the same thing either.

    I have too much to do in terms of work and being branch party chairman and in my personal life to research and write lots of article headers here, if you wish to do so fine but posts is all I will do

  • Scott_xP said:
    Cummings didn't want to hear it from Cox, so replaced by a more compliant individual.
  • MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.

    Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
    And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
    Whatever people have done in the past or will do in the future, as mentioned by many posters on here today, when it comes to international law this is not done openly or as a point of pride. This posture belongs to a Trumpian politics that may be short-lived, leaving Britain isolated.
    The whole world can see this is a part of Brexit. Any country that has undergone its own independence will have had far bigger ructions than this.

    The French cheerfully disregard the rules they've signed up to whenever they want. Do you honestly think that if the French were in our position they wouldn't do the exact same thing?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,571
    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    What does HYUFD stand for

    Nothing in particular
    Never was a truer word spoken.
    Well if you could cut your articles in half to make basically the same points it would help matters too
    When you are editor then you can give me instructions. OGH publishes them because he likes them.

    Perhaps you could offer us a header so that we can see the quality of your writing and thought.
    No need.
    As HYUFD point out, he has provided us with more than sufficient evidence.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,056
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?

    The moment their military is able to get past ours.
    It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
    Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
    I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
    Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
    HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:

    • Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland

    • Nuke Madrid

    • Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
    Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.

    So just defending the will of the people
    Friendly advice:

    When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
    Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.

    Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
    Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
    Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.

    Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.

    However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
    It clearly wasn't a deterrent as it didn't deter them.

    Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
    As I said it was a military junta, we defeated them militarily.

    Would Thatcher have sent a submarine to nuke Buenos Aires if the task force had failed and Argentine refused to withdraw from the Falklands? Who knows. However I suspect she would have kept them guessing and not ruled it out to maximise the chances of liberating the islands
    The QTWAIN to end all QTWAINs.
    Thatcher was a proper Tory, she put defending our nation and its citizens, including overseas above all else, unlike some on the left she would not role over and allow our nation's territory to be lost no matter what the cost.

    Had Thatcher lost the Falklands War she may well have lost the 1983 election which would also have been in the back of her mind
    Apart from the Hong Kong Chines, who she withdrew full nationality from, and agreed to had over entiterly to the PRC.
  • Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland.
    I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.


    Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Biden leads by huge margins on law'n'order, violence, Racial harmony etc.

    The only thing Trump should be talking about is the economy. Having him talk on anything else is a negative for him.
  • MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.

    Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
    And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
    Whatever people have done in the past or will do in the future, as mentioned by many posters on here today, when it comes to international law this is not done openly or as a point of pride. This posture belongs to a Trumpian politics that may be short-lived, leaving Britain isolated.
    The whole world can see this is a part of Brexit. Any country that has undergone its own independence will have had far bigger ructions than this.

    The French cheerfully disregard the rules they've signed up to whenever they want. Do you honestly think that if the French were in our position they wouldn't do the exact same thing?
    Would they be making it a public principle ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited September 2020
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?

    The moment their military is able to get past ours.
    It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
    Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
    I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
    Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
    HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:

    • Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland

    • Nuke Madrid

    • Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
    Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.

    So just defending the will of the people
    Friendly advice:

    When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
    Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.

    Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
    Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
    Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.

    Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.

    However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
    It clearly wasn't a deterrent as it didn't deter them.

    Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
    As I said it was a military junta, we defeated them militarily.

    Would Thatcher have sent a submarine to nuke Buenos Aires if the task force had failed and Argentine refused to withdraw from the Falklands? Who knows. However I suspect she would have kept them guessing and not ruled it out to maximise the chances of liberating the islands
    The QTWAIN to end all QTWAINs.
    Thatcher was a proper Tory, she put defending our nation and its citizens, including overseas above all else, unlike some on the left she would not role over and allow our nation's territory to be lost no matter what the cost.

    Had Thatcher lost the Falklands War she may well have lost the 1983 election which would also have been in the back of her mind
    Apart from the Hong Kong Chines, who she withdrew full nationality from, and agreed to had over entiterly to the PRC.
    Hong Kong was held on a lease and she respected the terms of that lease, China was also a nuclear power like the UK which goes back to my original point
  • HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?

    The moment their military is able to get past ours.
    It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
    Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
    I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
    Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
    HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:

    • Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland

    • Nuke Madrid

    • Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
    Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.

    So just defending the will of the people
    Friendly advice:

    When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
    Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.

    Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
    Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
    Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.

    Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.

    However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
    It clearly wasn't a deterrent as it didn't deter them.

    Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
    As I said it was a military junta, we defeated them militarily.

    Would Thatcher have sent a submarine to nuke Buenos Aires if the task force had failed and Argentine refused to withdraw from the Falklands? Who knows. However I suspect she would have kept them guessing and not ruled it out to maximise the chances of liberating the islands
    The QTWAIN to end all QTWAINs.
    Thatcher was a proper Tory, she put defending our nation and its citizens, including overseas above all else, unlike some on the left she would not role over and allow our nation's territory to be lost no matter what the cost.

    Had Thatcher lost the Falklands War she may well have lost the 1983 election which would also have been in the back of her mind
    Apart from the Hong Kong Chines, who she withdrew full nationality from, and agreed to had over entiterly to the PRC.
    Hong Kong was held on a lease and she respected the terms of that lease, China was also a nuclear power like the UK which goes back to my original point
    Hong Kong was NOT on a lease. The New Territories were on a lease. The island of Hong Kong was granted in perpetuity.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Pulpstar said:

    Why on earth are pollsters bothering with Nerw Jersey ?

