It's already known that it can be repealed. So the EU would have no say in it. Plus, it's only an intention to leave, not actually leaving.
And it's not about saying 'we're staying after all', more about not blundering around blindfolded by a bunch of hard right nutters holding the Tory party to ransom.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It's already known that it can be repealed. So the EU would have no say in it. Plus, it's only an intention to leave, not actually leaving.
And it's not about saying 'we're staying after all', more about not blundering around blindfolded by a bunch of hard right nutters holding the Tory party to ransom.
Let's not pretend it's a right-wing thing.
Every man and his dog knows that Corbyn voted for Brexit. It's only Labour party politics that's stopping him from jumping on stage and setting fire to an EU flag.
Another thing would EU stand for it. All that "we are going to leave, no we stay, no out, in" costs money. There's reason the time limit for negotiations was set to limited period extendable only if all EU members agree. The longer negotiations lag the longer it costs.
Not to mention if UK says "oh we stay" how anybody can really believe that...
Logically, A50 can't be reversed, otherwise, every EU member would threaten to activate it in order to shake down Brussels for a better deal.
In my brother's line of work he has previously been involved in corporate events for large banks etc. He has told repeated stories of how people attending these events completely assume the female staff are prostitutes, and will just openly ask them 'OK how much for the night then?' etc. Are really quite taken aback when they are turned down.
Its pretty mind boggling that people would just ask this of women at a public event. It just shows such a disconnect from 'normal' human interaction, on top of the likely fact that some at least are married.
I think this is more of a rich privilege than a male privilege thing. There’s something about these corporate type events where powerful wealthy people think they can do whatever they like. Ordinary people wouldn’t do that, or at least not a whole room of them doing it without comment, it’s something rich powerful men do because they think their power gives them the right to everything, especially the less well off. The women are product for them to sample. Sickening.
Funny. I could SWEAR students generally aren't rich but still have plenty of such behaviour. Guess I was worse financially as a student than I thought then.
I’ve never been to any event where the students attendees thought all the serving staff were prostitutes they could pay to take home. Sounds like no university of college I’ve experience of.
There’s a difference between chatting up the girl behind the bar, which is what students probably do, and assuming that female staff at an event have only been employed for you to sample before buying to take home. Which is what arrogant wealthy people tend to do, their money gives them the expectation that everything is for sale, and they have the right to have it.
To kinda throw back your "Sounds like no university of college I’ve experience of" in your face, chatting up the girl behind the bar is not just what students probably do. I've seen (ending up in people being thrown out for harassing the female staff while they may or may not have been drunk, hard to say) and heard stories that went much further just chatting up the girl behind the bar. Sure, its not exactly the same as assumed prostitution, but the general level of vulgarity is up there.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It's already known that it can be repealed. So the EU would have no say in it. Plus, it's only an intention to leave, not actually leaving.
And it's not about saying 'we're staying after all', more about not blundering around blindfolded by a bunch of hard right nutters holding the Tory party to ransom.
Let's not pretend it's a right-wing thing.
Every man and his dog knows that Corbyn voted for Brexit. It's only Labour party politics that's stopping him from jumping on stage and setting fire to an EU flag.
Another thing would EU stand for it. All that "we are going to leave, no we stay, no out, in" costs money. There's reason the time limit for negotiations was set to limited period extendable only if all EU members agree. The longer negotiations lag the longer it costs.
Not to mention if UK says "oh we stay" how anybody can really believe that...
Logically, A50 can't be reversed, otherwise, every EU member would threaten to activate it in order to shake down Brussels for a better deal.
Didn't realise that Corbyn had May by the short and curlies, threatening to detonate the party unless she caves into their very specific, swivel eyed demands.
That's the hard-right I'm referring to.
A50 can be reversed/repealed. It's authors have said so.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It's already known that it can be repealed. So the EU would have no say in it. Plus, it's only an intention to leave, not actually leaving.
And it's not about saying 'we're staying after all', more about not blundering around blindfolded by a bunch of hard right nutters holding the Tory party to ransom.
Let's not pretend it's a right-wing thing.
Every man and his dog knows that Corbyn voted for Brexit. It's only Labour party politics that's stopping him from jumping on stage and setting fire to an EU flag.
Another thing would EU stand for it. All that "we are going to leave, no we stay, no out, in" costs money. There's reason the time limit for negotiations was set to limited period extendable only if all EU members agree. The longer negotiations lag the longer it costs.
Not to mention if UK says "oh we stay" how anybody can really believe that...
Logically, A50 can't be reversed, otherwise, every EU member would threaten to activate it in order to shake down Brussels for a better deal.
Didn't realise that Corbyn had May by the short and curlies, threatening to detonate the party unless she caves into their very specific, swivel eyed demands.
That's the hard-right I'm referring to.
A50 can be reversed/repealed. It's authors have said so.
Until it's been tested in a court of law, and a judge says otherwise, I will maintain my stance that A50 is the red button. Once pressed, the missiles are not going back in the silos.
Until it's been tested in a court of law, and a judge says otherwise I will maintain my stance that A50 is the red button.
Which court? Because invoking A50 is merely a declaration of intent addressed to the EU.
If the EU wants to accept an "ok, this has been a mistake" explanation and roll back the whole thing it's their prerogative. And relevant EU voices are on record saying they would.
As a related example, James Madison, the guy behind the US constitution, obviously knew a thing or two about US constitutional politics, but in his lifetime, the US constitution was still challenged in courts by lawyers, the nullification crisis being a prime example.
No lawyer hestiated to do so because Madison was still alive.
I use this example to highlight the fact that yes, A50's authors obviously know a lot about it, but lawyers will not be put off from taking it to task on the question of repeal, just because the authors say otherwise.
Until it's been tested in a court of law, and a judge says otherwise I will maintain my stance that A50 is the red button.
Which court? Because invoking A50 is merely a declaration of intent addressed to the EU.
If the EU wants to accept an "ok, this has been a mistake" explanation and roll back the whole thing it's their prerogative. And relevant EU voices are on record saying they would.
I have heard talk of the ECJ having to get involved in a possible repeal of A50.
Until it's been tested in a court of law, and a judge says otherwise I will maintain my stance that A50 is the red button.
Which court? Because invoking A50 is merely a declaration of intent addressed to the EU.
If the EU wants to accept an "ok, this has been a mistake" explanation and roll back the whole thing it's their prerogative. And relevant EU voices are on record saying they would.
I have heard talk of the ECJ having to get involved in a possible repeal of A50.
Link? Because merely stating you want to leave doesn't really have any legal meaning (other than a not insignificant amount of public servant wages spent on useless negotiations).
A50 doesn't have to be repealed because it will remain in the books, what the UK has done (so far) is notified the EU of their decision to leave according to the provisions contained in A50. Both parties are still in the negotiating phase and if the UK feels like stepping back (and the EU accepts) they can go back.
There's a good case that even if the EU wouldn't fancy the UK back after all they'd still be in because exit was never formalised.
A lot of Brexit supporters are spltting blood on twitter over the EU's latest position
but it may surprise people to know that I don't blame the EU for protecting the EU's interests. I'd be doing the same.
It's our lame-duck, Remain suporting PM who i blame. Her heart was never in it.
As for security, I'm not too worried about what reds8n has posted about security. And the concept of an EU battlegroup is a nonsense for the majority of EU members which are also NATO members.
We're part of the 5 eyes, we're a NATO member, us and the French are the only EU members with nukes, and speaking off the French, all the heads of French security had a historic meeting with the heads of MI5 and MI6 the other day. I doubt if they were discussing the Bayeux tapestry.
Britain and the EU are not going to stop co-operating on security. If Germany has vital intel on a terror attack on the UK, or vice-versa, it will be shared. The political fall-out wuld be damaging if such intel were withheld.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A lot of Brexit supporters are spltting blood on twitter over the EU's latest position
but it may surprise people to know that I don't blame the EU for protecting the EU's interests. I'd be doing the same.
It's our lame-duck, Remain suporting PM who i blame. Her heart was never in it.
Well at least you are being realistic, that's definitely a plus. There are plenty, even in parliament that think that the EU will just roll over to the UK because they are blinded about both our political and economic power (and that it is small compared to the EU).
As for security, I'm not too worried about what reds8n has posted about security. And the concept of an EU battlegroup is a nonsense for the majority of EU members which are also NATO members.
We're part of the 5 eyes, we're a NATO member, us and the French are the only EU members with nukes, and speaking off the French, all the heads of French security had a historic meeting with the heads of MI5 and MI6 the other day. I doubt if they were discussing the Bayeux tapestry.
Britain and the EU are not going to stop co-operating on security. If Germany has vital intel on a terror attack on the UK, or vice-versa, it will be shared. The political fall-out wuld be damaging if such intel were withheld.
NATO is about coming to each others defence if attacked. It does not require countries to share intelligence and so on in the same way. Not only is it losing the high technical jobs these would employ but you also lose the influence over how these operations work and targeted.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's our lame-duck, Remain suporting PM who i blame. Her heart was never in it.
She is just continuing the grand Tory tradition of putting party before country. Remember this whole situation started with call me Dave grasping for UKIP votes.
The EU has put up with the UK's shenanigans for 40 years, and given us a number of special concessions:
Opt-out from the working time directive.
Opt-out from Schengen
Opt-out from the "Ever Close Union" clause
Opt-out from the Euro
Maggie's rebate on the membership fees
Probably some other things too, but I don't know...
The reason why is that the UK adds a great deal to the EU, not just money, but population, technology, international influence, and military power too. (Before Brexiteers get all Little Englandy, elt me point out that the UK has a lot of this soft power because we offer the rest of the world an entree to the EU. A lot of it won't survive our leaving.)
So the EU would be perfectly happy to lengthen the Article 50 process to get a good,orderly settlement, or abandon it entirely, to retain the UK. But there is a limit to the amount of free sweets the UK will be given in the imaginary Canada +++ scenario.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, Angela Merkel naughtily poked fun at Theresa May, in a secret briefing for journalists. Here's what transpired, according to those there.
Merkel said that when she asks Mrs May what she wants the shape of the UK's relationship with the EU to be, Mrs May says "make me an offer".
To which Mrs Merkel says, "but you're leaving - we don't have to make you an offer. Come on what do you want?
To which Mrs May replies "make me an offer".
And so, according to Mrs Merkel, the two find themselves trapped in a recurring loop of "what do you want?" and "make me an offer".
At its telling, the hacks laughed uproariously - though I am not sure this is so funny for the UK. Merkel and May’s comedy skit reflects a deep and uncomfortable truth for the government and country - which is that Theresa May and her cabinet haven’t yet decided what our future trading relationship with the EU should look like, because (to state the bloomin’ obvious) ministers are at loggerheads over this. But good news! The negotiations that matter start in earnest this week: not between the UK and Brussels, or even the UK and Germany, but between the erstwhile Remainers Hammond, Rudd and Clark on the one hand and the arch Brexiteers Gove and Johnson on the other.
The Government's Own Brexit Analysis Says The UK Will Be Worse Off In Every Scenario Outside The EU
The government's new analysis of the impact of Brexit says the UK would be worse off outside the European Union under every scenario modelled, BuzzFeed News can reveal.
The assessment, which is titled “EU Exit Analysis – Cross Whitehall Briefing” and dated January 2018, looked at three of the most plausible Brexit scenarios based on existing EU arrangements.
Under a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, UK growth would be 5% lower over the next 15 years compared to current forecasts, according to the analysis.
The "no deal" scenario, which would see the UK revert to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, would reduce growth by 8% over that period. The softest Brexit option of continued single-market access through membership of the European Economic Area would, in the longer term, still lower growth by 2%.
These calculations do not take into account any short-term hits to the economy from Brexit, such as the cost of adjusting the economy to new customs arrangements.
The assessment seen by BuzzFeed News is being kept tightly guarded inside government. It was prepared by officials across Whitehall for the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU), and is reportedly being presented to key ministers in one-to-one meetings this week ahead of discussion at the Brexit cabinet subcommittee next week.
Asked why the prime minister was not making the analysis public, a DExEU source told BuzzFeed News: "Because it's embarrassing."
Even though the analysis assumes that the UK will agree a trade deal with the US, roll over dozens of the EU’s current trade agreements, and consider loosening regulations after Brexit, there is no scenario that does not leave the country worse off.
Officials believe the methodology for the new assessment is better than that used for similar analyses before the referendum.
The January 2018 analysis looked only at existing EU arrangements, which means bespoke arrangements have yet to be modelled. Prime Minister Theresa May has repeatedly said she is seeking a "deep and special partnership with the EU".
The other main findings of the analysis include:
• Almost every sector of the economy included in the analysis would be negatively impacted in all three scenarios, with chemicals, clothing, manufacturing, food and drink, and cars and retail the hardest hit. The analysis found that only the agriculture sector under the WTO scenario would not be adversely affected.
• Every UK region would also be affected negatively in all the modelled scenarios, with the North East, the West Midlands, and Northern Ireland (before even considering the possibility of a hard border) facing the biggest falls in economic performance.
• There is a risk that London’s status as a financial centre could be severely eroded, with the possibilities available under an FTA not much different to those in the WTO option.
• On the plus side, the analysis assumes in all scenarios that a trade deal with the US will be concluded, and that it would benefit GDP by about 0.2% in the long term. Trade deals with other non-EU countries and blocs, such as China, India, Australia, the Gulf countries, and the nations of Southeast Asia would add, in total, a further 0.1% to 0.4% to GDP over the long term.
The government has found itself in repeated difficulty over the existence – or lack – of Brexit impact studies. Last year, the Brexit secretary David Davis suggested that dozens had been carried out “in excruciating detail”, but after a Commons vote forced the publication of these assessments, he told MPs he had been misunderstood and they did not exist after all. DExEU published a series of broad "sectoral analyses" instead.
The biggest negative impact comes from the UK’s decision to leave both the EU’s customs union and the single market – the issue at the heart of the Conservative Party’s ongoing internal strife over Brexit.
Leaving these arrangements creates what the analysis calls “non-tariff barriers” to trade, such as loss of market access in certain sectors and new customs and border checks and practices.
Some of these can be minimised if Britain were to remain in the single market via the EEA, and the impact can also be partly offset through domestic policy or trade deals with the US and others, but the losses cannot be eliminated altogether once the UK is outside the customs union.
This new analysis suggests that there could be opportunity for the UK in agreeing trade deals with non-EU countries and deregulating in areas such as the environment, product standards, and employment law.
However, the analysis also casts doubt on the idea that these benefits would be enough to mitigate the losses to the economy caused by leaving the single market and customs union. Moving away from the existing set of rules and standards would also make it harder to trade with the EU in the future, and would be politically controversial domestically.
This specific debate risks deepening the conflict inside the Tory party between those, such as chancellor Philip Hammond, who want to remain more closely aligned to the EU for years, and the hardline Brexiteers, led by backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg.
A government spokesperson told BuzzFeed News: “We have already set out that the government is undertaking a wide range of ongoing analysis in support of our EU exit negotiations and preparations.
"We have been clear that we are not prepared to provide a running commentary on any aspect of this ongoing internal work and that ministers have a duty not to publish anything that could risk exposing our negotiation position.”
