As a libertarian, I have no problem with people taking the stuff.
But I'm always uneasy with people being drugged up or drunk, for the sole reason that a sedated population is not a population that gets angry or pays attention to what the government is doing. Bread and circuses and all that.
That some politicians support this is reason enough to make uneasy about their ulterior motives.
While I cannot speak to UK culture on marijuana, living in Portland, where we have more marijuana dispensaries than Starbucks coffee shops, the city definitively remains one of the most politically active cities in the US, if anything its become even more politically active over the issue.
I'll say this to Herzlos as well as to yourself. I'm obviously not against people drinking or taking drugs, I'd be a total hypocrite if I were, but I sometimes feel that as a society, we take our eyes off the ball sometimes, and let our politicians get away with murder. There's too many distractions with drink, drugs, gak TV, video games and all that.
Hopefully, we end up taking a leaf out of Seattle's book.
I would agree with decrimilising the substance even though the only time I came in contact with it as second hand smoke it just gives me a splitting headache.
If its legal, we get tax revenue and the substance should be pure.
One question - does it have any of the same health issues as tabaco?
I'll say this to Herzlos as well as to yourself. I'm obviously not against people drinking or taking drugs, I'd be a total hypocrite if I were, but I sometimes feel that as a society, we take our eyes off the ball sometimes, and let our politicians get away with murder. There's too many distractions with drink, drugs, gak TV, video games and all that.
Since you don't care for facts or science, just feelings (which is why you voted for Brexit, after all), I don't see the point of you talking about this.
Morality changes with time and people (like faith). It has never been a good basis to judge the long term relevance of something.
As a libertarian, I have no problem with people taking the stuff.
But I'm always uneasy with people being drugged up or drunk, for the sole reason that a sedated population is not a population that gets angry or pays attention to what the government is doing. Bread and circuses and all that.
That some politicians support this is reason enough to make uneasy about their ulterior motives.
While I cannot speak to UK culture on marijuana, living in Portland, where we have more marijuana dispensaries than Starbucks coffee shops, the city definitively remains one of the most politically active cities in the US, if anything its become even more politically active over the issue.
I'll say this to Herzlos as well as to yourself. I'm obviously not against people drinking or taking drugs, I'd be a total hypocrite if I were, but I sometimes feel that as a society, we take our eyes off the ball sometimes, and let our politicians get away with murder. There's too many distractions with drink, drugs, gak TV, video games and all that.
Hopefully, we end up taking a leaf out of Seattle's book.
I sort of agree with you; western society wastes far to much time consuming garbage; social media and trash tv, and being neither productive, fulfilled or enlightened.
But the population quite rightly don't give a gal about politics out with general election season. It's irrelevant, boring and divisive.
So not wanting people to waste their lives or be switched off to abuse of power, isn't a good enough reason to keep something illegal especially when the ear on it is a complete failure.
People who want to smoke weed can now, but they need to buy it from a dealer or a gang, which mixes them into a seedy underworld where they are open to abuse, being pushed towards harder drugs and so on. Since we can't stop it we may as well legalise it so we can tax it and people can access it in a safe, controlled way. As a bonus, we can avoid wasting police, court and jail time on people who are harmless and focus instead on the crime wave you keep going on about.
Like many things either extreme of the spectrum would be a bad thing. So it really has to be a continuing conversation with both "sides" informing the other.
Future War Cultist wrote: It’s that time of year again; The Twelfth. The bonfires don’t seem as big this year, but there has been trouble. I believe the worst was coming out of Derry. Shootouts with the police and so on:
So a pipe bombs now been thrown into a housing estate in East Belfast and the PSNI are reporting that the UVF there are gathering in force in the area too.
Future War Cultist wrote: It’s that time of year again; The Twelfth. The bonfires don’t seem as big this year, but there has been trouble. I believe the worst was coming out of Derry. Shootouts with the police and so on:
So a pipe bombs now been thrown into a housing estate in East Belfast and the PSNI are reporting that the UVF there are gathering in force in the area too.
Future War Cultist wrote: It’s that time of year again; The Twelfth. The bonfires don’t seem as big this year, but there has been trouble. I believe the worst was coming out of Derry. Shootouts with the police and so on:
So a pipe bombs now been thrown into a housing estate in East Belfast and the PSNI are reporting that the UVF there are gathering in force in the area too.
That's much worse than usual? What's going on?
Yeah the 11th is normally the quieter of the two days, there's been a lot of tension in the country recently in general. But today Belfast council removed material from two bonfire sites due to safety concerns and that's angered loyalists hence the violence.
There's now roads being blocked off by burning tires and a bus being hijacked by armed men and then burnt out.
I know we don’t always agree in this thread, but what ever your political colour, you have my sympathies; that is totally unacceptable behaviour. Stay safe guys.
My family were indirectly forced from our home due to the Drumcree conflict. Although my parents are both from the west of Belfast (the catholic heartland), they got their first house in the north of the city. A lovely 3 story Edwardian terrace house in a tiny catholic enclave close to the loyalist Shore Road. Everything was relatively ok so long as we didn’t venture past the roundabout. Then Drumcree started, and the treats against us and our neighbors became worse. By 1997 guns were becoming involved and we had to get out. Sold the house and moved all the way out to the West.
Future War Cultist wrote: My family were indirectly forced from our home due to the Drumcree conflict. Although my parents are both from the west of Belfast (the catholic heartland), they got their first house in the north of the city. A lovely 3 story Edwardian terrace house in a tiny catholic enclave close to the loyalist Shore Road. Everything was relatively ok so long as we didn’t venture past the roundabout. Then Drumcree started, and the treats against us and our neighbors became worse. By 1997 guns were becoming involved and we had to get out. Sold the house and moved all the way out to the West.
What are the chances that this again escalates?
I suspect with the Brexit debate about the border and some Agitation from both sides based upon the recent government problems, that this will lead to some serious mess.
Kilkrazy wrote:To be frank, I don't think the Ulster Unionists understand how little mainland British people care about their sad obsessions.
I think some of them do and it's in many cases led to a bit of a chip on the shoulder which is why you see such extreme reaction over small things like a flag being taken down.
Future War Cultist wrote:My family were indirectly forced from our home due to the Drumcree conflict. Although my parents are both from the west of Belfast (the catholic heartland), they got their first house in the north of the city. A lovely 3 story Edwardian terrace house in a tiny catholic enclave close to the loyalist Shore Road. Everything was relatively ok so long as we didn’t venture past the roundabout. Then Drumcree started, and the treats against us and our neighbors became worse. By 1997 guns were becoming involved and we had to get out. Sold the house and moved all the way out to the West.
Drumcree was IMO one of the worst events of the troubles, while there were of course countless atrocities this had such an active support base and there's no way it could just be blamed on fringe paramilitaries.
Belfast City Airport has had to be put into shut down due to a device outside it and the silence from the DUP is deafening, thank God I'm in my parents house and not in Belfast!
but there's another little-known element of worst-case No Deal, which is pretty extraordinary: when I told one colleague about it he asked: "Have you been drinking?
until now, you may not have paid too much attention to the single electricity market on the island of Ireland, one of the legacies of the Good Friday Agreement: in short, a large amount of power in Northern Ireland comes from south of the border...
in the event of a totally disruptive rupture with the bloc Whitehall officials fear that power providers in the republic could end the provision of electricity because the UK would no longer be part of the European electricity market...
The solution drawn up by panicked mandarins: thousands of electricity generators would have to be requisitioned at short notice and put on barges in the Irish Sea to help keep the lights on in Northern Ireland: here's my story
Officials are modelling how they might have to bring back generators from far-flung countries such as Afghanistan – where the UK is still part of Nato-led operations - in order to prevent blackouts.
of course, some will dismiss this as Project Fear part II. But one government official said the idea of electricity barges in the Irish Sea was one of the most “gob-smacking” elements of no-deal preparations...
Kilkrazy wrote:To be frank, I don't think the Ulster Unionists understand how little mainland British people care about their sad obsessions.
I think some of them do and it's in many cases led to a bit of a chip on the shoulder which is why you see such extreme reaction over small things like a flag being taken down.
Future War Cultist wrote:My family were indirectly forced from our home due to the Drumcree conflict. Although my parents are both from the west of Belfast (the catholic heartland), they got their first house in the north of the city. A lovely 3 story Edwardian terrace house in a tiny catholic enclave close to the loyalist Shore Road. Everything was relatively ok so long as we didn’t venture past the roundabout. Then Drumcree started, and the treats against us and our neighbors became worse. By 1997 guns were becoming involved and we had to get out. Sold the house and moved all the way out to the West.
Drumcree was IMO one of the worst events of the troubles, while there were of course countless atrocities this had such an active support base and there's no way it could just be blamed on fringe paramilitaries.
Belfast City Airport has had to be put into shut down due to a device outside it and the silence from the DUP is deafening, thank God I'm in my parents house and not in Belfast!
At this point is it not just organised crime masquerading as historical pride?
In the run up, I had this guy in work asking everyone what they were doing for the twelfth. He’s in a band. When he got to me I said nothing. He gets incredulous and asks why. I say it means nothing to me. Then he gets indignant, because it’s traditional cultural heritage and pride etc.
And I say not for Catholics.
That shut him up, for a while. He then started going on about how ‘inclusive’ it all is now, whilst getting a bit stroppy and asking ‘have I got a problem with it’. I said to him that we can draw a line in the sand and stop going on about it or I can get HR involved. Hopefully he takes the hint.
This is the same spanker who believes that the 1912 Ulster Gun Running, one of the most important events in unionism, never happened. It’s a lie. Because it utterly destroys the narrative that the unionists were only ever the victims of republican violence. Hard to argue that when they were the ones who bought guns into it in the modern era. At least now I can stop pretending to like the fat vaping feth.
So I saw this floating around, and checked the number before hand to see if it was accurate, because I generally hate memes. What are your guys thoughts on this, because it seems extremely troubling to me. (just incase there was an confusion, I was talking about the statistic on the arrests, don't give a crap about the Trump thing).
Da Boss wrote: Seriously less troubling than your gun laws in the United States.
Did you guys see the story about floating generator barges to keep the lights on in Northern Ireland in the case of No Deal?
At least we had a thorough discussion of issues like that before the vote, eh?
See... this exact post encapsulates the difference in mindsets between our two cultures, as I see it. Europe seems perfectly reasonable to give up freedom because "safety". And if that's what you guys want, I guess that's ok. On the other side of the pond though, we tend to have different values.
But this isn't a discussion about American laws, and there is no reason to deflect it there. I'm asking British posters about their view on this attack (from my point of view) on free speech.
Da Boss wrote: Seriously less troubling than your gun laws in the United States.
Did you guys see the story about floating generator barges to keep the lights on in Northern Ireland in the case of No Deal?
At least we had a thorough discussion of issues like that before the vote, eh?
See... this exact post encapsulates the difference in mindsets between our two cultures, as I see it. Europe seems perfectly reasonable to give up freedom because "safety". And if that's what you guys want, I guess that's ok. On the other side of the pond though, we tend to have different values.
But this isn't a discussion about American laws, and there is no reason to deflect it there. I'm asking British posters about their view on this attack (from my point of view) on free speech.
There has recently been moves to take online abuse seriously. After many years of it being considered "harmless" and "Just a joke" the UK police have now started to treat online threats as being just as valid as if they were written down or made in person. Meaning they still have to be credible and genuinely alarming. For example if I went in to YMDC and told someone from the US I hoped they got shot, or something like that, for disagreeing with me on two rules interact then the police would do nothing.
If I went on Facebook and posted on an ex's page that I was going to kill them then I could expect a call from the police, and it would fall in to these stats.
I am reasonably sure the latter would not be protected in the US.
Kilkrazy wrote:To be frank, I don't think the Ulster Unionists understand how little mainland British people care about their sad obsessions.
I think some of them do and it's in many cases led to a bit of a chip on the shoulder which is why you see such extreme reaction over small things like a flag being taken down.
Future War Cultist wrote:My family were indirectly forced from our home due to the Drumcree conflict. Although my parents are both from the west of Belfast (the catholic heartland), they got their first house in the north of the city. A lovely 3 story Edwardian terrace house in a tiny catholic enclave close to the loyalist Shore Road. Everything was relatively ok so long as we didn’t venture past the roundabout. Then Drumcree started, and the treats against us and our neighbors became worse. By 1997 guns were becoming involved and we had to get out. Sold the house and moved all the way out to the West.
Drumcree was IMO one of the worst events of the troubles, while there were of course countless atrocities this had such an active support base and there's no way it could just be blamed on fringe paramilitaries.
Belfast City Airport has had to be put into shut down due to a device outside it and the silence from the DUP is deafening, thank God I'm in my parents house and not in Belfast!
At this point is it not just organised crime masquerading as historical pride?
There is a lot of that especially around the bonfires as a lot of them are run by paramilitaries and give them a great opportunity to pedal their drugs.
For many it's more of a chance to relive their 'glory' days of being able to ride rough shot over Catholics and pass it off as culture, if your culture consists of dancing around a fire, burning flags, religious effigies, racist banners, mocking the death of millions and attacking priests it says a lot.
Change Catholic too Jew or Muslim and this wouldn't be tolerated in the rest if the UK, unfortunately May is pandering to many of this days biggest fans.
djones520 wrote: See... this exact post encapsulates the difference in mindsets between our two cultures, as I see it. Europe seems perfectly reasonable to give up freedom because "safety". And if that's what you guys want, I guess that's ok. On the other side of the pond though, we tend to have different values.
As others have noted this might be true but you've presented no evidence for it. The numbers that prompted this line of discussion are meaningless without more context.
The US has its own limitations on freedom of speech, some of which are encapsulated in the phrase 'you don't have the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre". Unless you can show that's not the case with the application of the UK law how can you say it's different to your homeland?
The white paper has now seen the light of day, and it's just as well it's white, because I suspect a lot of people will be wiping their backsides with it.
Having seen a summary of the proposals, I wouldn't blame them if they did.
Better to have no Brexit than this wretched deal cooked up by May.
So the white paper is out, and predictably very few MPs seem to like it. Not Brexity enough for the ERG, as everybody knew would be the case. From what I'm reading, the Tories are just batting all Labour concerns back with "you voted for all of this too".
Riquende wrote: So the white paper is out, and predictably very few MPs seem to like it. Not Brexity enough for the ERG, as everybody knew would be the case. From what I'm reading, the Tories are just batting all Labour concerns back with "you voted for all of this too".
But neither is it good for Remain. Hell, a lot of the proposals are close to what we already have with EU membership, you may as well stay in.
As I've said before, it takes a special talent to unite Remain and Leave supporters against your latest proposal.
Of course we're going to get a deal so close to being in the EU that we may as well stay in. It's the only way we're going to keep the lights on (literally).
Riquende wrote: So the white paper is out, and predictably very few MPs seem to like it. Not Brexity enough for the ERG, as everybody knew would be the case. From what I'm reading, the Tories are just batting all Labour concerns back with "you voted for all of this too".
But neither is it good for Remain.
True, but only the most extreme remainers aren't worried about being labelled traitors etc so aren't immediately going on the attack. JRM and his crew can quite happily run their mouths with the support of the people's willy. No, wait....
Labour have voted for these things. It was a huge error to do so. They gave up their ability to be an effective opposition when they voted along with the Tories. Tainted now, and I think they will suffer backlash because of it, particularly because of the levels of Right Wing bias in the British Media.
Da Boss wrote: Labour have voted for these things. It was a huge error to do so. They gave up their ability to be an effective opposition when they voted along with the Tories. Tainted now, and I think they will suffer backlash because of it, particularly because of the levels of Right Wing bias in the British Media.
I keep seeing comments like this and I have to disagree, Labour have done the only thing they could do.
Let's try a little critical thinking first let's cast our minds back over the last 2 years of mostly blue on blue attacks.
Judges called traitors, Tory Rebels called traitors and issued death threats, The gutter press in full third Reich Willy of the peeple mode, various spats in the Conkipper party. All the other bollocks I cannot be bothered to list.
So keeping in mind that most of the last 2 years has been taken over by the Tory civil war what would be the one thing that would get them to rally together?
Then there's the Hate Mail,Scum and other far right rags, given the abuse they hurled at there own can you imagine what would have been unleashed on Labour if they spoke out?
The there is the Math basicly Labour don't have the numbers to actually make a difference in parliament without Tory "Rebels" who keep forgetting to Rebel for the most part. Take Sourby she talks the talk and then falls into party line every single time.
I would imagine the gutter press have had stories ready to go for the last 2 years slagging of Labour and Corbyn as traitors of people for trying to block the Willy of the people.
I almost could believe that some of the so called Tory Rebels would have fallen into party line immediately if Labour shifted position almost like a trap.
Labour are taking the only strategy that stops the Tories pinning brexshit on them, they have to wait until brexshit starts to collapse under Tory incompetence and brexshiter bs. Like say stories about rationing, insane ways of keeping the lights on or that brexshit means bollocks. Then they have to come out and say look the brexshit promises were all bollocks the Tories are clueless we need to do this.
I just think that is an irresponsibly dangerous game to play. It is getting more and more likely that the UK will crash out with no deal, which would be catastrophic for the UK.
There could have been very strong arguments against triggering Article 50 before a White Paper position was agreed for example that would have left the UK in a much stronger negotiating position.
What labour is doing smacks of party before country, in the same wazy as the tories. The UK is being very poorly served by all it's institutions at present.
Da Boss wrote: I just think that is an irresponsibly dangerous game to play. It is getting more and more likely that the UK will crash out with no deal, which would be catastrophic for the UK.
There could have been very strong arguments against triggering Article 50 before a White Paper position was agreed for example that would have left the UK in a much stronger negotiating position.
What labour is doing smacks of party before country, in the same wazy as the tories. The UK is being very poorly served by all it's institutions at present.
We should have had this sort of White paper before we even had the referendum. Now you have an option that no one wants, including May but who is trying to keep her own party and career in power at the expense of everything else.
Yes Labour doing the same, because they are quite happy to watch the Tories wreck everything so they can then be blamed for all calamities over the next 20 years that not even papers like the Daily Fail and Scum can't hide. And this is the problem, certain media barons have by far too much power to influence the older generation (noting that the younger generation probably have an issue with identifying fake news on social media). They themselves need to be controlled to ensure that news is factual, investigatory journalism rather than made up inferred tripe. At that point parties may be able to have a sensible conversation rather than be worried by what a few people who don't want their tax affairs investigated in detail.
Still at least we get to see May get that deep and penetrating relationship as she bends over as Trump screws her and country.
Future War Cultist wrote: In the run up, I had this guy in work asking everyone what they were doing for the twelfth. He’s in a band. When he got to me I said nothing. He gets incredulous and asks why. I say it means nothing to me. Then he gets indignant, because it’s traditional cultural heritage and pride etc.
And I say not for Catholics.
That shut him up, for a while. He then started going on about how ‘inclusive’ it all is now, whilst getting a bit stroppy and asking ‘have I got a problem with it’. I said to him that we can draw a line in the sand and stop going on about it or I can get HR involved. Hopefully he takes the hint.
This is the same spanker who believes that the 1912 Ulster Gun Running, one of the most important events in unionism, never happened. It’s a lie. Because it utterly destroys the narrative that the unionists were only ever the victims of republican violence. Hard to argue that when they were the ones who bought guns into it in the modern era. At least now I can stop pretending to like the fat vaping feth.
Perhaps you could have tried to be nice to him? It’s obviously an important day for the guy.
Very odd he believes the gunrunning in 1912 didn’t take place. It’s one of loyalists most treasured anniversaries. If he is in a band he would have been invited to one of the many parades a few years back celebrating its 100th anniversary. It was widely celebrated with re-enactments and parades taking place, not sure how he could have missed it. Odd.......
The violence over the bonfire removal is shameful but it has been very isolated 99% of them passed off peacefully. The anger came from the police response over the removal when they compared it against the IRA violence again in Londonderry over the last fortnight. A Protestant housing estate has been attacked nightly and shots have been fired in an attempt to complete a republican campaign of ethnic cleansing in the area. The police response was minimal yet a bonfire attracted 100s of officers and a full scale operation. Young people in east Belfast felt their community was receiving fairly heavy handed policing over a bonfire when ethnic cleansing and gun attacks were being largely ignored.
Future War Cultist wrote: In the run up, I had this guy in work asking everyone what they were doing for the twelfth. He’s in a band. When he got to me I said nothing. He gets incredulous and asks why. I say it means nothing to me. Then he gets indignant, because it’s traditional cultural heritage and pride etc.
And I say not for Catholics.
That shut him up, for a while. He then started going on about how ‘inclusive’ it all is now, whilst getting a bit stroppy and asking ‘have I got a problem with it’. I said to him that we can draw a line in the sand and stop going on about it or I can get HR involved. Hopefully he takes the hint.
This is the same spanker who believes that the 1912 Ulster Gun Running, one of the most important events in unionism, never happened. It’s a lie. Because it utterly destroys the narrative that the unionists were only ever the victims of republican violence. Hard to argue that when they were the ones who bought guns into it in the modern era. At least now I can stop pretending to like the fat vaping feth.
Perhaps you could have tried to be nice to him? It’s obviously an important day for the guy.