    American presidential polling is filled with many mysteries.

    Why do they poll uncompetitive states?
    Why do they tell us how much more the big number is from the small number?
    Why do the frequently have laughably tiny sample sizes?

    So many mysteries.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    North Carolina Absentee ballot requests (Change from September 4th data)

    CONSTITUTION 138 (+17)
    DEMOCRATIC 358,623 (+21,261)
    GREEN 284 (+21)
    LIBERTARIAN 1,902 (+227)
    REPUBLICAN 112,233 (+8,613)
    UNAFFILIATED 215,800 (+15,441)

    Grand Total 688,980 (+45,580)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Scott_xP said:
    Arguably invading Iraq without UN approval was breaking international law
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.

    Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
    And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
    But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.

    That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
    Absolutely contract and civil law we are renowned for. That's not this.

    The EU promised to negotiate in good faith and treat us as a sovereign country. They're not. Screw them time to sort out our own future.
  • MaxPB said:

    If Starmer drops all of the culture war woke stuff I think I'd be comfortable voting for him. As it stands I don't think I could vote for a party or leader that will allow biological men into women only spaces.

    I'm not sure how the British govern their toilets, is the PM in charge of them directly? If so it feels like the kind of decision that could be decentralized
  • HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Arguably invading Iraq without UN approval was breaking international law
    But the government went to huge lengths to claim that it wasn't.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    What does HYUFD stand for

    Nothing in particular
    Never was a truer word spoken.
    Well if you could cut your articles in half to make basically the same points it would help matters too
    When you are editor then you can give me instructions. OGH publishes them because he likes them.

    Perhaps you could offer us a header so that we can see the quality of your writing and thought.
    I give plenty of my writing on here already, a header would not really add much if you want to do one that is up to you but you made the first insult so don't be surprised if it was returned
    You insulted me some time ago and refused to retract despite me asking you to do so. You did it again at the time of the VE celebrations this year. I have simply bided my time for the right opportunity.

    I don’t consider your opinion on my headers an insult.

    Comments below the line are not remotely comparable to constructing and writing an argument capable of being read by someone with an attention span longer than a gnat.

    No doubt an article from you on opinion polls would be of interest to some.
    I have never personally insulted you to my knowledge at all, you may disagree with what I have posted but that is not the same thing or my opinion of your views on an issue but that is not the same thing either.

    I have too much to do in terms of work and being branch party chairman and in my personal life to research and write lots of article headers here, if you wish to do so fine but posts is all I will do

    You have. But since I have now responded to my satisfaction, I consider the matter over.

    Fair enough re headers. Not everyone has the time or inclination. One small piece of advice: it is very easy to criticise but much harder to do, something you might bear in mind in future.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?

    The moment their military is able to get past ours.
    It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
    Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
    I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
    Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
    HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:

    • Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland

    • Nuke Madrid

    • Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
    Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.

    So just defending the will of the people
    Friendly advice:

    When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
    Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.

    Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
    Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
    Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.

    Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.

    However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
    It clearly wasn't a deterrent as it didn't deter them.

    Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
    As I said it was a military junta, we defeated them militarily.

    Would Thatcher have sent a submarine to nuke Buenos Aires if the task force had failed and Argentine refused to withdraw from the Falklands? Who knows. However I suspect she would have kept them guessing and not ruled it out to maximise the chances of liberating the islands
    The QTWAIN to end all QTWAINs.
    Thatcher was a proper Tory, she put defending our nation and its citizens, including overseas above all else, unlike some on the left she would not role over and allow our nation's territory to be lost no matter what the cost.

    Had Thatcher lost the Falklands War she may well have lost the 1983 election which would also have been in the back of her mind
    Apart from the Hong Kong Chines, who she withdrew full nationality from, and agreed to had over entiterly to the PRC.
    Hong Kong was held on a lease and she respected the terms of that lease, China was also a nuclear power like the UK which goes back to my original point
    Hong Kong was NOT on a lease. The New Territories were on a lease. The island of Hong Kong was granted in perpetuity.
    The leased area comprised 92% of Hong Kong territory, retaining the remaining 8% was unviable
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?

    The moment their military is able to get past ours.
    It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
    Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
    I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
    Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
    HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:

    • Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland

    • Nuke Madrid

    • Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
    Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.

    So just defending the will of the people
    Based on your argument, the will of the Scottish people was not to Brexit. Their desire for a European enclave North of Hadrian's Wall should be granted.
    We can have indyref2 in a generation to decide, as Salmond promised in 2014
    Promised?
    Don't be daft!

    https://twitter.com/AngusMacNeilSNP/status/1301600379520659456?s=20
    Christ, when Angus MacNeil is besting you in a battle of wits you are better off retiring.
  • Scott_xP said:
    "Almost" is an interesting word there.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.

    Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
    And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
    But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.

    That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
    Absolutely contract and civil law we are renowned for. That's not this.

    The EU promised to negotiate in good faith and treat us as a sovereign country. They're not. Screw them time to sort out our own future.
    I've not seen any examples of the EU not negotiating in good faith, please point them out.
  • MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.

    Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
    And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
    Whatever people have done in the past or will do in the future, as mentioned by many posters on here today, when it comes to international law this is not done openly or as a point of pride. This posture belongs to a Trumpian politics that may be short-lived, leaving Britain isolated.
    The whole world can see this is a part of Brexit. Any country that has undergone its own independence will have had far bigger ructions than this.

    The French cheerfully disregard the rules they've signed up to whenever they want. Do you honestly think that if the French were in our position they wouldn't do the exact same thing?
    Would they be making it a public principle ?
    Yes.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland.
    I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.


    Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
    Really? Goodness - that didn’t last long.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,735
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited September 2020
    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    What does HYUFD stand for

    Nothing in particular
    Never was a truer word spoken.
    Well if you could cut your articles in half to make basically the same points it would help matters too
    When you are editor then you can give me instructions. OGH publishes them because he likes them.

    Perhaps you could offer us a header so that we can see the quality of your writing and thought.
    I give plenty of my writing on here already, a header would not really add much if you want to do one that is up to you but you made the first insult so don't be surprised if it was returned
    You insulted me some time ago and refused to retract despite me asking you to do so. You did it again at the time of the VE celebrations this year. I have simply bided my time for the right opportunity.

    I don’t consider your opinion on my headers an insult.

    Comments below the line are not remotely comparable to constructing and writing an argument capable of being read by someone with an attention span longer than a gnat.

    No doubt an article from you on opinion polls would be of interest to some.
    I have never personally insulted you to my knowledge at all, you may disagree with what I have posted but that is not the same thing or my opinion of your views on an issue but that is not the same thing either.

    I have too much to do in terms of work and being branch party chairman and in my personal life to research and write lots of article headers here, if you wish to do so fine but posts is all I will do

    You have. But since I have now responded to my satisfaction, I consider the matter over.

    Fair enough re headers. Not everyone has the time or inclination. One small piece of advice: it is very easy to criticise but much harder to do, something you might bear in mind in future.
    Normally I don't criticise personally unless in response (though I do argue on views) and fair enough for the work you put into headers
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?

    The moment their military is able to get past ours.
    It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
    Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
    I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
    Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
    HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:

    • Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland

    • Nuke Madrid

    • Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
    Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.

    So just defending the will of the people
    Friendly advice:

    When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
    Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.

    Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
    Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
    Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.

    Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.

    However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
    It clearly wasn't a deterrent as it didn't deter them.

    Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
    As I said it was a military junta, we defeated them militarily.

    Would Thatcher have sent a submarine to nuke Buenos Aires if the task force had failed and Argentine refused to withdraw from the Falklands? Who knows. However I suspect she would have kept them guessing and not ruled it out to maximise the chances of liberating the islands
    The QTWAIN to end all QTWAINs.
    Thatcher was a proper Tory, she put defending our nation and its citizens, including overseas above all else, unlike some on the left she would not role over and allow our nation's territory to be lost no matter what the cost.

    Had Thatcher lost the Falklands War she may well have lost the 1983 election which would also have been in the back of her mind
    Apart from the Hong Kong Chines, who she withdrew full nationality from, and agreed to had over entiterly to the PRC.
    I don’t think people in HK ever had full British nationality....
  • MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.

    Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
    And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
    Whatever people have done in the past or will do in the future, as mentioned by many posters on here today, when it comes to international law this is not done openly or as a point of pride. This posture belongs to a Trumpian politics that may be short-lived, leaving Britain isolated.
    The whole world can see this is a part of Brexit. Any country that has undergone its own independence will have had far bigger ructions than this.

    The French cheerfully disregard the rules they've signed up to whenever they want. Do you honestly think that if the French were in our position they wouldn't do the exact same thing?
    Would they be making it a public principle ?
    Yes.
    On the precedents, no.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland.
    I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.


    Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
    Really? Goodness - that didn’t last long.
    :lol:
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,056

    Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland.
    I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.


    Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
    There are rumours on twitter, but probably always are.

    I would have thought babyfather wouldn't be up to the usual at present.

    On the other hand, it is well recognised that a man who married his mistress creates a job vacancy.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.

    Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
    And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
    Whatever people have done in the past or will do in the future, as mentioned by many posters on here today, when it comes to international law this is not done openly or as a point of pride. This posture belongs to a Trumpian politics that may be short-lived, leaving Britain isolated.
    The whole world can see this is a part of Brexit. Any country that has undergone its own independence will have had far bigger ructions than this.

    The French cheerfully disregard the rules they've signed up to whenever they want. Do you honestly think that if the French were in our position they wouldn't do the exact same thing?
    When Slovakia and the Czech Republic broke away from each other to become independent, did they announce that they would break their agreements and international law?
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.

    Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
    And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
    But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.

    That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
    Absolutely contract and civil law we are renowned for. That's not this.

    The EU promised to negotiate in good faith and treat us as a sovereign country. They're not. Screw them time to sort out our own future.
    I've not seen any examples of the EU not negotiating in good faith, please point them out.
    The EU not recognising UK Sovereignty over State Aid or Fishing in the way it does for other countries like Norway or Canada.

    I note that any time this comes up nobody attempts to defend this as good faith instead it's simply "the EU is bigger so can do what it likes".

    Well if the EU isn't going to negotiate in good faith we can do what we like too.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    edited September 2020

    MaxPB said:

    If Starmer drops all of the culture war woke stuff I think I'd be comfortable voting for him. As it stands I don't think I could vote for a party or leader that will allow biological men into women only spaces.