A government source said: “As part of its preparations for leaving the European Union, officials from across Whitehall are undertaking a wide range of ongoing analysis.
"An early draft of this next stage of analysis has looked at different off-the-shelf arrangements that currently exist as well as other external estimates. It does not, however, set out or measure the details of our desired outcome – a new deep and special partnership with the EU – or predict the conclusions of the negotiations.
"It also contains a significant number of caveats and is hugely dependant on a wide range of assumptions which demonstrate that significantly more work needs to be carried out to make use of this analysis and draw out conclusions.”
Asked why the prime minister was not making the analysis public, a DExEU source told BuzzFeed News: "Because it's embarrassing."
There was an opportunity to make something of Brexit, but it needed a vision and determination, and May and her clowns are flushing it down the drain. Doesn’t help that people like Boris have just used the whole thing to try and advance their own career rather than do anything useful or competent. May is an incredibly weak PM, she inspires no confidence and seems a bit lost. When Ken Clarke described her as a ‘bloody difficult woman’ people thought we might have another Thatcher, someone hard as nails to get us through these times. But instead she’s faded away and is just bloody useless, she can’t even reshuffle her own cabinet without being bossed around. Frankly that bungled election with the ‘strong and stable’ claptrap and her cowardice at attending debates killed off her authority, she’s only still there because the rest are too cowardly to challenge her.
Howard A Treesong wrote: There was an opportunity to make something of Brexit, but it needed a vision and determination, and May and her clowns are flushing it down the drain.
No. Vision and determination are not what was needed. Before you can have a vision which can be brought into reality you need to have some semblance of competence and an understanding of the fundamentals, the science or economics or whatever forming the foundation of the obstacles to be overcome for that vision to become reality. There's no use having a grand vision of landing men on the sun, it is physically impossible and no amount of determination is going to change that.
Theresa May and her bunch of nitwits had a vision, the UK being better off in every way outside of the EU. They pursued that vision with determination, labelling anyone who spoke up against it or raised concerns as going against the will of the people. The issue was their vision was completely detached from reality and no amount of determination was going to fix that fundamental flaw.
Let's look back on one of the biggest "visions" of the 20th century, landing men on the moon. Kennedy didn't declare that the US would land men on the moon by the end of the decade out of nowhere. He asked the scientists at NASA, the military and people in industry: "we need to beat the Russians at something in space, what can that be?" Russia was too far ahead for any short term goal, the only hope the US had to beat them was to go for broke and set the target on the moon. That was what the scientists, the military and industry leaders told him, based on the USSR's current lead and what would need to be developed in order to reach the moon. There was no such consultation of what would be a possible goal for the UK.
Great visions don't come out of nowhere, they need great understanding else they just become great folly.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's better to have an impossible dream that spurs you to try, than nothing, which leads to drift and stagnation.
The government doesn't have a vision of anything ATM, except "Brexit is Brexit."
It isn't better if you just flush all your resources into the impossible dream to the expense of everything else. Sometimes curating the status quo and keeping stuff running is the best option at that moment in time. The problem is many of our politicians are determined to leave their mark in some kind of legacy and so push that rather than actually keep the country running. Then, when someone comes around with an actually achievable and great vision of what they want they can't do that as all the resources have to go into fixing up the prevailing issues of the country which have been ignored by their predecessors.
That wouldn't necessarily be what happens, though.
The danger at the moment is that the UK is like a river boat drifting uncontrolled towards a dangerous weir.
What's important is to start the engine and decide to head for one bank or the other. If the course turns out to be the wrong one, at least you have got steerage way on, and can turn around. You can't if you just drift.
Millions of people will still vote for the Tories at the next election, despite their sheer ineptitude.
Think about that for a minute...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: That wouldn't necessarily be what happens, though.
The danger at the moment is that the UK is like a river boat drifting uncontrolled towards a dangerous weir.
What's important is to start the engine and decide to head for one bank or the other. If the course turns out to be the wrong one, at least you have got steerage way on, and can turn around. You can't if you just drift.
History tells us that when you're dealing with the EU, it's always an 11th hour deal.
When the froth and the fury dies down, things won't seem that bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: There was an opportunity to make something of Brexit, but it needed a vision and determination, and May and her clowns are flushing it down the drain. Doesn’t help that people like Boris have just used the whole thing to try and advance their own career rather than do anything useful or competent. May is an incredibly weak PM, she inspires no confidence and seems a bit lost. When Ken Clarke described her as a ‘bloody difficult woman’ people thought we might have another Thatcher, someone hard as nails to get us through these times. But instead she’s faded away and is just bloody useless, she can’t even reshuffle her own cabinet without being bossed around. Frankly that bungled election with the ‘strong and stable’ claptrap and her cowardice at attending debates killed off her authority, she’s only still there because the rest are too cowardly to challenge her.
Most deals come to the 11th hour, but I'm not sure why you think this is to our advantage.
The EU has been clear from the start what it wants and what options are open to us. The UK still can't decide what it wants.
So who do you think will blink first? The huge entity that has been firm the whole time, or the small entity that has no idea what it wants but has conceded everything else so far?
As said, we really need to make a decision, pick something and do it, even if it's totally wrong it's at least *something* and we can either fix or reverse it if needed. The infighting is just running out the clock.
1. The #Brexit question has always been one of what sort of relationship we want with the EU if not actual membership. Brexiters bleat "we just want trade" failing to note that regulatory harmonisation is central to free movement of goods.
2. The minimum condition of entry into the EU marketplace is compliance. Any third country can do that but without the ability to self-certify goods for circulation in the market they are subject to full third country controls at the borders.
3. Members of the single market avoid those customs controls by way of having the ability to self certify goods. This is why the single market is more pertinent to free movement of goods than the customs union.
4. Our moronic politicians think that because customs union has the word customs in it that it pertains to the customs you pass through at the airports. >500 days since the referendum and this still hasn't sunk in.
5. But then free movement of goods alone is insufficient if you don't have mutual recognition of qualifications for inspectors and recognised "notified bodies" and licencing authorities. "tariff free access" doesn't even scratch the surface.
6. To cut a long thread short, there are more than three hundred areas of technical cooperation based on an elaborate system of rules built up over 40 years. If you are talking about scrapping it then you need something to replace it with.
7. As subsystems of the single market there are market surveillance systems to stop counterfeiting, food adulteration, fraud, anti-terror measures, anti-smuggling measures. Systems within systems.
8. Then there's the systems for air travel. Since we are leaving the single market we have of our own volition given up certain rights to operate within the EU ceding our market share and all the support industries.
9. And as we are seemingly leaving the EMA, drugs companies will have to re-certify their goods or shift production/research overseas. Unless of course we have some kind of agreement with mutual regulations and standards.
10. For just about every sector there is a regulatory system and if you want to participate in the market then you have to comply with its rules and pay toward the upkeep of those systems.
11. In this the EU is not at liberty to make exemptions and exceptions in that any concession for the UK is a weakening of the overall system which allows for the loopholes to be exploited. The same is true of trade.
12. Then when it comes to tinkering with tariff rates we bump into those dreaded rules of origin to ensure there is a level playing field. If you don't know what they are then look it up.
13. Since the UK does not want to pay toward the upkeep of collaborative regulatory systems or abide by the rules then it forfeits any of the privileges. Of our own volition we become a third country and are treated like any other country without an enhanced trade relationship
14. This isn't a problem for Canada because it is not part of any JIT European supply chains. Land borders do not affect Canada or Japan. Being that only a fraction of its trade is with Europe, it does not have the same needs.
15. The UK however, is integrated into European markets and has a land and sea border with the EU and therefore requires a higher level of customs cooperation and compatibility.
16. So as much as I would like to be out of the EU ASAP, it just ain't gonna happen. We need to decide what level of market participation we wish to retain, what governance and dispute resolution mechanisms we want and the shape of the future relationship.
17. I understand the sentiment of wanting to just sever the link but this is not something a responsible government should do. There are massive trade offs and a number of compromises and tough choices.
18. But this is why we need a transition so that we can prepare for the changes and have alternate systems in place. We need a means of sensibly diverging so that we do not create a legal no mans land where goods are no longer authorised for sale and operations suspended.
19. This is likely to take a number of years to complete and will have to be done in stages, not least because of the NI border which is ultimately going to dictate what the end relationship looks like.
20. And so, @JuliaHB1, you demanding that we leave immediately with no transition betrays not only your manifest ignorance but also your total negligence and dereliction of duty.
21. That we could be this far in and you still think its as simple as walking away and exposing the economy to the full shock of simultaneous regulatory separation shows just how little thought you've given it.
22. To pretend that none of this exists and is just the product of "remoaner" scaremongering is fundamentally dishonest thus you can expect to be treated with contempt. At this point your ignorance is wilful and a calculated insult.
The UK at present just doesn't have much in the way of leverage with the EU. May might have had a vision once, fueled by the hard-Brexit wing of the Tory party but the real world hit her in the face like a brick and faces the tough choice for a politician to either admit they were wrong or just kick the can down the road (because going for broke is very much suicidal).
They simply get concluded when all disagreements have been resolved, which often takes a long time, and obviously marks the end of the process.
The difference with Brexit is that there is a definite time limit. If the deal does not get done before March 29th, 2019, the UK will be out of the EU on its ear. It is porposed there will then be a time limited two year transition period.
The clear problems with this are, 1. The UK hasn't said what it wants from the deal, and time will run out.
2. If a deal is agreed, it will take time to put it into practical effect, and the clock is ticking.
My opposition to the EU is well know, but given the sheer ineptitude of the government, the presence of utter buffoons in the cabinet, and a PM so out of her depth, she'd struggle in a shallow puddle,
a Norway/EFTA/Liechtenstein option may be our best bet to salvage something from this fiasco. The golden opportunity of Brexit has been squandered by people who couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard,
so we may need a Norway style deal to buy us some time...
Naturally, I reserve the right to backtrack on this at any time...
But a Norway style deal is fundamentally worse in every way to just staying in. Why not just stay in until you have a competent government who can actually deliver? (which will be never if they don't learn to actually evaluate stuff to see if it is feasible or even true before they promise it to the UK public)
During that time you can also be pushing for reform from within, which would be easier if people elected MEPs who will actually turn up and contribute and form relationships with their colleagues from other countries. You know, get widespread support rolling for reforms by co-operation with other member representatives, like how every political establishment works.
Why not just stay in until you have a competent government who can actually deliver?
I'm not waiting until 2550 for Brexit!
Is Brexit really Brexit if you end up abiding for the same rules and paying into the EU while having no say in the whole thing?
We have a governing class who clearly can't govern, and a British population who have gotten the government they deserve, by way of voting for these fethers year after year.
Brexit remains to have been sold entirely on a pack of lies by hard right shysters.
Nobody can define what we want from it, likely because of so many lies being spun in order to sell it in the first place.
Many now recognise this. Some want to apply the breaks, some want to reverse, but a dangerous core of absolute lunatics demand full steam ahead straight over the cliff, because braaaaahn people.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Because Brexit for too many has become a cult, rather than something to be carefully considered.
One need only look at how the gutter press report on it to see that.
I could say similar things about die-hard EU supporters.
And you'd be wrong. It's not the Remain supporters that have led the UK into a quagmire of awful options despite warnings from people who spend their entire working careers working with questions like these.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Brexit remains to have been sold entirely on a pack of lies by hard right shysters.
Nobody can define what we want from it, likely because of so many lies being spun in order to sell it in the first place.
Many now recognise this. Some want to apply the breaks, some want to reverse, but a dangerous core of absolute lunatics demand full steam ahead straight over the cliff, because braaaaahn people.
Macron and Juncker's speeches clearly show that Remain wasn't a vote for the status quo, either.
The EU has always been on a trajectory to ever closer union.
Every bureaucracy in human history has always wanted more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: That's very wonderful, but it doesn't solve the problem.
As I always say, there's not a lot we can do about it.
Let's hold our fire until 2019.
Personally, I remain an optimist. Other people will obviously have their own views on it.
I could say similar things about die-hard EU supporters.
I've never encountered a die-hard EU supporter (which you probably think I am because I keep asking questions).
There's a lot of people who don't particularly like the EU but don't want to vote for the mystery box. Lots who think Brexit will be worse.
In the software field I'm in, there'sa saying that people are stubbornly reluctant to change, and that you need to produce something twice as good as the incumbent to get them to move. Brexit so far can't even deliver nearly as good as being in the EU when you actually look at the details. If you want Remainers to get behind Brexit, show us all the improvements it brings to be worth the upheaval. I've een asking that for 2 years and have got nothing that passes any basic sniff test.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Brexit remains to have been sold entirely on a pack of lies by hard right shysters.
Nobody can define what we want from it, likely because of so many lies being spun in order to sell it in the first place.
Many now recognise this. Some want to apply the breaks, some want to reverse, but a dangerous core of absolute lunatics demand full steam ahead straight over the cliff, because braaaaahn people.
Macron and Juncker's speeches clearly show that Remain wasn't a vote for the status quo, either.
The EU has always been on a trajectory to ever closer union.
At the very least the UK would have a say, and history has shown the UK getting their way above the opinions of France and Germany, like eastwards expansion or shutting down proposals for enhanced military cooperation or increased banking supervision.
And when not, the UK also has a history of opting out, too.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Brexit remains to have been sold entirely on a pack of lies by hard right shysters.
Nobody can define what we want from it, likely because of so many lies being spun in order to sell it in the first place.
Many now recognise this. Some want to apply the breaks, some want to reverse, but a dangerous core of absolute lunatics demand full steam ahead straight over the cliff, because braaaaahn people.
Macron and Juncker's speeches clearly show that Remain wasn't a vote for the status quo, either.
The EU has always been on a trajectory to ever closer union.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Brexit remains to have been sold entirely on a pack of lies by hard right shysters.
Nobody can define what we want from it, likely because of so many lies being spun in order to sell it in the first place.
Many now recognise this. Some want to apply the breaks, some want to reverse, but a dangerous core of absolute lunatics demand full steam ahead straight over the cliff, because braaaaahn people.
Macron and Juncker's speeches clearly show that Remain wasn't a vote for the status quo, either.
The EU has always been on a trajectory to ever closer union.
At the very least the UK would have a say, and history has shown the UK getting their way above the opinions of France and Germany, like eastwards expansion or shutting down proposals for enhanced military cooperation or increased banking supervision.
And when not, the UK also has a history of opting out, too.
Maybe, but I'll repeat what I said last year:
EU to UK: you've had two referendums, you voted twice to stay in. No more fething around!!!! Put up or shut up.
And if I'm being brutally honest, we would not have had a leg to stand on, had we voted Remain, and had the EU laid down the law to us like that...
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Brexit remains to have been sold entirely on a pack of lies by hard right shysters.
Nobody can define what we want from it, likely because of so many lies being spun in order to sell it in the first place.
Many now recognise this. Some want to apply the breaks, some want to reverse, but a dangerous core of absolute lunatics demand full steam ahead straight over the cliff, because braaaaahn people.
Macron and Juncker's speeches clearly show that Remain wasn't a vote for the status quo, either.
The EU has always been on a trajectory to ever closer union.
../
The UK has an opt-out from that.
But how long does the opt-out hold if the other 27 declare an intention o remove it from us?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Nobody has been able to explain to me why an ever closer and ultimately federal Europe is such a bad thing.