Very odd he believes the gunrunning in 1912 didn’t take place. It’s one of loyalists most treasured anniversaries. If he is in a band he would have been invited to one of the many parades a few years back celebrating its 100th anniversary. It was widely celebrated with re-enactments and parades taking place, not sure how he could have missed it. Odd.......
The violence over the bonfire removal is shameful but it has been very isolated 99% of them passed off peacefully. The anger came from the police response over the removal when they compared it against the IRA violence again in Londonderry over the last fortnight. A Protestant housing estate has been attacked nightly and shots have been fired in an attempt to complete a republican campaign of ethnic cleansing in the area. The police response was minimal yet a bonfire attracted 100s of officers and a full scale operation. Young people in east Belfast felt their community was receiving fairly heavy handed policing over a bonfire when ethnic cleansing and gun attacks were being largely ignored.
I'd like to know how he could've been more nice to him.
Considering his circumstances, any more nice would've been saint level.
He’s a very, very, very unintelligent person. Worse, he’s a know it all. A know nothing know it all. He’s also just...unlikeable. A crushing bore, and a homophobic rascist who’s also an egomaniac with a very bad sense of entitlement.
Now, maybe I could have been nicer about it. Truth is, I was trying to politely tip toe around it. I initially played it as no big deal. “Not much, just gonna stay in with the PlayStation and enjoy the start of the four day weekend”. And that wasn’t good enough. He just had to keep pushing, and pushing, and pushing. Are you not in a band? Do you not go to the bonfires? Why not, and so on. I probably could have handled it better but, I do have that memory. Oh, and I just plain don’t like him to begin with so my already short patience is non existent.
And I’ve no idea where he’s getting this nonsense about the gun running. It’s not even his worst conspiracy theory.
Future War Cultist wrote: In the run up, I had this guy in work asking everyone what they were doing for the twelfth. He’s in a band. When he got to me I said nothing. He gets incredulous and asks why. I say it means nothing to me. Then he gets indignant, because it’s traditional cultural heritage and pride etc.
And I say not for Catholics.
That shut him up, for a while. He then started going on about how ‘inclusive’ it all is now, whilst getting a bit stroppy and asking ‘have I got a problem with it’. I said to him that we can draw a line in the sand and stop going on about it or I can get HR involved. Hopefully he takes the hint.
This is the same spanker who believes that the 1912 Ulster Gun Running, one of the most important events in unionism, never happened. It’s a lie. Because it utterly destroys the narrative that the unionists were only ever the victims of republican violence. Hard to argue that when they were the ones who bought guns into it in the modern era. At least now I can stop pretending to like the fat vaping feth.
Perhaps you could have tried to be nice to him? It’s obviously an important day for the guy.
Very odd he believes the gunrunning in 1912 didn’t take place. It’s one of loyalists most treasured anniversaries. If he is in a band he would have been invited to one of the many parades a few years back celebrating its 100th anniversary. It was widely celebrated with re-enactments and parades taking place, not sure how he could have missed it. Odd.......
The violence over the bonfire removal is shameful but it has been very isolated 99% of them passed off peacefully. The anger came from the police response over the removal when they compared it against the IRA violence again in Londonderry over the last fortnight. A Protestant housing estate has been attacked nightly and shots have been fired in an attempt to complete a republican campaign of ethnic cleansing in the area. The police response was minimal yet a bonfire attracted 100s of officers and a full scale operation. Young people in east Belfast felt their community was receiving fairly heavy handed policing over a bonfire when ethnic cleansing and gun attacks were being largely ignored.
Many Bonfires consists of burning flags and being adorned with offensive signs so I wouldn't say most are peaceful. As I said earlier replace the flags with Israeli ones and the signs to saying to kill all Jews and there would be outrage and every bonfire would be taken down, this was literally 2 taken down because of safety issues.
There have been large numbers of police in the Bogside since the trouble started despite what some unionists are saying people have been up in court today over the attacks. The gun fire was at the police and not at the fountain, still wrong but if you're gonna peddle the 'ethnic cleansing' line at least get the facts straight.
Perhaps Belfast realised they needed more police considering even with all those extra police violence there was still multiple incidents and the DUP have essentially endorsed the attacks on the short strand by criticising attacks on the emergency services but not innocent civilians!
I’m not condoning the trouble in Belfast it’s stupid and accomplished nothing. A fight over jam tarts.
How many bonfires have you been to that your making this assumption on? Or are you basing that just on the ones that hit the papers? We have all seen hideous things on republican bonfires as well. No difference. I have been to many bonfires through the years and 99% have been good community events. There are exceptions and nobody want them but a small stupid minority we could all do without. We all know bonfire sizes have got too big and we need a community plan to deal with this but it’s impossible for loyalists to influence the kids when they feel republicans are attacking the bonfires, that makes them want to build them bigger.
Surely you arnt making some attempt to support the ethnic cleansing of Protestants in Londonderry’s cityside? The only people to deny it have been IRA front groups. Even the sdlp recognise it. The Catholic Church have stated it. No one denies it. It would be like denying it happened if border communities. Be real
The ones I've had to see in person (there's 3 close enough to me) have all had the tri colour being burnt, the one in sandy row had a pretty large crowd at it, the parade today in Derry had sectarian singing and stalls selling UDA paraphernalia, I'm not sure exactly how many bonfires there are up here for the 11th but it's defiantly more than 1% that burn flags .The OO as a whole is a sectarian organisation going by it's own rules.
There is a difference though, Republican bonfires don't have anywhere near the same support as Unionist ones seeing as they burn SF posters on them. How are republicans attacking the bonfires? If it's by disagreeing with them that's not just republicans but anyone not wrapped up in supporting a sectarian event. It's not just kids and you know it, unless the kids of East Belfast are to whip up viable bombs at a moments notice?
No I'm not trying to support any form of ethnic cleansing, not actually sure how you got that? There's been a report into why the protestant population in Derry has fallen and while yes some didn't feel safe during the troubles there were other reason such as housing many moved to the waterside of the city even at the praise of the DUP. It was your use of the term republican ethnic cleansing if republicans are all for clearing out the fountain why was that they organised a march against the attacks why is it the republicans spoke out against the attack, even some of the dissidents spoke out against it and they're about as hard line as you can get. Speaking of ethnic cleansing, why haven't the DUP the leaders of unionism spoken against the attacks on the short strand?
Would that be the report from the pat Finucane centre? The centre that employs IRA child killer Paul O’Connor? The same centre named after a man who IRA man turned informer Sean O'Callaghan has stated was an active IRA man? Whose 3 brothers were all confirmed IRA members? An uncle who sat on the IRA army council? And whose son now stands as a Sinn Fein candidate? A report from these impartial guys? Your having a laugh. Next you will be telling me you saw the moon turn blue. I know it’s the 12th and were all off on holiday but let’s be serious!!!!
As far as burning a tricolour goes, it’s a fairly silly thing to get annoyed about really isn’t it. Yes it shod stop but it’s hardly the end of the world. If it’s a respect the by your after there is no respect from republicans when they won’t even say NORTHERN IRELAND. It can’t pass their lips ever. We all need to change some values and we all need to learn to respect better.
Anyway there was more trouble at build a bear today than at the 12th celebrations. My wee girls raging the queues were massive.
The report was funded by the Dublin department of Foreign Affairs and written by two independent academics, still doesn't deal with the fact that the DUP was actively encouraging people to leave for different areas of the city perhaps they took part in this ethnic cleansing too.
It may seem silly to some but it represents a lot, for years it was illegal to even by in possession of the flag si it reminds people of those years where Catholics were second class citizens and openly discriminated against. I'd also say not using Northern Ireland and burning another countries flags are slightly different, one is me not using a a word compared to actively doing something. I agree both sides need to be more respectful and learn more about each other but it's hard to see a way forward when hundreds of thousands gather to celebrate sectarianism.
Yeah saw the news about the Build a Bear looked crazy, member of staff assaulted apparently.
What the hell were parents expecting? Massive bargains on a popular and normally pricey good = massive queues?
I know! My wife and I agreed not to tell our kids because we didn’t want to go near it but their friends told them. We took one look at the queue from a hundred yards away and walked off. Some offers are not worth it. I think a parent hit a member of staff! Apparently they do the same offer if you take them on their birthday month so I don’t know what the rush was about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote: The report was funded by the Dublin department of Foreign Affairs and written by two independent academics, still doesn't deal with the fact that the DUP was actively encouraging people to leave for different areas of the city perhaps they took part in this ethnic cleansing too.
It may seem silly to some but it represents a lot, for years it was illegal to even by in possession of the flag si it reminds people of those years where Catholics were second class citizens and openly discriminated against. I'd also say not using Northern Ireland and burning another countries flags are slightly different, one is me not using a a word compared to actively doing something. I agree both sides need to be more respectful and learn more about each other but it's hard to see a way forward when hundreds of thousands gather to celebrate sectarianism.
Yeah saw the news about the Build a Bear looked crazy, member of staff assaulted apparently.
The report came from the discredited Pat Finucane centre that’s inextricably linked with the republican movement.
If you want to talk about second class citizens take a look at Protestants south of the border. It’s odd isn’t it that supposed second class citizens in NI have flourished educationally, financially and numerically but Protestants in the Republic have vanished. After partition the Irish Distress Committee had by the spring of 1922 to deal with some 20,000 refugees who arrived in London. Some 60,000 Protestants, not connected to the administration, left in the period 1911-1926. Practically the whole of the Protestant working class fled Dublin in the 1920s.
Protestants made up around 10% of the population in the south in 1911 but had dropped to only 3.2% in 2011 – despite a major influx of foreign national Protestants in recent years. I’m sorry but that’s a case of second class citizenship. When republicans claim they were denied a vote in NI they ignore the fact that at the time working class Protestants were also denied a vote. Yes the system wasn’t fair and Roman Catholics didn’t have the lions share but they certainly don’t have a monopoly on discrimination like they love to portray. They were the active discriminaters in the Irish Free State and much of the discrimination they did face in Northern Ireland was shared with the loyalist working class.
The report came from the discredited Pat Finucane centre that’s inextricably linked with the republican movement.
If you want to talk about second class citizens take a look at Protestants south of the border. It’s odd isn’t it that supposed second class citizens in NI have flourished educationally, financially and numerically but Protestants in the Republic have vanished. After partition the Irish Distress Committee had by the spring of 1922 to deal with some 20,000 refugees who arrived in London. Some 60,000 Protestants, not connected to the administration, left in the period 1911-1926. Practically the whole of the Protestant working class fled Dublin in the 1920s.
Protestants made up around 10% of the population in the south in 1911 but had dropped to only 3.2% in 2011 – despite a major influx of foreign national Protestants in recent years. I’m sorry but that’s a case of second class citizenship. When republicans claim they were denied a vote in NI they ignore the fact that at the time working class Protestants were also denied a vote. Yes the system wasn’t fair and Roman Catholics didn’t have the lions share but they certainly don’t have a monopoly on discrimination like they love to portray. They were the active discriminaters in the Irish Free State and much of the discrimination they did face in Northern Ireland was shared with the loyalist working class.
While my beef with Britannia may go back to when it was still a Roman Province, this is some OLD news. Ok, let me see if I'm following your logic: The Protestant population fell due to them leaving, fearing reprisals for, admittedly, 500 years of bs, and, becoming a small minority, Democracy is not kind to them, and that's comparable to an actually active effort to suppress people?
In other news, Trump has apparently blown up the current Brexit plan.
Anyone who invokes the words of O'Callaghan has no business smearing the name of Pat Finucane. If Pat Finucane was a member of the IRA why has NO EVIDENCE been found of this? It's not exactly hard to find. Even the RUC etc have admitted he wasn't a member.
O'Callaghan bolted extra tales onto his story, such as the plot to kill the royals. His handlers said he wasn't a credible source. I've read his tripe of a book and it says Tomás Mac Curtain, shot in the dead of night by British assassins was "murdered." Anyone with that sort of interpretation of history where the British "Murder" and the IRA Murder isn't someone to be trusted.
I have seen pictures of loads of landrovers supported by a heli in the Bogside. I note SF came out to protest the violence: DUP was absent in East Belfast. Only a tiny minority is out there chucking bombs. Even Saoradh, noted anti-peace loons was out opposing the violence.
Meanwhile after a blast bomb was thrown at children in Belfast nothing was done to catch the bomber. He ran into cluan streets sealed by a barricade. They didn't go kicking in doors now did they? Buses were burned by gunmen...the problem is loyalists love the law so long as they write it.
Even more discredited nonsense about "ethnic cleansing." Protestants realised they were in a state where 500 years of BS put them in a bad position. They left of their own volition.
Working class protestants didn't have the vote? Any homeowner had the vote, which is why Gerrymandering was introduced and the unionist housing executives always handed housing to Protestants.
I see the ‘oppressed second class citizens’ have been out bombing and rioting last night again. Large crowds out rioting for the sixth night in a row. I’m sure all these republicans you say are against this trouble will be straight down to the police station to turn in the culprits?
Loyalists must be congratulated for their discipline and restraint when after these sustainined attacks on their isolated communities they have yet to respond.
Good to see the police at last starting to respond to these terrorists. Hopefully the community they come from will turn them in and police will have the balls to fire baton rounds at them. Just saw a video of a republican throwing a petrol bomb at an innocent van driver last night clearly attempted murder thankfully it bounced off the window. Shocking scenes.
Since the US pussy-grabber in chief is in town, here's a poll from the Guardian / ICM about UK opinion of him.
The details may serve to reinforce a few ideas about Leave voters too, (my emphasis):
ICM wrote:It’s revealing to break down these results by EU referendum vote. Doing so shows that leavers are much more positive about Trump than remainers – and moreover, that it appears to be EU referendum vote rather than which party voted for at the previous General Election that is more closely related to views on Trump.
As an example, for both Labour and Conservative voters at 2017, a similarly low proportion agree that Trump is a better leader than May (25% and 27% of those expressing a view respectively). Yet there’s a much bigger gap between leavers and remainers on the same measure (36% vs. 15%), and this gap exists within both parties’ voter bases – with more than double the proportion of both Tory leavers (34%) and Labour leavers (40%) thinking May is better than Trump compared to Tory remainers (13%) and Labour remainers (17%) .
And when directly linking Trump and Brexit, a majority (51%) of leavers expressing a view think Trump would make a success of Brexit as British PM, compared to only 17% of remainers.
He more or less said that her Brexit plan is horsegak, and thinks Bojo could be a great PM.
It's times like these that I have a tiny slither of sympathy for May. This week has been a disaster for her.
Moronic entitled populist thinks other moronic entitled populist could be good leader, shock horror.
The timing is awful for May though. But I honestly don't think she was expecting this current proposal to be approved by anyone, and is just trying to find some way to get another referendum or for people to decide it's less of a farce to stay in.
Surely there is very little support for BJ? Even amoung hardcore Brexit supporters they must see him as a bumbling fool. I don’t get him at all or the attraction to him. Is it just the UK is so devoid of any leadership from any party at the minute even a fool can rise to the top? Who does he appeal to? Trump has carefully crafted an appeal to the white working classes, May has a certain appeal to our older richer folk who maintain British traditional values who arnt so radical in either direction. Who on earth does Boris appeal to? Am I missing a class of clowns?
He more or less said that her Brexit plan is horsegak, and thinks Bojo could be a great PM.
It's times like these that I have a tiny slither of sympathy for May. This week has been a disaster for her.
Moronic entitled populist thinks other moronic entitled populist could be good leader, shock horror.
The timing is awful for May though. But I honestly don't think she was expecting this current proposal to be approved by anyone, and is just trying to find some way to get another referendum or for people to decide it's less of a farce to stay in.
Alas, there's a lot of Brexiteers worship Trump.
Personally, I'm glad May's Brexit plans have been shot down in flames. The EU hates them. Remain hates them. Brexiteers hate them. The US president hates them.
As I keep saying, that takes something 'special' to pull that off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Knockagh wrote: Surely there is very little support for BJ? Even amoung hardcore Brexit supporters they must see him as a bumbling fool. I don’t get him at all or the attraction to him. Is it just the UK is so devoid of any leadership from any party at the minute even a fool can rise to the top? Who does he appeal to? Trump has carefully crafted an appeal to the white working classes, May has a certain appeal to our older richer folk who maintain British traditional values who arnt so radical in either direction. Who on earth does Boris appeal to? Am I missing a class of clowns?
Bojo is a bumbling buffoon and is loathed for god reasons. I doubt anybody would think of him as a serious cntender, that ship sailed 2 years ago.
But I will say this to everybody: to the right people, Bojo is an assest as a stalking horse candidate to unseat May...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: It's because Trump and Brexit both are about identity politics.
Brexit is a lot more nuanced than that. Well, at least to me anyway.
Any attempt at compromise between the various factions was always going to get a negative response from them all. For me that’s why May is hated (not be me i add) she is a compromiser she recognises the mess we are in better than anyone and hopes we can wriggle out of it by a scrappy messy compromise that pleases no one but provides as solution of sorts to everything. I think she believes getting through the current period of exit is more important than the mechanics of how we do it. And to a degree I agree, it would be wonderful to have a plan that we can all move with but that’s not going to happen anytime soon. Corbyn is the best asset the conservatives have, as long as he stays at the wheel of Labour we have a bogey man to keep the conservatives united. If labour had anyone with cross party appeal they would be killing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Any attempt at compromise between the various factions was always going to get a negative response from them all. For me that’s why May is hated (not be me i add) she is a compromiser she recognises the mess we are in better than anyone and hopes we can wriggle out of it by a scrappy messy compromise that pleases no one but provides as solution of sorts to everything. I think she believes getting through the current period of exit is more important than the mechanics of how we do it. And to a degree I agree, it would be wonderful to have a plan that we can all move with but that’s not going to happen anytime soon. Corbyn is the best asset the conservatives have, as long as he stays at the wheel of Labour we have a bogey man to keep the conservatives united. If labour had anyone with cross party appeal they would be killing it.
Knockagh wrote: I see the ‘oppressed second class citizens’ have been out bombing and rioting last night again. Large crowds out rioting for the sixth night in a row. I’m sure all these republicans you say are against this trouble will be straight down to the police station to turn in the culprits?
Loyalists must be congratulated for their discipline and restraint when after these sustainined attacks on their isolated communities they have yet to respond.
Good to see the police at last starting to respond to these terrorists. Hopefully the community they come from will turn them in and police will have the balls to fire baton rounds at them. Just saw a video of a republican throwing a petrol bomb at an innocent van driver last night clearly attempted murder thankfully it bounced off the window. Shocking scenes.
How are they meant to turn them in, they won't even know who the kids are except for the parents who realistically are for turning their kids in, I'd hardly call it large crowds either appears to be about 4-5 doing the majority of it.
The police have been doing something since this all started though, it's just a myth that they weren't and the police have been firing baton rounds at them.
You do know that video weakens your ethnic cleansing argument? Kinda just shows that they're wee sh*ts out to just wreck the place.
Arlene Foster still yet to condemn the attack on the Short Strand
The talent pool in the Tory party is almost dry - it's struggling to get new members and the old ones are, well, old.
Johnson, whilst devoid of any abililty or empathy, has all the right nobby connections that get him places in that society, and his roguish schoolboy charm appeals to people who miss ye olde England. So people look past his many flaws, serial lying and the fact he's absolutely only interested in himself, because he's a "harmless buffoon" in the traditional English gentry way.
In terms of filling the cabinet, May has very few people to choose from, and it's very much a case of taking the least bad candidates rather than ones which are or look good.
Labour seems to be suffering a bit from it as well, it's pool of good politicians seems very poor, but I suspect it's because most of it's talent is a lot younger and unproven. I still don't understand how Dianne Abbot has a cabinet position, beyond that she dated Corbyn about 50 years ago.
Personally, I'm glad May's Brexit plans have been shot down in flames. The EU hates them. Remain hates them. Brexiteers hate them. The US president hates them.
As I keep saying, that takes something 'special' to pull that off.
It's almost inevitable when you're trying to reconcile 2 entirely difference stances, one based on emotion and one based on practicality, that's a proxy leadership contest.
Go with the Brexit people seem to think they want = wreck the economy.
Go with the Brexit people seem to think they want, but don't solve any of their complaints = wreck the economy and be hated.
Ditch Brexit to save the economy = upset the rebels and some of the population.
Add in her red lines and the fact that she's completely outclassed by the EU, who do hold all the cards, and there's really nothing she can't do that'll upset nearly everyone.
She really needs to decide who she's going to piss off, and I think as soon as the Tory rebels bluff gets called, she'll go with the option that saves what's left of the economy.
Brexit is a lot more nuanced than that. Well, at least to me anyway.
I'm not so sure. It's a cross between some misdirected populism, right wing propaganda and Tory party infighting.
Knockagh wrote: Surely there is very little support for BJ? Even amoung hardcore Brexit supporters they must see him as a bumbling fool. I don’t get him at all or the attraction to him. Is it just the UK is so devoid of any leadership from any party at the minute even a fool can rise to the top? Who does he appeal to? Trump has carefully crafted an appeal to the white working classes, May has a certain appeal to our older richer folk who maintain British traditional values who arnt so radical in either direction. Who on earth does Boris appeal to? Am I missing a class of clowns?
Bojo appealed to a lot of people for various reasons such as his tousled hair schoolboy image and his de facto leadership of the Brexiteer wing of the party. My mother (age 81) practically worships him.
