The Yorkshire Party for 3rd place in Wakefield? – politicalbetting.com

algarkirk said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

SNP bloke on WATO struggling a bit on how the England Scotland border is going to work once they are in the EU.

This matters quite a bit in the bandit country of the Scottish Borders and north Cumbria (soon to be Cumberland).

Sturgeon gave a pretty assertive answer earlier, based on the Common Travel Area.

I see 'if you don't like here we'll send you to Rwanda' is the new cry of the racist hard of thinkers.

Eabhal said:

algarkirk said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

SNP bloke on WATO struggling a bit on how the England Scotland border is going to work once they are in the EU.

This matters quite a bit in the bandit country of the Scottish Borders and north Cumbria (soon to be Cumberland).

Sturgeon gave a pretty assertive answer earlier, based on the Common Travel Area.

That refers to a human border, rather than a goods border.

The CTA could remain, but the EU would insist on a hard customs border between England and Scotland if they wanted to join the EU Customs Union.

It wasn’t an issue last time, when the SNP assumption was that both England and Scotland were in the EU CU, and there wouldn’t need to be a border.

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.

Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.

To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.

Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.

I don't think doing whatever was required to get Brexit done, then revisiting the NI situation once we have a trade agreement and are post-Brexit is phenomenally bad politics, I think it is very smart politics

And there is the nub. There are those who think negotiating a policy and then moments later reneging on it is bad politics conducted by bad politicians; and then there are those who think it is strategic genius.

I think @kinabalu's explanation of how we got here is pretty obviously on the money.

Kinabalu is mostly right at first but goes into a blind alley at the end and is wrong at the end.

The problem is that too many people seek to let the unachievable perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now. I don't think the Withdrawal Agreement was a bad deal, I don't think it was a perfect deal, I think it was a good enough deal for then - but then is not now.

I never doubted there'd be problems post-Brexit, Brexit is a major reformation so of course there would be teething issues but lets not forget were we where three years ago. We were in a hysterical position where we were stuck in Article 50 limbo, unable to act, unable to get anything done, with people freaking out about all sorts of problems that were fictional. We had people on this site claiming that there'd be no strawberries on shelves at supermarkets, that there'd be no planes able to fly, that their partners could die as their medicine couldn't come across the border etc

I said then we needed to get out, find the teething problems, then fix them. The withdrawal agreement was good enough to do that, but now we're out, we need to fix any teething issues. If we'd remained trapped in Article 50 purgatory seeking to fix every hypothetical problem before we left, we'd never have left, which is of course what some wanted.

Only three years have passed since the Protocol wage agreed, but those three years might as well be a lifetime. We now know how Brexit is working, how the Protocol is working, we've been through a pandemic, and the GFA is imperilled. It is time to take action having left to fix the teething issues, while imagined problems that haven't transpired like people dying as medicine can't cross the border etc doesn't need to be dealt with.

Theuniondivvie said:

I see 'if you don't like here we'll send you to Rwanda' is the new cry of the racist hard of thinkers.

Does this apply to those who repeatedly moan about what the country has become and want it turned back to the 1950s too?

Farooq said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.

Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.

Choosing to move at the time of maximum opportunity was always far more likely. On the day of the NI Bill.
She's a canny politician.

Farooq said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.

Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.

As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.

PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.

algarkirk said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.

Don't agree. This is what she has to do in order to keep in position. be as positive and rational as possible while waiting for the UK government/courts to say No.

The folly of repeating the Ireland border problem alone trumps any merit independence might have.

I suppose the UK backstop position might be to say "We have learned from experience. Let's agree the deal and then have a referendum". I wouldn't bet on that process being complete before Israel and Palestine do the same.

Sturgeon's policy if the UK government says No is to hold the Referendum.

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.

Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.

To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.

Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.

I don't think doing whatever was required to get Brexit done, then revisiting the NI situation once we have a trade agreement and are post-Brexit is phenomenally bad politics, I think it is very smart politics

And there is the nub. There are those who think negotiating a policy and then moments later reneging on it is bad politics conducted by bad politicians; and then there are those who think it is strategic genius.

I think @kinabalu's explanation of how we got here is pretty obviously on the money.

Kinabalu is mostly right at first but goes into a blind alley at the end and is wrong at the end.

The problem is that too many people seek to let the unachievable perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now. I don't think the Withdrawal Agreement was a bad deal, I don't think it was a perfect deal, I think it was a good enough deal for then - but then is not now.

I never doubted there'd be problems post-Brexit, Brexit is a major reformation so of course there would be teething issues but lets not forget were we where three years ago. We were in a hysterical position where we were stuck in Article 50 limbo, unable to act, unable to get anything done, with people freaking out about all sorts of problems that were fictional. We had people on this site claiming that there'd be no strawberries on shelves at supermarkets, that there'd be no planes able to fly, that their partners could die as their medicine couldn't come across the border etc

I said then we needed to get out, find the teething problems, then fix them. The withdrawal agreement was good enough to do that, but now we're out, we need to fix any teething issues. If we'd remained trapped in Article 50 purgatory seeking to fix every hypothetical problem before we left, we'd never have left, which is of course what some wanted.

Only three years have passed since the Protocol wage agreed, but those three years might as well be a lifetime. We now know how Brexit is working, how the Protocol is working, we've been through a pandemic, and the GFA is imperilled. It is time to take action having left to fix the teething issues, while imagined problems that haven't transpired like people dying as medicine can't cross the border etc doesn't need to be dealt with.

Ordinarily you would expect a government to be punished over such behaviour. They might still be but as likely not, given that the core Cons vote would struggle to place any of the six counties on a map.

Why would you expect a government to be punished over such behaviour?