Well, beyond senseless twaddle like 'WW2, speaking German now. 1966. Two World Wars, One World Cup. ENGERLAND ENGERLAND'.
Seriously. The world is getting smaller. Markets are getting bigger. Why shouldn't Europe federalise? And why shouldn't we be part of that?
Because a gilded cage is still a prison...
A cage that you're going to be in wether you're in the EU or not. The difference is whether you're going to have any influence in shaping the legislation of one of the world's biggest trade blocs. You'll be at the mercy of someone else regardless of what you do. Welcome to not being the world hegemon, it's not that bad really.
All this stuff about a gilded cage is nonsense. If the EU decided to "impose" every greater union on the UK, how would it enforce its decision?
It seems a bit unlikely the EU would try to invade the UK. The only thing would be to kick the UK out of the EU, which is where DINLT wants to be anyway.
Kilkrazy wrote: All this stuff about a gilded cage is nonsense. If the EU decided to "impose" every greater union on the UK, how would it enforce its decision?
It seems a bit unlikely the EU would try to invade the UK. The only thing would be to kick the UK out of the EU, which is where DINLT wants to be anyway.
If it had stayed a Common Market, instead of angling to be a counter-weight to Washington, we'd all be a lot better off.
Britain has often been accused of living in the past, but I'd say the rest tof Europe is no better. They've never forgiven the Americans for liberating them, and they know that individually, they don't stand a chance against the Yanks, so they did the next best thing: push for a United States of Europe...
Kilkrazy wrote: All this stuff about a gilded cage is nonsense. If the EU decided to "impose" every greater union on the UK, how would it enforce its decision?
It seems a bit unlikely the EU would try to invade the UK. The only thing would be to kick the UK out of the EU, which is where DINLT wants to be anyway.
If it had stayed a Common Market, instead of angling to be a counter-weight to Washington, we'd all be a lot better off.
How is that an answer to the question Kilkrazy asked? Stop dodging and answer!
If it had stayed a Common Market, instead of angling to be a counter-weight to Washington, we'd all be a lot better off.
I disagree; we're much better off because the EU has become what the EU is. You don't like that which is fine.
I'd also argue that Europe is looking to the future more than we are. It's trying to advance everyone in it's remit, pushing science and development, and we're trying to go back to the 50's with it's reduction in environmental standards and workers rights.
Ah, the last bastion of someone who has run out of argument. You made an outlandish claim, I asked you to prove it. "Just google it" is a cop out. Answer the question.
Macron and Juncker talked of finance ministers, a military force, a parliament for the Eurozone members... a budget...
And what's that got to do with the Brexit ballot? You're assuming that a vote to stay in is a vote to do what we've been resisting, but suits most of the rest of the union? You're going to have to try harder than that, and show me some actual evidence. Has anyone stated anything that reinforces your claim or are you making inferences that don't exist?
That's Macron, one of 28, sorry soon to be 27 leaders in the EU.
Do you really think the British are so wet we can't stand up to the Frenchie plans?
If so, then leaving won't make any difference, because once the EU has become a rigid dictatorship, they will simply incorporate the UK using the same magic you proposed they would use when we were members.
I didn't say I can't google, I just said that telling me to google doesn't absolve you from answering the question.
I can't watch videos at the moment (I'm at work), but I'll do so later. Do either of these mention Brexit or the possibility of Remain? Or are these just you firing the first thing that sounds like an answer at me at hoping I'll accept all the inferences and leaps you have to make to have them justify your statement?
For the avoidance of doubt (and to prevent another strawman) I'm well aware of Macron's plans for Europe, and that lots of people want ever closer union. That's not what I asked. What I asked was for you to prove that a Remain vote had any connection to us accepting any of these potential futures for Europe. You still haven't answered that.
Plus as mentioned above. Macron doesn't run the EU, you could argue that Merkel does. Their voices will become louder when ours goes away.
If you were worried about what they'd do with the EU, you'd be campaigning for us to stay in and elect some MEPs with spines.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's Macron, one of 28, sorry soon to be 27 leaders in the EU.
Do you really think the British are so wet we can't stand up to the Frenchie plans?
If so, then leaving won't make any difference, because once the EU has become a rigid dictatorship, they will simply incorporate the UK using the same magic you proposed they would use when we were members.
All I saw from Macron was more red tape and more EU bureaucracy.
If we had Remained, that's what Britain would have been getting...
More Europe, not less...
You can peddle the vote Remain get status quo argument all you want, but that came straight from the horse's mouth.
Herzlos wrote: I didn't say I can't google, I just said that telling me to google doesn't absolve you from answering the question.
I can't watch videos at the moment (I'm at work), but I'll do so later. Do either of these mention Brexit or the possibility of Remain? Or are these just you firing the first thing that sounds like an answer at me at hoping I'll accept all the inferences and leaps you have to make to have them justify your statement?
For the avoidance of doubt (and to prevent another strawman) I'm well aware of Macron's plans for Europe, and that lots of people want ever closer union. That's not what I asked. What I asked was for you to prove that a Remain vote had any connection to us accepting any of these potential futures for Europe. You still haven't answered that.
Plus as mentioned above. Macron doesn't run the EU, you could argue that Merkel does. Their voices will become louder when ours goes away.
If you were worried about what they'd do with the EU, you'd be campaigning for us to stay in and elect some MEPs with spines.
What I asked was for you to prove that a Remain vote had any connection to us accepting any of these potential futures for Europe. You still haven't answered that.
A country that voted twice to stay in the EU has ZERO political capital in order to resist any further EU integration.
David Cameron, and George Osborne, emboldned by a referendum victory that they saw as an endorsement for their premiership, and a Commons that is largely pro-EU, would not have lifted a finger to stop this.
Cameron, being one of the most pro-EU politicians around, would have welcomed it with open arms.
Who would stop him? The Tory-skeptics that had just been crushed in a referendum? They'd be laughed out of town. The Europe problem in the Tory party would have been solved for a generation...
I see, so it was yet again an issue with our own politicians then, based on your own interpretation of what Cameron and the Tories would have done. You also ignore that the anti-EU portions of the Tories would not have remained idle if further EU integration had been proposed. They would have certainly used the "We didn't vote to remain in this x years ago" argument that they were using this time in reference to the previous EU referendum.
So what is to prevent the exact same issues coming up when we try to negotiate trade deals with the US and China? When the US healthcare industry wants to buy out parts of the NHS and squeeze profit out of it at the expense of people's lives, do you believe that our politicians are going to be able to stand up to them, or even just have the inclination to do so? After all, the referendum has emboldened the most hard-line aspects of the Tories, there is significant overlap in the portions of the party who are anti-NHS and anti-EU (not to mention anti-human rights etc.).
Also, what red tape has been foisted on us by the EU?
Kilkrazy wrote: That's Macron, one of 28, sorry soon to be 27 leaders in the EU.
Do you really think the British are so wet we can't stand up to the Frenchie plans?
If so, then leaving won't make any difference, because once the EU has become a rigid dictatorship, they will simply incorporate the UK using the same magic you proposed they would use when we were members.
All I saw from Macron was more red tape and more EU bureaucracy.
If we had Remained, that's what Britain would have been getting...
More Europe, not less...
You can peddle the vote Remain get status quo argument all you want, but that came straight from the horse's mouth.
A country that voted twice to stay in the EU has ZERO political capital in order to resist any further EU integration.
A country that voted a thousand times to stay in the EU has the same voice as one that hasn't.
You, as a person that often cites the anti-union stance of the current Polish or Hungarian governments should know that they get a seat and a voice just like everyone else. Your union or antiunion credentials don't matter, that's why people like Nigel Farage got a EU seat (what he did with that seat is an entirely different matter).
I provided you a few posts above with examples of the UK pushing their anti-integration agenda in spite of the countries that supposedly were running the show being against.
A country that voted twice to stay in the EU has ZERO political capital in order to resist any further EU integration.
David Cameron, and George Osborne, emboldned by a referendum victory that they saw as an endorsement for their premiership, and a Commons that is largely pro-EU, would not have lifted a finger to stop this.
Cameron, being one of the most pro-EU politicians around, would have welcomed it with open arms.
Who would stop him? The Tory-skeptics that had just been crushed in a referendum? They'd be laughed out of town. The Europe problem in the Tory party would have been solved for a generation...
Right, that's the Crux of it then - you have no evidence, because it's not a thing. Glad that's settled and we can move on.
Your entire argument is that because Cameron is pro-EU, a vote to Remain would allow him to continue to agree with things he agrees with, and this is somehow unaccaptable to you?
We'd still have all of our opt outs and still resist any integration.
The Brexit vote wasn't so that Cameron could push us further into the EU, it was to bring the UKIP defectors back in line.
A Town Called Malus wrote: I see, so it was yet again an issue with our own politicians then, based on your own interpretation of what Cameron and the Tories would have done. You also ignore that the anti-EU portions of the Tories would not have remained idle if further EU integration had been proposed. They would have certainly used the "We didn't vote to remain in this x years ago" argument that they were using this time in reference to the previous EU referendum.
So what is to prevent the exact same issues coming up when we try to negotiate trade deals with the US and China? When the US healthcare industry wants to buy out parts of the NHS and squeeze profit out of it at the expense of people's lives, do you believe that our politicians are going to be able to stand up to them, or even just have the inclination to do so? After all, the referendum has emboldened the most hard-line aspects of the Tories, there is significant overlap in the portions of the party who are anti-NHS and anti-EU (not to mention anti-human rights etc.).
Also, what red tape has been foisted on us by the EU?
David Cameron would not have resigned if Remain had won that referendum. A Remain victory would have been a green light and a mandate for him to go to Brussels and ask for more Europe, not less.
Euro-Skeptics in the Tory party can't moan about more Europe in this scenario, because the country would turn around and tell them to feth off. You had your chance, stop moaning, would have been the mantra.
Why would he have gone to ask for more Europe when he had only just managed to quell the revolt against the current level of europe? That makes absolutely zero sense and has no basis in any fact.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's Macron, one of 28, sorry soon to be 27 leaders in the EU.
Do you really think the British are so wet we can't stand up to the Frenchie plans?
If so, then leaving won't make any difference, because once the EU has become a rigid dictatorship, they will simply incorporate the UK using the same magic you proposed they would use when we were members.
All I saw from Macron was more red tape and more EU bureaucracy.
If we had Remained, that's what Britain would have been getting...
More Europe, not less...
You can peddle the vote Remain get status quo argument all you want, but that came straight from the horse's mouth.
Macron actually is a deregulating president.
An EU defence force, an EU immigration bureau, an EU public prosecutor, and an EU finance minister, might be your idea of deregulating, but it's not mine!
Each of those positions would entail more civil servants, more regulations, more red tape, not less.
A country that voted twice to stay in the EU has ZERO political capital in order to resist any further EU integration.
A country that voted a thousand times to stay in the EU has the same voice as one that hasn't.
You, as a person that often cites the anti-union stance of the current Polish or Hungarian governments should know that they get a seat and a voice just like everyone else. Your union or antiunion credentials don't matter, that's why people like Nigel Farage got a EU seat (what he did with that seat is an entirely different matter).
I provided you a few posts above with examples of the UK pushing their anti-integration agenda in spite of the countries that supposedly were running the show being against.
A nation that has just voted to stay in the EU can't complain about more Europe. Brussels would rightly turn around and say that's what we voted for.
And they would have a point.
A Remain friend of mine told me he voted Remain through gritted teeth.
Even EU supporters know that the status quo is not an option.
Cameron wanted the EU extended to the Ural mountains.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why would he have gone to ask for more Europe when he had only just managed to quell the revolt against the current level of europe? That makes absolutely zero sense and has no basis in any fact.
It makes perfect sense for a pro-EU politician, who's just crushed his Euro-Sceptic enemies, to go to Brussels, armed with a mandate from the British people (Remain referendum victory) to either support more Europe, or call for more Europe.
Who would stop him? The pro-EU Commons? The Remain supporting British public? A defeated and discredited Euro-Sceptic wing of the Tory party, which is on the run?
As I said to Kilkrazy, Cameron wanted the EU to extend to the Ural Mountains.
A nation that has just voted to stay in the EU can't complain about more Europe. Brussels would rightly turn around and say that's what we voted for.
That's kind of the opposite of reality. What'd actually happen is Cameron would say "Look, we only just voted to stay in, so there's a lot of dissatisfaction with Europe, if you go any further we might end off leaving this time". Any attempt to do otherwise would be a huge uphill battle and re-trigger the euro-skeptic Tories - the absolute last thing he'd want.
There's absolutely no basis for a claim that a vote for Remain was a vote for more Europe. It's never been suggested by a politician, wasn't part of any campaign (and if it was a credible excuse then the Brexit campaign would have talked it to death).
So can we drop this garbage and move on?
Does anyone have any opinions on the EU's negotiating position?
His point which I agree with, is that the UK needs a radical overhaul to make it globally competitive.
Obviously I would argue that that can take place inside the EU better than outside (because we would have more money to spend on it) but I'm not the slightest bit confident it will happen whether we are in or out.
Another reason why I'm focusing on France and Macron's speeches is this:
When Britain leaves the EU, French influence is only going to grow, not decrease.
France will be the only EU member that has nuclear weapons, the only EU member that has a permanent seat at the UN security council, will have the strongest military in the EU, and will be paying more cash into the EU to make up the shortfall from Britain's exit.
To suggest that France will be only 1 nation amongst 27, on a par with Malta, Cyprus, Ireland, Estonia et al
is not a realistic appreciation of the new political situation.
That is why I pay close attention to Macron's speeches. We both know that France is even more of a major player in the EU, now.
An EU defence force, an EU immigration bureau, an EU public prosecutor, and an EU finance minister, might be your idea of deregulating, but it's not mine!
Each of those positions would entail more civil servants, more regulations, more red tape, not less.
That's not a definition of deregulating. You can have these things and still deregulate. It might be even easier to de-regulate with these things in place. In reality I think the argument you are putting forward here is that "it isn't someone from Britain in control" despite that given the current fiasco we would probably be much better off having a non-UK politician in charge. The idea of these is bring some centralisation to these areas which are at the moment disjointed and end up with member states falling over each other. That can reduce regulation because rather than having one country have a slightly different set of rules to another then everyone has the same set. A multinational company for example would be able to hire a migrant in all countries under the same rules rather than have different conditions depending on where that person is based.
The EU finance minister would be the person responsible for managing the EU budget (they already have one I'm not sure why it comes as such a shock). This makes things more accountable and an individual is responsible for ensuring such funds are spent correctly. From a global holistic scale it makes less red tape. The EU budget also allows for endeavours that would never been taken forward by any individual country (the Galileo project for example) but in the end should provide all countries a more technically advanced society. Yes some countries pay more into such scheme than others, but nevertheless without the smaller budget contributions it still wouldn't have been taken forward.
Leaving the EU is likely to generate vast swathes of more red tape due to all the extra paperwork exporters, travellers and so on will have to produce to move around every single time. A larger corporate/government body can provide a much more efficient streamlining of processes. The only thing you have to concede is that some of that control goes to another body which you may not have a 100% say in (even if you are better off overall).
Still at least we get our blue passports....at a higher price of course....
