McConnell’s impeachment move means Trump looks set to serve a full term and there’ll be no President

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

FPT

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

Foxy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Dr. Foxy, Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht.

A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.

As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.

@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.

You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.

Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.

If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.

Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.

There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.

Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.

The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.

And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.

The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.

There's politics all over this.

In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.

But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.

I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.

We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.

It needs designing some more.

Northern Ireland and Eire is a different set of issues.

This started off with exporting and importing to / from the rest of the EU

RochdalePioneers said:

"How did we cope pre-EEA" I was asked yesterday.

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

FPT

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

Foxy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Dr. Foxy, Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht.

A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.

As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.

@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.

You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.

Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.

If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.

Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.

There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.

Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.

The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.

And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.

The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.

There's politics all over this.

In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.

But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.

I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.

We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.

It needs designing some more.

Nigelb said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Starry said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.

The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.

His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.

And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...

My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division

Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period

I don't see any way that Biden has of bringing them on board. They believe Biden isn't their rightful president. Trump broke a fragile country apart. It will take a political generation to heal. The GOP will become increasingly right wing, until they are out of power so long, they need to tack back towards the centre. It's happened to both Tories and Labour here, and Trump only got in as the Democrats pushed for an unpopular leader.

I am certain Biden cannot bring these extremists on board, but continuing fighting Trump after 20th in my opinion is self defeating

Make sure he cannot go anywhere near office and move on...

Which is exactly why he needs to be impeached.

MarqueeMark said:

kjh said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

eek said:

TOPPING said:

eek said:

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Say what?

Small children in Dumbarton knew exactly how the fuck bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Our Government didn't otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.

I disagree. The government knew exactly how bad it would be. But they had been told by the Brexiters to worsen the terms of trade with our erstwhile trading partners and they obliged.

The government absolutely knew. To think otherwise is simply not credible.

Is the government actively malign, or just stupid and incompetent? It's hard to tell. I would go for a bit of both.

They were told to Brexit. They had very few options. That some of them actually wanted to do so too is unforgiveable but what can you do (not vote for them, obvs).

And yet Boris still polls around 40% and Labour are not going anywhere at present

That is a result of our stale political system of 2 party politics.

Good thing the LibDems look so bright and shiny new then, eh?

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

FPT

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

Foxy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Dr. Foxy, Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht.

A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.

As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.

@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.

You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.

Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.

If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.

Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.

There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.

Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.

The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.

And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.

The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.

There's politics all over this.

In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.

But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.

I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.

We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.

It needs designing some more.

Genuine question: why do Brexiteers refer to the Irish Republic as Eire rather than Ireland? I never see anyone else calling it that. It's weird.

MarqueeMark said:

Very mild out this morning, with plenty of birdsong.

Make the most of it, lads...

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

eek said:

TOPPING said:

eek said:

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Say what?

Small children in Dumbarton knew exactly how the fuck bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Our Government didn't otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.

I disagree. The government knew exactly how bad it would be. But they had been told by the Brexiters to worsen the terms of trade with our erstwhile trading partners and they obliged.

The government absolutely knew. To think otherwise is simply not credible.

Is the government actively malign, or just stupid and incompetent? It's hard to tell. I would go for a bit of both.

They were told to Brexit. They had very few options. That some of them actually wanted to do so too is unforgiveable but what can you do (not vote for them, obvs).

And yet Boris still polls around 40% and Labour are not going anywhere at present

Off topic, but in response to your post.

Considering where Labour were last year, off the back of an 80 seat commons defeat, their almost level pegging with the Conservatives is quite remarkable.

The polls go one of two ways. The Conservatives, on the back of Johnson's Churchillian victory over Covid go stratospheric. The alternative being, when the economic reality bites as the support packages peter out and the economy struggles, that 40% gets chipped away, and if and when it happens at a growing pace.

I expect the latter, but Johnson being Johnson, haven't dismissed the former out of hand.

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1349641979555147776?s=20

Surely the point is that fascism has always been a disputed category unless applied to Mussolini and his party? Were Salazar, Franco, Peron etc fascists? Trump certainly belongs to that basket of deplorables to whom the question can be applied.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sri Lanka are going to get a first innings lead here.

Selebian said:

MarqueeMark said:

kjh said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

eek said:

TOPPING said:

eek said:

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Say what?