As I said all along, we needed to JFDI and get on with it, and then if problems arose, fix them then.

We now have the wisdom of learnt experiences of what is working, and what is not working. Why is using that experience now that we didn't have three years ago to design a better system "bad faith"?

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/14/pope-francis-ukraine-war-provoked-russian-troops

Whoops. If that quote is accurate, I think he may come to regret saying it.

Time to sanction the Bishop of Rome and The Vatican.

I think one of the problems of post-WWII western imperialism is that they/we perceive there to be only "one" side. It appears the Pope doesn't subscribe to this world view.

Generally when someone invades a country, there really is only one side. The imperialist in this case is Russia.

What 'provocation' do you see here ?

Well if you ask me to step into Putin's no doubt exquisitely handcrafted shoes I would say that, having been "at war" with NATO for several decades, and then having been rebuffed when they asked to join NATO following the fall of the Berlin Wall, that there was an anxiety about NATO's intentions with, seemingly, no restraining force able to act on it. Plus there is the "Greater Russia" view, of which I am not too clear on the details, but I think the name gives a general clue.

So the provocation is for an independent nation not to have accepted that they should have remained a Russian vassal ?

"I think one of the problems of post WWII western imperialism..." sounds a bit odd in that context.

I'm not up on my Russian history but in general how do you think the history of the world and of countries has evolved over the past 2,000+ years.

It's not really the place of the Pope to be arguing that 2000 years of "might is right" is the way international affairs ought to be conducted, though, is it ?

Its pretty consistent with the history of the Roman Catholic Church though.

And in better Pope news, dropped on the first ball after lunch.

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.

Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.

To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.

Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.

I don't think doing whatever was required to get Brexit done, then revisiting the NI situation once we have a trade agreement and are post-Brexit is phenomenally bad politics, I think it is very smart politics

And there is the nub. There are those who think negotiating a policy and then moments later reneging on it is bad politics conducted by bad politicians; and then there are those who think it is strategic genius.

I think @kinabalu's explanation of how we got here is pretty obviously on the money.

Kinabalu is mostly right at first but goes into a blind alley at the end and is wrong at the end.

The problem is that too many people seek to let the unachievable perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now. I don't think the Withdrawal Agreement was a bad deal, I don't think it was a perfect deal, I think it was a good enough deal for then - but then is not now.

I never doubted there'd be problems post-Brexit, Brexit is a major reformation so of course there would be teething issues but lets not forget were we where three years ago. We were in a hysterical position where we were stuck in Article 50 limbo, unable to act, unable to get anything done, with people freaking out about all sorts of problems that were fictional. We had people on this site claiming that there'd be no strawberries on shelves at supermarkets, that there'd be no planes able to fly, that their partners could die as their medicine couldn't come across the border etc

I said then we needed to get out, find the teething problems, then fix them. The withdrawal agreement was good enough to do that, but now we're out, we need to fix any teething issues. If we'd remained trapped in Article 50 purgatory seeking to fix every hypothetical problem before we left, we'd never have left, which is of course what some wanted.

Only three years have passed since the Protocol wage agreed, but those three years might as well be a lifetime. We now know how Brexit is working, how the Protocol is working, we've been through a pandemic, and the GFA is imperilled. It is time to take action having left to fix the teething issues, while imagined problems that haven't transpired like people dying as medicine can't cross the border etc doesn't need to be dealt with.

So, how do you fix teething issues? If these are just teething issues, not fundamental flaws in the treaty, as your thesis requires, then they should be solvable by friendly and cooperative negotiation with relatively minor tweaks. So how come we’re in a situation where the government who signed the treaty is now intent on breaking it (while claiming it isn’t breaking it)?

The unavoidable conclusion is that either the Government who signed the treaty or the Government now has f***ed up. Except it’s the same Government.

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.

Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.

To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.

Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.

I don't think doing whatever was required to get Brexit done, then revisiting the NI situation once we have a trade agreement and are post-Brexit is phenomenally bad politics, I think it is very smart politics

And there is the nub. There are those who think negotiating a policy and then moments later reneging on it is bad politics conducted by bad politicians; and then there are those who think it is strategic genius.

I think @kinabalu's explanation of how we got here is pretty obviously on the money.

Thank you, Captain Toppers. I now brace for an insult to restore balance.

Typing this, btw, on my new HP Envy 14. Amazing how laptop tech has advanced over the last 12 years. It's light as a feather!

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.

Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.

As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.

PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.

It was once in a generation

Amazingly, @kinabalu off of PB does not get to decide when it “feels about right” for Scotland to vote again

It is a generation for a reason. A new generation has grown up, replacing the old voters, it is justifiable therefore to ask them again

Theuniondivvie said:

Flatlander said:

Theuniondivvie said:

I see 'if you don't like here we'll send you to Rwanda' is the new cry of the racist hard of thinkers.

Possibly 5 bots there?

Well, the 'possibly' is the nub of the bot thing.
In any case, successful bot-ism rides on the coat tails of genuinely expressed views.

Yes, there's bound to be a few idiots. This is Twitter after all, and it isn't hard to find one.

The problem comes in believing that there is a whole army of them when it is just some bots with the amplifier turned up to 11.

As Elon seems to have (conveniently?) discovered.

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.

Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.

To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.

Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.

I don't think doing whatever was required to get Brexit done, then revisiting the NI situation once we have a trade agreement and are post-Brexit is phenomenally bad politics, I think it is very smart politics

And there is the nub. There are those who think negotiating a policy and then moments later reneging on it is bad politics conducted by bad politicians; and then there are those who think it is strategic genius.

I think @kinabalu's explanation of how we got here is pretty obviously on the money.