These prices are going up because "These reforms are part of plans by the Home Office to invest £100m on border security and infrastructure next year". So basically another cost to the British tax payer for Wrexit, even if you need it for other purposes other than going abroad.
I'm not sure quite what to say to this. At least he is being honest that the government does not have a clue. At least that explains why every year their budget shortfall calculations never materialise...
It's true that forecasts often end up being wrong.
However, there aren't any positive Brexit forecasts, only the assurance that things will be great because all the forecasts are negative and forecasts are often wrong so it will be great.
Doesn't mean that France dictates to the EU entirely though.
But without us the EU is very likely to move towards ever closer union, which is a nice self-fulfilling prophecy.
You never answered though; what's wrong with ever closer union?
I'm not suggesting that France should threaten to nuke Berlin if they don't get their way, but other options remain open for France to wield its power and influence.
France to Estonia: Worried abour Russia? Here's a few thousand French troops for garrison duty in Estonia. Just remember to back us at the next vote.
France to Poland: here's some extra cash for a new airport.
France to Greece: here's some extra cash for dealing with those migrants. Just remember your Uncle Macron at the next vote.
And so on and so on...
As for ever closer union...I have this dread vision of a 1914 style scenario. 3 mega global trading blocks: USA, EU, China...
and we all know how 1914 turned out with armed camps...
BaronIveagh wrote: Ok, let me take a moment to ask something: why in the name of little green apples does anyone think deregulation is a good thing?
I might point to your neighbors across the pond as a sterling example of what a staggering lie that entire idea is.
Exactly. For all of his railing against post-thatcher neo-con/neo-liberal or whatever it is called now ideas, dinlt sure parrots their "regulation is strangling innovation" mantra pretty solidly without ever actually providing any evidence of that being the case.
A nation that has just voted to stay in the EU can't complain about more Europe. Brussels would rightly turn around and say that's what we voted for.
And they would have a point.
A Remain friend of mine told me he voted Remain through gritted teeth.
Even EU supporters know that the status quo is not an option.
Statu quo is never an option. But other than that the different outcomes are infinite. Even "more Europe" means a thousand different things depending on who you ask, and in the end it will be a compromise between the different (and at times competing) visions present in the EU.
BaronIveagh wrote: Ok, let me take a moment to ask something: why in the name of little green apples does anyone think deregulation is a good thing?
I might point to your neighbors across the pond as a sterling example of what a staggering lie that entire idea is.
Exactly. For all of his railing against post-thatcher neo-con/neo-liberal or whatever it is called now ideas, dinlt sure parrots their "regulation is strangling innovation" mantra pretty solidly without ever actually providing any evidence of that being the case.
Which is funny since much of that is anti-EU propaganda BS.
Plenty of EU regs remove the need to comply with 28 different standards, and are often drafted in conjunction with the relevant industry based on existing principles.
Complaining about EU red tape is corporations PR-friendly way of pleading to pollute the environment more and weaken protections for consumers and workers.
Doesn't mean that France dictates to the EU entirely though.
But without us the EU is very likely to move towards ever closer union, which is a nice self-fulfilling prophecy.
You never answered though; what's wrong with ever closer union?
I'm not suggesting that France should threaten to nuke Berlin if they don't get their way, but other options remain open for France to wield its power and influence.
France to Estonia: Worried abour Russia? Here's a few thousand French troops for garrison duty in Estonia. Just remember to back us at the next vote.
France to Poland: here's some extra cash for a new airport.
France to Greece: here's some extra cash for dealing with those migrants. Just remember your Uncle Macron at the next vote.
And so on and so on...
As for ever closer union...I have this dread vision of a 1914 style scenario. 3 mega global trading blocks: USA, EU, China...
and we all know how 1914 turned out with armed camps...
That's one reason amongst many.
So when pro EU supporters say leaving the EU makes the world more unstable it is "project fear" and stupid and claiming Brexit will cause WW3, but its fine to literally say that staying in the EU will cause a repeat of WW1?
The Brexit claims get more and more insane every day. I was listening to Radio 4 on Monday and they were asking people in a heavily pro-brexit area about May and how they thought Brexit was going. It was just depressing. The answers were "It's taking so long. Why haven't we left yet" "They are all being nasty and not supporting May" and "It's all the EU delaying things. Why can't we just leave and get on with it".
I still feel there is a depressingly large number of people who just don't understand what the EU is and what it does, all thanks to a particular segment of the media, who are only interested in selling papers through giving people something to complain about and supporting big business.
China's relations with Britain will not change because of changes in British-EU relations, Premier Li Keqiang said on Wednesday.
Speaking after meeting visiting British Prime Minister Theresa May in Beijing's Great Hall of the People, Li said the two discussed upholding free trade and that China would become more open to agricultural products.
(Reporting by Ben Blanchard and William James; Editing by Nick Macfie)
Kilkrazy wrote: It's true that forecasts often end up being wrong.
However, there aren't any positive Brexit forecasts, only the assurance that things will be great because all the forecasts are negative and forecasts are often wrong so it will be great.
Magical thinking, again.
Forecasts often are right, as well.
There's a difference though why some do turn out to be incorrect. The reason there are forecasts is that given current information and trends you can predict what will happen in the next few to tens of years (or for some scientific areas hundreds to thousands of years). If those predictions are not to X's liking then that provides an opportunity to do something about it. That makes the prediction wrong and requires then new predictions to model the changed behaviour. If politicians start just assuming that they *are* wrong then they miss the purposes of that prediction and it results in ill conceived random choices (or nothing at all). That can result in a scenario where the prediction does continue along same lines and does result in that outcome because of a delusion that they are incorrect. The MP is showing a complete lack of understanding of the process and what a prediction means.
EU rejects Brexit trade deal for UK financial services sector
Brussels negotiators say Europe would benefit from a smaller City of London
EU Brexit negotiators have set out a tough line on financial services, ruling out an ambitious trade deal for the lucrative sector and arguing that Europe would benefit from a smaller City of London, according to confidential discussions among the other 27 EU member states.
In a rebuff to the UK, which is seeking to put financial services at the heart of a trade deal with the bloc, an internal EU27 meeting this week concluded that future arrangements should be based on “equivalence” — the limited and revocable access given to third-country institutions — rather than a wide-ranging new pact.
At present, such provisions give financial groups from countries such as the US conditional access to the single market for some services.
“There was a strong commission message that there would be no special deal,” said an EU diplomat briefed on the discussions — a first attempt to thrash out the bloc’s position on the issue before negotiations with Britain start in March. “The UK is being told from the beginning what the situation is.”
Another EU diplomat said: “They are out of the internal market, that’s it. There can only be a much less ambitious agreement.”
Ensuring that financial services are not badly hit by Brexit is a top priority for the UK, since the sector is Britain’s biggest source of exports and tax revenue.
Theresa May’s government has also argued that if the City were damaged it would adversely affect financial stability and EU groups’ cost of financing, while contributing to the fragmentation of the sector.
But participants said that in the EU27 meeting the European Commission played down the risks of cutting off the City to EU businesses, saying that the financial sector was mobile enough to adapt.
They added that the commission maintained that a smaller City could benefit financial stability and the development of capital markets in the EU27, an argument that Spain also vocally supported.
The discussion focused on future relations after a transition period that Brussels intends to end by December 31 2020.
The commission negotiator also told the meeting that giving the City extensive market access could leave the EU more vulnerable in a crisis.
Brussels’ fear is that, in a financial emergency, UK regulators would prioritise continuity in companies’ UK operations over their activities in the EU27. This could lead to outflows of capital and liquidity or the withdrawal of vital services at a critical moment.
One senior diplomat said that the commission had underlined the importance of making sure that the EU did not lose “influence” over the UK financial sector, which could “have such a huge impact on the EU”.
While no country contradicted the approach of the commission, which is conducting the negotiations with the UK, the discussion highlighted differences between member states.
Germany, Sweden and Luxembourg cited the benefits of continuing co-operation with the UK, while France argued that the costs of a hard break would be limited and easy to contain.
Like the commission, Paris said there was a need to prevent the UK undercutting the bloc’s financial rules, and urged Brussels to encourage London-based companies to trigger relocation plans.
According to one person briefed on its thinking, the commission will send out notices warning a wide range of different financial groups to be prepared for Brexit and the lapse of the UK’s rights as an EU member.
These include banks and payment service providers, insurers, asset managers and brokerages, as well as auditors and credit-rating agencies.
Brussels has already prepared itself for Brexit by toughening its criteria for granting equivalence to systemically important non-EU financial centres, and the commission negotiator told the meeting that intensive talks would be needed with the UK on financial stability arrangements.
The commission official also said that the ball was in the UK’s court to set out ideas for how trade in financial services might operate after Brexit.
A UK government official said: “We are confident of negotiating a deep and special economic partnership that includes a good deal for financial services, and protects the City of London’s position as the world’s leading financial centre.
“We start from the unique position of regulatory alignment and trust in one another’s institutions. The UK’s financial services sector plays an essential role in the European economy and so it is in the interests of all parties to secure a deal.”
meanwhile, the government's official position is that publishing the leaked Brexit papers will damage the "national interest" yet they don't plan to vote against its publication tonight.
Government minister resigns for being late for a question in the House of Lords.
Lord Bates says he is "thoroughly ashamed" of himself and walks out.
There are shouts of "no" across the chamber as he leaves.
LONDON — A minister in Theresa May's government has resigned for being late.
International Development Minister Lord Bates apologised to the House of Lords for his "discourtesy" at not being available to answer a question.
"I'm thoroughly ashamed for not being in my place and so I therefore shall be offering my resignation to the prime minister with immediate effect," he told peers.
There were shouts of "no" from across the chamber as Bates walked out, with several peers appearing to attempt to physically stop him from exiting.
Some peers were visibly in shock at the resignation.
Labour's leader in the House of Lords Baroness Smith immediately called for Lord Bates to retract his resignation.
"An apology from Lord Bates is perfectly sufficient," she said.
"It was a minor discourtesy that any of us could be guilty of."
... errmmm .. what ?!
I know we've oft lamented the lack of standards in politics and so forth but...well...
Collapsed trial woman says she gave birth 'alone' in prison
A woman held in custody for more than 13 months before her trial collapsed has told the BBC she hopes someone will be punished for the failures which led to her giving birth in prison.
The trial of Petruta-Cristina Bosoanca - held on trafficking and prostitution charges - was stopped after evidence cast doubt on the complainant's story.
"Nobody is going to give me this 13 months back," said Ms Bosoanca.
Judge Gregory Perrins said there had been "wholesale failures".
'Waiting for the truth'
Ms Bosoanca, 25, was arrested in December 2016 and was released from HMP Bronzefield on Monday.
She said it was "very difficult" giving birth five months ago to her baby boy, Christian.
"There was no-one with me," she said. "In the moments when I was supposed to be happy, I was happy but unhappy at the same time."
The trial of Adrian Iordan, Anisoara Lautaru and Ms Bosoanca was stopped on its 17th day, after the complainant in the case had been cross-examined.
Some 65,000 lines of text messages were disclosed to the defence on day two.
Ms Bosoanca said she repeatedly insisted she was not guilty and that she "needed to show" it.
"I knew it, at the beginning I asked for my phone, I asked for the pictures, CCTV, I asked for everything but they (didn't) care," she said.
Ms Bosoanca's question now is: "Why they don't discover everything earlier? I was waiting for them to see the truth."
"They were incompetent all of them," she added. "They kept me far away from my family, from my son."
A senior prosecutor apologised to the court and said the CPS's handling of the case had "fallen below standard".
Hundreds of court cases axed over failings
The defendants were accused of conspiring to traffic a young woman to the UK from Romania for the purpose of prostitution.
The complainant claimed she had been trafficked and forced into prostitution by the three defendants and had become pregnant after being raped in the UK.
It later emerged the woman was already pregnant when she entered the country in 2016, when she was examined three days after the arrest of Ms Bosoanca.
At London's Wood Green Crown Court, Judge Perrins said the defence had requested medical evidence about the pregnancy as long ago as August 2017 and had been repeatedly told that no such medical evidence existed.
This repeated failure to properly disclose the police doctor's report was, said the judge, "one of the more serious failings identified in this case and requires further explanation".
Facebook messages also showed that the complainant had been discussing the pregnancy and the identity of the father of her child with friends.
The BBC understands that relevant social media material was known to the police from January 2017 but was not disclosed until December 2017.
Defence lawyers working through the disclosed evidence said it would have taken four days' solid work to find evidence that undermined the prosecution case in the disclosed material.
Ms Lautaru was arrested in March 2017. The 19-year-old was remanded in custody for most of the time since then.
Following the collapse of the case on Friday, a CPS spokesman said: "We are concerned by the outcome of the case and the comments of the judge today.
"It is clear there have been failings in this case, and it is being reviewed by senior CPS lawyers as a matter of urgency."
The CPS had previously said it would review the case and the judge said he would refer the case to the director of public prosecutions.
Hands up who thought evidence was important in determining when someone is charged?
One of the important parts amongst some shocking information.
Defence lawyers working through the disclosed evidence said it would have taken four days' solid work to find evidence that undermined the prosecution case in the disclosed material.
Further cuts to, and the way solicitors and Barristers engaged in legal aid cases mean that evidence is repeatedly being missed and will continue to be so. Political manoeuvring means its nigh on impossible to get a 'good' legal defence. Its only by luck that cases like the above and the recent revelations about rape cases have exposed failings.
There have also been recent cases of forensic science companies falsifying results.
And today Some Police forces have stepped in to prop up a Forensic Science firm to stop it going bust.
The whole situation is a nightmare and Police and CPS handling of evidence needs to be seriously looked at.
On Radio 4 this morning, a Met Police representative said the problem was the rape case had I think it was 35,000 items on the phone to look through and there aren't the resources to do this.
Brussels has already prepared itself for Brexit by toughening its criteria for granting equivalence to systemically important non-EU financial centres, and the commission negotiator told the meeting that intensive talks would be needed with the UK on financial stability arrangements.
The commission official also said that the ball was in the UK’s court to set out ideas for how trade in financial services might operate after Brexit.
"A UK government official said: “We are confident of negotiating a deep and special economic partnership that includes a good deal for financial services, and protects the City of London’s position as the world’s leading financial centre.
“We start from the unique position of regulatory alignment and trust in one another’s institutions. The UK’s financial services sector plays an essential role in the European economy and so it is in the interests of all parties to secure a deal.”
It appears the EU have decided that it is in the interests of the EU to ensure the deal doesn't include financial services (not a surprise really) I think that is what the spokesperson is saying?
Also I think we should just ask the government to go home. We could then replace them all with the tape players endlessly repeating "deep and special economic partnership". It would also be cheaper, the populace would only have to pay for the cost of the batteries (or buy a wind up one).
"Delivering her closing speech at Woolwich crown court on Thursday morning, the lawyer for 48-year-old Darren Osborne accepted the prosecution’s claim he had developed a “warped hatred of Muslims” in the weeks preceding the incident last June, in which one man died and others were seriously injured.
Lisa Wilding QC also accepted that Osborne had been in central London the previous day looking to carry out a similar attack against Muslims.