Small children in Dumbarton knew exactly how the fuck bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Our Government didn't otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.

I disagree. The government knew exactly how bad it would be. But they had been told by the Brexiters to worsen the terms of trade with our erstwhile trading partners and they obliged.

The government absolutely knew. To think otherwise is simply not credible.

Is the government actively malign, or just stupid and incompetent? It's hard to tell. I would go for a bit of both.

They were told to Brexit. They had very few options. That some of them actually wanted to do so too is unforgiveable but what can you do (not vote for them, obvs).

And yet Boris still polls around 40% and Labour are not going anywhere at present

That is a result of our stale political system of 2 party politics.

Good thing the LibDems look so bright and shiny new then, eh?

Perhaps we need to Change UK?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigelb said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Starry said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.

The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.

His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.

And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...

My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division

Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period

I don't see any way that Biden has of bringing them on board. They believe Biden isn't their rightful president. Trump broke a fragile country apart. It will take a political generation to heal. The GOP will become increasingly right wing, until they are out of power so long, they need to tack back towards the centre. It's happened to both Tories and Labour here, and Trump only got in as the Democrats pushed for an unpopular leader.

I am certain Biden cannot bring these extremists on board, but continuing fighting Trump after 20th in my opinion is self defeating

Make sure he cannot go anywhere near office and move on...

Which is exactly why he needs to be impeached.

I have no problem with his impeachment

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

FPT

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

Foxy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Dr. Foxy, Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht.

A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.

As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.

@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.

You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.

Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.

If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.

Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.

There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.

Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.

The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.

And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.

The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.

There's politics all over this.

In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.

But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.

I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.

We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.

It needs designing some more.

Genuine question: why do Brexiteers refer to the Irish Republic as Eire rather than Ireland? I never see anyone else calling it that. It's weird.

It's not a Brexiteer thing. The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "the name of the State is Éire", and the UK government has used the name "Eire" too.

It's quicker. And also "Ireland" can be confused with the island of Ireland when you are discussing distinctions between NI and the Irish Republic, so I think it's clearer.

TheScreamingEagles said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

OldKingCole said:

In cricket news, Sri Lanka all out for 135. Galle looks beautiful, as usual.

Galle is an absolutely beautiful town. Come on Sri Lanka, you can do better than this!

https://twitter.com/RVICricketStats/status/1349645616356466688

kjh said:

MarqueeMark said:

kjh said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

eek said:

TOPPING said:

eek said:

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Say what?

Small children in Dumbarton knew exactly how the fuck bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Our Government didn't otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.

I disagree. The government knew exactly how bad it would be. But they had been told by the Brexiters to worsen the terms of trade with our erstwhile trading partners and they obliged.

The government absolutely knew. To think otherwise is simply not credible.

Is the government actively malign, or just stupid and incompetent? It's hard to tell. I would go for a bit of both.

They were told to Brexit. They had very few options. That some of them actually wanted to do so too is unforgiveable but what can you do (not vote for them, obvs).

And yet Boris still polls around 40% and Labour are not going anywhere at present

That is a result of our stale political system of 2 party politics.

Good thing the LibDems look so bright and shiny new then, eh?

I think you rather make the point. As a LD even I can see very little reason why anyone would vote for them currently. What is the point? And after them very little other choice.

As they say most Govt lose power rather than oppositions winning it. It really is a very stale system.

It would be nice to have a positive reason to vote for something that has a chance to do something.

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

FPT

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

Foxy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Dr. Foxy, Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht.

A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.

As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.

@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.

You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.

Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.

If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.

Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.

There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.

Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.

The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.

And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.

The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.

There's politics all over this.

In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.

But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.

I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.

We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.

It needs designing some more.

Genuine question: why do Brexiteers refer to the Irish Republic as Eire rather than Ireland? I never see anyone else calling it that. It's weird.

They don't all.

I suspect for some it is a shorthand to differentiate it from NI.

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

OldKingCole said:

In cricket news, Sri Lanka all out for 135. Galle looks beautiful, as usual.

Galle is an absolutely beautiful town. Come on Sri Lanka, you can do better than this!

https://twitter.com/RVICricketStats/status/1349645616356466688

In fairness the England reply is making it pretty obvious that the wicket is a spinner's paradise.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

kjh said:

MarqueeMark said:

kjh said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

eek said:

TOPPING said:

eek said:

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Say what?