Howevr, there's no doubt he has seriously damaged his political stock with his dreadful handling of the post of Foreign Minister, as far as the party goes.
Knockagh wrote: I see the ‘oppressed second class citizens’ have been out bombing and rioting last night again. Large crowds out rioting for the sixth night in a row. I’m sure all these republicans you say are against this trouble will be straight down to the police station to turn in the culprits?
Loyalists must be congratulated for their discipline and restraint when after these sustainined attacks on their isolated communities they have yet to respond.
Good to see the police at last starting to respond to these terrorists. Hopefully the community they come from will turn them in and police will have the balls to fire baton rounds at them. Just saw a video of a republican throwing a petrol bomb at an innocent van driver last night clearly attempted murder thankfully it bounced off the window. Shocking scenes.
How are they meant to turn them in, they won't even know who the kids are except for the parents who realistically are for turning their kids in, I'd hardly call it large crowds either appears to be about 4-5 doing the majority of it.
The police have been doing something since this all started though, it's just a myth that they weren't and the police have been firing baton rounds at them.
You do know that video weakens your ethnic cleansing argument? Kinda just shows that they're wee sh*ts out to just wreck the place.
Arlene Foster still yet to condemn the attack on the Short Strand
Unionists have repeatedly condemned any attacks. Are you going to go through lists to make sure everyone has made a statement? Wise up.
How does the video invalidate anything. What that guy was doing was exactly the same as provo rioters did for decades, no different. He wasn’t a kid by the look of him he was at least 17. The police stated today that: "While we have seen many young people involved in these attacks over the last number of nights, it is clear that this is being orchestrated by a more sinister, adult, violent dissident republican element.” Supt Gordon McCalmont
Everyone in estates knows who’s doing what. Don’t be ridiculous.
Knockagh wrote: I see the ‘oppressed second class citizens’ have been out bombing and rioting last night again. Large crowds out rioting for the sixth night in a row. I’m sure all these republicans you say are against this trouble will be straight down to the police station to turn in the culprits?
Loyalists must be congratulated for their discipline and restraint when after these sustainined attacks on their isolated communities they have yet to respond.
Good to see the police at last starting to respond to these terrorists. Hopefully the community they come from will turn them in and police will have the balls to fire baton rounds at them. Just saw a video of a republican throwing a petrol bomb at an innocent van driver last night clearly attempted murder thankfully it bounced off the window. Shocking scenes.
I noticed you completely passed over the blast bomb chucked at children by loyalists. No actually, no terrorist needs to be congratulated for not getting in the way of the police tackling the issue already. I'm certainly not going to congratulate dissidents for not chucking a blast bomb back at the completely unhindered terrorist in Belfast. No loyalist will be reported for their actions such as burning buses, nor will these youths. It's a mixture of intimidation and the old hatred of the tout. Don't judge one community when the other acts the exact same way.
The fact that the protestants have always flown huge offensive banners and flags on their bonfire may have been one of the reasons these youths have run out of "restraint."
Police have been responding for several nights actually. Perhaps they'd have had an easier time of it if they weren't busy fighting the UVF so they could make bonfires less likely to fall down on peoples houses?
Oh yes escalation has always served well in these matters. Baton rounds like the ones they didn't have on hand when dealing with the UVF. And like I said: you clearly couldn't give a flying feth about the attempted murder of several children by the UVF. The lad who threw that petrol bomb is no Republican: he's a dissident at best, a bored youth rioting out his anger at worst.
Edit: would you like to supply a link to the condemnation by the DUP of the appalling terror attack on young children?
It's not just flags by the way. Did you not see the signs?
FETH YOUR BALLYMURPHY MASSACRE
KILL ALL TAIGS
In Trump's interview with The Sun during his UK visit he also said, "You don't hear the word 'England' as much as you should. I miss the name England.
if only there'd been some event, perhaps an international one, maybe featuring sport or something, quite recently when one might hear such archaic terms bandied around.
The references to Ballymurphy is more to do with the persecution of troops and an appeal for the truth of the days and weeks before the shootings to be told by all parties. The crown forces are all being brought before a judge, the UVF have come forward stating they had volunteers on the ground and they had a sniper firing into Ballymurphy. They have even provided details of the firearm used for ballistic analysis. The IRA have yet to bring forward their own version of events that will tie up with what we know. Many loyalists are frustrated that their act of good faith in coming forward with information along with the persecution of crown force personnel isn’t being reciprocated by republicans. The banner wasn’t right and I’m not defending it but it isn’t what it appears. And any bonfire flag burning or banner pales when you look at vile Barry McIduff an elected politician mocking innocent victims.
Dissidents are republicans don’t be ridiculous. The same argument was used by the provos and the officials all pointing the finger and saying “we are the only republicans” “no we are.” “We are the IRA” “no we are The IRA.” If it wasn’t coming from such a septic crowd of gangsters and thugs it would be worthy of a monty python sketch.
As regards to the Northern Ireland situation, the best solution, IMO,
would be a total confession along the lines of the South African truth and reconciliation agreement.
Full immunity for everybody and everything that happened before the Good Friday agreement: soldiers, IRA, Gerry Adams, Ian Paisley Loyalists, British intelligence, etc etc
on condition that everybody admits to where the bodies are buried and confesses to the details of every sordid operation that both sides are guilty of committing.
Then, and only then, can we draw a line under this whole tragic business...
I wonder which side is advocating that? Ahh yes the evil Republicans as per usual. The ones who travel around the world congratulating groups like ETA and the FARC when they dump arms.
Knockagh wrote: I see the ‘oppressed second class citizens’ have been out bombing and rioting last night again. Large crowds out rioting for the sixth night in a row. I’m sure all these republicans you say are against this trouble will be straight down to the police station to turn in the culprits?
Loyalists must be congratulated for their discipline and restraint when after these sustainined attacks on their isolated communities they have yet to respond.
Good to see the police at last starting to respond to these terrorists. Hopefully the community they come from will turn them in and police will have the balls to fire baton rounds at them. Just saw a video of a republican throwing a petrol bomb at an innocent van driver last night clearly attempted murder thankfully it bounced off the window. Shocking scenes.
How are they meant to turn them in, they won't even know who the kids are except for the parents who realistically are for turning their kids in, I'd hardly call it large crowds either appears to be about 4-5 doing the majority of it.
The police have been doing something since this all started though, it's just a myth that they weren't and the police have been firing baton rounds at them.
You do know that video weakens your ethnic cleansing argument? Kinda just shows that they're wee sh*ts out to just wreck the place.
Arlene Foster still yet to condemn the attack on the Short Strand
Unionists have repeatedly condemned any attacks. Are you going to go through lists to make sure everyone has made a statement? Wise up.
How does the video invalidate anything. What that guy was doing was exactly the same as provo rioters did for decades, no different. He wasn’t a kid by the look of him he was at least 17. The police stated today that: "While we have seen many young people involved in these attacks over the last number of nights, it is clear that this is being orchestrated by a more sinister, adult, violent dissident republican element.” Supt Gordon McCalmont
Everyone in estates knows who’s doing what. Don’t be ridiculous.
The leader of the largest unionist party in the country has purposely left out and condemnation of attacks on nationalist civilians, the DUP has a whole have ignored the rampant sectarianism for years.
Because you have said it was a continued bid to ethnically cleanse the fountain estate which attacking a van in the middle of the Bogside isn't exactly doing that it's just scummy vandalism.
Knockagh wrote:The references to Ballymurphy is more to do with the persecution of troops and an appeal for the truth of the days and weeks before the shootings to be told by all parties. The crown forces are all being brought before a judge, the UVF have come forward stating they had volunteers on the ground and they had a sniper firing into Ballymurphy. They have even provided details of the firearm used for ballistic analysis. The IRA have yet to bring forward their own version of events that will tie up with what we know. Many loyalists are frustrated that their act of good faith in coming forward with information along with the persecution of crown force personnel isn’t being reciprocated by republicans. The banner wasn’t right and I’m not defending it but it isn’t what it appears. And any bonfire flag burning or banner pales when you look at vile Barry McIduff an elected politician mocking innocent victims.
Dissidents are republicans don’t be ridiculous. The same argument was used by the provos and the officials all pointing the finger and saying “we are the only republicans” “no we are.” “We are the IRA” “no we are The IRA.” If it wasn’t coming from such a septic crowd of gangsters and thugs it would be worthy of a monty python sketch.
The UVF are claiming responsibility for some of the deaths not them all, also very handy that the 2 guys who did just happen to be dead what a coincidence. The firearms they're claiming to have used don't match the bullets found at the scene , but were apparerntly adapted to fire them and have now been destroyed, even sources within the UVF have said they don't believe these claims. If the UVF had had marksmen capable of doing these sorts of acts why didn't replicate them again or boast of them at the time seeing as that was their entire objective. It's exactly as it appears 11 innocent people were shot in the streets and those at that bonfire don't think there should be an inquest, I wonder why?
There is no persecution of troops, it's been disproved completely!
What McElduff did was wrong completely and he's no longer a an elected representative, clearly showing that that isn't tolerated within SF, what about when Emma Penegelly stuck up for UVF flags in a mixed area and then families were intimidated out was she disciplined?
Da Krimsun Baron and Knockhagh demonstrate another issue - and apologies for singling them out, as it’s not a criticism of them personally.
Look at their posts. Recriminations on both sides show the wide divide that remains.
Now I’ve not a clue who has the right of anything there, and I wouldn’t dare comment as my knowledge of The Troubles is limited to the time my brother took a poop in a toilet that blew up a couple of hours later.
It’s a hideous situation, and one I can only hope eventually comes to an end. But you can see the strength of feeling in those poster’s comments. Yet it seems there’s buttholes on both sides (not our fellow posters for absolute clarity) with a vested interest in keeping that pot boiling.
@ mad doc Hahah, yes indeed we are a right bunch of buttholes if the truth be told. Mainlanders should pay heed, history has a way of getting complicated.
Protestants came over here as immigrants 800 years ago and we have been hated and told to go home for every one of them. There’s a lesson there somewhere.
I’m off out!
Knockagh wrote: @ mad doc Hahah, yes indeed we are a right bunch of buttholes if the truth be told. Mainlanders should pay heed, history has a way of getting complicated.
Protestants came over here as immigrants 800 years ago and we have been hated and told to go home for every one of them. There’s a lesson there somewhere.
I’m off out!
Knockagh wrote: @ mad doc Hahah, yes indeed we are a right bunch of buttholes if the truth be told. Mainlanders should pay heed, history has a way of getting complicated.
Protestants came over here as immigrants 800 years ago and we have been hated and told to go home for every one of them. There’s a lesson there somewhere.
I’m off out!
And of course nothing was ever done to the native people of the land, in fact they should be grateful they were invaded.
The irony is that for a peoples born of immigration they're the most anti-immigration group in the country.
So knockage. Show me WHERE IN THE NAME OF GOD UNIONISM HAS CONDEMNED THE BLAST BOMB.
Don't feth around. We both know exactly what feth your ballymurphy massacre means.
Why are WE the side labelled terrorists always stuck condemning our own lot, and yours never have a word to say? We gave Barry the boot.
Come to think of it, perhaps I am missing something but why haven't YOU condemned the blast bomb? Maybe I've missed it, but I have a feeling I haven't.
Republicanism is based on the theory that the people of Ireland are a single entity and as a majority want unity. However they have as a majority endorsed an end to violence as part of the GFA. Therefore CIRA and NIRA cannot be Republicans.
Also there is no mainland except the rest of Europe.
Would you like to explain how burning the car of a saoradh member is ethnic cleansing? Wouldn't be sad to see them lot cleansed out to be fair, although I don't think that's the point those scum were making.
Knockagh wrote: @ mad doc Hahah, yes indeed we are a right bunch of buttholes if the truth be told. Mainlanders should pay heed, history has a way of getting complicated.
Protestants came over here as immigrants 800 years ago and we have been hated and told to go home for every one of them. There’s a lesson there somewhere.
I’m off out!
Before the reformation? Good effort!
Haha bit of a slip up there! It’s s slip up that shows how we interchange Language here,quite incorrectly and inappropriately to label ourselves and others. Perhaps more appropriately we are a people who have remained loyal to the crown; a people of French, English and Scottish extraction who came to Ireland, across many centuries, for a variety of reasons but who are united by a deep love of the crown and our beloved union. And still we cry No Surrender!
Knockagh wrote: @ mad doc Hahah, yes indeed we are a right bunch of buttholes if the truth be told. Mainlanders should pay heed, history has a way of getting complicated.
Protestants came over here as immigrants 800 years ago and we have been hated and told to go home for every one of them. There’s a lesson there somewhere.
I’m off out!
Before the reformation? Good effort!
Haha bit of a slip up there! It’s s slip up that shows how we interchange Language here,quite incorrectly and inappropriately to label ourselves and others. Perhaps more appropriately we are a people who have remained loyal to the crown; a people of French, English and Scottish extraction who came to Ireland, across many centuries, for a variety of reasons but who are united by a deep love of the crown and our beloved union. And still we cry No Surrender!
I wish you could take the remaining knuckle-dragging bigots that shout no surrender here.
It is a pretty frustrating thing to see loyalist terrorism glossed over. The UK has always had a bigger megaphone to shout about IRA terrorism, and so most people outside of the conflict have heard of that. Few enough have heard of Loyalist terrorism (or British State Terrorism) because the UK always falls silent on the issue or in some cases covers it up. It is tiresome to correct this sort of thing and it skews the truth of the matter.
But maybe we cannot discuss it here without getting the thread locked. That is sad.
It does point to the fact that tensions are simmering away in the North, and any move on the current settlement, be it for a hard border, a sea border, or even reunification, has the potential to stir violence among the tiny minority. Blase statements and brush offs are not good enough when dealing with this prospect.
Knockagh wrote: @ mad doc Hahah, yes indeed we are a right bunch of buttholes if the truth be told. Mainlanders should pay heed, history has a way of getting complicated.
Protestants came over here as immigrants 800 years ago and we have been hated and told to go home for every one of them. There’s a lesson there somewhere.
I’m off out!
Before the reformation? Good effort!
Haha bit of a slip up there! It’s s slip up that shows how we interchange Language here,quite incorrectly and inappropriately to label ourselves and others. Perhaps more appropriately we are a people who have remained loyal to the crown; a people of French, English and Scottish extraction who came to Ireland, across many centuries, for a variety of reasons but who are united by a deep love of the crown and our beloved union. And still we cry No Surrender!
You love the crown so much you were throwing stones at it's agents a few nights ago.
First British soldier killed in the troubles: a catholic on leave
killed by the RUC.
First RUC man, killed by the UVF.
Armed selves in 1913 to reject the rule of Parliament.
At drumcree shots were fired at police.
157 police injured in flag riots.
Pipe bomb thrown at the police on Wednesday.
I'm glad you lot aren't loyal to the republic!
Immigrants? Ah yes immigration usually involves forcing the previous inhabitants out of their ancestral home, banning their religious practices and language and starving them to death.
I won't condemn anyone for how their ancestors got here: that's the past- But I will condemn any whitewashing of how they got here. You found the link to Arlene's condemnation of terror?
Da Boss: Well to be fair the Dublin Government has never been very vocal on the issue. They essentially covered up Dublin-Monaghan until the hidden hand documentary in the 90's and now they're doing sweet FA to get the files. To be fair to them what's the point in trying?
Frankly we have reached the point where all north of Ireland arguments reach: a revolving circle. I'm happy to shut up about it once Knockage condemns the blast bomb the same way I condemn the youths in Derry and either supplies a link backing up his claim that unionism has condemned such action by loyalists, or failing that, admits that no such link exists.
Da Boss wrote: It is a pretty frustrating thing to see loyalist terrorism glossed over. The UK has always had a bigger megaphone to shout about IRA terrorism, and so most people outside of the conflict have heard of that. Few enough have heard of Loyalist terrorism (or British State Terrorism) because the UK always falls silent on the issue or in some cases covers it up. It is tiresome to correct this sort of thing and it skews the truth of the matter.
But maybe we cannot discuss it here without getting the thread locked. That is sad.
It does point to the fact that tensions are simmering away in the North, and any move on the current settlement, be it for a hard border, a sea border, or even reunification, has the potential to stir violence among the tiny minority. Blase statements and brush offs are not good enough when dealing with this prospect.
I think part of the problem is that the majority of people in mainland Britain don't give two hoots for Northern Ireland anymore, and I don't mean that in a bad way, it's just indifference.. This is not 1914, Edward Carson and all that.
You and I have had our disagreements on the EU, but I would have Irish re-unification tomorrow if it were up to me. No offence to Unionist dakka members.
The Brexit vote also highlighted an uncomfortable truth for Unionists in Northern Ireland: the Home Counties of England would quite happily jettison them for Brexit...
As for your point about Loyalist terrorism, I have Peter Taylor's excellent trilogy on the troubles. Loyalists is book two. Book 1 being Provos, book 3 being the Brits. I would recommend the trilogy to anybody.
I would also say to Irish dakka members that we're not all ignorant about Irish history. I did the Irish civil war at University.
Just because I don't talk about Irish history doesn't mean to say we are ignorant of it...
Knockagh wrote: @ mad doc Hahah, yes indeed we are a right bunch of buttholes if the truth be told. Mainlanders should pay heed, history has a way of getting complicated.
Protestants came over here as immigrants 800 years ago and we have been hated and told to go home for every one of them. There’s a lesson there somewhere.
I’m off out!
Before the reformation? Good effort!
Haha bit of a slip up there! It’s s slip up that shows how we interchange Language here,quite incorrectly and inappropriately to label ourselves and others. Perhaps more appropriately we are a people who have remained loyal to the crown; a people of French, English and Scottish extraction who came to Ireland, across many centuries, for a variety of reasons but who are united by a deep love of the crown and our beloved union. And still we cry No Surrender!
I wish you could take the remaining knuckle-dragging bigots that shout no surrender here.
It’s a slogan that has quite different connotations over here. It’s a historical phrase from the seige of Derry. A badge of our collective resistance down the centuries. It was (legend has it) written on a cannon ball and fired out from the besieged city in 1688 after the people had almost been betrayed by one of their own the governor of the city Robert Lundy. The term Lundy has also entered national consciousness and calling someone a Lundy is another name for a betrayer. So when I hear the English shout it I’m confused I’m not sure where it came into usage there, it has quite different meaning than it does here.
Like I said a Lundy is an Irish thing. I meant the English using the term No Surrender, it’s unconnected to the Irish Unionist meaning someone implied they were linked.
Also (for those who have been asking) I just noticed on page 4 of todays Belfast Newsletter Arlene Foster has condemned the violence both loyalist and republican. Sorry don’t have a link, but if your really interested pop down to your local shop and buy a copy. Today’s has a 32 page pullout on the 12th celebrations which you might find interesting. I see the tourism minister from the Republic was up at the parade in Belfast, decked out in an orange tie! Good man.
Halfway there(allegedly) now, can we see the knockage condemnation? I can find an article by belTel of Arlene condemning Derry easily of course.
Have to applaud whoever got 32 pages(my favourite number!) Of people standing around a fire singing they hate catholics and later drunkenly stumbling down roads, some of which they are wanted in.
All so we can remember how King Billy and the Pope defeated poor Seamus an Cac.
Like I said a Lundy is an Irish thing. I meant the English using the term No Surrender, it’s unconnected to the Irish Unionist meaning someone implied they were linked.
I was talking about Scots using it. Usually, at this time of year, accompanied by loads of pals from NI on their warm up marches, but I'm sure it's all innocent nostalgia.
Da krimson barun wrote: Halfway there(allegedly) now, can we see the knockage condemnation? I can find an article by belTel of Arlene condemning Derry easily of course.
Have to applaud whoever got 32 pages(my favourite number!) Of people standing around a fire singing they hate catholics and later drunkenly stumbling down roads, some of which they are wanted in.
All so we can remember how King Billy and the Pope defeated poor Seamus an Cac.
please do not attach non wargaming images to dakka.
Reds8n
Arlene the stateswoman! Colour me surprised. Now then Knockagh we've distracted the rest of the people of these isles for long enough. Anyone got any Brexit tidbits?
Let's get back on-topic and stop the side-bar discussions of other countries / etc, please.
Thanks all...
Hi I gave it a try. I tried to engage them in an honest debate and all I got was hostility.
The Irish border has been a hot topic on this thread. Surely you don’t want an uniformed debate? Everyone seems to have a fairly hard and fast opinion on it. If this thread is only little England politics and not UK politics it would be better renamed as such.
@ my old enemy the baron! I’m a very very soft brexit supposrter. Never was a fan of the EU, something I had in common with the majority in the Irish Republic, even Sinn Fein! But they all seem to have had a Damascus moment since the brexit vote and are all loved up now. It seems like no time since SF were running elections on coming out of the EU.
Honestly I’m such a soft Brexit supporter I don’t care if we don’t come out it’s just a preference I value our UK union over Europe so that would be my priority.
One of the main things that have really bugged me since the vote has been the attitude of the EU. I’ve never heard of an organisation that you join that make it virtually impossible for you to leave. That smacks of bullying and it’s repugnant. There has been an almost perfect storm for Brexit globally and it’s definitely a fine old mess, one I can’t see a work around for in the short term. Which is why I would give May my backing. Not because I like her policies but purely because she is our best option at the minute. One thing about being an Irish unionist though it gives you a healthy long term perspective on political history. Everything sorts itself out in time but it’s going to be an unholy scrap over the next few years. I don’t think many in the current generation have a corporate national identity, particularly in GB. The idea of sacrificing for future generations doesn’t exist. People want it all and they want it now so it will be difficult to cobble together a compromise between the factions. But I think it will work out in the long term.