“The question I ask is this: why would a man so intent on killing – as he agrees he was – who appeared to want to have his say, to proclaim his case and give his views, why would he deny doing the very thing he set out to do if, in fact, he had done it?” she asked the jury."
Na. He tots didn’t do it. He even said so. Why would he like to you? You calling him a liar? You did not just call him a liar! I’m telling mum what you said!
Before entering politics, David Davis was a senior executive at Tate & Lyle. Naturally the fruits of his wisdom were sought throughout the world of management. Indeed, in 1985 no less than the Harvard Business Review commissioned him to write an article about the risks inherent in launching big projects. Here was his advice.
Big projects, warned Mr Davis, frequently proved far costlier than managers had bargained for – particularly if the projects suffered from “inadequate design”, with managers recklessly “proceeding with the project on the basis of a skimpy feasibility study with many unknowns”. All too often, he wrote, “ignorance governs decisions”, although “the people connected with their development rarely admit it”.
Ultimately, concluded Mr Davis, it was better to “abandon the project rather than throw good money after bad”. Regrettably, however, some managers simply couldn’t bring...
... quite.
Tate and Lyle was one of the biggest backers of Brexit.
They are happy because now this American owned firm can import cheap cane sugar from Belize and undercut UK beet growers.
Naturally, I fully expect people to disagree with me, but I think the EU have made another tactical blunder, on par with their whitewash when Cameron asked for more powers, in relation to insisting that the transition period allows the free movement of EU citizens into Britain.
I don't think the EU have learned anything from the referendum.
For the record, I am pro-immigration, but a lot of our countrymen and women obviously take a different view.
The referendum result was won on immigration IMO, and nothing will rally the British people more against the EU, or harden Brexit support, than free movement.
Such an easy victory for May to gain support, and even Labour will be reluctant to challanege May on it, because they know working-class Labour supporters in the Labour heartlands are sensitive about immigration.
If I were a Remain supporter, I'd be shaking my head at the folly of Brussel's latest demand...
Kilkrazy wrote: One of the four fundamental freedoms of the EU is free movement of people.
It's May who has suddenly done a froot loop and said it won't be allowed during the transition period, not the EU.
I am in total agreement with you, which may surprise you.
None the less, you and I both know that immigration is a red rag to a bull, as far as the British public is concerned.
I suspect the EU knows this. May certainly knows it, hence the move. It's low cunning, but effective, red meat thrown to the Tory backbenchers. Like I say, Labour will have to tread very carefully.
The immigration issue is only going to complicate talks even more, and increases the chances of a no deal situation.
I am in total agreement with you, which may surprise you.
None the less, you and I both know that immigration is a red rag to a bull, as far as the British public is concerned.
I suspect the EU knows this. May certainly knows it, hence the move. It's low cunning, but effective, red meat thrown to the Tory backbenchers. Like I say, Labour will have to tread very carefully.
The immigration issue is only going to complicate talks even more, and increases the chances of a no deal situation.
So rather than challenging the bigotry and racism of the minority in her own back ranks she bows down before them emboldening their view that someone how the populace of the UK is superior. What message does that send to the British public? That they are correct, that these attitudes should prevail. The way to make something unacceptable is not surrendering under a slight breeze because it might cause a bit of disruption. I'd be more impressed if she slapped them down hard and provided a message as to why such views are unacceptable in todays society. We didn't make drink driving generally unacceptable by allowing softening our stance because of a few disruptive MPs.
The EU could have sacrificed free movement but that is one of their fundamental ideals. Chipping away at these over time results in their eventual collapse.
On a practical note it is going to be almost impossible for a company that has to abide by the EU rules then have different rules for one set of EU employees compared to another. How are they going to be able to validate whether someone is suitable or not. Honestly if I was the business I'd just ignore the bigoted rules.
May's problem is that while the hard core Brexiteers in the Tory Party are in the minority, they are more kamikaze.
The gak will hit the fan if and when the more numerous softcore + Remainer members of the party decide they need to man up and kick the Brexiteers into touch.
When that happens, May will be up the proverbial creek, because she finally will be forced to adopt a real position.
I am in total agreement with you, which may surprise you.
None the less, you and I both know that immigration is a red rag to a bull, as far as the British public is concerned.
I suspect the EU knows this. May certainly knows it, hence the move. It's low cunning, but effective, red meat thrown to the Tory backbenchers. Like I say, Labour will have to tread very carefully.
The immigration issue is only going to complicate talks even more, and increases the chances of a no deal situation.
So rather than challenging the bigotry and racism of the minority in her own back ranks she bows down before them emboldening their view that someone how the populace of the UK is superior. What message does that send to the British public? That they are correct, that these attitudes should prevail. The way to make something unacceptable is not surrendering under a slight breeze because it might cause a bit of disruption. I'd be more impressed if she slapped them down hard and provided a message as to why such views are unacceptable in todays society. We didn't make drink driving generally unacceptable by allowing softening our stance because of a few disruptive MPs.
The EU could have sacrificed free movement but that is one of their fundamental ideals. Chipping away at these over time results in their eventual collapse.
On a practical note it is going to be almost impossible for a company that has to abide by the EU rules then have different rules for one set of EU employees compared to another. How are they going to be able to validate whether someone is suitable or not. Honestly if I was the business I'd just ignore the bigoted rules.
Again, I don't disagree with this, I'm just putting the facts of the matter on the table:
1. The British public is bitterly divided on immigration.
2. May is a lame duck PM, with not a lot of room to manouvere.
3. It's a minority government, so the Tory backbenchers wield power and influence.
4. The EU can't budge an inch on freedom of movement. I can't fault the logic. I'd do exactly the same if I were the EU.
This all adds up to irrisistable force meeeting immovable object.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: May's problem is that while the hard core Brexiteers in the Tory Party are in the minority, they are more kamikaze.
The gak will hit the fan if and when the more numerous softcore + Remainer members of the party decide they need to man up and kick the Brexiteers into touch.
When that happens, May will be up the proverbial creek, because she finally will be forced to adopt a real position.
Well you see, I think that the non-HC-Brexiteer Tories understand that Brexit is going to be a huge disaster that if "owned" by the Conservative Party will destroy it for a generation.
Again, I don't disagree with this, I'm just putting the facts of the matter on the table:
1. The British public is bitterly divided on immigration.
2. May is a lame duck PM, with not a lot of room to manouvere.
3. It's a minority government, so the Tory backbenchers wield power and influence.
4. The EU can't budge an inch on freedom of movement. I can't fault the logic. I'd do exactly the same if I were the EU.
This all adds up to irrisistable force meeeting immovable object.
She is weak because she shows week in, week out that she tries to keep everyone happy, however unpalatable their views are. As you've pointed Tories will support their party first before country. So she could quite easily stare them down and say 'fine you do what you need to do, but I won't support a bigoted agenda'. Then they have to make a choice about whether they want to ruin the country or abide by more sensible views of the world. What she demonstrates now is that they can pull her whatever way they want and she simply has no control. But by doing so it allows a cancer to grow and fester in people's views on immigrants.
The EU is threatening sanctions to stop Britain undercutting the continent’s economy after Brexit, including “tax blacklists” and penalties against state-subsidised companies, according to a strategy paper.
The measures, outlined in a presentation to EU27 member states last week, show the bloc wants unprecedented safeguards after the UK leaves to preserve a “level playing field” and counter the “clear risks” of Britain slashing taxes or relaxing regulation.
Brussels describes the UK economy as too big and too close to treat like a normal trade partner and wants to define new ways to enforce restrictions on taxation, state aid, environmental standards and employment rights.
The negotiators said any deal on future relations had to “cater to the specificities” of the UK-EU relations — implying the “depth and breadth” of relations justifies tighter controls than those expected of the US, Japan or Canada.
Week 1. No no no. None of that. None at all. We're going to pull out with no deal. And retain our veto. And get exactly the trade deal we want because reasons.
Weeks 2-26 - various flip flopping
Weeks 27 - Those in charge of Brexit found grabbing their ankles, acquiescing to every EU demand, whilst whispering 'please sir, may I have another'.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Naturally, I fully expect people to disagree with me, but I think the EU have made another tactical blunder, on par with their whitewash when Cameron asked for more powers, in relation to insisting that the transition period allows the free movement of EU citizens into Britain.
As I understand it, May hasn't even mentioned movement in Brexit discussions with Brussels, or in cabinet meetings.
Why would freedom of movement be changed in the transition period? the whole point is to give time to prepare for the changes before they come into effect thus everything remains the same until the transition period ends and we may be in a position to handle the ensuing clusterfeth.
EU has always been firm that citizens rights are to be upheld whether they moved before or after the transition started.
We know this will be the case, May is making noise to appease the frothers, we all know she'll fold like wet paper.
tneva82 wrote: If wrexit wouldn't hurt getting 30k models this would be great entertaiment.
It won't. There's a not improbable chance that you'll be able to fly to WHW, buy a good supply of models in pounds and fly back for the same price they're not charging in euros.
Welsh first minister trails potential constitutional clash with Westminster.
Yet another turkey that is now upset when it realised that all the pictures of Christmas dinner tables weren’t a lie and the farmers weren’t being honest about the lorry taking them to a big party in their honour.
Kilkrazy wrote: Lack of strategy plays into Hard Brexit, because that is the default result if the negotiations fail for whatever reason.
This is probably what some of the hard right nutcase MPs want. And May rather than having any backbone is sleep walking straight into it.
She really is a terrible leader. So desperate for anything she'll try and avoid anything controversial. She's actually being praised for not raising human rights issues in China by the state run media for not mentioning it. So she is quite happy to exploit a populace and their conditions for any hint of a deal (which apparently is agricultural and for them technological, not really what a developed nation wants to hear).
Region was on course to benefit from £2.5bn of funding between 2000 and 2020 but voted 56% in favour of leaving EU
(26 June 2016)
I didn’t think they’d eat my face, says region that vote for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party...
I think there was quite amount of voting without any consideration of what leaving meant. Aptly illustrated by the huge spike in Google searches for "what is the eu" after the polls closed.
Region was on course to benefit from £2.5bn of funding between 2000 and 2020 but voted 56% in favour of leaving EU
(26 June 2016)
I didn’t think they’d eat my face, says region that vote for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party...
I think there was quite amount of voting without any consideration of what leaving meant. Aptly illustrated by the huge spike in Google searches for "what is the eu" after the polls closed.
As a loyal staff member of the Oxford University Press, I recommend a couple of very relevant and informative books from our Very Short Introduction To series:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:We all disagree on Brexit, but we can all agree that this lack of a strategy, something, anything for us to hang our hats on, is shambolic.
Hard Brexit? Soft Brexit? Canada? Norway? Switzerland? Singapore? North Korea? Vulcan? Klingon? A trade deal with B5's league of non-aligned worlds??
Give us something!!!!!!
Wouldn't that have been a nice question to ask in a referendum instead of a rather simplistic and nebulous "out or not"? Haven't, more or less, all the anti-Brexit people already said that Brexit doesn't mean anything because it's an umbrella term for all the options you mentioned (and more). If the UK doesn't want a second referendum then maybe a referendum on what type of Brexit could work? Narrow the path to Brexit down with each further referendum until a choice can be made. At least then the UK could negotiate instead of just wandering around aimlessly like after a long night of drinking.
Given the depth of ignorance about the EU (I include myself -- I learned a lot during the campaign) it doesn't seem likely that a more focussed referendum question would have been of any value.
That is one of the reasons why the UK is a representative parliamentary democracy and is not governed by referenda, supposedly.
Kilkrazy wrote: Lack of strategy plays into Hard Brexit, because that is the default result if the negotiations fail for whatever reason.
This is probably what some of the hard right nutcase MPs want. And May rather than having any backbone is sleep walking straight into it.
She really is a terrible leader. So desperate for anything she'll try and avoid anything controversial. She's actually being praised for not raising human rights issues in China by the state run media for not mentioning it. So she is quite happy to exploit a populace and their conditions for any hint of a deal (which apparently is agricultural and for them technological, not really what a developed nation wants to hear).
Given the UK’s current position on arms sales, the transitional laws on leaving the EU, and killing off as many poor and disabled people as possible, it’s less about not being controversial and more about not setting yourself up to give your critics an open goal.
Do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union?
Right to leave: 40% • Wrong to leave: 46%
- Largest lead for 'wrong' since poll started -
___________________________________
Do you think that the government are handling negotiations well or badly?
Well: 25% • Badly: 57%
___________________________________
Date conducted: 28-29 January 2018
Published: The Times | 2 February 2018
This trend has been growing for some time now so it's not a surprise that we have now got to point where there is such a significant difference. Not that I expect the Tories to take any notice whatsoever and will do their utmost to resist asking the question again because of the damage it will do to their own party (or more so anyway).
Listening to a political podcast earlier I heard a criticism laid at the feet of the EU about their negotiating strategy. It went something along the lines of,
The EU don't negotiate, they make a list of demands and wait for you to get back to them once you'd ticked off all the boxes.
Definitely sounds like the sort of negotiating team I'd like fighting our corner.
tneva82 wrote: If wrexit wouldn't hurt getting 30k models this would be great entertaiment.
It won't. There's a not improbable chance that you'll be able to fly to WHW, buy a good supply of models in pounds and fly back for the same price they're not charging in euros.
And pay 24% imports. Think free postage is cheaper anyway. Problem is 24% imports which is whether i go there or order
People seem to think we have some hold over the EU. That the EU was desperate for us to stay. Many Brexiteers like to point to them needing us more than we need them. That’s simply not true, and I am not surprised at all that they are just saying “this is our demands, deal with it”. That’s perfectly valid negotiation if you have nothing to lose.
Many pro Brexit people seem to think still the UK has nothing to lose and are still a major power. That’s not the case. We need the EU and they don’t need us. All we have is the debt to them, but if we leave without paying the UKs credit rating is stuffed. But point that out to pro Brexit people and they come over all “your not patriotic” and “you just hate the UK.”. The story coming through again and again is that whilst the remain campaign was not good, they could have provided the best reasons to stay and would have still had people spouting the same jingoistic rubbish. I love the UK and do think we are one of the greatest nations, but I am also realstic about how small we are and how much our continuing success is down to our partnership with our EU partners.
This is Sinn Fein MLA for North Belfast Gerry Kelly caught on camera this morning cutting off a parking clamp from his car with bolt cutters. Shouldn’t be much of a suprise as a IRA terrorist he escaped from jail, where he was serving two life sentences for bombing the old Bailey and ministry of agriculture in London. He escaped from jail stopping once to shoot a prison warden in the head.
His parties tag line at the moment is ‘equality, respect and (wait for it...) integrity’.....
Despair at your local politicians all you like but you have nothing on us
This is Sinn Fein MLA for North Belfast Gerry Kelly caught on camera this morning cutting off a parking clamp from his car with bolt cutters. Shouldn’t be much of a suprise as a IRA terrorist he escaped from jail, where he was serving two life sentences for bombing the old Bailey and ministry of agriculture in London. He escaped from jail stopping once to shoot a prison warden in the head.
His parties tag line at the moment is ‘equality, respect and (wait for it...) integrity’.....
Despair at your local politicians all you like but you have nothing on us
His parties tag line at the moment is ‘equality, respect and (wait for it...) integrity’.....