Small children in Dumbarton knew exactly how the fuck bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Our Government didn't otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.

I disagree. The government knew exactly how bad it would be. But they had been told by the Brexiters to worsen the terms of trade with our erstwhile trading partners and they obliged.

The government absolutely knew. To think otherwise is simply not credible.

Is the government actively malign, or just stupid and incompetent? It's hard to tell. I would go for a bit of both.

They were told to Brexit. They had very few options. That some of them actually wanted to do so too is unforgiveable but what can you do (not vote for them, obvs).

And yet Boris still polls around 40% and Labour are not going anywhere at present

That is a result of our stale political system of 2 party politics.

Good thing the LibDems look so bright and shiny new then, eh?

I think you rather make the point. As a LD even I can see very little reason why anyone would vote for them currently. What is the point? And after them very little other choice.

As they say most Govt lose power rather than oppositions winning it. It really is a very stale system.

It would be nice to have a positive reason to vote for something that has a chance to do something.

I guess a two-party system is the inevitable result of a FPTP voting system. Is there anywhere that uses FPTP and doesn't have a 2-party system?

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

OldKingCole said:

In cricket news, Sri Lanka all out for 135. Galle looks beautiful, as usual.

Galle is an absolutely beautiful town. Come on Sri Lanka, you can do better than this!

https://twitter.com/RVICricketStats/status/1349645616356466688

In fairness the England reply is making it pretty obvious that the wicket is a spinner's paradise.

Or that our batsmen are as reckless as theirs.
The commentators don’t think it’s that bad a pitch for batting; just requires circumspection.

kinabalu said:

CarlottaVance said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1349641979555147776?s=20

Surely the point is that fascism has always been a disputed category unless applied to Mussolini and his party? Were Salazar, Franco, Peron etc fascists? Trump certainly belongs to that basket of deplorables to whom the question can be applied.

The point Evans makes is that Fascist ideology subsumes the individual into the war making state - none of which applies to Trump. Populist amoral demagogue, yes, warmaking big state trampler of individual liberties, no.

The "point" is purest wankery and bollocks. There tends to be at least one individual who is not subsumed into the state - the supreme leader. Donald J Trump in this case. There is no question he views himself that way. War making? Trampler of individual liberties? In all probability Yes and Yes if he had succeeded in staying in power despite losing the election. He is a wannabe fascist. Or (ok, Nigel) an incipient fascist. This much is undeniable. He has not become the genuine article because the coup did not work out. Fascism follows successful fascist coups not failed ones.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

kjh said:

MarqueeMark said:

kjh said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

eek said:

TOPPING said:

eek said:

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Say what?

Small children in Dumbarton knew exactly how the fuck bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be.

Our Government didn't otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.

I disagree. The government knew exactly how bad it would be. But they had been told by the Brexiters to worsen the terms of trade with our erstwhile trading partners and they obliged.

The government absolutely knew. To think otherwise is simply not credible.

Is the government actively malign, or just stupid and incompetent? It's hard to tell. I would go for a bit of both.

They were told to Brexit. They had very few options. That some of them actually wanted to do so too is unforgiveable but what can you do (not vote for them, obvs).

And yet Boris still polls around 40% and Labour are not going anywhere at present

That is a result of our stale political system of 2 party politics.

Good thing the LibDems look so bright and shiny new then, eh?

I think you rather make the point. As a LD even I can see very little reason why anyone would vote for them currently. What is the point? And after them very little other choice.

As they say most Govt lose power rather than oppositions winning it. It really is a very stale system.

It would be nice to have a positive reason to vote for something that has a chance to do something.

I guess a two-party system is the inevitable result of a FPTP voting system. Is there anywhere that uses FPTP and doesn't have a 2-party system?

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

FPT

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

Foxy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Dr. Foxy, Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht.

A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.

As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.

@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.

You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.

Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.

If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.

Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.

There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.

Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.

The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.

And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.

The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.

There's politics all over this.

In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.

But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.

I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.

We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.

It needs designing some more.

Genuine question: why do Brexiteers refer to the Irish Republic as Eire rather than Ireland? I never see anyone else calling it that. It's weird.

They don't all.