    I'm not sure how the British govern their toilets, is the PM in charge of them directly? If so it feels like the kind of decision that could be decentralized
    It's part of the gender recognition act, Labour are in favour of self identification which would allow biological males into women's spaces without a recognised gender recognition certificate or operation. It's woke bullshit.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Foxy said:

    Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland.
    I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.


    Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
    There are rumours on twitter, but probably always are.

    I would have thought babyfather wouldn't be up to the usual at present.

    On the other hand, it is well recognised that a man who married his mistress creates a job vacancy.
    He hasn’t married her, though.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland.
    I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.


    Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
    Really? Goodness - that didn’t last long.
    By the way, how are you doing these days @Cyclefree? I seem to recall you were very down with the whole lockdown thing. Life a little better now hopefully?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,584
    Cyclefree said:

    Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland.
    I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.


    Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
    Really? Goodness - that didn’t last long.
    I have been waiting to quote Sir Cliff on this matter for a while.

    "Carrie doesn't live here anymore".
  • Scott_xP said:
    As embarrassing as Boris's antics are, I didn't think they'd gain any traction. Now I'm not so sure. Brexit is one thing, but I wonder if there's something deep in the British psyche that demands that we always play fair when dealing with the rest of the world. This swaggering disregard for convention and 'my word is my bond' doesn't seem like us. Boris and Dom may have horribly misjudged this.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.

    Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
    And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
    But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.

    That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
    Absolutely contract and civil law we are renowned for. That's not this.

    The EU promised to negotiate in good faith and treat us as a sovereign country. They're not. Screw them time to sort out our own future.
    I've not seen any examples of the EU not negotiating in good faith, please point them out.
    The EU not recognising UK Sovereignty over State Aid or Fishing in the way it does for other countries like Norway or Canada.

    I note that any time this comes up nobody attempts to defend this as good faith instead it's simply "the EU is bigger so can do what it likes".

    Well if the EU isn't going to negotiate in good faith we can do what we like too.
    That definitely doesn't count. The EU are negotiating, I think they're negotiating badly, but ultimately that's their prerogative. It's not bad faith, if it was the government would have taken it to arbitration as a breech of the treaty. They haven't so it isn't.
  • Weddings to be restricted
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.

    Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
    And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
    Whatever people have done in the past or will do in the future, as mentioned by many posters on here today, when it comes to international law this is not done openly or as a point of pride. This posture belongs to a Trumpian politics that may be short-lived, leaving Britain isolated.
    The whole world can see this is a part of Brexit. Any country that has undergone its own independence will have had far bigger ructions than this.

    The French cheerfully disregard the rules they've signed up to whenever they want. Do you honestly think that if the French were in our position they wouldn't do the exact same thing?
    When Slovakia and the Czech Republic broke away from each other to become independent, did they announce that they would break their agreements and international law?
    Well it kills another argument against Scottish Independence. That they would have to take on their fair share of assets and liabilities (including national debt) post independence.

    But then of course as usual you presumably have no problem with that, being a supporter of Scottish Independence. The fact that the current UK govt would is a matter of supreme indifference to you. They're basically your useful idiots.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,274
    edited September 2020

    Cyclefree said:

    Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland.
    I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.


    Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
    Really? Goodness - that didn’t last long.
    I have been waiting to quote Sir Cliff on this matter for a while.

    "Carrie doesn't live here anymore".
    When a man marries his mistress, he creates a job vacancy.

    Edit: Apols to @Foxy, I see he beat me to it.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,735

    As embarrassing as Boris's antics are, I didn't think they'd gain any traction. Now I'm not so sure. Brexit is one thing, but I wonder if there's something deep in the British psyche that demands that we always play fair when dealing with the rest of the world. This swaggering disregard for convention and 'my word is my bond' doesn't seem like us. Boris and Dom may have horribly misjudged this.

    Fair play is why the Cummings road trip so damaged BoZo

    And proved they don't give a fuck what the public think
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited September 2020
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.

    Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
    And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
    But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.

    That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
    Absolutely contract and civil law we are renowned for. That's not this.

    The EU promised to negotiate in good faith and treat us as a sovereign country. They're not. Screw them time to sort out our own future.
    I've not seen any examples of the EU not negotiating in good faith, please point them out.
    The EU not recognising UK Sovereignty over State Aid or Fishing in the way it does for other countries like Norway or Canada.

    I note that any time this comes up nobody attempts to defend this as good faith instead it's simply "the EU is bigger so can do what it likes".

    Well if the EU isn't going to negotiate in good faith we can do what we like too.
    That definitely doesn't count. The EU are negotiating, I think they're negotiating badly, but ultimately that's their prerogative. It's not bad faith, if it was the government would have taken it to arbitration as a breech of the treaty. They haven't so it isn't.
    They're negotiating in bad faith and there isn't time to arbitrate this the transition deal expires 31/12.

    If they're not going to negotiate in good faith we need to put in place alternative solutions. This is a good start.

    And if they're breaching the treaty and if we are then we can all arbitrate all of it next year. In the mean time solutions are needed before then.
  • I bet Tories will be all in favour of the law when Scotland decides to declare itself independent
  • Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland.
    I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.


    Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
    There are rumours on twitter, but probably always are.