Despair at your local politicians all you like but you have nothing on us
It's a parking clamp, not soemone's leg, so here's to progress!
Oh, and, just, FYI, I've lived in Youngstown Ohio where once the winning party to an election was the subject of an election commercial of him taking a bribe from the mob on camera. to cover protection for drug dealers Be glad the IRA still believes in doing their own dirty work rather than subcontracting out.
His parties tag line at the moment is ‘equality, respect and (wait for it...) integrity’.....
Despair at your local politicians all you like but you have nothing on us
It's a parking clamp, not soemone's leg, so here's to progress!
Oh, and, just, FYI, I've lived in Youngstown Ohio where once the winning party to an election was the subject of an election commercial of him taking a bribe from the mob on camera. to cover protection for drug dealers Be glad the IRA still believes in doing their own dirty work rather than subcontracting out.
The Sinn Fein team of ‘integrity equality and respect’ brought us all another horror show just a few weeks ago when the Sinn Fein MP for Tyrone Barry McElduff was caught mocking the victims of one of the worst massacres here. The Kingsmill massacre. He danced on a video on twitter with a loaf of bread on his head with the name of the massacre emblazoned across it and posted the video to his IRA mates at 5 minutes past midnight on the anniversary of the massacre.
10 men were slaughtered when their work mini bus was stopped on a country road by the terrorists who asked if any of the workers were Catholic when one man identified himself as Catholic he was told to walk down the road. The remaining 10 Protestants were lined up against the bus and gunned down. One man survived despite being shot 18 times.
After people picked up on the videos meaning he claimed he didn’t know what he was doing, but after a public outcry he was suspended by the party for 3 whole months on full pay. Not suspended as an MP just as a party member. Which is ironic given the fact their MPs refuse to go to work. Thankfully though the public kept up the pressure and he had to resign.
This upstanding public representative of the highest elected office in the land was known for stunts like this, a few months earlier he posted a photo of the police out stopping traffic looking for drink drivers and he added the caption to his friends to ‘watch out for animals on the road’.
But for me the icing on the cake for these lovely people was when the named a children’s play park after one of the men who most likely carried out the Kingsmill massacre Raymond McCreesh. This paragon of respect was caught with one of the rifles used a few weeks after the slaughter. And now the good children of Newry play in the Raymond Mcreesh play park, and bang goes the hope for another generation.
If your interested here’s a link to an interview with the survivor of the massacre Alan Black, a man with more integrity and respect in his little toe than most people. It was after this interview went public Barry was forced to resign. I warn you it’s an emotionally harrowing interview.
You only have to look back a few pages here to find people insisting that the troubles are over and will never come back, and these people will never return to violence now. The same thugs remain. The same behaviour bubbles below the surface. The only thing that would reduce it now is the fact that the US has stopped having such a romantic view of terror since 9/11 so hopefully they at least won’t have the funds if Brexit does damage the peace process.
The thugs remain Steve but they are gangsters in suits now revelling in their blood soaked past.
Resuming an armed campaign is a totally different matter. That requires a very different skill set. Sinn Fein are more worried about the IRAs head of internal security (known as the nutting squad) being outed as an MI5 informant and being arrested for murder last week. They are petrified of what could come out in the washing. The most likely thing to come out is the identity of more agents.
One of the IRAs splinter groups called a ceasefire just last week because they couldn’t sustain an armed campaign. They were made up of the most hardened terrorists. No appetite out there for full armed campaigns. Intelligence services have all the groups tied up with informants.
His parties tag line at the moment is ‘equality, respect and (wait for it...) integrity’.....
Despair at your local politicians all you like but you have nothing on us
It's a parking clamp, not soemone's leg, so here's to progress!
Oh, and, just, FYI, I've lived in Youngstown Ohio where once the winning party to an election was the subject of an election commercial of him taking a bribe from the mob on camera. to cover protection for drug dealers Be glad the IRA still believes in doing their own dirty work rather than subcontracting out.
The Sinn Fein team of ‘integrity equality and respect’ brought us all another horror show just a few weeks ago when the Sinn Fein MP for Tyrone Barry McElduff was caught mocking the victims of one of the worst massacres here. The Kingsmill massacre. He danced on a video on twitter with a loaf of bread on his head with the name of the massacre emblazoned across it and posted the video to his IRA mates at 5 minutes past midnight on the anniversary of the massacre.
10 men were slaughtered when their work mini bus was stopped on a country road by the terrorists who asked if any of the workers were Catholic when one man identified himself as Catholic he was told to walk down the road. The remaining 10 Protestants were lined up against the bus and gunned down. One man survived despite being shot 18 times.
After people picked up on the videos meaning he claimed he didn’t know what he was doing, but after a public outcry he was suspended by the party for 3 whole months on full pay. Not suspended as an MP just as a party member. Which is ironic given the fact their MPs refuse to go to work. Thankfully though the public kept up the pressure and he had to resign.
This upstanding public representative of the highest elected office in the land was known for stunts like this, a few months earlier he posted a photo of the police out stopping traffic looking for drink drivers and he added the caption to his friends to ‘watch out for animals on the road’.
But for me the icing on the cake for these lovely people was when the named a children’s play park after one of the men who most likely carried out the Kingsmill massacre Raymond McCreesh. This paragon of respect was caught with one of the rifles used a few weeks after the slaughter. And now the good children of Newry play in the Raymond Mcreesh play park, and bang goes the hope for another generation.
If your interested here’s a link to an interview with the survivor of the massacre Alan Black, a man with more integrity and respect in his little toe than most people. It was after this interview went public Barry was forced to resign. I warn you it’s an emotionally harrowing interview.
So the long and the short of it is that he did something wrong and is now no longer working for the party, funnily we'd still have a government in the North if some other parties had members willing to stand down after doing something wrong.
About a month ago we had people supporting standing up to parking fines and the like in this very thread.
But for me the icing on the cake for these lovely people was when the named a children’s play park after one of the men who most likely carried out the Kingsmill massacre Raymond McCreesh. This paragon of respect was caught with one of the rifles used a few weeks after the slaughter. And now the good children of Newry play in the Raymond Mcreesh play park, and bang goes the hope for another generation.
Unfortunately we are all going to have to stomach these sort of things in the short term. All three sides have blood on their hands but we have to remember that the long term goal is sustainable long term peace. It will take generations before wounds really start to heal. You need to have a generation in control that does not even recall parents/grandparents talking about the troubles so that they are less blinded by factions; when the children of the future generations get their history through books not ideology. It will take time, but eventually parks will be renamed, built on, statues removed and so on. It might be galling to see it happen right now because of what all sides did, but eventually. We might not get to see the true benefits but if we continue along the same path then eventually (assuming we haven't nuked ourselves by then) a more unbiased and historical perspective will come to the fore.
His parties tag line at the moment is ‘equality, respect and (wait for it...) integrity’.....
Despair at your local politicians all you like but you have nothing on us
It's a parking clamp, not soemone's leg, so here's to progress!
Oh, and, just, FYI, I've lived in Youngstown Ohio where once the winning party to an election was the subject of an election commercial of him taking a bribe from the mob on camera. to cover protection for drug dealers Be glad the IRA still believes in doing their own dirty work rather than subcontracting out.
The Sinn Fein team of ‘integrity equality and respect’ brought us all another horror show just a few weeks ago when the Sinn Fein MP for Tyrone Barry McElduff was caught mocking the victims of one of the worst massacres here. The Kingsmill massacre. He danced on a video on twitter with a loaf of bread on his head with the name of the massacre emblazoned across it and posted the video to his IRA mates at 5 minutes past midnight on the anniversary of the massacre.
10 men were slaughtered when their work mini bus was stopped on a country road by the terrorists who asked if any of the workers were Catholic when one man identified himself as Catholic he was told to walk down the road. The remaining 10 Protestants were lined up against the bus and gunned down. One man survived despite being shot 18 times.
After people picked up on the videos meaning he claimed he didn’t know what he was doing, but after a public outcry he was suspended by the party for 3 whole months on full pay. Not suspended as an MP just as a party member. Which is ironic given the fact their MPs refuse to go to work. Thankfully though the public kept up the pressure and he had to resign.
This upstanding public representative of the highest elected office in the land was known for stunts like this, a few months earlier he posted a photo of the police out stopping traffic looking for drink drivers and he added the caption to his friends to ‘watch out for animals on the road’.
But for me the icing on the cake for these lovely people was when the named a children’s play park after one of the men who most likely carried out the Kingsmill massacre Raymond McCreesh. This paragon of respect was caught with one of the rifles used a few weeks after the slaughter. And now the good children of Newry play in the Raymond Mcreesh play park, and bang goes the hope for another generation.
If your interested here’s a link to an interview with the survivor of the massacre Alan Black, a man with more integrity and respect in his little toe than most people. It was after this interview went public Barry was forced to resign. I warn you it’s an emotionally harrowing interview.
So the long and the short of it is that he did something wrong and is now no longer working for the party, funnily we'd still have a government in the North if some other parties had members willing to stand down after doing something wrong.
About a month ago we had people supporting standing up to parking fines and the like in this very thread.
More ‘respect’ from republicans. Cant use the name Northern Ireland, still calling it ‘the North’ despite supposedly signing up to it’s legitimacy in the Good Friday Agreement. Apparently the respect they want is more rights for Irish speakers, a language funded to the time of £34 million annually even though only 0.2% of the population use the language in their homes and 6% have some working knowledge. But yet we can’t have government unless it gets more. Or maybe it’s Gay marriage which if there was a functioning government would probably be in place now.
But let’s just quote the great Gerry Adams when he spoke on equality
“But what's the point? The point is to actually break these bastards - that's the point. And what's going to break them is equality. That's what's going to break them - equality.”
"That's what we need to keep the focus on - that's the Trojan horse of the entire republican strategy is to reach out to people on the basis of equality."
Says it all really equality is just a Trojan Horse to break unionists who he calls bastards. Equality isn’t something to be cherished or worked for it’s a ploy a scheme a nasty underhand deceptive trick.
Knockagh wrote: The thugs remain Steve but they are gangsters in suits now revelling in their blood soaked past.
Resuming an armed campaign is a totally different matter. That requires a very different skill set. Sinn Fein are more worried about the IRAs head of internal security (known as the nutting squad) being outed as an MI5 informant and being arrested for murder last week. They are petrified of what could come out in the washing. The most likely thing to come out is the identity of more agents.
One of the IRAs splinter groups called a ceasefire just last week because they couldn’t sustain an armed campaign. They were made up of the most hardened terrorists. No appetite out there for full armed campaigns. Intelligence services have all the groups tied up with informants.
I suspect there are a lot of steps between nasty rhetoric and a full on armed campaign that'll make things horrible for people.
Young uns trying to impress the gangsters, gangsters wanting a return of the good old days, someone using it as an excuse to settle a grudge.
As you said, all the attitudes are still there, none of the problems have actually been solved.
As you said, all the attitudes are still there, none of the problems have actually been solved.
The attitudes might still be there, the question is whether or not the weaponry, training, funding, opportunity, public support, and organisation are still there. Without all of those things, there isn't much you can do beyond the standard thicko Islamic terrorist 'Drive a lorry at people' or 'pull out the kitchenware' attacks. Not that those aren't bad, but they're not a patch on the 80's.
I believe there has been some softening of the divisions and certainly the violence is a lot less than it was 20-30 years ago.
However, as long as there is a hard core of the population who want to unite with EIre, and a hard core of the population who consider that the worst thing in the world, there will continue to be a fundamental level of tension.
His parties tag line at the moment is ‘equality, respect and (wait for it...) integrity’.....
Despair at your local politicians all you like but you have nothing on us
It's a parking clamp, not soemone's leg, so here's to progress!
Oh, and, just, FYI, I've lived in Youngstown Ohio where once the winning party to an election was the subject of an election commercial of him taking a bribe from the mob on camera. to cover protection for drug dealers Be glad the IRA still believes in doing their own dirty work rather than subcontracting out.
The Sinn Fein team of ‘integrity equality and respect’ brought us all another horror show just a few weeks ago when the Sinn Fein MP for Tyrone Barry McElduff was caught mocking the victims of one of the worst massacres here. The Kingsmill massacre. He danced on a video on twitter with a loaf of bread on his head with the name of the massacre emblazoned across it and posted the video to his IRA mates at 5 minutes past midnight on the anniversary of the massacre.
10 men were slaughtered when their work mini bus was stopped on a country road by the terrorists who asked if any of the workers were Catholic when one man identified himself as Catholic he was told to walk down the road. The remaining 10 Protestants were lined up against the bus and gunned down. One man survived despite being shot 18 times.
After people picked up on the videos meaning he claimed he didn’t know what he was doing, but after a public outcry he was suspended by the party for 3 whole months on full pay. Not suspended as an MP just as a party member. Which is ironic given the fact their MPs refuse to go to work. Thankfully though the public kept up the pressure and he had to resign.
This upstanding public representative of the highest elected office in the land was known for stunts like this, a few months earlier he posted a photo of the police out stopping traffic looking for drink drivers and he added the caption to his friends to ‘watch out for animals on the road’.
But for me the icing on the cake for these lovely people was when the named a children’s play park after one of the men who most likely carried out the Kingsmill massacre Raymond McCreesh. This paragon of respect was caught with one of the rifles used a few weeks after the slaughter. And now the good children of Newry play in the Raymond Mcreesh play park, and bang goes the hope for another generation.
If your interested here’s a link to an interview with the survivor of the massacre Alan Black, a man with more integrity and respect in his little toe than most people. It was after this interview went public Barry was forced to resign. I warn you it’s an emotionally harrowing interview.
So the long and the short of it is that he did something wrong and is now no longer working for the party, funnily we'd still have a government in the North if some other parties had members willing to stand down after doing something wrong.
About a month ago we had people supporting standing up to parking fines and the like in this very thread.
More ‘respect’ from republicans. Cant use the name Northern Ireland, still calling it ‘the North’ despite supposedly signing up to it’s legitimacy in the Good Friday Agreement. Apparently the respect they want is more rights for Irish speakers, a language funded to the time of £34 million annually even though only 0.2% of the population use the language in their homes and 6% have some working knowledge. But yet we can’t have government unless it gets more. Or maybe it’s Gay marriage which if there was a functioning government would probably be in place now.
But let’s just quote the great Gerry Adams when he spoke on equality
“But what's the point? The point is to actually break these bastards - that's the point. And what's going to break them is equality. That's what's going to break them - equality.”
"That's what we need to keep the focus on - that's the Trojan horse of the entire republican strategy is to reach out to people on the basis of equality."
Says it all really equality is just a Trojan Horse to break unionists who he calls bastards. Equality isn’t something to be cherished or worked for it’s a ploy a scheme a nasty underhand deceptive trick.
We've had government for years and the DUP have consistently stopped gay marriage, sure according to Sammy Wilson they're ''poofs'' and ''perverts''. The whole government was brought down because Foster wouldn't step down for an investigation into her dodgy dealings.
Many other countries give funding to preserve the countries heritage and the Irish language is a massive part of that, the problem is the DUP are scared of anything with the term Irish in it and will do anything to try and damage it and anything related to irish'ness.