I suspect for some it is a shorthand to differentiate it from NI.

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

OldKingCole said:

In cricket news, Sri Lanka all out for 135. Galle looks beautiful, as usual.

Galle is an absolutely beautiful town. Come on Sri Lanka, you can do better than this!

https://twitter.com/RVICricketStats/status/1349645616356466688

In fairness the England reply is making it pretty obvious that the wicket is a spinner's paradise.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

FPT

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

Foxy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Dr. Foxy, Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht.

A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.

As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.

@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.

You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.

Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.

If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.

Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.

There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.

Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.

The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.

And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.

The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.

There's politics all over this.

In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.

But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.

I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.

We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.

It needs designing some more.

Genuine question: why do Brexiteers refer to the Irish Republic as Eire rather than Ireland? I never see anyone else calling it that. It's weird.

It's not a Brexiteer thing. The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "the name of the State is Éire", and the UK government has used the name "Eire" too.

It's quicker. And also "Ireland" can be confused with the island of Ireland when you are discussing distinctions between NI and the Irish Republic, so I think it's clearer.

You only quote part of the constitution. It says "the name of the State is Eire, or in the English language, Ireland." Do you call Germany Bundesrepublik Deutschland? It may not be a Brexiteer thing but Brexiteers are the only people I have ever heard call it Eire. Certainly all the Irish people I know call it Ireland.

Germany doesn't have the same challenge of distinguishing different political states on an island of shared geography with a similar name. And everyone I've met from Bombay calls it "Bombay", not Mumbai; however, everyone here still calls it Mumbai regardless.

Do you want to have a substantial discussion about any of the points I raised, or would you prefer to continue to focus on trivialities?

I don't really like discussing Brexit, as you know. 😉
I just thought it was interesting that one group of people call a country by a different name to everyone else, seemed like a weird choice and I wanted to find out more about their motivation.

Andy_JS said:

The fact that Trump is an arch-capitalist almost disqualifies him from being a fascist on its own. True fascists despise capitalism because it operates independent of their authority and isn't controllable. But of course people use the word as a synonym for "a really bad person".

IshmaelZ said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1349641979555147776?s=20

Surely the point is that fascism has always been a disputed category unless applied to Mussolini and his party? Were Salazar, Franco, Peron etc fascists? Trump certainly belongs to that basket of deplorables to whom the question can be applied.

It is not a position which even claims to have theoretical underpinnings, is it? I cannot imagine what the Fascist Manifesto would say.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.

The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.

His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.

And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...

My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division

Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period

But it isn't just vengeance, it is justice that should be sought. The man incited an attempted coup. A coup attempt which left five people dead.

What is wrong with you people who are suggesting he walks free, in the interests of "peace". to continue as a shadow President, a President in waiting who can spew his seditious propaganda to the angry and disenchanted?

Donald Trump makes the angry, angrier. The louder his voice, the greater the division.

Lock him up to shut him up!

You are letting your emotions takeover from a course that I support in as far as preventing him ever standing again has to be utmost in people's minds and I am not suggesting he should not face due process, but be careful for what you wish for, it could just ignite the issue for years to come

Allowing Trump to continue spouting his propaganda at will, leads down a dark road. Free speech is one thing "propagandagepezete" leads us to rioting in the Reichstag, or the Capitol Building.

He has done something very bad. Punishment rather than retribution is required, that will shut him up too.

He has been worst than very bad, but how you balance justice v peace is the issue for Americans to decide, and the key word is balance

Personally I would be delighted if we never heard another word from him

DavidL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

FPT

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

Foxy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Dr. Foxy, Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht.

A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.

As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.

@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.

You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.

Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.

If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.

Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.

There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.

Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.

The deal spent all its time looking at tariffs which as an economist is the thing you usually worry about.

The killer issue here is that no-one understood how bad the introduction of paperwork was going to be. And while in theory you can automate it away you can only do so if both teams co-operate and there is zero reason for EU countries to co-operate unless there is an incentive for them to do so.

And that incentive simply doesn't exist - they can drown us in paperwork by stating it's incomplete and there is nothing we can do about it.

The incentive remains obvious. They have 80bn incentives a year and every one of them a £1.00. Do they really want their exports subject to this sort of nonsense? Do they really want it to be easier for a UK importer to import Australian wine rather than French? Of course not. It will be toned down with trusted trader schemes and other steps to remove the problem over time as the heat goes out of this. Its inevitable.