Brexit is the all-consuming issue of current UK politics, and it is a strongly English related topic because it is bound up with a particular variety of English identity.
As an Englishman I deny and repudiate the focus on English identity, and promote the UK combination identity, which is capable of combining Welsh, Scottish, Irish, English, Caribbean-British, Pakistani-British, and even Yorkshire, all into one great nation.
Brexit is the all-consuming issue of current UK politics, and it is a strongly English related topic because it is bound up with a particular variety of English identity.
As an Englishman I deny and repudiate the focus on English identity, and promote the UK combination identity, which is capable of combining Welsh, Scottish, Irish, English, Caribbean-British, Pakistani-British, and even Yorkshire, all into one great nation.
monarda wrote: Since the US pussy-grabber in chief is in town, here's a poll from the Guardian / ICM about UK opinion of him.
The details may serve to reinforce a few ideas about Leave voters too, (my emphasis):
ICM wrote:It’s revealing to break down these results by EU referendum vote. Doing so shows that leavers are much more positive about Trump than remainers – and moreover, that it appears to be EU referendum vote rather than which party voted for at the previous General Election that is more closely related to views on Trump.
As an example, for both Labour and Conservative voters at 2017, a similarly low proportion agree that Trump is a better leader than May (25% and 27% of those expressing a view respectively). Yet there’s a much bigger gap between leavers and remainers on the same measure (36% vs. 15%), and this gap exists within both parties’ voter bases – with more than double the proportion of both Tory leavers (34%) and Labour leavers (40%) thinking May is better than Trump compared to Tory remainers (13%) and Labour remainers (17%) .
And when directly linking Trump and Brexit, a majority (51%) of leavers expressing a view think Trump would make a success of Brexit as British PM, compared to only 17% of remainers.
I realize as an american i probably don't really know much about UK politics and haven't followed but isn't the Guardian like a very left wing news outlet? Would it be a shock the people being polled on the site agree with their left-leaning ideas?
The guardian certainly doesn’t hide it’s left wing credentials, I would doubt many centrists or conservatives would support their ethos. Having said that they probably get a wide online readership, being the only uk broadsheet (sadly) that offers free online content. The proletariats (or more likely rich civil servants) make contributions to their left wing crusade to keep it free which I have to confess is fairy admirable. So I think their online readership wouldn’t be restricted to lefty’s.
I do think behind the radical left wing front the guardian is more focused on keeping civil servants in a comfortable lifestyle. Supporting at all costs big salaries, extravagant pensions and superb working conditions under the guise of ‘the working people’ or ‘the humble public servant’ than they are about real equality. These rich privileged lefty’s are their readership and financiers. They use the language of equality to support institutionalised inequality. They couldn’t give a monkeys really about the cleaner from Poland cleaning toilets on £7/hr but they will blow up over a GP getting a cut to his 100k job. But that’s British socialism for you it’s never got its head round class equality.
This is a proper poll of the population of the UK paid for by the Guardian, rather than an online poll of the Guardian's readership, which would hardly be worth reporting.
The Guardian is a bit toss sometimes, but it isn't so bad that it would consider a poll of it's readership representative.
Brexit is the all-consuming issue of current UK politics, and it is a strongly English related topic because it is bound up with a particular variety of English identity.
As an Englishman I deny and repudiate the focus on English identity, and promote the UK combination identity, which is capable of combining Welsh, Scottish, Irish, English, Caribbean-British, Pakistani-British, and even Yorkshire, all into one great nation.
Sounds to me like steamrolling everyone but English is the plan. As evidenced by the St.Georges cross freshly repainted on Parliament. This isn't an anti-English statement: I believe the same about France and Brittany,Euskadi and Castille. A minority culture can't thrive when hooked up to another without a severe desire to fight back and a good ability to demand funding. What's the plan: enroll the Scots in Male voice choirs? Make the Cornish drink Irn Bru? Introduce the 12th to Yorkshire and tea to...well whatever community in the UK that doesn't like tea? Does that exist? Anyway like I said: The only way to create a shared identity is to stifle the minority.
Knockagh wrote: The guardian certainly doesn’t hide it’s left wing credentials, I would doubt many centrists or conservatives would support their ethos. Having said that they probably get a wide online readership, being the only uk broadsheet (sadly) that offers free online content. The proletariats (or more likely rich civil servants) make contributions to their left wing crusade to keep it free which I have to confess is fairy admirable. So I think their online readership wouldn’t be restricted to lefty’s.
I do think behind the radical left wing front the guardian is more focused on keeping civil servants in a comfortable lifestyle. Supporting at all costs big salaries, extravagant pensions and superb working conditions under the guise of ‘the working people’ or ‘the humble public servant’ than they are about real equality. These rich privileged lefty’s are their readership and financiers. They use the language of equality to support institutionalised inequality. They couldn’t give a monkeys really about the cleaner from Poland cleaning toilets on £7/hr but they will blow up over a GP getting a cut to his 100k job. But that’s British socialism for you it’s never got its head round class equality.
Here in the states anti-civil servant rhetoric is usually just a divide and conquer attack on workers as a whole - because tearing down career middle class people isn't going to make that 7 pound an hour cleaner any better off, it's just a race to the bottom.
The phrase bandied about by the right here is "stay competitive" as in other countries have sweat shops and child labor so we need to "stay competitive" by having those things too.
Brexit is the all-consuming issue of current UK politics, and it is a strongly English related topic because it is bound up with a particular variety of English identity.
As an Englishman I deny and repudiate the focus on English identity, and promote the UK combination identity, which is capable of combining Welsh, Scottish, Irish, English, Caribbean-British, Pakistani-British, and even Yorkshire, all into one great nation.
Sounds to me like steamrolling everyone but English is the plan. As evidenced by the St.Georges cross freshly repainted on Parliament. This isn't an anti-English statement: I believe the same about France and Brittany,Euskadi and Castille. A minority culture can't thrive when hooked up to another without a severe desire to fight back and a good ability to demand funding. What's the plan: enroll the Scots in Male voice choirs? Make the Cornish drink Irn Bru? Introduce the 12th to Yorkshire and tea to...well whatever community in the UK that doesn't like tea? Does that exist? Anyway like I said: The only way to create a shared identity is to stifle the minority.
So obviously you support the Republic of Ireland leaving the EU as a matter of national emergency!!
Personally I don’t agree with you (suprise or what!). I despise nationalism. Unions of nations can be a wonderful force for good. Giving up part of your identity to bind yourself to something bigger is, I believe a good thing. Thats why both our United Kingdom and the idea of a European Union are good things. They remove the selfishness of nationalism. The EU needed reform and I think the UK needs to withdraw to trigger that change. But I really hope we arnt disappearing into little nationalist bubbles. In the UK we have loads of communities that peacefully and happily have become part of the British identity. From our Chinese communities, to Sikhs, many African nationalities, strong Jewish communities not to mention our friends from the Irish Republic who seem amoung the keenest in the world to live in the UK (what’s going on there??). All communities living within a union to be proud of. Yes they might loose something of their own identity but they gain infinitely more by being a unionist.
monarda wrote: Since the US pussy-grabber in chief is in town, here's a poll from the Guardian / ICM about UK opinion of him.
The details may serve to reinforce a few ideas about Leave voters too, (my emphasis):
ICM wrote:It’s revealing to break down these results by EU referendum vote. Doing so shows that leavers are much more positive about Trump than remainers – and moreover, that it appears to be EU referendum vote rather than which party voted for at the previous General Election that is more closely related to views on Trump.
As an example, for both Labour and Conservative voters at 2017, a similarly low proportion agree that Trump is a better leader than May (25% and 27% of those expressing a view respectively). Yet there’s a much bigger gap between leavers and remainers on the same measure (36% vs. 15%), and this gap exists within both parties’ voter bases – with more than double the proportion of both Tory leavers (34%) and Labour leavers (40%) thinking May is better than Trump compared to Tory remainers (13%) and Labour remainers (17%) .
And when directly linking Trump and Brexit, a majority (51%) of leavers expressing a view think Trump would make a success of Brexit as British PM, compared to only 17% of remainers.
I realize as an american i probably don't really know much about UK politics and haven't followed but isn't the Guardian like a very left wing news outlet? Would it be a shock the people being polled on the site agree with their left-leaning ideas?
It's centre left in UK terms. Screechingly hard-left in US terms. Centrist in European terms and probably centre right in global terms. However, as said above, the poll is paid for and reported by them, not just of their paying readership. Few UK media outlets do that, fortunately.
Brexit is the all-consuming issue of current UK politics, and it is a strongly English related topic because it is bound up with a particular variety of English identity.
As an Englishman I deny and repudiate the focus on English identity, and promote the UK combination identity, which is capable of combining Welsh, Scottish, Irish, English, Caribbean-British, Pakistani-British, and even Yorkshire, all into one great nation.
Sounds to me like steamrolling everyone but English is the plan. As evidenced by the St.Georges cross freshly repainted on Parliament. This isn't an anti-English statement: I believe the same about France and Brittany,Euskadi and Castille. A minority culture can't thrive when hooked up to another without a severe desire to fight back and a good ability to demand funding. What's the plan: enroll the Scots in Male voice choirs? Make the Cornish drink Irn Bru? Introduce the 12th to Yorkshire and tea to...well whatever community in the UK that doesn't like tea? Does that exist? Anyway like I said: The only way to create a shared identity is to stifle the minority.
So obviously you support the Republic of Ireland leaving the EU as a matter of national emergency!!
Personally I don’t agree with you (suprise or what!). I despise nationalism. Unions of nations can be a wonderful force for good. Giving up part of your identity to bind yourself to something bigger is, I believe a good thing. Thats why both our United Kingdom and the idea of a European Union are good things. They remove the selfishness of nationalism. The EU needed reform and I think the UK needs to withdraw to trigger that change. But I really hope we arnt disappearing into little nationalist bubbles. In the UK we have loads of communities that peacefully and happily have become part of the British identity. From our Chinese communities, to Sikhs, many African nationalities, strong Jewish communities not to mention our friends from the Irish Republic who seem amoung the keenest in the world to live in the UK (what’s going on there??). All communities living within a union to be proud of. Yes they might loose something of their own identity but they gain infinitely more by being a unionist.
The EU has always funded minority languages. It's a stanch defender of Cornishness as a National Identity not regional for example. The EU has no culture or body four times the size of every other part combined. West Wales and Cornwall are the poorest regions in western Europe. London is the richest. It's not selfish to want to speak your own language in your own country. Also note that Wales didn't bind itself: it was bound with steel. Britishness is a synonym for Englishness. The "British accent" is English. The British image overseas is English. The British queen is English, The British Parliament is in England, Capital England, government English. Immigration from Ireland can be blamed on the lopsided economy partition forced on us.
For each of those points of English you can also make the point that it doesn't represent 80% of England either. Also the Hannovers.... I mean Windsors, aren't English either.
In the same vein, the Northern Irish accent is the Belfast accent etc etc.
Also identity survives unionisation. Each British country still maintains it's individuality, as do the counties all the way down to the very bottom. I still don't trust people from the high school across the street and I no longer live in that part of the country
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: For each of those points of English you can also make the point that it doesn't represent 80% of England either. Also the Hannovers.... I mean Windsors, aren't English either.
In the same vein, the Northern Irish accent is the Belfast accent etc etc.
England is a single body: a Nordie and a Devonian both are indisputably English. So long as it's somewhere in England what can they complain about? Lack of investment in the north, but frankly that's their own fault for refusing the Parliament they were offered. The sax-Coburg-Gothas at least consider themselves English-Charles may be the Prince of Wales but he sure as gak isn't Welsh!
If I stand in London and call an Arab a goat-fether I can be charged with hate speech and rightly show. Do the same to a Welshman about sheep and it's suddenly alright.
I have a lot of Welsh friends, all Nat's. They weren't raised Nat's, they aren't even surrounded by Nat's. Yet these young people have become nationalists over the past few years. One is a former BA cadet who's da was shot at by the IRA! Clearly something is deeply broken. There was nothing noble about the tidal pool being cancelled for the Heathrow runway. Nothing noble about water from the poorest region in Western Europe being given to a neighbouring country free of charge. Nothing is noble about retirees from England setting up shop on Welsh communities that have been there millennia.
That’s completely contradictory. Germany has nearly 1/4 of the entire EU GDP. By your logic no small nation could co exist within a union with a larger country.
In truth it looks very much like, “I hate the English and don’t want to be in a union with them as the largest partner because I don’t trust them or like them.” Plain and simple bigotry against the English, it’s the sole defining tennant of Irish nationalism.
Knockagh wrote: That’s completely contradictory. Germany has nearly 1/4 of the entire EU GDP. By your logic no small nation could co exist within a union with a larger country.
In truth it looks very much like, “I hate the English and don’t want to be in a union with them as the largest partner because I don’t trust them or like them.” Plain and simple bigotry against the English, it’s the sole defining tennant of Irish nationalism.
Germany has money yeah. Not votes. By that logic,I hate the welsh since they control the water.
I don't trust any large group with a goverment that forcibly tries to assimilate a smaller group. I have no problem with a Frenchman, yet I am absolutely against the language policy pursued in Corsica, the northern basque country, Breizh, occitan etc. Same with Spain. Same with Italy. Same with England. Same with Russia, Germany...a people is a people is a people. No people has the right to dominate another people through economic and military force. I think England(in the long term I suspect it shall be England) leaving the EU is wrong. However I strongly disagree with any attempt to punish them, so long as they pay their commitments and find a border solution.
Gentlemen please:
I'd like to point out to you, that if you would step back for a minute and actually regard your own argumentations and that of your "opponent" and you would realise that you both argue on the same premises and constructed views and in the same way. Literally summarizable with "NO U".
Like in a Kindergarten.
Hey Knockage let's both point at eachother and shout "he started it" at the exact same time. If he's gonna say we're in kindergarten because we have different historical and political views let's damn well act like it.
One of the main things that have really bugged me since the vote has been the attitude of the EU. I’ve never heard of an organisation that you join that make it virtually impossible for you to leave.
It couldn't be easier to leave the EU; article 50 is clear on it. File notice, then have 2 years where the EU must take part in good faith negotiations for a future deal, leave.
What is a lot harder and seems to be surprising a lot of leavers, is leaving the EU whilst still wanting all of the perks; access to the markets, sharing resources & agencies, barrier free trade.
If we just wanted to go WTO we'd already be out. But we still don't actually know what we want to do yet.
I think the devastating famine that dropped the population of Ireland by a couple of million (a catastrophe it has never recovered from) under British (mis)governance might have had something to do with it. Oh and the suppression of the Irish language, the clearances of the land, the confiscation of land from Catholics, the outlawing of their religion, all that stuff you know? Not "nationalism, pure and simple" but a complicated and long story of oppression, ill government and contempt.
If Ireland had been treated as an equal in the United Kingdom, if it had not been relegated to second class status, if there had not been so much discrimination against people of Roman Catholic Gaelic extraction, perhaps there would still be a complete union between the two countries.
The EU is nothing like that. It has never outlawed my language, sent death squads to shoot people at a sports game in retaliation, or confiscated the land of my countrymen. Neither has it overseen a catastrophic famine that dropped the population by 75% long term. Instead, in our time in the EU, we have experienced unprecedented economic growth (with some self inflicted hiccups), social progress undreamt of, and independence, security and self respect on a level we never had before and could never have outside the EU on our own or back in a Union with our neighbours, some of whom still sadly hold us in contempt.
Edit: and you know, I reckon that applies to the British Empire more widely. If it had been well run in a way that respected and benefited the local populations, rather than a system for resource extraction, I reckon it would still be around.
Da krimson barun wrote: Hey Knockage let's both point at eachother and shout "he started it" at the exact same time. If he's gonna say we're in kindergarten because we have different historical and political views let's damn well act like it.
I doubt many people across the world understand what it is to live in centuries old contested territory that erupted into periodic violence. The Israelis and Palestinians and others but virtually none in Western Europe or the states. Truthfully it’s not particularly nice, each side wants victory and real victory is unachievable.
I was privileged to grow up and meet and befriend the late great David Ervine a true giant of our little country and one of the finest politicians the UK has ever seen. My favourite quote of the man who his friends in jail called the man who swallowed a dictionary is
“We all suffer. Only by recognising that each one of us has a responsibility to do something about it will we make a change." David knew we all had to confront ourselves and our own ideas before progress could be made. Unfortunately in a crisis we just don’t get the space for self examination. In NI we have no government and while that lasts we can’t look past our tribe. I fear the UK as a whole is in a similar position over Brexit without really thinking about it. The country is horribly divided into firm camps. The current crisis over brexit allows for no compromise no realpolitik. And without compromise we will get nowhere but deeper into trouble.
I was in England on the weekend for a wedding. And though I complain sometimes about England, being there (in Sheffield) really reminded me of all the things I really love about the place. It is a shame to see it so poorly served by it's political and media classes, because the people I met while there were lovely. We got the train down to London then and saw a West End show. London is a true metropolis, and the most impressive capital in Europe to visit in my opinion, much nicer than Paris or Berlin, and even better than Vienna (though Vienna is nice).
I enjoyed my trip, but it made me feel sad to think of the tough times that will no doubt be coming down the track for the people of England due to the unbelievable incompetence of the Tory party and the lacklustre opposition of the Labour party. It is a total failure across the board.
As an Englishman I deny and repudiate the focus on English identity, and promote the UK combination identity, which is capable of combining Welsh, Scottish, Irish, English, Caribbean-British, Pakistani-British, and even Yorkshire, all into one great nation.
There is no 'uk identity'. Britain is synonymous with greater England. Don't get me wrong. I have no bone to pick with the English all. I've spent plent time down south and without exception, the people are wonderful, and friendly. Some,of my best friends are English too. I would go so far as to say I have yet to meet one who I would consider a gakhole. Now, to be fair, 'england' is a different story but that extends no further than banter about 'wrecking the chariot', and is consigned to a very important 80 minutes of the six nations rugby, or supporting Croatia (or Sweden, or panama or Belgium in the World Cup ) and beyond that, there is very little angst .
That said Kilkrazy,
My wife is Scottish. Fierce. Proud. Feisty. True celt. Not 'British'. And she never will be. 'Britain' is alien to her.
I'm Irish. (Well, half Irish, of probable Viking ancestry, and half Dutch). And therefore probably the only Irish catholic who can who can happily wear orange (but not on the 12th) with pride. (Hurray for queens day! And my lawful king Willlem-Alexander). And no, I'll never be British either.
'Britain' is all fine and well, but the last two or three years have turned me to the side of Scottish independence. We will never be 'one great nation' when the collective and individual Wills and desires desires of Northern Ireland, wales and Scotland can be drowned out and ignored by the English, every time. The resentment this causes here in Scotland is palpable. We are not equal partners in this. And until we are, you can keep your fancy words, because thry don't mean much to us.
Da krimson barun wrote: Hey Knockage let's both point at eachother and shout "he started it" at the exact same time. If he's gonna say we're in kindergarten because we have different historical and political views let's damn well act like it.
I doubt many people across the world understand what it is to live in centuries old contested territory that erupted into periodic violence. The Israelis and Palestinians and others but virtually none in Western Europe or the states. Truthfully it’s not particularly nice, each side wants victory and real victory is unachievable.
I was privileged to grow up and meet and befriend the late great David Ervine a true giant of our little country and one of the finest politicians the UK has ever seen. My favourite quote of the man who his friends in jail called the man who swallowed a dictionary is
“We all suffer. Only by recognising that each one of us has a responsibility to do something about it will we make a change." David knew we all had to confront ourselves and our own ideas before progress could be made. Unfortunately in a crisis we just don’t get the space for self examination. In NI we have no government and while that lasts we can’t look past our tribe. I fear the UK as a whole is in a similar position over Brexit without really thinking about it. The country is horribly divided into firm camps. The current crisis over brexit allows for no compromise no realpolitik. And without compromise we will get nowhere but deeper into trouble.
Tell me then what spain was up too, or france, or if you want religious, economical and language divide used for legitimation of violence in switzerland?
The real difference stems from the fact how these regions dealt with that.
Spain threw a rug over it. france worked it out eventually. Switzerland until 1939 had not worked out minority repression, representation, etc.
Knockagh wrote: That’s completely contradictory. Germany has nearly 1/4 of the entire EU GDP. By your logic no small nation could co exist within a union with a larger country.
In truth it looks very much like, “I hate the English and don’t want to be in a union with them as the largest partner because I don’t trust them or like them.” Plain and simple bigotry against the English, it’s the sole defining tennant of Irish nationalism.
Oh bog off, that's what your sort say about any nationalism, of any form, in any country. It's what was said about all the nationalisms that drove decolonialisation. No self-examination or self-reflection, no acknowledgement Ol' Blighty could bear any responsibility, just ungrateful natives and bigots and idiots, because there's no other possible way anyone could disagree with unionism
Germany's comparative economic strength makes their influence over the EU disproportionate, but it is not absolute in the way that England's is over the UK. In the EU smaller nations can exert collective opposition with a meaningful impact, they can form blocs that actually out-vote the "big power" countries, they can play the bigger countries off against each other because while Germany's GDP's advantage is substantial other countries have other strengths that let them throw their weight around on other large issues.