The fact that equality is seen as something that can break unionists says a lot more about the DUP and their supporters than anything else, if there had been equality in the country years ago the troubles would never have reached the levels it did. He shouldn't have used the word bastard in such a wide sweeping statement about a group of the community though it weakened the point he was making massively
Scared of Irishness but yet fund Irish Language to the tune of £34 million a year in a country of 1.8 million people? We have Irish Language schools, evening classes, radio programs. Tell me what exactly more do you want? Roadsigns? Compulsory Irish for civil servants? Flesh out your plans because I and all unionists actually haven’t a clue what more can be thrown at the Irish Language.
The Republic of Ireland only got gay marriage last year and its only a few years in GB. Most countries are new to this. Do Northern Ireland have to be first or else it’s no good? The DUP didn’t get enough seats to block it in the last assembly election so if the provos hadn’t brought government down it would have gone through.
Although Gerry’ Adams idea of sexual equality seems rather broad since he protected active peadophiles and rapists on several occasions including his own father and brother whom he continued to allow access to children despite knowing and hiding their peadophiliia. That must be some more of that respect I keep reading about.
Knockage: he DUP signed up for acht na Gaelige in the Saint Andrews agreement. If they don't honour their commitments, SF has no reason to enter government. Gay marriage wouldn't have passed due to the petition of concern.
McElduff has a history of putting things on his head for a laugh. He has no history of sectarianism. It's possible he may not have an encyclopediac knowledge of every shooting carried out in the Six Counties. If the IRA even carried out the massacre is disputable. The survivors heard an English accent.
Be that as it may, you have neglected to mention the Reavey-O'dowd killings by loyalists the previous night. Like Barry I'm not an encyclopedia: eight dead as I recall? This sort of action wasn't repeated after kingsmills. When Ian Paisley Snr falsely named one of the Reavey brothers as an IRA gunman who carried out kingsmills, I'm sure you called for his resignation.
Da krimson barun wrote: Knockage: he DUP signed up for acht na Gaelige in the Saint Andrews agreement. If they don't honour their commitments, SF has no reason to enter government. Gay marriage wouldn't have passed due to the petition of concern.
McElduff has a history of putting things on his head for a laugh. He has no history of sectarianism. It's possible he may not have an encyclopediac knowledge of every shooting carried out in the Six Counties. If the IRA even carried out the massacre is disputable. The survivors heard an English accent.
Be that as it may, you have neglected to mention the Reavey-O'dowd killings by loyalists the previous night. Like Barry I'm not an encyclopedia: eight dead as I recall? This sort of action wasn't repeated after kingsmills. When Ian Paisley Snr falsely named one of the Reavey brothers as an IRA gunman who carried out kingsmills, I'm sure you called for his resignation.
Did you actually say McElduff has no history of sectarianism??? Seriously is the same guy we are talking about?? The same guy who was given caught in 1992 for helping in the false imprisonment of a Protestant whom the IRA suspected of being an informer. The victim was interrogated by three masked IRA men in Sinn Féin's Dungannon offices? That guy or maybe it was this charming fella?
Well, If we're going to talk about Irish politics, let's focus on the positives, and something I've long admired, and that is the Irish rugby team, or Ireland.
Barely a trace of politics whatsoever. Anybody good enough can play for them, be they Republic or Northern Ireland, the shamrock is the team symbol, so nobody gets upset, the official Irish rugby flag has each of the 4 historic regions on it, and they have their own anthem, so again, nobody gets upset.
So, to see Ulstermen in the same side as players from Leinster, Munster, or Connacht, as was the case yesterday against France, is always a good thing to see.
So good on you Ireland for getting that right for more than 100 years.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, If we're going to talk about Irish politics, let's focus on the positives, and something I've long admired, and that is the Irish rugby team, or Ireland.
Barely a trace of politics whatsoever. Anybody good enough can play for them, be they Republic or Northern Ireland, the shamrock is the team symbol, so nobody gets upset, the official Irish rugby flag has each of the 4 historic regions on it, and they have their own anthem, so again, nobody gets upset.
So, to see Ulstermen in the same side as players from Leinster, Munster, or Connacht, as was the case yesterday against France, is always a good thing to see.
So good on you Ireland for getting that right for more than 100 years.
Your right. Irish rugby has stayed largely away from any political posturing over the years. Several reasons for that. Firstly it’s a sport mostly played by the middle classes and above mostly in grammar schools. Middle and upper classes in NI avoid open politics like the plague. It’s fine behind closed doors but never outside or in front of the children. Secondly rugby in Northern Ireland is almost exclusively played in state schools which are mostly Protestant as Catholics have kept their own separate education system. The separate Catholic schools plays Gaelic sports they do play soccer but I’m not aware of any that play rugby.
So yes you are right it is a good example but sadly it has worked so well because the sport has already self segregated itself to a large degree before a foot is put on the pitch.
Knockagh wrote: Scared of Irishness but yet fund Irish Language to the tune of £34 million a year in a country of 1.8 million people? We have Irish Language schools, evening classes, radio programs. Tell me what exactly more do you want? Roadsigns? Compulsory Irish for civil servants? Flesh out your plans because I and all unionists actually haven’t a clue what more can be thrown at the Irish Language.
The Republic of Ireland only got gay marriage last year and its only a few years in GB. Most countries are new to this. Do Northern Ireland have to be first or else it’s no good? The DUP didn’t get enough seats to block it in the last assembly election so if the provos hadn’t brought government down it would have gone through.
Although Gerry’ Adams idea of sexual equality seems rather broad since he protected active peadophiles and rapists on several occasions including his own father and brother whom he continued to allow access to children despite knowing and hiding their peadophiliia. That must be some more of that respect I keep reading about.
Road signs are wanted they have them all over the rest of the island so why not here? Irish didn't just stop at the border, to have the ability to have Irish used in affairs relating to public bodies and to have funding given to Gaeltacht areas in the country and provide opportunities for children form deprived backgrounds to go to Donegal in the summer months to help them learn. The DUP have shown an aversion to the Irish language in the with the removal of funding and comments insulting the language itself and the way they act towards the GAA is atrocious favouring money being sent to the OO over it for one simple reason and that's religion. The Irish language and the Gaelic games are two central elements to Irish culture and the DUP have shown many times a hatred for both.
It'll be three years in May since the south voted in gay marriage in their referendum, it's not about who did it first its the continued resistance against it by the DUP due to pure homophobia and ignorance. The DUP only lost their seats due to Sinn Fein collapsing the government.
What McElduff did in '92 wasn't sectarian though? If they'd done what they did due to him being a Protestant then it would be but it was because he was a suspected informer, going by that logic loads of crimes are sectarian, just because they happened to be committed against someone of a different religion.
A fair few Catholics schools do actually play rugby btw, but just not too as high a level.
Da krimson barun wrote: Knockage: he DUP signed up for acht na Gaelige in the Saint Andrews agreement. If they don't honour their commitments, SF has no reason to enter government. Gay marriage wouldn't have passed due to the petition of concern.
McElduff has a history of putting things on his head for a laugh. He has no history of sectarianism. It's possible he may not have an encyclopediac knowledge of every shooting carried out in the Six Counties. If the IRA even carried out the massacre is disputable. The survivors heard an English accent.
Be that as it may, you have neglected to mention the Reavey-O'dowd killings by loyalists the previous night. Like Barry I'm not an encyclopedia: eight dead as I recall? This sort of action wasn't repeated after kingsmills. When Ian Paisley Snr falsely named one of the Reavey brothers as an IRA gunman who carried out kingsmills, I'm sure you called for his resignation.
Did you actually say McElduff has no history of sectarianism??? Seriously is the same guy we are talking about?? The same guy who was given caught in 1992 for helping in the false imprisonment of a Protestant whom the IRA suspected of being an informer. The victim was interrogated by three masked IRA men in Sinn Féin's Dungannon offices? That guy or maybe it was this charming fella?
Perhaps he was aiding the false imprisonment of an informer who happened to be Protestant and not a Protestant who happened to be an informer? Ohhh look an Irish Republican at an Irish Republican event, what a surprise. Next you'll be accusing Elizabeth Sax-Coburg and Gotha of being sectarian for attending a British Army commemeration. I see you decided to brush over Ian's little comments and the Reavey-O'Dowd murders...the ones carried out by members of the SPG. That were followed up the next night by a man with an English accent leading a group of "IRA" gunmen. Funny that...
And there’s what your up against folks. Irish republicans comparing rememberance Sunday events with commenerating repugnant little terrorists. The Queen compared to Gerry Adams.
It really doesn’t matter who Barry was kidnapping, the fact is he was kidnapping which is a pretty awful crime by a pretty awful person.
And we have no government over road signs, couldn’t make it up. No budget, hospitals going to pot, but it’s ok because the provos are gonna get Irish Road signs. Which will be ripped down overnight in unionist areas. But more worryingly will be used to mark your territory and mine. Will cause more visible division. But then that’s obviously what you want. Because the Irish Language already has everything else and we are ok with that.
Knockagh wrote: And there’s what your up against folks. Irish republicans comparing rememberance Sunday events with commenerating repugnant little terrorists. The Queen compared to Gerry Adams.
It really doesn’t matter who Barry was kidnapping, the fact is he was kidnapping which is a pretty awful crime by a pretty awful person.
And we have no government over road signs, couldn’t make it up. No budget, hospitals going to pot, but it’s ok because the provos are gonna get Irish Road signs. Which will be ripped down overnight in unionist areas. But more worryingly will be used to mark your territory and mine. Will cause more visible division. But then that’s obviously what you want. Because the Irish Language already has everything else and we are ok with that.
Remembering the World Wars? Sure those are men who deserve respect, but men who murdered with impunity on the streets of Ireland I'd say they're just as much terrorists as the IRA ever were and many of the commemerations over here have been hijacked by the UDA and UVF.
So you're admitting Barry didn't commit a sectarian act then?
The countries already divided everywhere around me has the word London scored out before Derry, all the loyalist areas are flying union flags and Para flags you can guess what sort of areas you're in pretty easily. Sure if the country is in that bad a state the OO will stop costing the country massive amounts of money every year? Or Twaddell avenue costing millions? RHI costing half a billion too surely the NHS would have benefited from that.
Once again knockage you skip over the murdered Reaveys O'Dowds. Mrs Windsor when she attends events to commemerate never clarified that the black and tans, the auxies, the men who shoved broken glass into people's rears in Malaya, or the Paras who murdered her civilians on bloody Sunday are exceptions. You also skipped over the fact that the DUP committed to the Act. All they need to do is keep their word and also agree to introduce Gay marriage and equality. Note that the DUP will take an act if it's also Ulster-Scots, so it's not a matter of cost, it's a matter of votes.
Steve steveson wrote: The only thing that would reduce it now is the fact that the US has stopped having such a romantic view of terror since 9/11 so hopefully they at least won’t have the funds if Brexit does damage the peace process.
I wouldn't count on that. Peter King, House Homeland Security Committee member and Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence is well known for his financial support of Irish Terrorists, arms smuggling into Ulster, and hatred for Muslim terrorists (one of these things is not like the others). Which, despite laws against terrorism, is not a crime, as the IRA is not considered a terrorist group under US law (no, seriously, stop laughing). RIRA is, but that's it. The logic behind this is that your organization has to specifically target Americans before you get on the 'naughty list' IRA has never done this (ie bombed someplace that was obviously American) but they have funded the campaigns of men like Mr King, and the law makes no allowance for US allies. Which is why so many organizations on the list have Arab or Islamic themes in their names.
Barry McElduff is a convicted terrorist and a sectarian thug who I’m sure has committed countless foul acts beside the one we know about.
So your argument on Irish street signs is, “we are divided already so we may as well make it worse and go with it.”
Sorry that’s not for me that’s a pathetic future your selling.
I know of a few provos in County Tyrone who have done very well from RHI, and I think you shouldn’t pre judge anything until the public inquiry is over.
This I really want to post something about, but the content would be so horrific that the mods would clamp down and possibly lock thee thread. Let's instead say that it's deeply unfair to Gerry Adams to compare him to the Queen.
"We have no proof he did anything sectarian but he might have!"
If a line of Irish beneath a place name that's in anglicized Irish anyway(Derry/Doire)is such a problem, that's a problems with the PUL community,not Gaeilge.
There's a list of RHI recipients available to the public:would you like to cite a few?
That's an interesting statement about a little old lady who as far as I know, has never done anything noteworthy but her extended and committed service to her nation.
Ketara wrote: That's an interesting statement about a little old lady who as far as I know, has never done anything noteworthy but her extended and committed service to her nation.
To be fair, a number of students I have spoken to from some former UK colonies blame her for the role she played in the executions of freedom fighters in decolonization wars. As far as I could find this usually meant not granting those people a stay of execution. You could argue about her responsibility until the cows come home, but it still causes resentment, Cyprus being one of the more obvious former colonies.
Ketara wrote: That's an interesting statement about a little old lady who as far as I know, has never done anything noteworthy but her extended and committed service to her nation.
Exactly. Anything is justifiable so long as it's for her nation. Show me one example of Elizabeth II of the house of Sax-Coburg and Gotha ever condemning an action committed in the name of the crown by her nations armed forces. Because Gerry condemned many IRA actions in the 90's, still condemns the dissidents and has helped victims such as the family of Brian Stack. Lizzie has never helped any of the Dublin-Monaghan families to gain closure.
Ketara wrote: That's an interesting statement about a little old lady who as far as I know, has never done anything noteworthy but her extended and committed service to her nation.
Exactly. Anything is justifiable so long as it's for her nation. Show me one example of Elizabeth II of the house of Sax-Coburg and Gotha ever condemning an action committed in the name of the crown by her nations armed forces. Because Gerry condemned many IRA actions in the 90's, still condemns the dissidents and has helped victims such as the family of Brian Stack. Lizzie has never helped any of the Dublin-Monaghan families to gain closure.
It's interesting to see such fervent Royalists are still about; that is to say, people who seem to earnestly believe that the Royal Family should actually be interfering in politics and assuming responsibility for the decisions made by the Government of the day. I wouldn't have thought that the Divine Right of Kings was still so popular.
Going to the remembrance day commemerations and not making any effort to distance herself from stuff like the Ballymurphy massacre is political. It's a statement that shooting innocent people is alright so long as it's for the crown.
It is her responsibility when the government she allows to form commits murder.
Ketara wrote: That's an interesting statement about a little old lady who as far as I know, has never done anything noteworthy but her extended and committed service to her nation.
Exactly. Anything is justifiable so long as it's for her nation. Show me one example of Elizabeth II of the house of Sax-Coburg and Gotha ever condemning an action committed in the name of the crown by her nations armed forces. Because Gerry condemned many IRA actions in the 90's, still condemns the dissidents and has helped victims such as the family of Brian Stack. Lizzie has never helped any of the Dublin-Monaghan families to gain closure.
You really live in lala land Brian Stacks family would most definitely not say Gerry Adams helped their family in any way and to make out that he did is simply untrue.
You clearly don’t understand what the powers and responsibilities of the royal family are. Her duties are especially ceremonial. What exactly do you think she does in forming a government?
She has a secret stash of robots. If an entering PM turns up and she doesn't like them she puts them in the tower of London, gets a robot out and sends them to do her bidding....why do you think May is so...robotic?