Kinabalu is mostly right at first but goes into a blind alley at the end and is wrong at the end.

The problem is that too many people seek to let the unachievable perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now. I don't think the Withdrawal Agreement was a bad deal, I don't think it was a perfect deal, I think it was a good enough deal for then - but then is not now.

I never doubted there'd be problems post-Brexit, Brexit is a major reformation so of course there would be teething issues but lets not forget were we where three years ago. We were in a hysterical position where we were stuck in Article 50 limbo, unable to act, unable to get anything done, with people freaking out about all sorts of problems that were fictional. We had people on this site claiming that there'd be no strawberries on shelves at supermarkets, that there'd be no planes able to fly, that their partners could die as their medicine couldn't come across the border etc

I said then we needed to get out, find the teething problems, then fix them. The withdrawal agreement was good enough to do that, but now we're out, we need to fix any teething issues. If we'd remained trapped in Article 50 purgatory seeking to fix every hypothetical problem before we left, we'd never have left, which is of course what some wanted.

Only three years have passed since the Protocol wage agreed, but those three years might as well be a lifetime. We now know how Brexit is working, how the Protocol is working, we've been through a pandemic, and the GFA is imperilled. It is time to take action having left to fix the teething issues, while imagined problems that haven't transpired like people dying as medicine can't cross the border etc doesn't need to be dealt with.

So, how do you fix teething issues? If these are just teething issues, not fundamental flaws in the treaty, as your thesis requires, then they should be solvable by friendly and cooperative negotiation with relatively minor tweaks. So how come we’re in a situation where the government who signed the treaty is now intent on breaking it (while claiming it isn’t breaking it)?

The unavoidable conclusion is that either the Government who signed the treaty or the Government now has f***ed up. Except it’s the same Government.

You fix the teething issues by reaching a new agreement to replace the original one, a Protocol 1.1 or 2.0 if you wish, to replace the original one with the learnings we now have.

Its not the same Government, its the same people, but the Government of three years ago was a Government dealing with Article 50 trying to get the UK out of the EU which hysteria all around about all sorts of fictional problems.

The government we have now is a post-Brexit, post-TCA, post-pandemic Government that now knows what the real problems are and what is and isn't working, so the agreements can evolve as required.

Evolution never stops.

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.

Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.

As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.

PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.

It was once in a generation

Amazingly, @kinabalu off of PB does not get to decide when it “feels about right” for Scotland to vote again

It is a generation for a reason. A new generation has grown up, replacing the old voters, it is justifiable therefore to ask them again

Sneers that someone off of PB does not get to decide when it “feels about right” for Scotland to vote again.

Complacently states what justifies a second referendum.

Seamless.

algarkirk said:

Alistair said:

algarkirk said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.

Don't agree. This is what she has to do in order to keep in position. be as positive and rational as possible while waiting for the UK government/courts to say No.

The folly of repeating the Ireland border problem alone trumps any merit independence might have.

I suppose the UK backstop position might be to say "We have learned from experience. Let's agree the deal and then have a referendum". I wouldn't bet on that process being complete before Israel and Palestine do the same.

Sturgeon's policy if the UK government says No is to hold the Referendum.

An ultra vires referendum will be just the job to keep the pot boiling. IMHO an injunction is likely to forbid this if it purports to be done on a statutory basis.

Several court cases are possible. All will be great constitutional fun. But it doesn't (I think) get independence any closer.

I still think this is what’s behind the anti-SNP coalition on Edinburgh City Council, that attracted so much ire from everyone when it was formed. The council will simply not participate in a wildcat referendum.

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.

Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.

To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.

Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.

I don't think doing whatever was required to get Brexit done, then revisiting the NI situation once we have a trade agreement and are post-Brexit is phenomenally bad politics, I think it is very smart politics

And there is the nub. There are those who think negotiating a policy and then moments later reneging on it is bad politics conducted by bad politicians; and then there are those who think it is strategic genius.

I think @kinabalu's explanation of how we got here is pretty obviously on the money.

Thank you, Captain Toppers. I now brace for an insult to restore balance.

Typing this, btw, on my new HP Envy 14. Amazing how laptop tech has advanced over the last 12 years. It's light as a feather!

I had an MS Surface which I liked, but kept plugged in all the time so after a couple of years it just stopped working totally fucked had to throw it in the bin. Save your work externally to the machine is the big lesson.

And balancing insult? Don't be ridiculous. You twat.

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.

Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.

To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.

Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.

I don't think doing whatever was required to get Brexit done, then revisiting the NI situation once we have a trade agreement and are post-Brexit is phenomenally bad politics, I think it is very smart politics

And there is the nub. There are those who think negotiating a policy and then moments later reneging on it is bad politics conducted by bad politicians; and then there are those who think it is strategic genius.

I think @kinabalu's explanation of how we got here is pretty obviously on the money.

Kinabalu is mostly right at first but goes into a blind alley at the end and is wrong at the end.

The problem is that too many people seek to let the unachievable perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now. I don't think the Withdrawal Agreement was a bad deal, I don't think it was a perfect deal, I think it was a good enough deal for then - but then is not now.

I never doubted there'd be problems post-Brexit, Brexit is a major reformation so of course there would be teething issues but lets not forget were we where three years ago. We were in a hysterical position where we were stuck in Article 50 limbo, unable to act, unable to get anything done, with people freaking out about all sorts of problems that were fictional. We had people on this site claiming that there'd be no strawberries on shelves at supermarkets, that there'd be no planes able to fly, that their partners could die as their medicine couldn't come across the border etc

I said then we needed to get out, find the teething problems, then fix them. The withdrawal agreement was good enough to do that, but now we're out, we need to fix any teething issues. If we'd remained trapped in Article 50 purgatory seeking to fix every hypothetical problem before we left, we'd never have left, which is of course what some wanted.