    I would have thought babyfather wouldn't be up to the usual at present.

    On the other hand, it is well recognised that a man who married his mistress creates a job vacancy.
    He hasn’t married her, though.
    And it would seem that he does not have to..... :open_mouth:
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Weddings to be restricted

    They should just advise against all non-essential travel again at this point. I doubt that would have stopped a second wave as the virus was never fully eliminated, but it would have helped reduce the number of clusters.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Starmer drops all of the culture war woke stuff I think I'd be comfortable voting for him. As it stands I don't think I could vote for a party or leader that will allow biological men into women only spaces.

    I'm not sure how the British govern their toilets, is the PM in charge of them directly? If so it feels like the kind of decision that could be decentralized
    It's part of the gender recognition act, Labour are in favour of self identification which would allow biological males into women's spaces without a recognised gender recognition certificate or operation. It's woke bullshit.
    But which bathroom should Buck Angel use ?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,056
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?

    The moment their military is able to get past ours.
    It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
    Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
    I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
    Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
    HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:

    • Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland

    • Nuke Madrid

    • Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
    Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.

    So just defending the will of the people
    Friendly advice:

    When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
    Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.

    Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
    Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
    Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.

    Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.

    However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
    It clearly wasn't a deterrent as it didn't deter them.

    Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
    As I said it was a military junta, we defeated them militarily.

    Would Thatcher have sent a submarine to nuke Buenos Aires if the task force had failed and Argentine refused to withdraw from the Falklands? Who knows. However I suspect she would have kept them guessing and not ruled it out to maximise the chances of liberating the islands
    The QTWAIN to end all QTWAINs.
    Thatcher was a proper Tory, she put defending our nation and its citizens, including overseas above all else, unlike some on the left she would not role over and allow our nation's territory to be lost no matter what the cost.

    Had Thatcher lost the Falklands War she may well have lost the 1983 election which would also have been in the back of her mind
    Apart from the Hong Kong Chines, who she withdrew full nationality from, and agreed to had over entiterly to the PRC.
    I don’t think people in HK ever had full British nationality....
    They had nationality, but not right to abode. The dependent territory status was created in the 1981 act. This status applied to the Falkland Islanders at the time* of the Falklands war, and to HK in 1986.

    *full citizenship was restored a year after the war for Falkland Islanders.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    What does HYUFD stand for

    Nothing in particular
    Never was a truer word spoken.
    Well if you could cut your articles in half to make basically the same points it would help matters too
    When you are editor then you can give me instructions. OGH publishes them because he likes them.

    Perhaps you could offer us a header so that we can see the quality of your writing and thought.
    I give plenty of my writing on here already, a header would not really add much if you want to do one that is up to you but you made the first insult so don't be surprised if it was returned
    You insulted me some time ago and refused to retract despite me asking you to do so. You did it again at the time of the VE celebrations this year. I have simply bided my time for the right opportunity.

    I don’t consider your opinion on my headers an insult.

    Comments below the line are not remotely comparable to constructing and writing an argument capable of being read by someone with an attention span longer than a gnat.

    No doubt an article from you on opinion polls would be of interest to some.
    I have never personally insulted you to my knowledge at all, you may disagree with what I have posted but that is not the same thing or my opinion of your views on an issue but that is not the same thing either.

    I have too much to do in terms of work and being branch party chairman and in my personal life to research and write lots of article headers here, if you wish to do so fine but posts is all I will do

    You have. But since I have now responded to my satisfaction, I consider the matter over.

    Fair enough re headers. Not everyone has the time or inclination. One small piece of advice: it is very easy to criticise but much harder to do, something you might bear in mind in future.
    "You may abuse a tragedy, though you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables." Samuel Johnson

    To publish anything is to invite criticism, surely? That is rather the point. And most of your headers seem to be about how irredeemably awful something or other is, so I would have thought a sauce for the goose argument applied.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.

    Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
    And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
    But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.

    That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
    Absolutely contract and civil law we are renowned for. That's not this.

    The EU promised to negotiate in good faith and treat us as a sovereign country. They're not. Screw them time to sort out our own future.
    I've not seen any examples of the EU not negotiating in good faith, please point them out.
    The EU not recognising UK Sovereignty over State Aid or Fishing in the way it does for other countries like Norway or Canada.

    I note that any time this comes up nobody attempts to defend this as good faith instead it's simply "the EU is bigger so can do what it likes".

    Well if the EU isn't going to negotiate in good faith we can do what we like too.
    That definitely doesn't count. The EU are negotiating, I think they're negotiating badly, but ultimately that's their prerogative. It's not bad faith, if it was the government would have taken it to arbitration as a breech of the treaty. They haven't so it isn't.
    They're negotiating in bad faith and there isn't time to arbitrate this the transition deal expires 31/12.

    If they're not going to negotiate in good faith we need to put in place alternative solutions. This is a good start.
    After today neither party is negotiating in good faith
  • MaxPB said:

    FPT but more relevant here

    Fuck this lawbreaking government.

    Fuck them for shitting on this country’s reputation.

    One of the reasons this country attracts so much business is our strong rule of law and an independent judiciary that can and does overrule the government when it breaks the law/acts ultra vires.

    But today’s announcement and the plans to castrate the judiciary is going to screw this country so much.

    Well done Boris and the Brexiteers.

    and

    Also good luck to my friends in the UK Debt Management Office who have to sell UK debt with buyers now having to worry if the UK Government will retroactively change the terms.