There's politics all over this.

In the same way as there's a common travel area for the British Isles, it seems logical to me that there should be a common sanitary and phytosanitary area too - i.e. free movement of plants and animals, as well as people - with common LPF standards to protect human, animal or plant health; measures agreed bilaterally between Eire and the UK. We all buy British and Irish beef, for example. This is logical as the British Isles are an integrated ecosystem removed from the European mainland, and it's rather unlikely that food products going from Ireland to GB supermarkets and from GB to NI supermarkets are "at risk" of entering the broader continental single market, as 99%+ of them will be bought and consumed locally, unless someone from Ireland tries to sneak in a ham sandwich. This could be subject to review in future if the UK wanted to change its standards or do a very open FTA with the USA - for example, admitting agricultural products of a different standard - but otherwise remain extant.

But, the remorseless logic is that because Eire is an EU member state they mustn't make any adjustment for Brexit whatsoever due to the UK's decision, nor suffer any SPS checks of their own produce when exporting to other EU member states, therefore the border must be down the Irish Sea between GB and Ireland.

I understand that perspective but I think this misjudges several things, not least of which the economic and political reality. Firstly, Eire already does - it hasn't joined Schengen because that would threaten the CTA, so is following the UK there despite the fact it would otherwise join. Secondly, Eire and NI already have island of Ireland alignment on a number of things, and joint governance, even pre-Brexit. Thirdly, most of Eire's exports on meat and dairy do go to the UK, and it's just made life much more difficult for itself there and, finally, as far as the peace process is concerned it would be far easier to sell to both sides if the nationalists knew there was a NI/GB border for manufactured goods, and similar products genuinely at risk of sneaking into the broader EU single market, but also to unionists with a common British Isles SPS area as well, so the solution was politically equitable and reflected economic reality.

We haven't heard the end of the NI story yet. It's a very difficult and unique situation and neither the EU, UK or Eire have been creative enough in finding solutions to make it work for a province that in all other areas (including even citizenship) is the biggest fudge of fudges on the planet within a much broader British Isles grey area - by design.

It needs designing some more.

Genuine question: why do Brexiteers refer to the Irish Republic as Eire rather than Ireland? I never see anyone else calling it that. It's weird.

It's not a Brexiteer thing. The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "the name of the State is Éire", and the UK government has used the name "Eire" too.

It's quicker. And also "Ireland" can be confused with the island of Ireland when you are discussing distinctions between NI and the Irish Republic, so I think it's clearer.

You only quote part of the constitution. It says "the name of the State is Eire, or in the English language, Ireland." Do you call Germany Bundesrepublik Deutschland? It may not be a Brexiteer thing but Brexiteers are the only people I have ever heard call it Eire. Certainly all the Irish people I know call it Ireland.

Germany doesn't have the same challenge of distinguishing different political states on an island of shared geography with a similar name. And everyone I've met from Bombay calls it "Bombay", not Mumbai; however, everyone here still calls it Mumbai regardless.

Do you want to have a substantial discussion about any of the points I raised, or would you prefer to continue to focus on trivialities?

I don't really like discussing Brexit, as you know. 😉
I just thought it was interesting that one group of people call a country by a different name to everyone else, seemed like a weird choice and I wanted to find out more about their motivation.

To be honest I have been surprised by the posts about this this morning. I always thought Eire was the proper name and if they wanted to use a word from their pretendy, reconstituted language that almost no one actually speaks then it was only polite to conform with their wishes. Always something new to learn on PB.

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.

The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.

His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.

And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...

My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division

Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period

But it isn't just vengeance, it is justice that should be sought. The man incited an attempted coup. A coup attempt which left five people dead.

What is wrong with you people who are suggesting he walks free, in the interests of "peace". to continue as a shadow President, a President in waiting who can spew his seditious propaganda to the angry and disenchanted?

Donald Trump makes the angry, angrier. The louder his voice, the greater the division.

Lock him up to shut him up!

You are letting your emotions takeover from a course that I support in as far as preventing him ever standing again has to be utmost in people's minds and I am not suggesting he should not face due process, but be careful for what you wish for, it could just ignite the issue for years to come

Allowing Trump to continue spouting his propaganda at will, leads down a dark road. Free speech is one thing "propagandagepezete" leads us to rioting in the Reichstag, or the Capitol Building.