Only three years have passed since the Protocol wage agreed, but those three years might as well be a lifetime. We now know how Brexit is working, how the Protocol is working, we've been through a pandemic, and the GFA is imperilled. It is time to take action having left to fix the teething issues, while imagined problems that haven't transpired like people dying as medicine can't cross the border etc doesn't need to be dealt with.

So, how do you fix teething issues? If these are just teething issues, not fundamental flaws in the treaty, as your thesis requires, then they should be solvable by friendly and cooperative negotiation with relatively minor tweaks. So how come we’re in a situation where the government who signed the treaty is now intent on breaking it (while claiming it isn’t breaking it)?

The unavoidable conclusion is that either the Government who signed the treaty or the Government now has f***ed up. Except it’s the same Government.

You fix the teething issues by reaching a new agreement to replace the original one, a Protocol 1.1 or 2.0 if you wish, to replace the original one with the learnings we now have.

Its not the same Government, its the same people, but the Government of three years ago was a Government dealing with Article 50 trying to get the UK out of the EU which hysteria all around about all sorts of fictional problems.

The government we have now is a post-Brexit, post-TCA, post-pandemic Government that now knows what the real problems are and what is and isn't working, so the agreements can evolve as required.

Evolution never stops.

What is the best way of reaching a new agreement? Is it calm negotiation with the other party, respecting the existing agreement until a new one is sorted, or is it breaking the current agreement while pretending that you’re not breaking the current agreement?

(Also, if there was hysteria and fictional problems back then, why did that force the Govt into a premature subpar agreement? Is the Govt so weak that some misinformed commentators in the press can stop their actions?)

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.

Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.

To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.

Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.

I don't think doing whatever was required to get Brexit done, then revisiting the NI situation once we have a trade agreement and are post-Brexit is phenomenally bad politics, I think it is very smart politics

And there is the nub. There are those who think negotiating a policy and then moments later reneging on it is bad politics conducted by bad politicians; and then there are those who think it is strategic genius.

I think @kinabalu's explanation of how we got here is pretty obviously on the money.

Kinabalu is mostly right at first but goes into a blind alley at the end and is wrong at the end.

The problem is that too many people seek to let the unachievable perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now. I don't think the Withdrawal Agreement was a bad deal, I don't think it was a perfect deal, I think it was a good enough deal for then - but then is not now.

I never doubted there'd be problems post-Brexit, Brexit is a major reformation so of course there would be teething issues but lets not forget were we where three years ago. We were in a hysterical position where we were stuck in Article 50 limbo, unable to act, unable to get anything done, with people freaking out about all sorts of problems that were fictional. We had people on this site claiming that there'd be no strawberries on shelves at supermarkets, that there'd be no planes able to fly, that their partners could die as their medicine couldn't come across the border etc

I said then we needed to get out, find the teething problems, then fix them. The withdrawal agreement was good enough to do that, but now we're out, we need to fix any teething issues. If we'd remained trapped in Article 50 purgatory seeking to fix every hypothetical problem before we left, we'd never have left, which is of course what some wanted.

Only three years have passed since the Protocol wage agreed, but those three years might as well be a lifetime. We now know how Brexit is working, how the Protocol is working, we've been through a pandemic, and the GFA is imperilled. It is time to take action having left to fix the teething issues, while imagined problems that haven't transpired like people dying as medicine can't cross the border etc doesn't need to be dealt with.

So, how do you fix teething issues? If these are just teething issues, not fundamental flaws in the treaty, as your thesis requires, then they should be solvable by friendly and cooperative negotiation with relatively minor tweaks. So how come we’re in a situation where the government who signed the treaty is now intent on breaking it (while claiming it isn’t breaking it)?

The unavoidable conclusion is that either the Government who signed the treaty or the Government now has f***ed up. Except it’s the same Government.

The other side is the EU, which still seems intent on treating us like a renegade province.

RH1992 said:

Foxy said:

RH1992 said:

Northern_Al said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sandpit said:

Casino_Royale said:

Glasto is The Guardian having a party.

So, it's no wonder it's very middle/upper-middle class, white and champagne socialist.

I always think of it as primarily the BBC having a party.

Don’t they send something like 500 staff to cover it?

The BBC and The Guardian are almost 1:1.

A lot of young people go to Glasto. I keep being told that young people never watch the BBC, and they certainly don't read The Guardian. So I'm not sure the stereotype quite works.

The Guardian is the only newspaper available at Glastonbury, they have little stands that sell it throughout the weekend but the only way they seem to be able to flog them is free tote bags with every paper. As soon as the tote bags run out the sales dry up.

By Sunday at festivals most people have flat phones, so the Guardian used to be given out on the Sunday at Latitude. Browsing the paper in the sun and a beer on a Sunday afternoon listening to Seasick Steve, that is an even more Guardian type audience.

I love festivals and try to make one every year, despite the climate. There is something very sweetly British about the eccentricity of music festivals, with the British middle classes at play. Download is definitely a bit less fashionable, as is Leeds/Reading in terms of audience.

I think a lot are financially squeezed this year, with ticket sales down and costs up, and a lot of tickets carried forward from previous years. Enjoy them while they last.

Yes, I think that's a fair point. I suppose the most Guardian type moment for myself in 2019 was being sat on the grass on the Sunday. 27C heat with a 7.5% Brothers cider listening to Jeff Goldblum's band and his terrible anecdotes about UK cities, although no print Guardian as I take 3x 20,000 mAh battery packs with me. I don't think the weather will be as good this year but I live in hope.