    This is the kind of stuff that will lead to a donor strike and Boris getting canned.
    He's not getting a fucking penny from me.

    I want him gone.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,584

    Cyclefree said:

    Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland.
    I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.


    Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
    Really? Goodness - that didn’t last long.
    I have been waiting to quote Sir Cliff on this matter for a while.

    "Carrie doesn't live here anymore".
    When a man marries his mistress, he creates a job vacancy.
    I suspect in this instance, and bearing in mind Johnson's state of health, assuming the news is accurate, the departure might have been more to do with Johnson being an annoying jerk, rather than playing away.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited September 2020

    Weddings to be restricted

    How? I have had a look on twitter and not seen anything
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland.
    I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.


    Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
    Really? Goodness - that didn’t last long.
    By the way, how are you doing these days @Cyclefree? I seem to recall you were very down with the whole lockdown thing. Life a little better now hopefully?
    I am recovering from a nasty infection which has not helped matters at all. It has distracted me though, bizarrely. I have good days and bad days. But I have some ideas for possible non-work projects which help. And once I can walk again properly, getting out into the fresh air will certainly help.

    KBO.

    Thank you for asking.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,056
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland.
    I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.


    Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
    There are rumours on twitter, but probably always are.

    I would have thought babyfather wouldn't be up to the usual at present.

    On the other hand, it is well recognised that a man who married his mistress creates a job vacancy.
    He hasn’t married her, though.
    They were supposed to be engaged.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,735
    HYUFD said:

    Weddings to be restricted

    How? I have had a look on twitter and not seen anything
    Front page of the embargoed Sun
  • eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.

    Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
    And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
    But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.

    That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
    Absolutely contract and civil law we are renowned for. That's not this.

    The EU promised to negotiate in good faith and treat us as a sovereign country. They're not. Screw them time to sort out our own future.
    I've not seen any examples of the EU not negotiating in good faith, please point them out.
    The EU not recognising UK Sovereignty over State Aid or Fishing in the way it does for other countries like Norway or Canada.

    I note that any time this comes up nobody attempts to defend this as good faith instead it's simply "the EU is bigger so can do what it likes".

    Well if the EU isn't going to negotiate in good faith we can do what we like too.
    That definitely doesn't count. The EU are negotiating, I think they're negotiating badly, but ultimately that's their prerogative. It's not bad faith, if it was the government would have taken it to arbitration as a breech of the treaty. They haven't so it isn't.
    They're negotiating in bad faith and there isn't time to arbitrate this the transition deal expires 31/12.

    If they're not going to negotiate in good faith we need to put in place alternative solutions. This is a good start.
    After today neither party is negotiating in good faith
    So we are finally on a Level Playing Field.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.

    Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
    And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
    But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.

    That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
    Absolutely contract and civil law we are renowned for. That's not this.

    The EU promised to negotiate in good faith and treat us as a sovereign country. They're not. Screw them time to sort out our own future.
    I've not seen any examples of the EU not negotiating in good faith, please point them out.
    The EU not recognising UK Sovereignty over State Aid or Fishing in the way it does for other countries like Norway or Canada.

    I note that any time this comes up nobody attempts to defend this as good faith instead it's simply "the EU is bigger so can do what it likes".

    Well if the EU isn't going to negotiate in good faith we can do what we like too.
    That definitely doesn't count. The EU are negotiating, I think they're negotiating badly, but ultimately that's their prerogative. It's not bad faith, if it was the government would have taken it to arbitration as a breech of the treaty. They haven't so it isn't.
    They're negotiating in bad faith and there isn't time to arbitrate this the transition deal expires 31/12.

    If they're not going to negotiate in good faith we need to put in place alternative solutions. This is a good start.

    And if they're breaching the treaty and if we are then we can all arbitrate all of it next year. In the mean time solutions are needed before then.
    In your opinion the EU aren't negotiating in good faith, can you point to where this is the government's opinion. I don't think you can because they aren't. The EU are negotiating in good faith, it's fair but tough. It will push us both towards no deal but that is a consequence of both sets of red lines.

    I think you have a lack of understanding what bad faith negotiating is, bad faith would be saying that the only way we get a trade deal is to give Scotland a referendum because it voted to remain or something along those lines. They are currently offering a high cost option for a trade deal, not an impossible cost trade deal. We think the cost is too high and probably won't sign it.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    alex_ said:

    eek said:

    FPT but more relevant here

    Fuck this lawbreaking government.

    Fuck them for shitting on this country’s reputation.

    One of the reasons this country attracts so much business is our strong rule of law and an independent judiciary that can and does overrule the government when it breaks the law/acts ultra vires.

    But today’s announcement and the plans to castrate the judiciary is going to screw this country so much.

    Well done Boris and the Brexiteers.

    and

    Also good luck to my friends in the UK Debt Management Office who have to sell UK debt with buyers now having to worry if the UK Government will retroactively change the terms.

    Tory backbench MPs with any conscience at all over what's right and what's wrong will surely vote down this crooked legislation, hopefully leading to Boris' immediate resignation as PM.
    Maybe this is an elaborately choreographed way to end up requesting some kind of further transition period. "We wanted to leave with No Deal, but yet again parliament wouldn't let us."
    This Government was elected on the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement (as negotiated by Boris) and Boris's Oven Ready Deal.