He has done something very bad. Punishment rather than retribution is required, that will shut him up too.

He has been worst than very bad, but how you balance justice v peace is the issue for Americans to decide, and the key word is balance

Personally I would be delighted if we never heard another word from him

Your view is the view of Neville Chamberlain.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.

The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.

His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.

And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...

My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division

Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period

But it isn't just vengeance, it is justice that should be sought. The man incited an attempted coup. A coup attempt which left five people dead.

What is wrong with you people who are suggesting he walks free, in the interests of "peace". to continue as a shadow President, a President in waiting who can spew his seditious propaganda to the angry and disenchanted?

Donald Trump makes the angry, angrier. The louder his voice, the greater the division.

Lock him up to shut him up!

You are letting your emotions takeover from a course that I support in as far as preventing him ever standing again has to be utmost in people's minds and I am not suggesting he should not face due process, but be careful for what you wish for, it could just ignite the issue for years to come

Allowing Trump to continue spouting his propaganda at will, leads down a dark road. Free speech is one thing "propagandagepezete" leads us to rioting in the Reichstag, or the Capitol Building.

He has done something very bad. Punishment rather than retribution is required, that will shut him up too.

He has been worst than very bad, but how you balance justice v peace is the issue for Americans to decide, and the key word is balance

Personally I would be delighted if we never heard another word from him

Your view is the view of Neville Chamberlain.

Now that is silly

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Andy_JS said:

The fact that Trump is an arch-capitalist almost disqualifies him from being a fascist on its own. True fascists despise capitalism because it operates independent of their authority and isn't controllable. But of course people use the word as a synonym for "a really bad person".

Given his litany of bankruptcies and the fact the state generally picked up the tab it is fair to say Trump is a socialist.

He was also running a fiscal deficit close to 5% of GDP at the top of the economic cycle, pre Covid, which looks weird for a normal centre right politician.

kle4 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigelb said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.

The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.

His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.

And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...

My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division

Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period

Surrendering to threats of violence is hardly the way to turn the page on Trump.
Impeachment is not ‘vengeance’; it is a constitutional remedy to his behaviour, which cannot be ignored.

I am not arguing he should not be impeached and he must be removed from standing again

However, he has millions of armed and idiotic supporters and continuing a feud with him will only embolden them

Sometimes a political confrontation is needed. It hurts to put pressure on a wound so you can sort it out, but its better than the alternative.

OllyT said:

kle4 said:

MarqueeMark said:

eek said:

Second - taking my time like McConnell is.

And being honest given the time available it makes sense to delay things until after the 20th - then you have as long as necessary to do things and can slowly damage Trump's reputation further by releasing things bit by bit.

You will also know whether the Trumpster base have delivered on threats to disrupt the Inauguration at various state Capitols - which will add to the charge sheet and frankly, make it much easier for Republicans to throw him under the bus. Hence yesterday, you had Trump saying to anyone who still listens "don't".

He certainly got serious for the first time ever. I dont think he talked about himself once.

He can say the right things. Hes just chosen not to until forced.

He knows he's it deep trouble. His legal advisers wrote that speech and I doubt Trump believed a word of it.

CarlottaVance said:

kinabalu said:

CarlottaVance said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1349641979555147776?s=20

Surely the point is that fascism has always been a disputed category unless applied to Mussolini and his party? Were Salazar, Franco, Peron etc fascists? Trump certainly belongs to that basket of deplorables to whom the question can be applied.

The point Evans makes is that Fascist ideology subsumes the individual into the war making state - none of which applies to Trump. Populist amoral demagogue, yes, warmaking big state trampler of individual liberties, no.

The "point" is purest wankery and bollocks. There tends to be at least one individual who is not subsumed into the state - the supreme leader. Donald J Trump in this case. There is no question he views himself that way. War making? Trampler of individual liberties? In all probability Yes and Yes if he had succeeded in staying in power despite losing the election. He is a wannabe fascist. Or (ok, Nigel) an incipient fascist. This much is undeniable. He has not become the genuine article because the coup did not work out. Fascism follows successful fascist coups not failed ones.