By contrast, every single eligible voter in every single constituency in Scotland, Wales, and NI could come together and vote for the We Don't Want Policy X party, and those votes would mean nothing if a sufficient majority of English seats went to the Policy X Is Brilliant party. Every single eligible voter in Scotland, Wales, and NI could vote for Choice A on a referendum ballot, but if 65% of English voters go for Choice B, we all get Choice B. All three devolved governments can come together and push as hard as they like, they have no actual mechanic for influencing the direction of UK policy in reserved areas, and they exist on the sufferance of the UK parliament which can abolish them at any time with a simple majority because we have no written constitution in which to enshrine their status and no piece of legislation by any government can bind its successors.
The UK exists because the monarchies of their days conquered Wales and made the Scots and the Irish offers they weren't allowed to refuse, and it survived as an institution because it proceeded to buccaneer around the world plundering the wealth of any country they could find, which monarchs and governments of those days were competent enough to ensure benefited all the "important" people; first the landed gentry, then the merchant class, and eventually after much struggle the working class. But the Empire is gone and has been for a long time, and more recent political decisions have made it absolutely clear what parts of the country are considered truly vital, which people the governments of modernity consider important, and it's not us out on "the periphery".
Now sure, that includes a lot of places in England as well as far as the folk in charge are concerned, but the fact is the UK doesn't change unless England wants it to change, and the parts of England that our lords & masters keep gaking on haven't seemed particularly interested in changing anything in a long time, until the completely misdirected broadside at the EU in the referendum. There are many reasons why, but in the end none of them matter in this discussion because the smaller nations can't change any of them or even meaningfully influence them. The UK isn't beyond saving in an absolute sense, there are countless reforms that could make it a modern, more democratic, more responsive entity actually capable of containing the various nations and regions without the constant stream of stolen wealth from an Empire to essentially bribe folk to ignore their grievances, but England doesn't want them. You(used in a collective, nonspecific way) don't want your own parliament, your regions don't want their own parliaments, you don't want to abolish the Lords and replace it with a senate of nations & regions, you don't want proportional representation for Westminster elections; England is happy with the UK as it is, in a structural sense, and many in Wales and Scotland certainly are not, but because of the UK's structure our unhappiness means nothing. When that goes on for long enough, of course people start to think that the only way to attain meaningful change is to get out - that's the sentiment which drove a lot of people towards Brexit, the difference being the EU's supposed monolithic bureaucracy and condescending inflexibility were largely a fiction conjured up by the Euroskeptic segments of the media, while the power differentials between England and the other nations of the UK are eminently real and demonstrable.
One of the main things that have really bugged me since the vote has been the attitude of the EU. I’ve never heard of an organisation that you join that make it virtually impossible for you to leave. That smacks of bullying and it’s repugnant. There has been an almost perfect storm for Brexit globally and it’s definitely a fine old mess, one I can’t see a work around for in the short term. Which is why I would give May my backing. Not because I like her policies but purely because she is our best option at the minute. One thing about being an Irish unionist though it gives you a healthy long term perspective on political history. Everything sorts itself out in time but it’s going to be an unholy scrap over the next few years. I don’t think many in the current generation have a corporate national identity, particularly in GB. The idea of sacrificing for future generations doesn’t exist. People want it all and they want it now so it will be difficult to cobble together a compromise between the factions. But I think it will work out in the long term.
Only thing impossible is getting benefits of eu without playing by eu rules. That's the part uk leaders are too stupid to understand so they assume uk can get all the benefits for free because...ummm...reasons? Do they believe uk is chosen people entitled for everything?
Uk wants to leave then leave. Just leave the benefits as well as rules. If it wrecks your country well that was your choice.
I mean impossible to leave? Notify you leave, wait 2 years, you are out of eu. Impossible indeed.
The UK should be prepared to relax EU rules on food standards and chemical safety as part of a new trading relationship with India, according to an unreleased report by the British and Indian governments.
The official joint trade review – obtained by Unearthed despite the UK government’s refusal to release it – spotlights a range of non-tariff barriers to trade identified by Indian businesses, including limits on fungicides in basmati rice, the enforcement of food hygiene standards for milk and dairy products such as paneer and the use of hormone-disrupting chemicals across a range of non-food products.
The list – drafted by the Indian ministry of commerce – stops short of demanding the rules be removed after Brexit, instead suggesting flexibility in how and when they are applied to meet the needs of exporters.
The review, which also focused on life sciences and information technology, was described by the British government as a key text for the new UK-India trade partnership announced in April at the Commonwealth summit.
Speaking at the event, international trade secretary Liam Fox claimed that “removing barriers to trade is a key way the UK can capitalise on the predicted growth in world markets”. He repeated the claim when speaking in India last month.
Despite numerous public references to the review by Fox, the British government refused to provide the document following an Unearthed freedom of information request.
The Indian government, however, complied with a parallel right to information request.
A spokesperson for British department of international trade said: “As we leave the EU, we will forge new and ambitious trade links around the world, while also maintaining our high standards on animal welfare and food safety.
“The joint trade review’s findings underline the continued strength of the bilateral relationship between the UK and India, and we are committed to driving forward this mutually beneficial trading arrangement. This includes in the food and drink sector where we are working together on a sector-based roadmap to reduce trade barriers.”
The Indian government failed to respond to request for comment
White paper
The UK would be unable to address India’s key complaints in the trade review under the terms of its proposed Brexit white paper, experts have told Unearthed.
“Theresa May’s Chequers’ proposal would prevent the UK from making concessions to India in all areas related to plant and animal health, as it would continue to be bound to the application of the EU’s regime,” according to Sam Lowe, trade analyst for the Centre for European Reform.
“The UK would not be able to take a different approach on REACH [Europe’s chemical regulation regime] or on endocrine disrupting chemicals. It would still be required to perform physical inspections on 50% of imported Indian shrimp.”
The first part of the 52-page review is effectively a statistics-driven overview of the countries’ current and potential trading relationship, but the second section lists ‘issues faced’ by British and Indian businesses in their ‘sectors of interest.’
The UK is not allowed to begin negotiating trade agreements with countries until it has formally left the EU in 2019, and the language of the report is not explicit about a post-Brexit agreement nor about the EU laws the UK could cease to follow.
The report’s conclusion notes “the UK’s existing framework as an EU member state means that many issues remains within EU competence” but it devotes pages upon pages to complaints concerning trade barriers that stem from European law.
The final recommendations are far from concrete, and instead amount to repeated suggestions to increased dialogue on how the issues can be addressed.
Out of REACH
According to the chapter on non-tariff trade barriers written by Indian policymakers, the main issues concern the EU’s limits on the trace amounts of pesticides in food products, its restrictions on hormone-disrupting chemicals, and the burden of its complex REACH chemical regulations.
The EU’s limits on the amount of chemical residue found in food products is clearly a source of aggravation to Indian businesses, who describe complications complying with rules on a range of exports:
Trace amounts of of fungicide in basmati rice
Growth retarding chemicals in grapes
Aflatoxins in chillies and spices
Antibiotics in fish products
Food hygiene standards at processing plants involved in milk products such as paneer
Another key complaint relates to the EU’s attempts to regulate hormone-altering chemicals known as endocrine disruptors in non-food products such as toys, with 34 of the 69 products impacted said to have a direct effect on India.
And then there’s REACH, the EU’s vast and complex regulatory regime for chemicals, that India has frequently challenged at the World Trade Organisation.
The report states that: “Indian exporters experience various difficulties in complying with REACH” and then goes on to list its long-held bugbears.
Michael Warhurst, executive director at the ChemTrust, told Unearthed: “The difficulty that Indian exporters face in complying with EU rules on imported products should not be grounds for the UK to reduce standards of protection of human health and the environment.”
The report cites an assortment of other complaints with a range of EU rules, such as lead limits in jewellery.
Political turmoil
The release of the report comes at a pivotal moment in the UK’s separation from the European Union, as the British government officialises the type of Brexit it will pursue in its long-awaited white paper.
The current proposal, which would see alignment with EU standards on goods and agri-food but not services, has triggered an uproar from the pro-Brexit press and key figures, leading to the resignation of David Davis and Boris Johnson and several less-known ministers.
But other key ministers – including Fox – remain in place, with the UK still nominally committed to a policy of signing trade deals with countries around the world.
The report will lead to an increased focus on how much flexibility the UK will now have to meet demands from India and other nations regarding chemical and food import standards.
..not really sure that people voted for, er, lower hygiene standards at processing plants involved in milk products TBH.
Spoiler:
..one is red and easily walked all over, whilst the carpet is etc etc etc
Good news for farmers across the board. The British public won’t tolerate a lowering of animal welfare or hygiene practices and no government would dare sign up to any such deal.
I see the unelected bell end that is Junker has made a fool out of himself again walking around plastered at the NATO summit.
This guy makes Trump look professional. He is laughing at us all. Apparently he had a ‘sore back’. My mum had a cousin like that.....
I see the unelected bell end that is Junker has made a fool out of himself again walking around plastered at the NATO summit.
This guy makes Trump look professional. He is laughing at us all. Apparently he had a ‘sore back’. My mum had a cousin like that.....
Alcoholism isn't a laughing matter, if the guy has a problem. Though he still made less of a fool of himself than Trump, and still seems to be besting May.
I see the unelected bell end that is Junker has made a fool out of himself again walking around plastered at the NATO summit.
This guy makes Trump look professional. He is laughing at us all. Apparently he had a ‘sore back’. My mum had a cousin like that.....
Alcoholism isn't a laughing matter, if the guy has a problem. Though he still made less of a fool of himself than Trump, and still seems to be besting May.
Certainly isn’t a laughing matter when your in a position of responsibility like he is. The EU is an utter disgrace for keeping this man in control. If he isn’t the laughing stock the the EU themselves are. I haven’t heard anyone say he is an alcoholic, it looks more like he is just a prat who drinks because no one holds him to account. Trump might be a nightmare but at least he doesn’t disgrace himself by turning up intoxicated to formal state events time and again.
The UK exists because the monarchies of their days conquered Wales and made the Scots and the Irish offers they weren't allowed to refuse, and it survived as an institution because it proceeded to buccaneer around the world plundering the wealth of any country they could find, which monarchs and governments of those days were competent enough to ensure benefited all the "important" people; first the landed gentry, then the merchant class, and eventually after much struggle the working class. But the Empire is gone and has been for a long time, and more recent political decisions have made it absolutely clear what parts of the country are considered truly vital, which people the governments of modernity consider important, and it's not us out on "the periphery".
Do you mean when King James of Scotland took the throne after Elizabeth's death and basically moved down South because it was more fun, he could collect some decent taxes and unlike at home was not likely to get a knife in the back (or front). I think you will find that much of the reality of uniting the two nations came from his reign.
History is not as black and white as people sometime make out and there are a lot of distortions around the relationships between the "home nations".
You might not like May or think she is particularly good at her job but she is at least trying and not staggering about drunk on the job. Again Trump might be a misogynistic prat but at least he isn’t laughing in your face as he parties round the world stage. Junker is a symbol of everything that’s wrong in the EU trading block. He is arrogant, condescending and treats his position as a right not a privilege.
The UK exists because the monarchies of their days conquered Wales and made the Scots and the Irish offers they weren't allowed to refuse, and it survived as an institution because it proceeded to buccaneer around the world plundering the wealth of any country they could find, which monarchs and governments of those days were competent enough to ensure benefited all the "important" people; first the landed gentry, then the merchant class, and eventually after much struggle the working class. But the Empire is gone and has been for a long time, and more recent political decisions have made it absolutely clear what parts of the country are considered truly vital, which people the governments of modernity consider important, and it's not us out on "the periphery".
Do you mean when King James of Scotland took the throne after Elizabeth's death and basically moved down South because it was more fun, he could collect some decent taxes and unlike at home was not likely to get a knife in the back (or front). I think you will find that much of the reality of uniting the two nations came from his reign.
History is not as black and white as people sometime make out and there are a lot of distortions around the relationships between the "home nations".
Absolutely. One of te tragedies of nationalism is it demands absolute truths from history. Unions allow for the complexity of political and cultural history.
Nothing is ever as straight forward as it seems.
I see the unelected bell end that is Junker has made a fool out of himself again walking around plastered at the NATO summit.
This guy makes Trump look professional. He is laughing at us all. Apparently he had a ‘sore back’. My mum had a cousin like that.....
Laughing at other people's sickness. Good job.... It is reported he has Sciatica. Now having a parent that also suffers from this I can definitely relate to the pain and weakness this causes. This is not just a 'sore back'
Sciatica is a medical condition characterized by pain going down the leg from the lower back. This pain may go down the back, outside, or front of the leg.[3] Onset is often sudden following activities like heavy lifting, though gradual onset may also occur. Typically, symptoms are only on one side of the body. Certain causes, however, may result in pain on both sides. Lower back pain is sometimes but not always present. Weakness or numbness may occur in various parts of the affected leg and foot.
Hopefully, you get the opportunity to experience the pleasure of it once (and just once because that is all you will need) so that you can actually understand what you are laughing at.
Still you have a highlighted a good point about the EU. Looking at how EU allies and other leaders supported him whilst going through that pain. Trump instead prefers to try and trip up old ladies and being completely oblivious to the rest of the world; someone that is meant to be his allies. I think I know which side I would prefer. One side cares about others, the other only cares about himself.
So today in Glasgow's political marching season, we have pride. Nicola Sturgeon is leading the parade. I presume the other party leaders, 75% of which are gay/bi, will be prominent, too. Great vibe already. Lots of crossover with the Trump protest yesterday, as you’d expect. Don’t suspect there’ll be much crossover with the other brightly coloured march from last week, if they’ve even made it back from their midweek jaunt to Belfast.
I’ve said before thay I have no allegiance to any political boundary, and I’m not proud of being Scottish, but I do like living somewhere that embraces these things so enthusiastically.
I think by this point the bar has pretty much fallen on the ground.
@ Knockagh
It’s not exactly a glowing endorsement when the best thing anyone can say about her is “at least she turns up to work sober”.
Don’t get me wrong though. I utterly dispise Juncker, and the rest of them. Arrogant condescending pricks. It’s just a shame we have a remainer prime minister who’s taking their gak.
I have Sciatica. I’m a farmer and got diagnosed with it two years ago. I lie flat on the floor when it strikes bad and eat co codamol. I have a chronic version of it. If I sit for any length of time at all I feel it. I feel the nerve right now.
I have never got on like that ever. I know someone who is drunk and he is drunk.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ future war cultist, yes your right not turning up sober is a poor endorsement but I still think she’s the best of a bad lot at the moment. And unlike many of the political class at present she is trying to find compromise. We might not like it, but that is what compromise involves.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ future war cultist, yes your right not turning up sober is a poor endorsement but I still think she’s the best of a bad lot at the moment. And unlike many of the political class at present she is trying to find compromise. We might not like it, but that is what compromise involves.
Drunk or sciatica, I dunno. It is well known that Juncker is a drunk anyhow. He was a terrible candidate for President. He was selected by the European People's Party (EPP) which is the main conservative Christian Democrat grouping in the EU Parliament. The CDU, Fine Gael, les Republicans, all the rest of the centre right are in there. Unfortunately, David Cameron took the Tories out of the EPP and into the European Conservatives and Reformists group, which is a fringe group made up of populist cranks, the biggest other party is PiS from Poland. This dramatically reduced the UK's sway in the EU Parliament, and was a classic case of UK politicians dicking around in Europe to appease the eurosceptic headbangers at home. It didn't work of course because eurosceptics are unappeasable.
The the upshot of that was that the UK had no say in the selection of Junker. This makes sense: if a bunch of Tories defected to UKIP (a pretty fair analogy here) their votes no longer count when selecting a candidate for Prime Minister if the Tories win a majority. If the ECR had won the most candidates, the UK would have been in a great position to select the president, but the ECR are a fringe group.
Of course, by pulling the conservatives out, Cameron also soured relations with the various EPP leaders, as he weakened their majority substantially, what with the UK having many MEPs, and many Conservative MEPs. (As an aside: When Cameron later went to negotiate his special new deal to keep the UK in the EU, he was negotiating with many of these same EPP leaders, who held him in contempt and considered him an unserious politician due to his behaviour). This gave the Socialists a real fighting chance to get their candidate for President through, which I would have much preferred to Juncker. But when you lose an election, you do not get your candidate as President, or Prime Minister as the case may be. This is why I find it so funny that people say Juncker is unelected- he is chosen as candidate by the democratically elected EPP delegates because they won the most votes (unfortunately!). The UK had a chance to have a say in this but pissed it away.
If you are reading this and did not know any of this, then it just goes to show the absolute paucity of coverage of EU affairs in the UK. It is really bad. In the Irish papers the EU Parliament groups do not come up often, but they do get mentioned in issues relating to Europe, whereas in the UK most people have no idea about this stuff and do not take EU parliament elections seriously, only to cry like babies when someone they don't like gets chosen after they have given up their ability to influence the process.
When I say it like that, this was really a pre-run for Brexit, wasn't it?
If the EU tried to make at least a display of democracy the president would be elected by the people of the member states. It not only would increase accountability for the post it would also help massively with citizens sense of involvement in the trading block. The EU self imposed isolation from its citizens is one of the biggest causes of popular resentment against the EU.
Why is the Prime Minister of the UK not directly elected? Is the UK not democratic?
Why does the UK not have a directly elected head of state? Is it because the UK is not a "real democracy"?
Why does the UK have a completely unelected second house of government?
Honestly Knockagh. It is like you did not even read my post. The EU should engage in more outreach, for sure. Make itself even more democratic, no problem. But a direct vote is not a smart idea in a continent as diverse as Europe. The current system is not perfect but it is democratic.
And citizens of the EU have a responsibility to be engaged and to pay attention to what is happening.
Da Boss wrote: Why is the Prime Minister of the UK not directly elected? Is the UK not democratic?
Why does the UK not have a directly elected head of state? Is it because the UK is not a "real democracy"?
Why does the UK have a completely unelected second house of government?.
I think the flow chart on how different EU bodies are elected has been posted a dozen times already in this thread.
Thing is though, when our PMs feth up they do pay for it at the ballot box. John Major, Gordon Brown, even May got a slap during her GE for being stupid. The same can’t be said for the President Of The Commission. Think Juncker and his crowd will be held accountable for everything during his term?
Future War Cultist wrote: Thing is though, when our PMs feth up they do pay for it at the ballot box. John Major, Gordon Brown, even May got a slap during her GE for being stupid. The same can’t be said for the President Of The Commission. Think Juncker and his crowd will be held accountable for everything during his term?
Future War Cultist wrote: Thing is though, when our PMs feth up they do pay for it at the ballot box. John Major, Gordon Brown, even May got a slap during her GE for being stupid. The same can’t be said for the President Of The Commission. Think Juncker and his crowd will be held accountable for everything during his term?
Possibly by the people who take voting for MEP's seriously. In the same way you outlined above.
Future War Cultist wrote: Thing is though, when our PMs feth up they do pay for it at the ballot box. John Major, Gordon Brown, even May got a slap during her GE for being stupid. The same can’t be said for the President Of The Commission. Think Juncker and his crowd will be held accountable for everything during his term?
For what should he be held accountable for?
Eurozone crisis, immigration crisis, one of its members leaving. Heads of government always get it in the neck for everything that goes wrong, except for the heads of the eu for some reason.
Future War Cultist wrote: Thing is though, when our PMs feth up they do pay for it at the ballot box. John Major, Gordon Brown, even May got a slap during her GE for being stupid. The same can’t be said for the President Of The Commission. Think Juncker and his crowd will be held accountable for everything during his term?
For what should he be held accountable for?
Eurozone crisis, immigration crisis, one of its members leaving. Heads of government always get it in the neck for everything that goes wrong, except for the heads of the eu for some reason.
The commission serves 5 year terms, this term ends next year. The parliament will have to decide if Juncker stays or goes.
Future War Cultist wrote: Thing is though, when our PMs feth up they do pay for it at the ballot box. John Major, Gordon Brown, even May got a slap during her GE for being stupid. The same can’t be said for the President Of The Commission. Think Juncker and his crowd will be held accountable for everything during his term?
For what should he be held accountable for?
Eurozone crisis, immigration crisis, one of its members leaving. Heads of government always get it in the neck for everything that goes wrong, except for the heads of the eu for some reason.
Agreed.
People will look at this and think, it's Brexit DINLT backing Brexit FWC in another anti-EU rant, but regardless of whether they're to blame or not, Brexit and the immigration crisis happened on Tusk and Juncker's watch.
They should have stepped down for new leadership. Heads of organisations do it all the time, even when they're not to blame.
Future War Cultist wrote: Thing is though, when our PMs feth up they do pay for it at the ballot box. John Major, Gordon Brown, even May got a slap during her GE for being stupid. The same can’t be said for the President Of The Commission. Think Juncker and his crowd will be held accountable for everything during his term?
For what should he be held accountable for?
Eurozone crisis, immigration crisis, one of its members leaving. Heads of government always get it in the neck for everything that goes wrong, except for the heads of the eu for some reason.