    Starmers only question tomorrow needs to be what is delaying the Oven Ready deal being signed
    I'm sure Boris is on top of the details......
    He'll probably waffle on about lawyers and not taking any lectures from them.
    Should we just let lawyers run the world?
    We signed up to an agreement, we are now expected to uphold it. It can't get more simple than that.
    If it's in our interest to do so.

    If it's not we should if need be renounce it and move on.

    The EU aren't honouring their commitments in good faith so I don't care. Maybe next year we can revisit things but the UK government needs to look after the UK, the EU isn't going to do so.
    No, international agreements are always a compromise, and we need to uphold the compromise parts as much as the bits we like. Trust in the UK to uphold international agreements and the rule of law is taking a huge dent right now, it wouldn't be an issue if we had already ratified and codified 60 trade deals and signed up to the TPP, but we haven't. Now those trade deals become much more stringent and the enforcement mechanisms and break penalties become harsher. It's also a disaster for the City, we've got a meeting about it tomorrow morning, even I've been told to attend because we need to get a strategy together for reassuring clients that their money isn't at risk from state interference when the questions start to roll in. Our trump card for keeping the City has always been rule of law, the UK is one of very few countries that lives and dies by rule of law, now the government are undoing all of that for absolutely no gain.

    Also, what evidence do you have that the EU aren't honouring their side of the bargain?

    Well said Max.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    The irony is that when you look at what the Government is proposing they could probably have tried to present it as purely a necessary move to define what was undefined in the WA pending the failure of negotiations going on(something they are belatedly trying to do). However because of the way they leaked and then communicated the proposals this has become impossible.

    They have seen it as an opportunity to stir up their hard Brexit supporters and "threaten" the EU, and it has backfired horribly. And they now can't backtrack.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Starmer drops all of the culture war woke stuff I think I'd be comfortable voting for him. As it stands I don't think I could vote for a party or leader that will allow biological men into women only spaces.

    I'm not sure how the British govern their toilets, is the PM in charge of them directly? If so it feels like the kind of decision that could be decentralized
    It's part of the gender recognition act, Labour are in favour of self identification which would allow biological males into women's spaces without a recognised gender recognition certificate or operation. It's woke bullshit.
    It's also not accurate. Labour is yet to finalise its policy on this, and as I understand it is waiting to see exactly what the government comes up with. Everything is a bit delayed due to Covid/Brexit etc.

    But I'm confident Starmer will steer Labour away from the "woke bullshit" that you see as a key determinant of your vote, so you can be comfortable voting Labour.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Does anyone share my view that there might conceivably be a problem in the relationship between Boris and Carrie Symonds? She seems to have been almost totally invisible since the couple first moved into No.10 and I don't even recall the customary Press pictures when they left for or returned from their recent holiday in Scotland.
    I'm probably entirely wrong of course, but it all just seems a tad strange.


    Carrie Symonds moved out of Downing Street at some point prior to July and afaik has not returned, other than for the photo shoot with Boris and Wilfred.
    Really? Goodness - that didn’t last long.
    By the way, how are you doing these days @Cyclefree? I seem to recall you were very down with the whole lockdown thing. Life a little better now hopefully?
    I am recovering from a nasty infection which has not helped matters at all. It has distracted me though, bizarrely. I have good days and bad days. But I have some ideas for possible non-work projects which help. And once I can walk again properly, getting out into the fresh air will certainly help.

    KBO.

    Thank you for asking.
    Glad to hear there are at least some good days. This year has certainly taken its toll on many of us.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.

    Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
    And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
    Whatever people have done in the past or will do in the future, as mentioned by many posters on here today, when it comes to international law this is not done openly or as a point of pride. This posture belongs to a Trumpian politics that may be short-lived, leaving Britain isolated.
    The whole world can see this is a part of Brexit. Any country that has undergone its own independence will have had far bigger ructions than this.

    The French cheerfully disregard the rules they've signed up to whenever they want. Do you honestly think that if the French were in our position they wouldn't do the exact same thing?
    When Slovakia and the Czech Republic broke away from each other to become independent, did they announce that they would break their agreements and international law?
    Actually, the Czechs did violate their breakup agreement with the Slovaks. The two countries agreed that neither would inherit or use the national symbols of Czechoslovakia, but the Czechs decided to keep the Czechoslovak national flag. They claimed not to be in violation of the agreement because they changed the colour tones slightly and used a different length to breadth proportion. The Slovaks didn’t agree and protested, but they decided not to take it further.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979

    Cyclefree said:



    So even Government ministers worry about this action.

    Yet they do nothing, cowardice

    They don’t worry about legality. So they’ll fold.

    The only Tory MP who today, both inside and outside Parliament, spoke with any shred of integrity and understanding was Sir Bob Neill.
    I would almost add Mrs May to that list of one.
    Thank goodness she's not PM anymore.
    As you know, I am not a Conservative, but I would happily agree to another 25 years of a Mrs May Government over another 25 days of the Dangerous Brothers (Johnson and Cummings).
    That kind of says it all doesn't it?
    What it says is despite not approving of Mrs May, she is preferable to Johnson. I am scared stiff as to what Johnson is doing to my country.
    Whereas I'm delighted. Considering we have opposing POVs on politics that's quite reasonable.