Not Corbyn on stage and Jon Snow - 'F%ck the Tories' then?

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

To discourage others

Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year

Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

mr-claypole said:

HYUFD said:

mr-claypole said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Back onto cosplay Thatcher's "Fuck the Bill" Bill, I don't know why BR is saying "this is what I proposed" when he has endlessly demanded they invoke Article 16. This goes straight past the A16 provision in the law and seeks to impose a settlement without negotiation. Which is the precise opposite of what A16 was intended to do.

The reality is simple - this government has demonstrated it is incapable of negotiation. So it doesn't want to invoke the A16 negotiation process as it knows it will only negotiate another settlement it doesn't understand. So fuck the bill, just impose a one-sided settlement and then claim to be an honest broker with all the people who now don't want to negotiate a coffee order with us.

Not that it will get through the House of Lords anyway. I can see the "Enemies of the State" headlines now.

It also has serious questions for the UK's integrity. In a few weeks, assuming the current mess isn't resolved, and I don't think it will be with the horror film clowns in charge as at present, I'd like to see polling on the wish for a border poll, and how the Alliance's policy in particular changes on the need for a border poll.

As long as the UK government does not impose a hard border in Ireland when it is removing the border in the Irish Sea, there will be no change in the Alliance's opposition to a border poll

Oh yes, no border at all. Good luck with that. Why do you think Mr Johnson put the one in the Irish Sea, and was so proud of it?

More generally, the Alliance aren'tr opposed to a border poll - they just don't support it. Not the same thing. And if HMG continues to rule NI from the sole point of view of keeping the DUP happy, there will be other reasons for Alliance to change their mind. For instance, wrecking the NI economy.

I attended an event at Westminster a couple of weeks ago where Steven Farry - alliance MP for North Down said they will not decide which way to jump on a border poll until it is announced- but they are happy to take part in discussions around planning one to avoid a Brexit type vote where people are promised anything and everything. They are ore open to a UI than many think.

There cannot be a UI without a border poll which requires the NI Secretary to back one and most probably Stormont to vote for one too. So without the Alliance voting for one there is no majority in the NI Assembly for one. A border poll ironically destroys the Alliance as it is the only main NI party which has almost equal support from Unionists and Nationalists.

If the Alliance took sides in a border poll it would become just another Nationalist or Unionist party

Their leader at Westminster says they will take a side but will not announce which until a poll is called.

The border poll requirement is set out in the GFA - deliberately vague but no Stormont vote required.

The moment the Alliance take a side in a border poll they are destroyed as a political party. No longer neutral they would either be a Nationalist party like SF and the SDLP so their Unionist voters would go to the UUP most likely or a Unionist party like the DUP or UUP so their Nationalist voters would go to the SDLP most likely.

There may therefore never be a border poll as it requires the NI Secretary to agree to one under the GFA and the NI Secretary won't and doesn't have to unless there is a clear majority at Stormont for one which there won't be as it is in the Alliance's interests to stay neutral and never have one

I believe in theory you are correct, but politically you are assuming too much.

You make the assumption that sectarianism trumps all else in the province. I do not believe that to be the case. To quote Bill Clinton "It's the economy stupid".

If the North Channel border was allowing NI businesses to thrive in the EU, and the removal of the protocol stops that dead in its tracks, and it might, it will be noted, and minds will change.

How will the removal of the North Channel border stop that?

The introduction of an Irish land border might stop it, but the removal of the Channel border is a different question, not the same one. You make it sound as if the Channel border is a positive to be desired in its own right, as opposed to the lack of an Irish land border being a positive to be desired.

The proposed legislation explicitly states no new regulations or checks can be done on the Irish land border. That means that the Good Friday Agreement is protected.

Because the EU are perfectly entitled to consider an invisible border at Dundalk under the Brexit deal, even it to protect sensibilities they do not put up armed security posts and barriers.

It isn't just a case of turning trucks away at Dundalk. Hauliers will not move goods if there is a possibility they will be returned to sender should paperwork be out of place at the point of destination.

And this isn't the EU being unreasonable it is their entitlement under Johnson and Frost's "oven ready" dog's dinner.

And under Liz Truss's proposed Bill there will be no new border checks at the NI/EU border so that invisible border is maintained.

Frost's deal was a version 1.0 to get Brexit done, its done now, we need to update it not keep going even though we now know what is working and what isn't.

Cyclefree said:

Sandpit said:

Eabhal said:

algarkirk said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

SNP bloke on WATO struggling a bit on how the England Scotland border is going to work once they are in the EU.

This matters quite a bit in the bandit country of the Scottish Borders and north Cumbria (soon to be Cumberland).

Sturgeon gave a pretty assertive answer earlier, based on the Common Travel Area.

That refers to a human border, rather than a goods border.

The CTA could remain, but the EU would insist on a hard customs border between England and Scotland if they wanted to join the EU Customs Union.

It wasn’t an issue last time, when the SNP assumption was that both England and Scotland were in the EU CU, and there wouldn’t need to be a border.

I do hope us Cumberland residents are going to have lots of smuggling opportunities. My Irish forebears indulged in quite a few illicit activities a century or so ago and it would be good to revive this family tradition, particularly if there is money to be made.

Law-breaking is all the rage in Tory England these days so important to get with the times, I feel.

I've got a Reiver surname too. It's in the blood.

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

Mail, Express.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

mr-claypole said:

HYUFD said:

mr-claypole said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Back onto cosplay Thatcher's "Fuck the Bill" Bill, I don't know why BR is saying "this is what I proposed" when he has endlessly demanded they invoke Article 16. This goes straight past the A16 provision in the law and seeks to impose a settlement without negotiation. Which is the precise opposite of what A16 was intended to do.