So he should be held accountable for your, the italian, spanish and greek missbehaviour of monetary policy?
He should be held accountable for the destabilisation of the middle east? Which you ultimately started in combination with the french btw and the help you offered even against better knowledge to the USA for invading iraq?
Excuse me but i think that if anyone shouldn't take responsibility for these things then Juncker.
Knockagh wrote: If the EU tried to make at least a display of democracy the president would be elected by the people of the member states. It not only would increase accountability for the post it would also help massively with citizens sense of involvement in the trading block. The EU self imposed isolation from its citizens is one of the biggest causes of popular resentment against the EU.
The EU is not isolated from citizens. It is in fact a lot more transparent than most of its member state governments. People just perceive it that way because they are too lazy to keep track of EU politics and elections. The EU has put a lot of effort into trying to turn that around, but to little effect. Turnout rates for European elections are ridiculously low. Even if the EU were a direct democracy, people would still complain it wasn't democratic, simply because they can't be bothered with participating in said democracy. Democracy requires a lot of effort on part of the citizens as well to function properly. British people have no right to complain about a lack of democracy in the EU when only 34% of them even bother with showing up for the vote. Evidently, they are not actually interested in democracy in the EU. And of course, when the EU tries to remedy that and get more involved with its citizens, they will complain that the EU is infringing on their sovereignty. As has been said in this thread many times already, appeasing eurosceptics is impossible.
President can mean a lot of different things. The President of Ireland is not the same as the President of the USA who is not the same as the President of France.
The Presidency Juncker holds is not the same as the British Prime Minister's role, not least because the EU is not like a country, but the method through which he is chosen is quite similar, being selected as the candidate of the biggest party in the democratically elected party in the European Parliament.
I am unhappy with Juncker's tenure, particularly on environmental issues, so I will be voting either Green or Socialist in the next election to get rid of him. Which is exactly what you guys would do if you wanted to get rid of Theresa May.
It really is not hard to understand.
Edit: I should also note that in all the "reforms" the UK was pushing for, making the EU more democratically accountable, for example with a directly elected president, was never mentioned. Cameron did not care about the supposed democratic deficit that so exercises Brexiteers. I would have supported that, as I believe there are ways in which the EU could become more democratically accountable, but it was never pushed for. This is why "reform" is a meaningless weasel word.
I legitimately do not know if I have ever voted in any MEP elections and I've voted every time a polling card has come through my door through my life as an adult.
Compel wrote: I legitimately do not know if I have ever voted in any MEP elections and I've voted every time a polling card has come through my door through my life as an adult.
That... doesn't feel right, really.
I'm in the same boat. I've been an eligible voter for just over 7 years, and the last vote was 2014, so it stands to reason that I did, at some point, vote on an MEP. Looking it up, there were also local elections held on the exact same day, so they likely massively overshadowed the MEP elections. I don't recall getting any information on MEP elections between the usual leaflets and assorted other paper recycling that gets shoved through the letterbox around election time, but again, could be it was bundled and thrown out with all the local election-themed guff on the doormat.
That and the fact my memory is less a sieve and more just one giant, gaping hole probably explains why I've no real recollection of it.
In NI euro elections are just a secterian head count. Very few people of any quality stand in fact it’s often seen as a retirement post for useless and embarrassing politicians. Jim Nicholson and Martina Anderson we are looking at you right now!
Over the years from Ian Paisley to Mrs Anderson we have mightly embarrassed our nation with the reprobates we have sent to obscurity in Brussels
Knockagh wrote: A president is not a prime minister. It’s not comparable.
Yes, Prime Ministers are held accountable for their actions. Presidents can commit all the crimes they like and their parties will just whine that policemen are unfair to them.
Knockagh wrote: I have Sciatica. I’m a farmer and got diagnosed with it two years ago. I lie flat on the floor when it strikes bad and eat co codamol. I have a chronic version of it. If I sit for any length of time at all I feel it. I feel the nerve right now.
I have never got on like that ever. I know someone who is drunk and he is drunk.
Then I would have thought you would have had more sympathy, perhaps it's just not as crippling as the version you have. I'm afraid all you are doing is looking for a reason to hurl abuse at him rather. You are neither a doctor not an expert on what he acts like when drunk. Therefore you should be more considerate of the condition and stop laughing at someone else's pain. What happened if I saw you in pain and just assumed you were drug addict lying on the floor regardless of what you said? Would that be reasonable, would you appreciate it if I just pointed, laughed and scorned you for that pain by making something up? This is exactly the same as When Diane Abbot missed a vote and was sick and missed a vote or when some folks didn't believe Obama was born in the US. It's all the same. All anti-[insert X] people just made wild claims without evidence as to how/why [insert Y]. Rather than take it on face value they use it as an attempt to make an attack on an individual because they don't like that person because they represent the head of something they despise. It is, to coin a term, a shameful display and lacks any empathy of what another human might be going through.
Da Boss wrote: Don't worry Knockagh. At least you didn't send Nigel Farage. And we sent Big Phil Hogan as our commissioner.
Farange is a gentleman compared to our euro gangsters. Paisley led men to their deaths for his own glory for decades spouting poison and hate. At the end of his life for more personal gain he dropped every principle he had supposedly lived for and became a senile old fool. My friend David Ervine described him and the DUP (as a they were back then) as “ These people are not to be trusted, their interest does not lie in Northern Ireland, their interest is self-interest."
Martina has a catalog of convictions including bombing a furniture shop full of innocent shoppers she then fled while on bail and was later recaptured in England while on a bombing spree. Even if you ignore these lovely acts she is a total fishwife, honestly you haven’t sen the like of her.
Watch this video of her in action in Brussels and laugh. Yes some of you hate May but this killer is an animal.
When I saw that front page this morning I really had to pick my jaw up from the floor. I get that the Mail has a right wing bias, but this is bordering on being unhinged from reality
With the Tories behind in the polls, UKIP coming back from the dead, and Corbyn's do nothing policy appearing to pay dividends, this is defcom 5 for the Tories. Their lust for power knows no bounds. May is endangering that.
There must surely be 48 letters on Sir Graham Brady's desk by now?
Small business minister Andrew Griffiths has quit because the Sunday Mirror are releasing 2000 sexts he's sent to two constituents (neither of whom are his wife, obviously) tomorrow.
nfe wrote: Small business minister Andrew Griffiths has quit because the Sunday Mirror are releasing 2000 sexts he's sent to two constituents (neither of whom are his wife, obviously) tomorrow.
May must be thinking that when it rains, it pours...
Riquende wrote: Tory ministers resigning over sleaze. Have they become a mid-90s tribute act?
There's definitely some hypocrisy, however I haven't yet seen anywhere that he was potentially breaking the law (e.g. stalking them). Indeed some of the implications from the texts would imply it wasn't just a one way street. For example "The video of you spanking her was nowhere near hard enough". I mean who sends someone that type of video if you aren't interested and find things vile? Those sort of things makes me wonder about the motive of all this. As it does again undermine May.
It's not really in any of our interests as the private affairs of MPs really though.
In other news apprarently Trump told May to sue the EU. She felt that was too harsh. Or in reality the UK would lose. I wonder how may advisors rolled their eyes when Trump suggested this?
Riquende wrote: Tory ministers resigning over sleaze. Have they become a mid-90s tribute act?
There's definitely some hypocrisy, however I haven't yet seen anywhere that he was potentially breaking the law (e.g. stalking them). Indeed some of the implications from the texts would imply it wasn't just a one way street. For example "The video of you spanking her was nowhere near hard enough". I mean who sends someone that type of video if you aren't interested and find things vile? Those sort of things makes me wonder about the motive of all this. As it does again undermine May.
It's not really in any of our interests as the private affairs of MPs really though.
It's vey much in the NOTW tradition. It's not in the public interest and it would appear to be two-directional. I don't think it's so much about undermining May as simply selling papers, though.
Riquende wrote: Tory ministers resigning over sleaze. Have they become a mid-90s tribute act?
There's definitely some hypocrisy, however I haven't yet seen anywhere that he was potentially breaking the law (e.g. stalking them). Indeed some of the implications from the texts would imply it wasn't just a one way street. For example "The video of you spanking her was nowhere near hard enough". I mean who sends someone that type of video if you aren't interested and find things vile? Those sort of things makes me wonder about the motive of all this. As it does again undermine May.
It's not really in any of our interests as the private affairs of MPs really though.
In other news apprarently Trump told May to sue the EU. She felt that was too harsh. Or in reality the UK would lose. I wonder how may advisors rolled their eyes when Trump suggested this?
Like I've said before, the Tory party is imploding. Open warfare, May desperately wheeled out on Sunday morning TV to save her skin. I love it.
I've been dreaming about the destruction of the Tory party since the 1980s...
If that trend continues then I think we will probably see a leadership contest. If I would hazard a guess then I would suspect it will come next summer. I don't think anyone will make a move until the Wrexit deal is done, however should they lose a lot of seats at the next local election (which is probable if the above trend continues) then I think next summer the knife will be wielded.
All of this for a plan that the EU is sure to reject anyway, as it is untenable. What are they going to be like when she presents the actual option, which is still either Norway or Canada + Backstop?
I thought May might have weathered the storm, but the polls turning against her might change that. The Tories are pathological about maintaining power and a sniff of weakness like that is like blood in the water. The feeding frenzy will eventually start. Who are we looking at then - Prime Minister Gove?
I'll be honest with people and say that I think we're in for at least a decade of coalition politics.
The Tories are imploding, the Blairites will never back Corbyn, the Lib Dems are still struggling to fill a phone box, and UKIP's rise from the dead will only weaken the Tories. The SNP will remain a solid force, but if there's another referendum in Scotland, then we're off.
Who's going to salvage a majority in The Commons out of that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: All of this for a plan that the EU is sure to reject anyway, as it is untenable. What are they going to be like when she presents the actual option, which is still either Norway or Canada + Backstop?
I thought May might have weathered the storm, but the polls turning against her might change that. The Tories are pathological about maintaining power and a sniff of weakness like that is like blood in the water. The feeding frenzy will eventually start. Who are we looking at then - Prime Minister Gove?
Believe it or not, Jeremy Hunt is seen as a possible candidate.
Scandal slides off him, he survives bombshells that would kill a cockroach, he's seen as establishment through and through, and because he's a walking policy vacuum, he can be all things to all men when the situation warrants it.
Jermony Cu-opp, sorry, nearly had a Freudian Slip there. Giving it to him though? That is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
This all could have been so much simpler. Right off the bat, go with the Norway option of EFTA. Negotiations could have focused on small print rather than all this fething faffing about. I’ll try to assume that the EU would have actually been up for negotiation on that rather than just stonewalling like the difficult bastards they are. This would have solved most of the immediate issues. Then, while in EFTA, build alliances with the others and then negotiate as a group for a better deal down the line. As the eu goes deeper, efta can go back. Hell, I can see some other members bailing further down the line.
It kills me that I can type this and the civil service and the government can’t seem to grasp this. For all that supposed expertise, and all that money,
And all those Oxbridge educations. The standing of Oxford and Cambridge has really taken a beating over this whole shambles.
I agree with you though - settle on Norway, then use the time to try and tweak it a bit. I would have been reasonably happy with that as an EU member.
The other option was Canada with a sea border, which I think is a much worse deal than Norway.
It could accidentally stagger into No Deal at this stage, which would be a catastrophe for the UK and Ireland, so I hope it does not get that far. My wife thinks the EU would extend Article 50 to prevent it, but there are complications with that plan too what with the EU elections coming up. I think there might be a temptation in the EU to let No Deal play out for a short time to smack some sense into the UK political classes and make the populace wake up to what is at stake before allowing them back to the table, but my wife thinks the EU is not that mean.
This all could have been so much simpler. Right off the bat, go with the Norway option of EFTA. Negotiations could have focused on small print rather than all this fething faffing about. I’ll try to assume that the EU would have actually been up for negotiation on that rather than just stonewalling like the difficult bastards they are. This would have solved most of the immediate issues. Then, while in EFTA, build alliances with the others and then negotiate as a group for a better deal down the line. As the eu goes deeper, efta can go back. Hell, I can see some other members bailing further down the line.
It kills me that I can type this and the civil service and the government can’t seem to grasp this. For all that supposed expertise, and all that money,
I'm sure the civil service knew this from even before the referendum vote but the civil service works in the direction they're given by government.
But consider this. How long after the vote did you come round to the idea of thinking the Norway model was an acceptable position? You've admitted that you initially were dismissive of the idea and believed the "rule by fax" propaganda spread about it and that it was only by doing your own research into how it actually operates that changed your mind. Now, how many of the people that voted in the referendum will have done the same and come to the same conclusion as you? Some of them might have done research and decide the Norway model was not acceptable as it meant we were still paying in, for example. And many will have not gone away and done the research at all and so will just believe whatever is written about EFTA membership in the media they consume.
Also consider that the Norway model violates many of the red lines set out by May, which were based on the arguments and promises put forth by the leave campaign in the referendum. If the referendum result, based on those arguments and promises, is the will of the people then the Norway model does not meet the requirements to be an actual solution to what those people want.
Even worse, we would be suing ourselves. We're part of the EU.
The idea is through and through nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Norway is not in the customs union. This allows it to negotiate its own separate trade deals but also requires border checks. also, Norway is subject to ECJ oversight, and must accept free movement of people.
All of this means that the Norway solution violates two of May's red lines, and also violates the Good Friday agreement.
Those red lines were a huge mistake, doubled by triggering Article 50 when she did.
Parliament really failed the people on that occasion. They should have taken more note of the narrowness of the vote, and insisted on a period of reflection and calm to sort out some proposals.
This all could have been so much simpler. Right off the bat, go with the Norway option of EFTA. Negotiations could have focused on small print rather than all this fething faffing about. I’ll try to assume that the EU would have actually been up for negotiation on that rather than just stonewalling like the difficult bastards they are. This would have solved most of the immediate issues. Then, while in EFTA, build alliances with the others and then negotiate as a group for a better deal down the line. As the eu goes deeper, efta can go back. Hell, I can see some other members bailing further down the line.
It kills me that I can type this and the civil service and the government can’t seem to grasp this. For all that supposed expertise, and all that money,
I'm sure the civil service knew this from even before the referendum vote but the civil service works in the direction they're given by government.
But consider this. How long after the vote did you come round to the idea of thinking the Norway model was an acceptable position? You've admitted that you initially were dismissive of the idea and believed the "rule by fax" propaganda spread about it and that it was only by doing your own research into how it actually operates that changed your mind. Now, how many of the people that voted in the referendum will have done the same and come to the same conclusion as you? Some of them might have done research and decide the Norway model was not acceptable as it meant we were still paying in, for example. And many will have not gone away and done the research at all and so will just believe whatever is written about EFTA membership in the media they consume.
Also consider that the Norway model violates many of the red lines set out by May, which were based on the arguments and promises put forth by the leave campaign in the referendum. If the referendum result, based on those arguments and promises, is the will of the people then the Norway model does not meet the requirements to be an actual solution to what those people want.
I've said it several times and I will say it again. Why does everyone seem to imply EFTA wants the UK back in?
Yes, they were a founding member but left for greener pastures with a middle finger. As a Swiss poster mentioned they will have to run a referendum in order to allow the UK back in and I can tell you now Swiss politics can be quite toxic.
If the EFTA option was seriously being considered the whole of the foreign service should be starting a charm offensive with every EFTA country right now.
I suspect the EU has a contingency plan written for us, and will make us sign it at the 11th hour to prevent a no deal. They won't extend the transition into their next financial planning period.
I wouldn't be surprised if they let us just fall into a no deal, we don't deserve anything else. Then once reality has slapped enough people I the face we can actually focus on the details and sort a deal.
The EU would much rather keep the UK in the EU, but failing that would rather the UK joins EFTA than some special magical arrangement which isn't workable, or even worse, Hard Brexit.
I still think the most sensible solution would be to back off and just stay in the EU. On the face of it it would seem to solve most of the problems, even if it was a poison pill for Parliament.
Article 50 is not irrevocable. The UK can simply change its mind unilaterally and remain in the EU.
This might actually be the best thing, but I think it would have to follow a second referendum.
As for the danger of the UK changing its mind again in two years, the EU has a clause to allow members to leave, so it's got to be open to members leaving. Italy might, for example. There's also a danger of members being kicked out. Poland and Hungary would be the first candidates for this, but I think it's unlikely
In the UK's case I think if we changed our mind again now, we would be very unlikeley to change it again in another two years. Everyone knows that demographic changes are moving the swing-ometer about 1% to Remain every year.
If we were to stay in the EU (looking like a real possibility if I’m honest) then we would need to take a long hard look at how we’ve been playing the system (which is, to be frank, terribly) and change tact. Our fishing quotas and Drunker getting the top job are all down to political ineptitude in our part. My worry is, after all is said and done, every bridge will have been burnt. Maybe they already have.
Future War Cultist wrote: If we were to stay in the EU (looking like a real possibility if I’m honest) then we would need to take a long hard look at how we’ve been playing the system (which is, to be frank, terribly) and change tact. Our fishing quotas and Drunker getting the top job are all down to political ineptitude in our part. My worry is, after all is said and done, every bridge will have been burnt. Maybe they already have.
The UK got through almost everything they wanted from the EU. Rebates, opt-outs, the common market as a very British brainchild, the eastwards expansion, the lack of a common banking authority and many others.
No one got this kind of special treatment at all stages of membership. So yes, the UK is (used to be?) very good at working the system from the inside.
Future War Cultist wrote: If we were to stay in the EU (looking like a real possibility if I’m honest) then we would need to take a long hard look at how we’ve been playing the system (which is, to be frank, terribly) and change tact. Our fishing quotas and Drunker getting the top job are all down to political ineptitude in our part. My worry is, after all is said and done, every bridge will have been burnt. Maybe they already have.
Nah, Trump has declared the EU the enemy, so expect it to be getting a big increase in popularity in the UK soon.
She can barely contain a laugh. So does this mean she's given up trying to suck up to Trump?
It means she has very carefully selected an anecdote that she can mention on tv that suggests she might think he’s a bit silly whilst never criticising him directly. Quite possibly with his endorsement. Good of Marr to ask the question exactly as requested to set it up. Like it was good of him not to ask about another sleaze resignation. Mind you, I suppose he’s probably sympathetic to people whose extra-marital antics come put in the press. Too bad Griffiths didn’t get a superinjuction.
TL/DR: A second vote with three options as follows: Hard Brexit, the May plan, Remain, and single AV voting so that people are forced to make a decision that Parliament is unable to.
The main problem I see with this is that the May plan probably isn't workable even if people choose it.
It's a big question. I think Remain would be the only option with a chance of getting 50% in the first count, but is it likely?
If not then who knows how it would all shake out... Most Remainers would have the May/EU-negotiated Soft Brexit as a second choice I assume. Would most Hard Brexiteers? I assume they'd think that neither Remain or Soft Brexit deliver "True Brexit" but at least Remain gives us some ability to make decisions in the bloc.
And at this stage how many people would have Soft Brexit as a first choice? My instant reaction is an extremely small number (it seems the only people who advocate for SB are Remain-leaning politicians steering along the "will of the people" line) but I could be wrong; and where would those Soft Brexiteers be more likely to place a second choice?
Edit:
Most political commentators say there wouldn't enough time anyway to get it all set up before the end of March 2019 so the EU would have to agree to the extension of A50...
Who knows what will happen. There's no political will in Parliament to either wreck the economy with a Hard Brexit, to advocate Remain (and call the bluff of people like Bernard Jenkin insisting today that he knows exactly what the 17 million all voted for), or to try to fudge with a "let's just hurt the economy a little, sign up for a Soft Brexit and claim as loudly as possible the result has been respected" plan. I can't see a referendum happening but it's at least a way for Parliament to get a fresh mandate to move forward with something because right now we're going nowhere.
Who knows what will happen. There's no political will in Parliament to either wreck the economy with a Hard Brexit, to advocate Remain (and call the bluff of people like Bernard Jenkin insisting today that he knows exactly what the 17 million all voted for), or to try to fudge with a "let's just hurt the economy a little, sign up for a Soft Brexit and claim as loudly as possible the result has been respected" plan. I can't see a referendum happening but it's at least a way for Parliament to get a fresh mandate to move forward with something because right now we're going nowhere.
As others have pointed out, there's no time for it, and if I'm being hand on heart honest, I don't think the country can be bothered with another vote. After all, people are still waiting for the first referendum to be implemented, never mind a second.
And to an earlier point made by Kilkrazy: nobody knows if the UK can unilaterally reverse Brexit - it obviously hasn't been tested.
I'm reliably informed that there is such a case heading for the ECJ and has been in the pipeline for a few months. It came from Ireland or something.
EU informed legal opinion is that the UK can unilaterally reverse its decision to Brexit. This isn't a decision of the ECJ but it follows the logic that announcing an intention is not the completion of an act.
The EU wants to keep the UK inside, so would be unlikely to offer much resistance to the UK withdrawing its Article 50 letter.
And to an earlier point made by Kilkrazy: nobody knows if the UK can unilaterally reverse Brexit - it obviously hasn't been tested.
I'm reliably informed that there is such a case heading for the ECJ and has been in the pipeline for a few months. It came from Ireland or something.