    Boris is shaping up to be the best PM since Thatcher.
    Philip - I know you are enjoying this but don't push it too far!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited September 2020
    https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1303428999662776322?s=19

    No indoors or outdoors, so i guess that means restarting of attending sports and arts in person is now off again.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    What does HYUFD stand for

    Nothing in particular
    Never was a truer word spoken.
    Well if you could cut your articles in half to make basically the same points it would help matters too
    When you are editor then you can give me instructions. OGH publishes them because he likes them.

    Perhaps you could offer us a header so that we can see the quality of your writing and thought.
    I give plenty of my writing on here already, a header would not really add much if you want to do one that is up to you but you made the first insult so don't be surprised if it was returned
    You insulted me some time ago and refused to retract despite me asking you to do so. You did it again at the time of the VE celebrations this year. I have simply bided my time for the right opportunity.

    I don’t consider your opinion on my headers an insult.

    Comments below the line are not remotely comparable to constructing and writing an argument capable of being read by someone with an attention span longer than a gnat.

    No doubt an article from you on opinion polls would be of interest to some.
    I have never personally insulted you to my knowledge at all, you may disagree with what I have posted but that is not the same thing or my opinion of your views on an issue but that is not the same thing either.

    I have too much to do in terms of work and being branch party chairman and in my personal life to research and write lots of article headers here, if you wish to do so fine but posts is all I will do

    You have. But since I have now responded to my satisfaction, I consider the matter over.

    Fair enough re headers. Not everyone has the time or inclination. One small piece of advice: it is very easy to criticise but much harder to do, something you might bear in mind in future.
    "You may abuse a tragedy, though you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables." Samuel Johnson

    To publish anything is to invite criticism, surely? That is rather the point. And most of your headers seem to be about how irredeemably awful something or other is, so I would have thought a sauce for the goose argument applied.
    Oh I don’t mind criticism in the slightest. Here I write to provoke and stimulate debate.

    On my own blog I write very differently.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Weddings to be restricted

    How? I have had a look on twitter and not seen anything
    Front page of the embargoed Sun
    Cannot see anything on the Sun website either so will have to wait an hour or two
  • Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Starmer drops all of the culture war woke stuff I think I'd be comfortable voting for him. As it stands I don't think I could vote for a party or leader that will allow biological men into women only spaces.

    I'm not sure how the British govern their toilets, is the PM in charge of them directly? If so it feels like the kind of decision that could be decentralized
    It's part of the gender recognition act, Labour are in favour of self identification which would allow biological males into women's spaces without a recognised gender recognition certificate or operation. It's woke bullshit.
    But which bathroom should Buck Angel use ?
    Presumably they think Janet Mock should be using the Mens' loo? Perhaps she has a She-Wee ™....

    image
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.

    Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
    You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
    UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
    The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
    We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.

    Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
    And this is why we get screwed over. The French and the rest of Europe are more than content to backslide if it's in their interests. But us? Oh no we're English it wouldn't be the done thing for us to do what every civilised country elsewhere does too.
    But you didn't answer the question earlier, where is the evidence that the EU or any EU nation is backsliding on the WA? I haven't seen any or any charge from the government that they have.

    That we are a nation that respects rule of law is the foundation of our key industry of banking and finance and it is also why Paris, Frankfurt and other European countries aren't in the frame to take away significant business from London. We've built a trillion dollar industry on being one of few nations that lives up to its commitments, tearing that down for some undefined advantage over a border on the Irish sea that no one cares about is absolutely and completely insane. Boris and the rest of the party are destroying this hard won reputation for fair play over nothing.
    Absolutely contract and civil law we are renowned for. That's not this.

    The EU promised to negotiate in good faith and treat us as a sovereign country. They're not. Screw them time to sort out our own future.
    I've not seen any examples of the EU not negotiating in good faith, please point them out.
    The EU not recognising UK Sovereignty over State Aid or Fishing in the way it does for other countries like Norway or Canada.

    I note that any time this comes up nobody attempts to defend this as good faith instead it's simply "the EU is bigger so can do what it likes".

    Well if the EU isn't going to negotiate in good faith we can do what we like too.
    That definitely doesn't count. The EU are negotiating, I think they're negotiating badly, but ultimately that's their prerogative. It's not bad faith, if it was the government would have taken it to arbitration as a breech of the treaty. They haven't so it isn't.
    They're negotiating in bad faith and there isn't time to arbitrate this the transition deal expires 31/12.

    If they're not going to negotiate in good faith we need to put in place alternative solutions. This is a good start.

    And if they're breaching the treaty and if we are then we can all arbitrate all of it next year. In the mean time solutions are needed before then.
    In your opinion the EU aren't negotiating in good faith, can you point to where this is the government's opinion. I don't think you can because they aren't. The EU are negotiating in good faith, it's fair but tough. It will push us both towards no deal but that is a consequence of both sets of red lines.

    I think you have a lack of understanding what bad faith negotiating is, bad faith would be saying that the only way we get a trade deal is to give Scotland a referendum because it voted to remain or something along those lines. They are currently offering a high cost option for a trade deal, not an impossible cost trade deal. We think the cost is too high and probably won't sign it.
    It's irrelevant anyway. The provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement was specifically designed for the event that the two sides failed to agree a trade deal. It doesn't become null and void if this happens.
This discussion has been closed.