The reality is simple - this government has demonstrated it is incapable of negotiation. So it doesn't want to invoke the A16 negotiation process as it knows it will only negotiate another settlement it doesn't understand. So fuck the bill, just impose a one-sided settlement and then claim to be an honest broker with all the people who now don't want to negotiate a coffee order with us.

Not that it will get through the House of Lords anyway. I can see the "Enemies of the State" headlines now.

It also has serious questions for the UK's integrity. In a few weeks, assuming the current mess isn't resolved, and I don't think it will be with the horror film clowns in charge as at present, I'd like to see polling on the wish for a border poll, and how the Alliance's policy in particular changes on the need for a border poll.

As long as the UK government does not impose a hard border in Ireland when it is removing the border in the Irish Sea, there will be no change in the Alliance's opposition to a border poll

Oh yes, no border at all. Good luck with that. Why do you think Mr Johnson put the one in the Irish Sea, and was so proud of it?

More generally, the Alliance aren'tr opposed to a border poll - they just don't support it. Not the same thing. And if HMG continues to rule NI from the sole point of view of keeping the DUP happy, there will be other reasons for Alliance to change their mind. For instance, wrecking the NI economy.

I attended an event at Westminster a couple of weeks ago where Steven Farry - alliance MP for North Down said they will not decide which way to jump on a border poll until it is announced- but they are happy to take part in discussions around planning one to avoid a Brexit type vote where people are promised anything and everything. They are ore open to a UI than many think.

There cannot be a UI without a border poll which requires the NI Secretary to back one and most probably Stormont to vote for one too. So without the Alliance voting for one there is no majority in the NI Assembly for one. A border poll ironically destroys the Alliance as it is the only main NI party which has almost equal support from Unionists and Nationalists.

If the Alliance took sides in a border poll it would become just another Nationalist or Unionist party

Their leader at Westminster says they will take a side but will not announce which until a poll is called.

The border poll requirement is set out in the GFA - deliberately vague but no Stormont vote required.

The moment the Alliance take a side in a border poll they are destroyed as a political party. No longer neutral they would either be a Nationalist party like SF and the SDLP so their Unionist voters would go to the UUP most likely or a Unionist party like the DUP or UUP so their Nationalist voters would go to the SDLP most likely.

There may therefore never be a border poll as it requires the NI Secretary to agree to one under the GFA and the NI Secretary won't and doesn't have to unless there is a clear majority at Stormont for one which there won't be as it is in the Alliance's interests to stay neutral and never have one

I believe in theory you are correct, but politically you are assuming too much.

You make the assumption that sectarianism trumps all else in the province. I do not believe that to be the case. To quote Bill Clinton "It's the economy stupid".

If the North Channel border was allowing NI businesses to thrive in the EU, and the removal of the protocol stops that dead in its tracks, and it might, it will be noted, and minds will change.

How will the removal of the North Channel border stop that?

The introduction of an Irish land border might stop it, but the removal of the Channel border is a different question, not the same one. You make it sound as if the Channel border is a positive to be desired in its own right, as opposed to the lack of an Irish land border being a positive to be desired.

The proposed legislation explicitly states no new regulations or checks can be done on the Irish land border. That means that the Good Friday Agreement is protected.

Because the EU are perfectly entitled to consider an invisible border at Dundalk under the Brexit deal, even it to protect sensibilities they do not put up armed security posts and barriers.

It isn't just a case of turning trucks away at Dundalk. Hauliers will not move goods if there is a possibility they will be returned to sender should paperwork be out of place at the point of destination.

And this isn't the EU being unreasonable it is their entitlement under Johnson and Frost's "oven ready" dog's dinner.

And under Liz Truss's proposed Bill there will be no new border checks at the NI/EU border so that invisible border is maintained.

Frost's deal was a version 1.0 to get Brexit done, its done now, we need to update it not keep going even though we now know what is working and what isn't.

Really?, really?..... wasn't there also an element of a version to put in front of the HoC and the people to con them into voting them in?

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

It is extraordinary to think after the years and money Cameron spent trying to lose the epithet 'The Nasty Party' that without any thought at all they seem happy to take all that baggage back. The ramifications of this pointless exercise for the Tory Party are enormous

Sandpit said:

Eabhal said:

algarkirk said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

SNP bloke on WATO struggling a bit on how the England Scotland border is going to work once they are in the EU.

This matters quite a bit in the bandit country of the Scottish Borders and north Cumbria (soon to be Cumberland).

Sturgeon gave a pretty assertive answer earlier, based on the Common Travel Area.

That refers to a human border, rather than a goods border.

The CTA could remain, but the EU would insist on a hard customs border between England and Scotland if they wanted to join the EU Customs Union.

It wasn’t an issue last time, when the SNP assumption was that both England and Scotland were in the EU CU, and there wouldn’t need to be a border.

Sandpit said:

Eabhal said:

algarkirk said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

SNP bloke on WATO struggling a bit on how the England Scotland border is going to work once they are in the EU.

This matters quite a bit in the bandit country of the Scottish Borders and north Cumbria (soon to be Cumberland).

Sturgeon gave a pretty assertive answer earlier, based on the Common Travel Area.

That refers to a human border, rather than a goods border.

The CTA could remain, but the EU would insist on a hard customs border between England and Scotland if they wanted to join the EU Customs Union.

It wasn’t an issue last time, when the SNP assumption was that both England and Scotland were in the EU CU, and there wouldn’t need to be a border.

Would not matter a jot now either.

dixiedean said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

Mail, Express.