EU informed legal opinion is that the UK can unilaterally reverse its decision to Brexit. This isn't a decision of the ECJ but it follows the logic that announcing an intention is not the completion of an act.
The EU wants to keep the UK inside, so would be unlikely to offer much resistance to the UK withdrawing its Article 50 letter.
It's still got to be tested in some court, because logically, every country could invoke A50 in order to shake down the EU for some extra concessions.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: After all, people are still waiting for the first referendum to be implemented, never mind a second.
The issue is that nobody in power can agree on or get any sort of majority together to find a specific way to implement it, and nor is there a clear mandate for any specific course of action, regardless of what the Hard Brexiteers tell you 17m people voted for.
If the plan is to have a second referendum then those "Tory Rebels" would want to get on with it NOW, and stop backing Theresa May of the stupid red lines and half arsed fudge.
Labour would want to get on board as well.
As is, I cannot see it as a viable political strategy, too few people are calling for it, they have not had the gumption to actually take any political risks to try and make it happen, and you would need to go ask the EU now, ASAP, about pausing the Article 50 process.
Also, that referendum is unlikely to be accepted as proposed. It would split the vote between two brexit options and one remain option. A bigger discussion about what is actually possible, or a more straightforward in-out question is needed.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: And to an earlier point made by Kilkrazy: nobody knows if the UK can unilaterally reverse Brexit - it obviously hasn't been tested.
Most of the experts believe it is, and even Barnier has been hinting at it. So I think it's safe to think it can be undone.
It might take a bit of bartering or a legal case, but I doubt it'd need to go that far.
And at this stage how many people would have Soft Brexit as a first choice? My instant reaction is an extremely small number (it seems the only people who advocate for SB are Remain-leaning politicians steering along the "will of the people" line) but I could be wrong; and where would those Soft Brexiteers be more likely to place a second choice?
I'd estimate at least half of Brexiteers would choose a soft brexit (not May's Brexit, which is dead on arrival) first. They'd then probably split 50:50 for the 2nd choice.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I agree a 2nd referendum would likely be the only way to get this to a conclusion, and it needs to be run ASAP whilst there's still time to do something with the result.
Da Boss wrote: If the plan is to have a second referendum then those "Tory Rebels" would want to get on with it NOW, and stop backing Theresa May of the stupid red lines and half arsed fudge.
You couldn't hold it until the deal was agreed though. It's almost like wasting 2 years on internal bickering wasn't a hugely effective use of Government time. Just how much earlier could the white paper have been published?
The more I think about it, the more I think we should just ignore the deal. Nobody would like it. Instead: Referendum called - "We, the conservatives, have spent years fannying about, wasting the country's time calling general elections, setting unhelpful red lines, losing ministers left and right and basically being incompetent. Despite that incompetency we have determined that there is no possible way to work out a deal with the EU so have it people - should we stay or should we go? No campaigning, no lies - either everything stays as it was before the first referendum or we go out, no deal, nothing to soften the blow. Decide."
Da Boss wrote: If the plan is to have a second referendum then those "Tory Rebels" would want to get on with it NOW, and stop backing Theresa May of the stupid red lines and half arsed fudge.
Labour would want to get on board as well.
As is, I cannot see it as a viable political strategy, too few people are calling for it, they have not had the gumption to actually take any political risks to try and make it happen, and you would need to go ask the EU now, ASAP, about pausing the Article 50 process.
Also, that referendum is unlikely to be accepted as proposed. It would split the vote between two brexit options and one remain option. A bigger discussion about what is actually possible, or a more straightforward in-out question is needed.
The purpose of the referendum is to force Parliament to do something, because Parliament can't make its mind up.
I think a three-way question is fine. It allows people to express their preferences more accurately than an 'in-out' question -- which after all is what got us into this mess from the first referundum.
I don't think the May option is a viable one, but at least a clear public choice for the May option would force the government and Parliament away from the two extremes of Hard Bexit/No Brexit.
The EU wants to have a good trading relationship with the UK in the future, so there is a certain amount of appetite on both sides to reach a compromise, though of course there are limits to this.
However, the key point is deciding to leave the EU isn't a way to get concessions based on staying in the EU.
The UK achieved a number of concessions from the EU, starting with Thatcher's rebate, and finishing with Cameron's emergency brake, without deciding to leave.
From the above, there's no reason why the EU would not let the UK rescind its announcement of leaving. There would be no concessions to give, because the UK isn't asking for any. There would be no reason not to allow other countries to decide to leave and then change their mind.
To be fair, the UK is a major player in the EU, and the EU might not be so compliant with a small country with 1/10th the wealth and power.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Remain supporters better head over to the Guardian live politics feed: alarming news for your side.
Seems Mogg is on manoeuvres again and has just come out of a meeting with the Tory whips...
Strokes chin...
Whatever you may think of Mogg, he's front and centre, fighting his case, rallying his troops and engaging in 'guerrilla' warfare.
As I've said before, I bet Remain wished they had their own version of Mogg fighting to keep Britain in the EU.
I say this as an honest, constructive critique of Remain, but by God, there are times when you lot need to fight with the heart as well as the head.
Sometimes in politics you need to appeal to the emotions...
I don't know what you mean. Everyone knows the majority of MPs are against Brexit.
No-one knows what the mood of the nation is, without a second referundum. The opinion polls tell us that the majority are against a Hard Brexit, which is what Ress-Mogg wants.
DINLT Well, you point to one of the problems with Remain, alright. There was little passion, always the support for the EU was given with mealy mouthed caveats about the need for "reform" (what this reform was, was never explained) or with a quick acknowledgement that "the EU has problems".
I can see where it comes from, but why did no one stand up and point out how awesome the EU is? In the EU Ireland has absolutely transformed in my lifetime. My parents grew up in crushing poverty and the development that took place over their lifetimes, accelerated massively by us joining the EU, is staggering. My primary and national schools, the road outside my parents house, much of the structure of law that I grew up in, the french food I got to know as a kid, the currency in my pocket, all due to the influence of the EU.
The difficulty in trying to present the benefits of the EU is the large crowd of people who won't believe it because of 'gut feeling'. They should have taken the Brexit threat more seriously and put more effort in though. Maybe they'd try and do so now? It'd maybe pick up some of the waverers (worth doing because it's so close) but will still fall on a lot of deaf ears.
Whatever you may think of Mogg, he's front and centre, fighting his case, rallying his troops and engaging in 'guerrilla' warfare.
Yet still not providing any credible plan or direction. Like he's throwing about demands and posturing to become PM but not actually trying to drive Brexit forwards.
Da Boss wrote: DINLT Well, you point to one of the problems with Remain, alright. There was little passion, always the support for the EU was given with mealy mouthed caveats about the need for "reform" (what this reform was, was never explained) or with a quick acknowledgement that "the EU has problems".
I can see where it comes from, but why did no one stand up and point out how awesome the EU is? In the EU Ireland has absolutely transformed in my lifetime. My parents grew up in crushing poverty and the development that took place over their lifetimes, accelerated massively by us joining the EU, is staggering. My primary and national schools, the road outside my parents house, much of the structure of law that I grew up in, the french food I got to know as a kid, the currency in my pocket, all due to the influence of the EU.
I hope I don't sound patronising, but people like you were exactly what was required to win the referendum for Remain. I would have scoured Europe for human interest stories of how the EU has changed lives for the better and made them the poster boys.
I would have focused on peace, prosperity, bringing families together, frictionless travel, cultural exchanges, EU projects changing communities. And above all, I would have been honest. Yeah, the EU has its faults, yeah, Britian has used the EU as an alibi for 40 years of incompetent ministers, but lets do things better etc etc
What we got instead was doom and gloom. There are people in Britain who have nothing. Literally nothing to lose And Remain were saying that those people were going to lose money they never had?
Utter madness.
They voted in part, because for the first time in a long time, their voted meant a damn.
The Remain strategy towards these people was incompetence on a grand scale.
Part of the problem with remain was the lack of passion mixed with the threats. And the put downs. The patriotic working class types who probably helped leave win probably didn’t appreciate their home being described as a “cake-filled misery-laden grey old island” by the likes ofEmma Thompson for example. And don’t forget old Bob Geldof flicking the v at those fishermen from his massive yacht with his champagne swigging entourage too. See, when you tell someone like, say, the people of Britain, that they’re gak and worthless without you, there’s a strong possibility that they might go and try to prove you wrong. And that ‘deal’ Cameron came back with? It was still a pittance imo. But that’s more his problem tbh.
If we end up staying in the eu, I think any goodwill with the public a large will be destroyed, because there will be the narrative that the EU successfully bullied and coerced a relucant member into staying like some sort of domestic abuser.
Herzlos wrote: The difficulty in trying to present the benefits of the EU is the large crowd of people who won't believe it because of 'gut feeling'. They should have taken the Brexit threat more seriously and put more effort in though. Maybe they'd try and do so now? It'd maybe pick up some of the waverers (worth doing because it's so close) but will still fall on a lot of deaf ears.
Whatever you may think of Mogg, he's front and centre, fighting his case, rallying his troops and engaging in 'guerrilla' warfare.
Yet still not providing any credible plan or direction. Like he's throwing about demands and posturing to become PM but not actually trying to drive Brexit forwards.
I honestly thought Remain would win. Because there are enough floating voters out there for Remain to win at a canter.
Mogg on the other hand doesn't really need a plan for his strategy which has always been WTO terms. His mere presence is enough to force the government's hand, because he knows they are weak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Part of the problem with remain was the lack of passion mixed with the threats. And the put downs. The patriotic working class types who probably helped leave win probably didn’t appreciate their home being described as a “cake-filled misery-laden grey old island” by the likes ofEmma Thompson for example. And don’t forget old Bob Geldof flicking the v at those fishermen from his massive yacht with his champagne swigging entourage too. See, when you tell someone like, say, the people of Britain, that they’re gak and worthless without you, there’s a strong possibility that they might go and try to prove you wrong. And that ‘deal’ Cameron came back with? It was still a pittance imo. But that’s more his problem tbh.
If we end up staying in the eu, I think any goodwill with the public a large will be destroyed, because there will be the narrative that the EU successfully bullied and coerced a relucant member into staying like some sort of domestic abuser.
Agreed. Naturally, I'm biased, but we have to leave the EU, because if we don't public trust will be destroyed for generations, huge swathes of the populace will give up voting, and that will be bad for British democracy.
Posted this in an edit but took so long to confirm it's now well up the page so reposting:
The more I think about it, the more I think we should just ignore the deal. Nobody would like it. Instead: Referendum called - "We, the conservatives, have spent years fannying about, wasting the country's time calling general elections, setting unhelpful red lines, losing ministers left and right and basically being incompetent. Despite that incompetency we have determined that there is no possible way to work out a deal with the EU so have it people - should we stay or should we go? No campaigning, no lies - either everything stays as it was before the first referendum or we go out, no deal, nothing to soften the blow. Decide."
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...
Agreed. Naturally, I'm biased, but we have to leave the EU, because if we don't public trust will be destroyed for generations, huge swathes of the populace will give up voting, and that will be bad for British democracy.
You mean if we have a second referundum which results in a majority vote to stay in the EU we would have to leave the EU or else destroy all confidence in popular democracy.
Kilkrazy wrote: . There would be no reason not to allow other countries to decide to leave and then change their mind.
Well except leave-no-leave circle would burn up eu's money for nothing. Why the 2 year time limit is. If it starts to become habit eu will stop it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Part of the problem with remain was the lack of passion mixed with the threats. And the put downs. The patriotic working class types who probably helped leave win probably didn’t appreciate their home being described as a “cake-filled misery-laden grey old island” by the likes ofEmma Thompson for example. And don’t forget old Bob Geldof flicking the v at those fishermen from his massive yacht with his champagne swigging entourage too. See, when you tell someone like, say, the people of Britain, that they’re gak and worthless without you, there’s a strong possibility that they might go and try to prove you wrong. And that ‘deal’ Cameron came back with? It was still a pittance imo. But that’s more his problem tbh.
If we end up staying in the eu, I think any goodwill with the public a large will be destroyed, because there will be the narrative that the EU successfully bullied and coerced a relucant member into staying like some sort of domestic abuser.
Heh. Bullied by saying you want to leave then leave
Riquende wrote: Posted this in an edit but took so long to confirm it's now well up the page so reposting:
The more I think about it, the more I think we should just ignore the deal. Nobody would like it. Instead: Referendum called - "We, the conservatives, have spent years fannying about, wasting the country's time calling general elections, setting unhelpful red lines, losing ministers left and right and basically being incompetent. Despite that incompetency we have determined that there is no possible way to work out a deal with the EU so have it people - should we stay or should we go? No campaigning, no lies - either everything stays as it was before the first referendum or we go out, no deal, nothing to soften the blow. Decide."
I wish I had £1 for every time I said this.
But Parliament could stop Brexit at tea time today if they wished. They're all there for a vote.
Sadly for the Remain side, MPs are unwilling to stand up for their beliefs and answer for it at the ballot box.
Obviously I'm glad, but as I always say, Remain MPs won't die in a ditch for their side.
I would say to Remain dakka members you're better off without them.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...
Agreed. Naturally, I'm biased, but we have to leave the EU, because if we don't public trust will be destroyed for generations, huge swathes of the populace will give up voting, and that will be bad for British democracy.
You mean if we have a second referundum which results in a majority vote to stay in the EU we would have to leave the EU or else destroy all confidence in popular democracy.
Remain would be hoist by their own petard. You can't go around shouting non-binding referendum for two years, then win another referendum, and then tell everybody to respect the vote.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...
Agreed. Naturally, I'm biased, but we have to leave the EU, because if we don't public trust will be destroyed for generations, huge swathes of the populace will give up voting, and that will be bad for British democracy.
You mean if we have a second referundum which results in a majority vote to stay in the EU we would have to leave the EU or else destroy all confidence in popular democracy.
Well remain doesn't result in complete wrecking of uk so...not good for him
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...
Agreed. Naturally, I'm biased, but we have to leave the EU, because if we don't public trust will be destroyed for generations, huge swathes of the populace will give up voting, and that will be bad for British democracy.
You mean if we have a second referundum which results in a majority vote to stay in the EU we would have to leave the EU or else destroy all confidence in popular democracy.
Well remain doesn't result in complete wrecking of uk so...not good for him
It's foolish to predict anything at the best of times. Remember the doom and gloom voices who's said we'd suffer if we didn't join the Euro?
They were convinced that we'd head back to ration book Britain, spivs selling parachute silk in the dead of night, and dig for victory.
Remain would be hoist by their own petard. You can't go around shouting non-binding referendum for two years, then win another referendum, and then tell everybody to respect the vote.
It is how the EU do referendums......
However if you do ask the people again for specific reasons - ie we can't get the deal we want, and they vote to stay - can't see how that's not valid until /if you have a reason to hold a new one.
Putting the referendums on one side, does anyone think May's plan can work?
Firstly, can she get it through parliament?
Secondly, can she get it agreed with the EU?
Thirdly, can the magic border technology be invented and installed by Dec 2020?
1) Parliament: No, I don't think it is likely.
2) The EU will not accept the 4 freedoms being compromised, so that is also not likely.
3) Probably not?
This was always just a political gambit to slowly move toward Soft Brexit.
Perhaps May thinks she can push Parliament towards a soft Brexit by gaining the support of the Labour Party to offset the DUP and her backbencher Brexiteers.
What we got instead was doom and gloom. There are people in Britain who have nothing. Literally nothing to lose And Remain were saying that those people were going to lose money they never had?
You'd think that, but those very people are the ones that are going to be most badly hurt by Brexit. They are more likely to be relying on council/government funded services and manufacturing/service jobs. Trading gets hard and they may find their jobs lost. Economy gets damaged and they'll see service cuts. Tories get their way without the HRA and they'll get their rights taken away. The cost of their food, accomodation, energy etc will all go up.
They stand to gain almost nothing - none of their problems will be fixed by reducing migration.
Yes, I've seen you mention it before, I don't know why you keep posting it though. Today alone I posted that there isn't the political will within parliament to disregard the referendum result (just as there isn't the will for a Hard or Soft Brexit) and that's what's leading to the impasse. You seem to think you're posting some killer point but you're stating a very obvious fact each time.
Obviously I'm glad, but as I always say, Remain MPs won't die in a ditch for their side.
I would say to Remain dakka members you're better off without them.
I don't even understand what you're suggesting here. Be without them and instead be with who?
What we got instead was doom and gloom. There are people in Britain who have nothing. Literally nothing to lose And Remain were saying that those people were going to lose money they never had?
You'd think that, but those very people are the ones that are going to be most badly hurt by Brexit. They are more likely to be relying on council/government funded services and manufacturing/service jobs. Trading gets hard and they may find their jobs lost. Economy gets damaged and they'll see service cuts. Tories get their way without the HRA and they'll get their rights taken away. The cost of their food, accomodation, energy etc will all go up.
They stand to gain almost nothing - none of their problems will be fixed by reducing migration.
Exactly. People who think they have "literally nothing to lose" are going to find out just how far the government-funded services they rely on have been stretched so far by austerity when they disappear entirely thanks to new post-Hard Brexit-imposed 'superausterity'.
"Don't worry folks, it'll only be for the short term - 10 or 20 years, then we'll be back on an even keel"
Yes, I've seen you mention it before, I don't know why you keep posting it though. Today alone I posted that there isn't the political will within parliament to disregard the referendum result (just as there isn't the will for a Hard or Soft Brexit) and that's what's leading to the impasse. You seem to think you're posting some killer point but you're stating a very obvious fact each time.
Obviously I'm glad, but as I always say, Remain MPs won't die in a ditch for their side.
I would say to Remain dakka members you're better off without them.
I don't even understand what you're suggesting here. Be without them and instead be with who?
I'm making the point that Remain MPs talked the talk but didn't walk the walk. What you need are people who will defend their principals and walk away if need be as a matter of honour.
If they claim that Brexit is as bad as they think it'll be, why haven't they resigned en masse?
The Home Office spent a lot of effort refusing 1,200 working visas for doctors from India only a couple of months ago, in order to achieve the immigration limit.
What we got instead was doom and gloom. There are people in Britain who have nothing. Literally nothing to lose And Remain were saying that those people were going to lose money they never had?
You'd think that, but those very people are the ones that are going to be most badly hurt by Brexit. They are more likely to be relying on council/government funded services and manufacturing/service jobs. Trading gets hard and they may find their jobs lost. Economy gets damaged and they'll see service cuts. Tories get their way without the HRA and they'll get their rights taken away. The cost of their food, accomodation, energy etc will all go up.
They stand to gain almost nothing - none of their problems will be fixed by reducing migration.
Even if we stayed in the EU, wouldn't they face those problems anyway with automation on the rise?
At least now, the government will have to roll up their sleeves and tackle the problem.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Home Office spent a lot of effort refusing 1,200 working visas for doctors from India only a couple of months ago, in order to achieve the immigration limit.
Well, heads should roll for that. I've been watching and reading a lot about India these days. The potential there is huge.
A lot of India's professional class are middle-class, English speaking, cricket lovers.
They're almost ready made to fit seamlessly into Britain.
What we got instead was doom and gloom. There are people in Britain who have nothing. Literally nothing to lose And Remain were saying that those people were going to lose money they never had?
You'd think that, but those very people are the ones that are going to be most badly hurt by Brexit. They are more likely to be relying on council/government funded services and manufacturing/service jobs. Trading gets hard and they may find their jobs lost. Economy gets damaged and they'll see service cuts. Tories get their way without the HRA and they'll get their rights taken away. The cost of their food, accomodation, energy etc will all go up.
They stand to gain almost nothing - none of their problems will be fixed by reducing migration.
Even if we stayed in the EU, wouldn't they face those problems anyway with automation on the rise?
Not really, no. We'd still have more jobs and services without.
At least now, the government will have to roll up their sleeves and tackle the problem.
Except it didn't before, so why would it do it now?
Kilkrazy wrote: The Home Office spent a lot of effort refusing 1,200 working visas for doctors from India only a couple of months ago, in order to achieve the immigration limit.
Well, heads should roll for that. I've been watching and reading a lot about India these days. The potential there is huge.
A lot of India's professional class are middle-class, English speaking, cricket lovers.
They're almost ready made to fit seamlessly into Britain.
Send forth the work visas.
You do realise that the work visas was the reason the UK veto'd the EU/India trade deal?
And that whilst a lot of them are middle class English speaking, there's a deep deep dislike for the UK government/establishment as a whole (from the days where we screwed them over), and the vast majority of the billion population are very poor thus can't afford to buy most of our stuff?
Da Boss wrote: ".
I can see where it comes from, but why did no one stand up and point out how awesome the EU is? In the EU Ireland has absolutely transformed in my lifetime. My parents grew up in crushing poverty and the development that took place over their lifetimes, accelerated massively by us joining the EU, is staggering. My primary and national schools, the road outside my parents house, much of the structure of law that I grew up in, the french food I got to know as a kid, the currency in my pocket, all due to the influence of the EU.
Because the people in charge of convincing people to vote remain for the most part spent decades on a Trump-like "The EU is ripping us off" tirade while in government. Some times justified but many others used as a convenient foreign bogeyman to clean themselves of guilt "it's not us, the EU makes us do it":
- Rail privatisation
- Fishing rights
- Taking unlimited people from Eastern newcomers to the EU.