Leading expert on the Nazis and some person on the internet. Who to believe? Lazy labelling erodes meaning. If it makes you feel better to call him a "Fascist" fine, but that does not make it so.

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigelb said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Starry said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.

The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.

His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.

And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...

My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division

Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period

I don't see any way that Biden has of bringing them on board. They believe Biden isn't their rightful president. Trump broke a fragile country apart. It will take a political generation to heal. The GOP will become increasingly right wing, until they are out of power so long, they need to tack back towards the centre. It's happened to both Tories and Labour here, and Trump only got in as the Democrats pushed for an unpopular leader.

I am certain Biden cannot bring these extremists on board, but continuing fighting Trump after 20th in my opinion is self defeating

Make sure he cannot go anywhere near office and move on...

Which is exactly why he needs to be impeached.

I have no problem with his impeachment

So what is all this about vengeance ?

No. One was Impeach Hard. This is Impeach 2: Impeach Harder. No. 3 is Impeach with a Vengeance.

Mary_Batty said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.

The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.

His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.

And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...

My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division

Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period

But it isn't just vengeance, it is justice that should be sought. The man incited an attempted coup. A coup attempt which left five people dead.

What is wrong with you people who are suggesting he walks free, in the interests of "peace". to continue as a shadow President, a President in waiting who can spew his seditious propaganda to the angry and disenchanted?

Donald Trump makes the angry, angrier. The louder his voice, the greater the division.

Lock him up to shut him up!

You are letting your emotions takeover from a course that I support in as far as preventing him ever standing again has to be utmost in people's minds and I am not suggesting he should not face due process, but be careful for what you wish for, it could just ignite the issue for years to come

Allowing Trump to continue spouting his propaganda at will, leads down a dark road. Free speech is one thing "propagandagepezete" leads us to rioting in the Reichstag, or the Capitol Building.

He has done something very bad. Punishment rather than retribution is required, that will shut him up too.

He has been worst than very bad, but how you balance justice v peace is the issue for Americans to decide, and the key word is balance

Personally I would be delighted if we never heard another word from him

Your view is the view of Neville Chamberlain.

bullseye

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigelb said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

That Trump video was painful to watch. Sat so still that he almost looked chained to his chair. Hands tightly clasped together. Occasionally cocking his head over in disbelief at what was on the autocue.

The Senate trial doesn't matter now. He has already be de facto removed from office and is facing an avalanche of legal problems next week. Federal investigation into sedition and incitement. Potentially federal investigation into treason (over Russia). New York State investigation into his dodgy finances. DC investigation into last week's failed coup.

His brand is trash. His lines of credit pulled with hundreds of millions of Dollars owed. A fire sale of assets at the very least. And Giuliani will sue him for non-payment of his legal fees.

And all because a Capitol Police shot Ashli Babbitt...

My fear is the millions of Trump supporters who are armed and ready to continue this battle and every move against Trump, warranted as it is, will only prolong the bitter and dangerous division

Vengeance may satisfy some, but at what cost to the many who are desperate to turn the page on this catastrophic Trump period

Surrendering to threats of violence is hardly the way to turn the page on Trump.
Impeachment is not ‘vengeance’; it is a constitutional remedy to his behaviour, which cannot be ignored.

I am not arguing he should not be impeached and he must be removed from standing again

However, he has millions of armed and idiotic supporters and continuing a feud with him will only embolden them

Sometimes a political confrontation is needed. It hurts to put pressure on a wound so you can sort it out, but its better than the alternative.

My fear is armed conflict across the US

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1349664067171049472

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Andy_JS said:

The fact that Trump is an arch-capitalist almost disqualifies him from being a fascist on its own. True fascists despise capitalism because it operates independent of their authority and isn't controllable. But of course people use the word as a synonym for "a really bad person".

Given his litany of bankruptcies and the fact the state generally picked up the tab it is fair to say Trump is a socialist.

He was also running a fiscal deficit close to 5% of GDP at the top of the economic cycle, pre Covid, which looks weird for a normal centre right politician.

Just like Gordon Brown.

Further proof that Trump is a socialist.

Well about twice as much as Gordon Brown, and at a stronger point in the economic cycle. Since it has been proven (by repeated assertion on PB) that Brown's spending was reckless and out of control Leftist madness then Trump must basically be Lenin.