"Good"... ?

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/14/pope-francis-ukraine-war-provoked-russian-troops

Whoops. If that quote is accurate, I think he may come to regret saying it.

Time to sanction the Bishop of Rome and The Vatican.

I think one of the problems of post-WWII western imperialism is that they/we perceive there to be only "one" side. It appears the Pope doesn't subscribe to this world view.

Generally when someone invades a country, there really is only one side. The imperialist in this case is Russia.

What 'provocation' do you see here ?

Well if you ask me to step into Putin's no doubt exquisitely handcrafted shoes I would say that, having been "at war" with NATO for several decades, and then having been rebuffed when they asked to join NATO following the fall of the Berlin Wall, that there was an anxiety about NATO's intentions with, seemingly, no restraining force able to act on it. Plus there is the "Greater Russia" view, of which I am not too clear on the details, but I think the name gives a general clue.

So the provocation is for an independent nation not to have accepted that they should have remained a Russian vassal ?

"I think one of the problems of post WWII western imperialism..." sounds a bit odd in that context.

I'm not up on my Russian history but in general how do you think the history of the world and of countries has evolved over the past 2,000+ years.

It's not really the place of the Pope to be arguing that 2000 years of "might is right" is the way international affairs ought to be conducted, though, is it ?

Its pretty consistent with the history of the Roman Catholic Church though.

And in better Pope news, dropped on the first ball after lunch.

Divine punishement for his words on Ukraine ?

End of Pope

At some point England need to decide if they’re chasing the runs, or batting out the draw.

Preferably before too many more wickets go down.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.

Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.

As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.

PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.

Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.

If she does, and the Scottish voters are pissed off about that, then they can vote accordingly. As happened in Quebec.

Democracy finds a way.

You have a selective view of democracy. You do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it, for example.

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.

Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.

As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.

PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.

It was once in a generation

Amazingly, @kinabalu off of PB does not get to decide when it “feels about right” for Scotland to vote again

It is a generation for a reason. A new generation has grown up, replacing the old voters, it is justifiable therefore to ask them again

You're right kinabalu doesn't get to decide when it feels about right for Scotland to vote again.

In a democracy, that is for the voters of Scotland to determine at election time. They've done that.

So if Scotland votes for the SNP then an SNP government can call a referendum whenever it likes? Once every five years? Once every two years? Every couple of months?

No, it is the British Parliament at Westminster which decides, as that is the sovereign parliament of England, Scotland Wales and NI. If the SNP can persuade enough MPs in the British House of Commons, so be it

hyfud's twin is alive and well.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

mr-claypole said:

HYUFD said:

mr-claypole said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Back onto cosplay Thatcher's "Fuck the Bill" Bill, I don't know why BR is saying "this is what I proposed" when he has endlessly demanded they invoke Article 16. This goes straight past the A16 provision in the law and seeks to impose a settlement without negotiation. Which is the precise opposite of what A16 was intended to do.

The reality is simple - this government has demonstrated it is incapable of negotiation. So it doesn't want to invoke the A16 negotiation process as it knows it will only negotiate another settlement it doesn't understand. So fuck the bill, just impose a one-sided settlement and then claim to be an honest broker with all the people who now don't want to negotiate a coffee order with us.

Not that it will get through the House of Lords anyway. I can see the "Enemies of the State" headlines now.

It also has serious questions for the UK's integrity. In a few weeks, assuming the current mess isn't resolved, and I don't think it will be with the horror film clowns in charge as at present, I'd like to see polling on the wish for a border poll, and how the Alliance's policy in particular changes on the need for a border poll.

As long as the UK government does not impose a hard border in Ireland when it is removing the border in the Irish Sea, there will be no change in the Alliance's opposition to a border poll

Oh yes, no border at all. Good luck with that. Why do you think Mr Johnson put the one in the Irish Sea, and was so proud of it?

More generally, the Alliance aren'tr opposed to a border poll - they just don't support it. Not the same thing. And if HMG continues to rule NI from the sole point of view of keeping the DUP happy, there will be other reasons for Alliance to change their mind. For instance, wrecking the NI economy.

I attended an event at Westminster a couple of weeks ago where Steven Farry - alliance MP for North Down said they will not decide which way to jump on a border poll until it is announced- but they are happy to take part in discussions around planning one to avoid a Brexit type vote where people are promised anything and everything. They are ore open to a UI than many think.

There cannot be a UI without a border poll which requires the NI Secretary to back one and most probably Stormont to vote for one too. So without the Alliance voting for one there is no majority in the NI Assembly for one. A border poll ironically destroys the Alliance as it is the only main NI party which has almost equal support from Unionists and Nationalists.

If the Alliance took sides in a border poll it would become just another Nationalist or Unionist party

Their leader at Westminster says they will take a side but will not announce which until a poll is called.

The border poll requirement is set out in the GFA - deliberately vague but no Stormont vote required.

The moment the Alliance take a side in a border poll they are destroyed as a political party. No longer neutral they would either be a Nationalist party like SF and the SDLP so their Unionist voters would go to the UUP most likely or a Unionist party like the DUP or UUP so their Nationalist voters would go to the SDLP most likely.

There may therefore never be a border poll as it requires the NI Secretary to agree to one under the GFA and the NI Secretary won't and doesn't have to unless there is a clear majority at Stormont for one which there won't be as it is in the Alliance's interests to stay neutral and never have one

I believe in theory you are correct, but politically you are assuming too much.

You make the assumption that sectarianism trumps all else in the province. I do not believe that to be the case. To quote Bill Clinton "It's the economy stupid".