Etc etc
These things tend to stick in peoples' minds, especially with a very popular and motivated speakerphone in the gutter press.
I'm making the point that Remain MPs talked the talk but didn't walk the walk. What you need are people who will defend their principals and walk away if need be as a matter of honour.
Well yeah, that would be great. What an astute observation. I still don't see why you bother bringing it up continually, because we (the Remain supporting populace) can't just go out and get these wondrous people and install them into positions of power within parliament.
Or are you seriously suggesting that every Remainer MP should have just quit parliament when the referendum result came in?
Michael Gove admits leave was wrong to fuel immigration fears
Spoiler:
still the lies have done their work now then, so we'll just hope all the stoked tensions go away as brexit turns out to be the abject failure it was always going to be all along.
I would like Turkey to join the EU but by 2016 they had already moved farther away from where we want them to be on human rights and so on.
Consquently the idea of Turkey joining the EU was pretty much a lie, but Farage's rivers of brown poster was the moment the campaign changed. It quite plainly yoked immigration and racism together.
Kilkrazy wrote: You're only as good as your last referendum.
Putting the referendums on one side, does anyone think May's plan can work?
Firstly, can she get it through parliament?
Secondly, can she get it agreed with the EU?
Thirdly, can the magic border technology be invented and installed by Dec 2020?
Usually it's best to plan backwards from a date to work out whether the timescale is reasonable. So on this basis looking at a high level project plan:-
31st December 2020 - Go live date (as in it must be working fully else chaos ensues on 1st Jan 2021 - likely worse than just putting up 'normal' borders
December 2020 - Training of staff. Customs staff will need to be trained on the system. There will be superusers that likely have advanced sight. Usually things break here as there is a tendency not to ask people on the floor actually what happens.
October 2020 - December 2020. Provide details to businesses of the changes so they can prepare (really they need 6 months but I'm pushing things).
April 2020 - October 2020. Commissioning phase. This is the stress test stage of the work. Trying to iron out the bugs, the unexepcted consequences and we didn't realise people exported live ants in a wire box for aeroplane dynamics tests.
April 2019 - March 2020. Design and construct system. This includes gathering data as to what currently happens and what trade there is (much of which is hidden under free trade). Also 12 months assumes dedicated resources (expensive) so hence a contract you pay for.
April 2018 - March 2019. Procure a company to design and create a new system. It's not particularly efficient to do in house as it is a specific short term project (what do they do afterwards.
October 2017 - March 2018. Undertake key principles of the project, define outcome and goals etc.
Ahhhh. So really we should have started this process about 9 months ago to give a realistic chance of getting a good, workign piece of software out in time. Now you can shrink the training/commissioning period. And it is generally a large temptation by management to do such things. However I think we can all surmise how it ends up when you do.
Michael Gove admits leave was wrong to fuel immigration fears
Spoiler:
still the lies have done their work now then, so we'll just hope all the stoked tensions go away as brexit turns out to be the abject failure it was always going to be all along.
Very convenient to say this when you have what you want. Not calling for a rerun though with actual evidence of course. Basically I'll support the racism and bigotry whilst it supports my cause.
Can anybody explain this? And what in God's name is happening to HMG?
By accepting Mogg's 4 amendments, May has torpedoed her own white paper!
If I'm reading this right, and I might be wrong, but it's illegal for the UK to leave the CU. It's also illegal for the UK to stay in the CU if this bill passes
I never thought I'd say this, but I feel sorry for the EU. Do they accept the unedited white paper or the amended white paper?
And what of the Irish backstop?
If the plan was to baffle the EU with bullgak, then the UK is the greatest negotiator in human history...
The previous version was never going to be accepted. Same for this one.
The sooner the UK realises they're just negotiating with themselves the better.
This has gone beyond Brexit or Remain. This is a question of basic competence at the heart of government. It's a debacle.
May has more interest in her position and that of the party. She is banking on the Remainer side being too weak (and historically have shown to be) to oppose the changes even though they make the possibility of a full hard Wrexit much more likely. They EU are unlikely to accept the changes. 27 countries collecting taxes for one country would be a logistical nightmare and simply won't be accepted. Nor is it reciprocal.
The EU will also start wondering who is actually in charge. If the UK Government can't come to an agreement and then not immediately be changed by the frothing lunatic element of the party then it shows May has no power in government at all. It will also embolden these frothing lunatics as they know May will cave to more demands. The ardent remainers keep kicking the can down the road thinking next time they can make a difference without ruining the Tory party. Which will never happen.
If you have to red pen your own legislation within a few minutes then you know there are problems. And that is before the EU say no to a lot of it.
Have you guys also seen that the solution to all the Tory infighting is to go on holidays 5 days early? Friggin' hilarious. That is like when I am having a bad lesson of a thursday afternoon and I start considering letting the students leave five minutes early just so I can have a break. I don't do it, because I am a *achem achem* serious professional, but I guess there are not many of those in the HoC eh?
Christ what a shambles. As DINLT says, what about the Irish Backstop? We are practically screaming at the UK government to sort it and... it just goes on.
When started reading the paragraph on the blog about the recess, I initially thought they were going to vote to cancel it in the name of getting the best outcome for Britain, forgoing their holidays in the national interest. Bit stupid of me, eh?
Da Boss wrote: When started reading the paragraph on the blog about the recess, I initially thought they were going to vote to cancel it in the name of getting the best outcome for Britain, forgoing their holidays in the national interest. Bit stupid of me, eh?
Pfft, what next? Them not voting to give themselves pay rises?
Yep, it's very simple. (Again) There isn't a clear majority in parliament for any specific Brexit plan, so the Govt has to keep twisting to try to present their plan as acceptable to the gretest number of MPs. When the Hard Brexiteers threatened to pull away unless they got their 4 amendments the Bill was going to be DOA so No.10 looked at the amendments, decided they could at least pretend they were in line with the white paper and are now trying again to show something to parliament that will get the votes needed.
I don't know how many times this political paralysis can be explained to be honest.
It's somewhat frustrating to watch cries of "democracy" allow a few dozen backbench MPs dictate policy to the govt. and throw the country onto the scrapheap.
Riquende wrote: It's somewhat frustrating to watch cries of "democracy" allow a few dozen backbench MPs dictate policy to the govt. and throw the country onto the scrapheap.
Backbench rebellions have saved this country in the past. 1940 and the ousting of Neville Chamberlain being the prime example. Fair enough, you don't agree with Brexit, but I'm glad that such a mechanism is theoretically there if the nation ever needed it.
Riquende wrote: It's somewhat frustrating to watch cries of "democracy" allow a few dozen backbench MPs dictate policy to the govt. and throw the country onto the scrapheap.
Lol and May survuves another day by caving in, but only by three votes. Can't be long now.
Now the EU have something less than was what was originally proposed. The White paper is no longer relevant and we are back to a confusing mess of a discussion where May has to try and agree something that the EU will never agree to. Which is exactly what the hardline nutcases want. Force a completely impossible position. It also shows why the EU staying quiet was a good idea. After all if you expect the Tories to change their mind after week then what is it going to be like after a month, a year or three years. I expect the EU to be even more hardlined after this travisty.
These are worrying times for Britain. It's an utter shambles in Westminster.
The Tory party is now officially engaged in a civil war. It's out in the open now. Another government minister has resigned. Blue on blue 'killings' as they're calling it on twitter...
Labour are riven by their own factions. The Lib Dems are irrelevant, there's trouble in Ireland, and only the SNP show any unity or cohesion, but given what we all know what they stand for, and I am a member
When was the last time we had this situation? Pre-American Revolution? Irish Home rule bills? Corn laws? 1930s and the national government?
So the White Paper is ripped up before the EU has even had time to comment on it. Now Raab will have to go and explain to Barnier that what they sent him is different and could he look at the new version. What a farce.
How can the EU make a deal with these people? You have no idea how long any deal will last, or how they are interpreting any wording, or how seriously they are taking any of it.
I think no deal crash out is getting likelier by the day, and that should terrify us all. I just hope the Irish government has proper contingencies in place. I doubt it.
When may was first elected, and with a mix of remainers and leavers in the cabinet, I thought that at least they'd be able to mitigate the worst excess' of a hard Brexit. That was clearly bollocks.
What I realised around the time of Article 50 was that actually this whole affair had been handed to exactly the wrong people. Leavers should have firmly been in control. Only they had the enthusiasm for this project, and in order for it to have any credibility they should have taken the reins.
They would have been given all the opportunities to make this a success, and pulled the country with them. Now we stare a few pretty grim alternatives.
1. May's plan, a soft Brexit that leaves us shackled to the EU with no say and little influence
2. A hard Brexit with all the issues that brings
3. Staying in the EU and cancelling Brexit with the serious political and social issues that would now bring.
I'm at a loss for a way forward tbh, as now even staying in the EU would likely just kick this can down the road with the whole relationship destroyed domestically for a generation.
Feth rerunning the arguments all over again, we know it's a fething stupid idea, but it's done now. Give it to the people who wanted it, and make them own it and prove they're right and that it can be successful. That's how utterly despondent and desperate I feel now.
I want Brexit. Make no mistake. But I want it done properly. And this lot are clearly not up to the task.
If they feth it up, Remain could hijack the whole process and I get feth all.
This option buys us a few years, heals a divided country, keeps Ireland calm, and is something that could pass muster in Brussels...
I am willing to compromise on this. I knew Westminster couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard, but God almighty, I didn't know they were this bad. None of us did...
I am willing to compromise on this. I knew Westminster couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard, but God almighty, I didn't know they were this bad. None of us did...
I did not expect Westminster to be this shambolic either. I have been consistently shocked at how hollow the political and media establishment in the UK have become.
I am willing to compromise on this. I knew Westminster couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard, but God almighty, I didn't know they were this bad. None of us did...
Bollocks. We told you so.
To be fair we just said what the outcome would be and what the response from the EU would be and that the government would be pissing in the wind if they tried to get the EU to change things they had said were absolutely immutable rules. What no one expected was for the government to stand there for so long with wet feet and trying to make the wind go down to Clark’s for a new pair of brogues.
Apparently Farron missed the vote because he was in Dorset speaking at a 'Death of Liberalism' meeting. Essentially to complain that you can't be a homophobic politician.
You can see why May wants to close Parliament five days early.
Madness, really! We are in the middle of the most difficult and strategically important situation since WW2, and the government wants to shut up shop early to protect its party interests.
I am also amused by the Brexiteer amendments coming from people who shrieked that parliament should not bind the PM's hands in the negotiations when Remainer amendments were being tabled.
That’s awesome. I wonder will they offer deals on getting your ashes fired into space? Surely that’s a must for any 40k fan.
I'm afraid this project looks like it is dead on arrival. £2.5m is a ridiculously low amount of support for such a project. It just about gets you a concrete pad (assuming nothing is done on any design work). It is in the middle of nowhere, with terrible transport links (it's at least 2.5hrs from Inverness). At a minimum you will need:-
Fully integrated lauch system - underground fuelling operations etc
Transport links to allow for rocket parts to be transported - that's either a new port or seriously upgraded road network
Fuelling network. That's likely a new pipeline or, again, a new port (better as it gives access globally and we have very few launch system manufacturers in the UK).
Engineering buildings for construction, build, maintenance of the rockets and loading of satellites.
Hence facilities for the engineers and operators (not everyone wants to live in the back of beyond)
Hence upgraded local infrastructure.
The cost of such a project I would estimate would be at least £0.5bn+ (and that's likely just the basics). If the government really wanted to invest in such a project this is how much they would need to commit. £2.5m is a pointlessly small amount of money. My guess is it will be quietly dropped in a few years, at least at this location.
You can see why May wants to close Parliament five days early.
Madness, really! We are in the middle of the most difficult and strategically important situation since WW2, and the government wants to shut up shop early to protect its party interests.
I am also amused by the Brexiteer amendments coming from people who shrieked that parliament should not bind the PM's hands in the negotiations when Remainer amendments were being tabled.
Given that this was an opportunity to really stop and think about the process, it is quite off that so many stayed away from the vote.
I wish I could vote on going on holiday for an extra week at the same pay. I wonder whether they will give up a 50th of their pay if they go on holiday early?
And yes the hypocrisy from the frothing lunatics on the Tory right is overwhelming...but I think we should know now that they will say anything to get their way and damn the what they might have done and stood for before.
What we got instead was doom and gloom. There are people in Britain who have nothing. Literally nothing to lose And Remain were saying that those people were going to lose money they never had?
You'd think that, but those very people are the ones that are going to be most badly hurt by Brexit. They are more likely to be relying on council/government funded services and manufacturing/service jobs. Trading gets hard and they may find their jobs lost. Economy gets damaged and they'll see service cuts. Tories get their way without the HRA and they'll get their rights taken away. The cost of their food, accomodation, energy etc will all go up.
They stand to gain almost nothing - none of their problems will be fixed by reducing migration.
You always have something to lose as long as you aren't dead. So literally nothing to lose is lie unless you talk about dead people.
Pretty shocking really, looking at the figures if you combine the overspend by Grimes and Vote Leave then you are looking at about a 16% overspend (over £1m) than was allowed under the rules (£7m).
This isn't a few grand here and there that was missed. This was calculated overspending on a staggering scale.
If they broke the law they should go down for it. No ifs, ands or buts. Christ it just gets more embarrassing.
The efta option is proving to be quite popular among the readership of the spectator, who are generally about as Leaver as you can get. And I’m fairly certain that Norway’s position on us joining it was “I wouldn’t recommend it because it’s not exactly perfect but if you want to join go ahead”. Why must things be made so difficult?
Kilkrazy wrote: The fine is the maximum allowed by the law extant at the time of the offence.
That's also the fine imposed by the Election Commission. Is it possible that if the police decide to prosecute there could be further fines imposed by the courts?
I believe there could be prison involved. However it is up to the police and Crown Prosecution service to decide whether to carry a case forward, and it may not happen.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fine is the maximum allowed by the law extant at the time of the offence.
The point is that if the fine is massively lower than the actual expenditure then it is no disincentive at all. You can effectively right it off as part of the campaign costs. At most Grimes might get a suspended jail term. They are unlikely to jail someone for a significant period of time. On the other hands Grimes was likely just used (and let himself be).
It's just a third of the world economy. That's just pennies surely for the UK? But hey free trade with New Zealand will make up for it!
I also see they have released initial costs for the badger cull in Wales. £76,000 per animal and the tests aren't even reliable. I think that puts the total cost for a UK wide roll out of about £2bn. Perhaps that is where we will spend the mythical Wrexit dividend?
MPs have voted 315-285 against requiring the Government to publish texts of proposed trade agreements prior to ratification
.. TAKING BACK CONTROL !
Not content with voting against having the right to ratify international trade treaties, Parliament has voted against even requiring the Government to show them their contents.
MPs have voted 315-285 against requiring the Government to publish texts of proposed trade agreements prior to ratification
.. TAKING BACK CONTROL !
Not content with voting against having the right to ratify international trade treaties, Parliament has voted against even requiring the Government to show them their contents.
and this helps us how exactly ?
and people say the EU is undemocratic.
I'm with you on this. It's shameful stuff. I've been watching this all afternoon and they even shot down the SNP amendment that wanted the devolved governments to have a say, a say mind you, and not a veto.
If London won't even listen to Belfast, Cardiff, or Edinburgh, you wonder what's the point. Incredibly short-sighted.
Who can argue against Parliament scrutinising new trade deals? Not me.
Many many thanks for helping to push us into this ridiculous situation then.
so today we've seen a prime minister who will accept/has to swallow ERG amendments -- designed to wreck almost entirely her negotiating position --but won’t accept Tory MPs amendments supporting her negotiating position.
Whilst Tory MP Nicky Morgan was trying to enlist Labour MPs to support the government's own negotiating strategyagainst its own wishes.
didn't really think it'd happen, but do not see any possible way forwards now without a general election, this is unsustainable.
reds8n wrote: Many many thanks for helping to push us into this ridiculous situation then.
so today we've seen a prime minister who will accept/has to swallow ERG amendments -- designed to wreck almost entirely her negotiating position --but won’t accept Tory MPs amendments supporting her negotiating position.
Whilst Tory MP Nicky Morgan was trying to enlist Labour MPs to support the government's own negotiating strategyagainst its own wishes.
didn't really think it'd happen, but do not see any possible way forwards now without a general election, this is unsustainable.
The current Government is taking more and more advice from China it appears. Absolutely ridiculous that there can be no scrutiny of trade deals. And you have Liam Fox who gave private access to a mate to foreign office trips the ability to agree these behind closed doors. What is this Trumpland? How long until they decide MPs aren't required and disband all elections?
What is more scary is just how many MPs voted for removing the ability to question what is being actioned. They are after all there to represent the populace and the government should be nothing more than first among equals. How can you represent a populace with no ability to undertake that representation?
Still at least one amendment has passed. They have to ensure we remain in the European Medicines framework.
Many many thanks for helping to push us into this ridiculous situation then.
Well, as I've said before, if MPs won't defend the Commons, then why the feth should anybody else?
It's not my fault if MPs have no spines.
Because MPs obviously are looking out for themselves and not the people. That doesn't mean the people shouldn't stand up in and cry out as democracy is slowly whittled away by a few hungry for power.
I want a beefed up Parliament, I want scrutiny of trade bills. I want Parliament to be sovereign.
But is it my job to defend the Commons? No, that's what we have MPs for.
I don't put out large blazes, because I'm not a fireman. Or catch crooks, because I'm not a policeman.
I vote, I pay taxes, I do jury duty, I try my best to be a good citizen, but MPs have to meet us half way on this.
MPs should be fighting to defend the Commons, not people like me. Of course I don't want them reduced to a shadow of their selves, but they need to show some fight as well.
All I and we can do is cast a vote against them at elections.
You and everyone else who have forced us into this ridiculous situation.
And, as per usual, still cannot accept any of your responsibility.
So we watch on as Tory "rebels" win a vote that was the government's position at the end of last Friday, with the government -- who proposed the idea -- itself voting against it.
..still on the plus side the MPs get to vote as to whether they get 5 extra paid days holiday -- in affect -- so good old fashioned laziness might save the day.
You and everyone else who have forced us into this ridiculous situation.
And, as per usual, still cannot accept any of your responsibility.
So we watch on as Tory "rebels" win a vote that was the government's position at the end of last Friday, with the government -- who proposed the idea -- itself voting against it.
..still on the plus side the MPs get to vote as to whether they get 5 extra paid days holiday -- in affect -- so good old fashioned laziness might save the day.
I will defend the Commons. I will defend our MPs. But they have to be standing in the trenches next to the people when this battle is going on. Otherwise, they look bad, not up for the fight, and people will wonder why are we bothering then.
You forget British history. What did our MPs do when King Charles threatened them? They stood up and defended Parliament. I'm not saying we need a modern day Edgehill, but they need to show some fight.
As for yesterday's debacle, that was plain incompetence that's been happening all my adult life. We had blunders on this scale even when we were in the EU.
Oh look, yet another DINLT non-response. Refusing once again to accept any responsibility for what his own vote has wrought (or even address the question of it) and instead blathering on and on about MPs 'fighting for parliament' and 'standing in the trenches' without giving any indication what the hell and of that is supposed to mean.
"It's not my fault the politicians aren't stopping the thing I voted for."
The Westminster version of "why are you hitting yourself?"
Honestly, the cheers of the (presumed) hard brexiters when they got a wink tonight was sickening. Throaty roars of approval of the prospect of long dole lines, industry in tatters, public services slashed to the bone. One lone cry of 'never mind the jobs then', but they don't. Because they and their mates are all independently wealthy and a collapsed economy only increases their status, not diminishes it.
Well, seeing as some people think I need things spelt out for me in bright crayons, let me be as simple as I can.
This is what happened in The Commons not more than an hour ago.
Pro-EU Tory rebels threatened to vote against government.
Government threatened them with confidence vote.
Rebels had to choose between Party or principals.
Rebels chose party.
Somehow, it's DINLT's fault that people who extol the virtues of the EU fade away when push comes to shove.
I might be a lot of things, but I'm not God. I can't put backbone into unprincipled chancers whom I've never met before in my life.
People say oh, you voted for it. I didn't vote for Vince Cable not being arsed to turn up to Parliament, or Diann Abbott having a 'migraine' or Anne Soubry waving the white flag.
You can blame me for a lot of things, but you can't blame me for that.
I will defend our MPs. But they have to be standing in the trenches next to the people when this battle is going on.
You know they won't be.
No offence to Remain members, and maybe you lot don't like this hard truth, but if there's one 'good' thing out of Brexit, it's that Remain now knows which people on their side can be relied on when the going gets tough. You know who the warriors are who will fight for the EU, and more importantly, you know who the fair weather friends are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: On the plus side, a second referendum is becoming more likeley by the day.
The difficulty is that it is likely to take 9 to 12 months to organise and carry out.
A general election, though, can happen in weeks if the government falls.
Let's all remember that May leads a minority government sustained in power only by the magic money tree feeding the DUP.
I know from my membership that the SNP really don't have the cash for another GE and that Labour are not much better off.
The Tories usually rely on a dodgy donation to fund their GE war chest.
Point is, nobody's got the money for another GE so soon after last year.
It is reported he has Sciatica. Now having a parent that also suffers from this I can definitely relate to the pain and weakness this causes. This is not just a 'sore back'