If the North Channel border was allowing NI businesses to thrive in the EU, and the removal of the protocol stops that dead in its tracks, and it might, it will be noted, and minds will change.

How will the removal of the North Channel border stop that?

The introduction of an Irish land border might stop it, but the removal of the Channel border is a different question, not the same one. You make it sound as if the Channel border is a positive to be desired in its own right, as opposed to the lack of an Irish land border being a positive to be desired.

The proposed legislation explicitly states no new regulations or checks can be done on the Irish land border. That means that the Good Friday Agreement is protected.

Because the EU are perfectly entitled to consider an invisible border at Dundalk under the Brexit deal, even it to protect sensibilities they do not put up armed security posts and barriers.

It isn't just a case of turning trucks away at Dundalk. Hauliers will not move goods if there is a possibility they will be returned to sender should paperwork be out of place at the point of destination.

And this isn't the EU being unreasonable it is their entitlement under Johnson and Frost's "oven ready" dog's dinner.

And under Liz Truss's proposed Bill there will be no new border checks at the NI/EU border so that invisible border is maintained.

Frost's deal was a version 1.0 to get Brexit done, its done now, we need to update it not keep going even though we now know what is working and what isn't.

Really?, really?..... wasn't there also an element of a version to put in front of the HoC and the people to con them into voting them in?

People weren't conned, they got what they voted for. Brexit is done, now we're evolving our post-Brexit future based on the learnings of what has happened since Brexit happened.

The first sentence is dubious in the extreme. If you remove the "n't" it's true meaning becomes obvious.

Game over.

Root out.

Applicant said:

kinabalu said:

Applicant said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.

Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.

As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.

PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.

Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.

No. The choice would be to backburner it or shed a ton of votes and lose power. They'd choose the first.

History suggests otherwise.

Oh really?

Where in history does it show the public repeatedly electing governments that want to ask the same question repeatedly?

History shows the public hates being asked the same question over and over again and will punish politicians that do that to them without good reason.

Root gone. 😐

Applicant said:

kinabalu said:

Applicant said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.

Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.

As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.

PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.

Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.

No. The choice would be to backburner it or shed a ton of votes and lose power. They'd choose the first.

History suggests otherwise.

Since you're so keen on history, how many Scottish indy referendums have there been in the last 315 years?

Leaves work to go home, wonders how many more wickets will fall in the next half hour…

Cicero said:

dixiedean said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

Mail, Express.

"Good"... ?

For the survival of Big Dog, not just good but essential. The sine qua non.
Let's not kid ourselves that this, or anything else, is motivated differently.

dixiedean said:

Root out.

Bairstow for a two boundary cameo next...

Oh dear.

SouthamObserver said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.

Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.

As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.

PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.

Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.

If she does, and the Scottish voters are pissed off about that, then they can vote accordingly. As happened in Quebec.

Democracy finds a way.

You have a selective view of democracy. You do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it, for example.

I totally believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it. If people in NI elect a government pledge to holding a referendum on something, they too ought to be able to.

Regrettably as it stands, the people of Northern Ireland haven't been able to elect a government at all, under their perverted PR voting system. If they had FPTP it might be otherwise, but they don't, and it is what it is.

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

To discourage others

Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year

Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute

You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.

This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.

And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.

I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again

Bloody hell Spurs sign another player early on in the window. This is a very odd feeling.

BartholomewRoberts said:

SouthamObserver said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.

Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.

As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.

PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.

Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.

If she does, and the Scottish voters are pissed off about that, then they can vote accordingly. As happened in Quebec.

Democracy finds a way.

You have a selective view of democracy. You do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it, for example.

I totally believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it. If people in NI elect a government pledge to holding a referendum on something, they too ought to be able to.

Regrettably as it stands, the people of Northern Ireland haven't been able to elect a government at all, under their perverted PR voting system. If they had FPTP it might be otherwise, but they don't, and it is what it is.

Nothing to do with the voting system. Largest parties from each confession are required to form an administration. One of them is sulking.

BartholomewRoberts said:

SouthamObserver said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.

Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.

As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.

PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.

Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.

If she does, and the Scottish voters are pissed off about that, then they can vote accordingly. As happened in Quebec.

Democracy finds a way.

You have a selective view of democracy. You do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it, for example.

I totally believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it. If people in NI elect a government pledge to holding a referendum on something, they too ought to be able to.

Regrettably as it stands, the people of Northern Ireland haven't been able to elect a government at all, under their perverted PR voting system. If they had FPTP it might be otherwise, but they don't, and it is what it is.

No, you believe that Liz Truss should be able to override the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, even though the UK government previously agreed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would decide whether the Protocol should continue to be applied.

Applicant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

kinabalu said:

Applicant said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.

Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.

As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.

PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.

Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.

No. The choice would be to backburner it or shed a ton of votes and lose power. They'd choose the first.

History suggests otherwise.

Oh really?

Yes. The SNP lost a referendum and immediately started agitating for a new one, and have been rewarded electorally. There's a big enough Anglophobic bloc in the Scottish electorate that a third referendum would appeal to.

Brexit happened which was a pretty good justification for them to agitate under.

In Quebec the Parti Quebecois agitated similarly, but once they lost the second referendum the voters got tired of it all and sent them packing. You can only ask the voters so many times before they decide enough is enough and no means no.

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

Most are asylum seekers whose claims - once processed - are granted.

Because they nearly always dump alll ID and when they are asked why they are in Britain they have a plausible reason - gay, Christian, Wicca, whatever - and we are legally obliged to accept them as asylum seekers, We have no way of disproving their stories

If you’ve just come over on a boat and you’re asked why, do you say, Well I was a chef in Isfahan but I thought the wages seemed better in Cheltenham? No, you do not