Knockagh wrote: Barry McElduff is a convicted terrorist and a sectarian thug who I’m sure has committed countless foul acts beside the one we know about.
So your argument on Irish street signs is, “we are divided already so we may as well make it worse and go with it.”
Sorry that’s not for me that’s a pathetic future your selling.
I know of a few provos in County Tyrone who have done very well from RHI, and I think you shouldn’t pre judge anything until the public inquiry is over.
Again any evidence for the sectarian part?
Surely if to reducing divisions was the reason the DUP wouldn't march around attend events where Irish flags are burnt. It's not for financial reasons as they're willing to do it if Ulster Scots get brought into it. So the only reason I can think of is that they don't want to have anything to do with anything Irish. It also says a lot that anything to do with something that is a big part of their heritage too, threatens them that much.
Why does it matter if some ex-provos benefited from RHI? The scheme was a disaster costing us half a billion and she was in charge at the time.
As Knockagh once pointed out to me the UDR received a special award and a standing ovation from the Queen an organisation who approximately 15% of it's members were linked with loyalist paramilitaries. Surely if she can praise the armed forces she can speak out against some of their actions too or at least offer comfort to the families of those who suffered so greatly at their hands.
Da krimson barun wrote: Going to the remembrance day commemerations and not making any effort to distance herself from stuff like the Ballymurphy massacre is political. It's a statement that shooting innocent people is alright so long as it's for the crown.
It is her responsibility when the government she allows to form commits murder.
I don't think you understand the basis of the British constitution.
Ketara wrote: That's an interesting statement about a little old lady who as far as I know, has never done anything noteworthy but her extended and committed service to her nation.
Exactly. Anything is justifiable so long as it's for her nation. Show me one example of Elizabeth II of the house of Sax-Coburg and Gotha ever condemning an action committed in the name of the crown by her nations armed forces. Because Gerry condemned many IRA actions in the 90's, still condemns the dissidents and has helped victims such as the family of Brian Stack. Lizzie has never helped any of the Dublin-Monaghan families to gain closure.
You really live in lala land Brian Stacks family would most definitely not say Gerry Adams helped their family in any way and to make out that he did is simply untrue.
The only people we know who Gerry has helped are paedophiles, rapists and murderers.
Gerry brought the Stacks to meet with a PIRA representative. He didn't have to. If he gave any names away, everyone would have turned against him and SF would implode. I assure you, Ian Paisley never brought any UVF victims family to meet with them. What exactly was he supposed to do: start pointing fingers and naming names? He did what was within his power to help. Ian had his own sordid history. Kincora, the Lebanon guns...Oh and do you still have no comment on the Reavy-O'Dowd killings?
Ketara: Mayhaps I misunderstood Theresa Mayhem when she said she had just been to see Mrs.Windsor and said she had asked to form a goverment? She can dissolve parliament, shes Commander in chief, she can block bills...and what would be done about it? It's not like she'd be voted out of office!
Agricultural labour recruitment down 35% since Brexit referendum.
The disappointing thing about this article is the way the title portrays them as EU migrant jobs which they are not. There are plenty of migrants that do highly skilled jobs and these sort of articles reinforce the belief that they are only here to do the menial jobs. Instead they could have titled it "Can the local employment market recruit enough people to support an agricultural economy"
Ketara wrote: That's an interesting statement about a little old lady who as far as I know, has never done anything noteworthy but her extended and committed service to her nation.
Evelyn Baring was made first Baron Howick and inducted into the Order of the Garter.
I have no terms for the man that might be used in polite company, to give you some idea. The United Kingdom has admitted to the fact that he placed upwards of 100,000 people in camps where they were systematically tortured, raped, starved, and murdered.
In one particular incident, 11 people were selected at random, and beaten to death in front of the other prisoners to make a point. Men were tortured by being hung from the ceiling by their testicles, which were slowly crushed between two metal bars while they were beaten with a third.
The only defense the British Government has for these actions is to claim that since Kenya became independent of the UK, that everything the English colonial governor did is the responsibility of the Kenyan government now. While they admit that all these acts took place, they flatly refuse to issue an apology.
Blimey guv. That was in the 1950's, the man was knighted in '72 and died in '73. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the chap in question withhold evidence even from Parliament on the matter? Somehow I doubt given that that the Queen knew or gave the nod to what happened. Bit harsh to hold it against old Brenda; you might as well lay every evil ever undertaken by a British citizen at the throne of monarchy going down that route of reasoning.
It's fun to watch Tories fighting. There's no better target for their bitter recriminations than a fellow Conservative. It gets them every single time. It's one of the only things I like about them.
It's fun to watch Tories fighting. There's no better target for their bitter recriminations than a fellow Conservative. It gets them every single time. It's one of the only things I like about them.
True dat. I guess the "opposition" party's must think so well, as they all seem happy to sit back and leave them to it.
It's fun to watch Tories fighting. There's no better target for their bitter recriminations than a fellow Conservative. It gets them every single time. It's one of the only things I like about them.
True dat. I guess the "opposition" party's must think so well, as they all seem happy to sit back and leave them to it.
They're too busy consolidating the hold of the Second Coming on the party to be worrying about silly things like that.
Ketara wrote: Blimey guv. That was in the 1950's, the man was knighted in '72 and died in '73. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the chap in question withhold evidence even from Parliament on the matter? Somehow I doubt given that that the Queen knew or gave the nod to what happened. Bit harsh to hold it against old Brenda; you might as well lay every evil ever undertaken by a British citizen at the throne of monarchy going down that route of reasoning.
Oliver Lyttelton, 1st Viscount Chandos, and Colonial Secretary, actually briefed her on it, as she assumed the throne during this mess, and he was busy making excuses for it all in front of Parliament.
By the standards set at Nuremberg, her Majesty is culpable for the actions of the Colonial Secretary and his underlings. Or will you suggest that it was unfair of us to hang Nazis for far less?
Agricultural labour recruitment down 35% since Brexit referendum.
The disappointing thing about this article is the way the title portrays them as EU migrant jobs which they are not. There are plenty of migrants that do highly skilled jobs and these sort of articles reinforce the belief that they are only here to do the menial jobs. Instead they could have titled it "Can the local employment market recruit enough people to support an agricultural economy"
Radio 4 ran an interesting piece this morning on ceramics companies in the Potteries area of the midlands. (Stoke and so on.) They are doing quite well making specialist whisky bottles and stuff, but they are worried about the future.
The TL/DR is that they are reliant on EU workers because they can't find enough local staff. EU staff recruitment is down since the referendum, so the companies are investing in robots to replace them.
Their other worry is that a trade deal with China will open the floodgates to super-cheap imports.
BaronIveagh wrote: ...By the standards set at Nuremberg, her Majesty is culpable for the actions of the Colonial Secretary and his underlings. Or will you suggest that it was unfair of us to hang Nazis for far less?
A fully loaded sentence designed to provoke anger, not debate.
Oliver Lyttelton, 1st Viscount Chandos, and Colonial Secretary, actually briefed her on it, as she assumed the throne during this mess, and he was busy making excuses for it all in front of Parliament.
I see. I'm assuming you can provide evidence that Her Majesty was fully aware of mass murder/torture, and independently decided (i.e. it wasn't the decision of the government)'screw it, let's go and knight the man'? I mean, to be making such provocative statements, you must do. I'd appreciate seeing it though. Despite a few googles, I can't seem to uncover it...
By the standards set at Nuremberg, her Majesty is culpable for the actions of the Colonial Secretary and his underlings. Or will you suggest that it was unfair of us to hang Nazis for far less?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by shattering Godwin's law. Neutral, unbiased information is what I'm after here. I couldn't care less about legal precedents for whatever right now; I'm trying to ascertain if Her Majesty actually did what you said she did, on account of the fact that it's new to me. Stick to that, old fruit.
[ulr=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/university-students-graduate-careers-academic-degrees-income-jobs-recruitment-tory-mp-robert-halfon-a8194786.html]University students receive 'paltry returns' for their academic degrees, says Tory MP[/url]
That's because over the past 30 years, British higher education strategy has been:
1. Close all the polytechics, which used to provide excellent vocational education, and turn them into second- or third-rate academic universities.
2. Encourage 50%+ of teeneagers to get an academic degree at one of these new universities.
3. Charge them £9,000 a year for the service.
4. Not to have an industrial strategy, and leave everything to the private sector.
The fact is, anyone who gets a good degree from a good university will be all right.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Not even that, the Tories are obsessed with academic subjects at the secondary school level, as well.
Just look at the changes they brought in to the curriculum for examples of that.
I'll be honest, I think Blair is primarily responsible for the current model of the education sector. The Tories took the first steps which made it possible by abolishing the official difference between polys and unis, but the subsequent Labour administration was responsible for the calcification and tone that was set subsequently.
That said, I always think there comes a time when the following administration has had the opportunity to make changes, and didn't, so they also share culpability.
Therein, I think, lies the problem of our system of government. It's dedicated to short termist firefighting by power hungry non-entities who have very little in the way of actual skills. There's a reason 'Economics for Idiots' is officially one of the most borrowed books in Westminster Library.
I mean, if I set out to try and figure out the most efficient way of structuring the NHS (to seize upon an example), I'd take a solid five or so years, a team of hundreds of academics/ doctors. and a vast amount of data before I even began to give tentative conclusions about the best way to do it.
Our politicians meanwhile; write their plan on the back of a cigarette packet before getting into power (in between lobbying/sucking up/political maneuvering), then run it past a handful of civil servants and consultants, and put it into play. That plan will be focused purely upon mitigating whatever people are complaining most loudly about in line with whatever ideological strain they're currently championing.
I mean, is it any wonder stuff goes to pot on a regular basis? There's no long term planning, no real competence/expertise in the short term version, and no motivation for changing that.
Ketara wrote: Therein, I think, lies the problem of our system of government. It's dedicated to short termist firefighting by power hungry non-entities who have very little in the way of actual skills. There's a reason 'Economics for Idiots' is officially one of the most borrowed books in Westminster Library.
And I will continue to argue that this is why the House of Lords is important. For all their failures they are not beholden to a fickle electorate, the next vote, or what the papers say tomorrow.
Ketara wrote: Therein, I think, lies the problem of our system of government. It's dedicated to short termist firefighting by power hungry non-entities who have very little in the way of actual skills. There's a reason 'Economics for Idiots' is officially one of the most borrowed books in Westminster Library.
And I will continue to argue that this is why the House of Lords is important. For all their failures they are not beholden to a fickle electorate, the next vote, or what the papers say tomorrow.
But that cuts both ways. See the attempts to ban fox hunting as an example.
Of course there isn't a highly streamlined tech based solution.
It probably can be built, but given the UK government's record on big computer projects, it won't be ready until 2024 and will cost at least three times the budget.
Also the EU will very naturally insist we pay for them to install and operate it on their side, because it's only going to be needed for our convenience.
And it won't cover services, which are a lot more than half our exports.
Preparedness for #Brexit is key. All competent authorities and market operators have to prepare now. When the UK leaves the single market, the financial passport is gone.
I'm sure they'll come up with something that satisfies the strictures of the Good Friday agreement and secures the border to the satisfaction of the rest of the EU. Should be a piece of piss.
Kilkrazy wrote: One line of thinking is that May will play tough until the last minute, then cave in to whatever deal the EU offers us.
I'm pretty sure this is exactly what will happen, since conceding seems to be all they can do.
I'm convinced May is still stalling trying to find a way to save her career.
Ketara wrote: I'm assuming you can provide evidence that Her Majesty was fully aware of mass murder/torture, and independently decided (i.e. it wasn't the decision of the government)'screw it, let's go and knight the man'? I mean, to be making such provocative statements, you must do.
Ok... I'm a bit surprised, but maybe you're unaware of the Order of the Garter and just HOW difficult it is to get in. This is not just a run of the mill common knighting. A member of the Order is considered above the common knights and baronets of England.. First ONLY the monarch may invest a knight of the order. The British Government returned that right to the monarch in 1946, and has no say in who's selected. There are only 24 'Knights Companion' the only position available to someone not either a foreign monarch (Stranger Knights) or a member of the Royal House (Royal Knights, created as George III had too many sons and didn't want them counting toward the limit of 24). With only 24 positions, you may be sure that Her Majesty could tell you the color of your underthings that day if you were being considered for the Accolade.
At the moment there are, IIRC three open positions.
Ketara wrote: I'm assuming you can provide evidence that Her Majesty was fully aware of mass murder/torture, and independently decided (i.e. it wasn't the decision of the government)'screw it, let's go and knight the man'? I mean, to be making such provocative statements, you must do.
Ok... I'm a bit surprised, but maybe you're unaware of the Order of the Garter and just HOW difficult it is to get in. This is not just a run of the mill common knighting. A member of the Order is considered above the common knights and baronets of England.. First ONLY the monarch may invest a knight of the order. The British Government returned that right to the monarch in 1946, and has no say in who's selected. There are only 24 'Knights Companion' the only position available to someone not either a foreign monarch (Stranger Knights) or a member of the Royal House (Royal Knights, created as George III had too many sons and didn't want them counting toward the limit of 24). With only 24 positions, you may be sure that Her Majesty could tell you the color of your underthings that day if you were being considered for the Accolade.
At the moment there are, IIRC three open positions.
So....should I take that as 'I can't provide any evidence that she was explicitly actually aware of precisely what occurred there, but I'm damn well sure going to act like I can through vague insinuation!'
I mean, since you did just neatly sidestep the actual question being asked in order to focus upon what is a (really quite) peripheral piece of information. However restricted the knighthoods may or may not be, the Queen is just as susceptible to political suggestion as anyone else is, and it's really all quite by the by as to the actual question asked (namely, did this chap very explicitly order the mass tortures you mention, and if so, whether she was fully aware of that fact).
Thing is, I'm really quite happy to learn something here, I've no personal attachment to or endorsement in the Queen being the Second Coming. Plenty of Royals have been bastards over the years. But just tossing off these vague provocatively worded statements like you keep doing really isn't doing your case any favours as to believability.
He's talking gak, the definition of Trolling. Throw in an outrageous statement to inflame and back it up with nothing, sit back and watch people argue over feth all. Ignore him.
She has a point. The Conservative party and the country have somehow found themselves at the beck and call to a handful of ideological extremists.
I've often said that what the conservative party needs is a split. For too long it has struggled trying to marry up the right under one umbrella, and we're now paying the price for their hubris.
Bring back UKIP.
I can’t help feeling that large parts of the Conservative and labour parties are actually better described as being liberals and would be more at home in the Lib Dem’s, but for the fact that they would never get elected if they were Lib Dem’s. The shift to the middle that happens in the late 80s and 90s saw more Center left and Center right drawn in to the big two, but the old left and right are now asserting themselves, hence both parties are ripping themselves apart. I don’t think they should join the Lib Dem’s, as no one would take them seriously, but I do think there would be value in the Center leaning members of both parties looking to form a new party.
Kilkrazy wrote: One line of thinking is that May will play tough until the last minute, then cave in to whatever deal the EU offers us.
That's a new and startling tactic. Where do you get that idea from?
From reading the papers, but the resoning they give is pretty sound.
May's red lines and the deal she is aiming for are fundamentally incompatible, so they can't be achieved.
Eventually the EU will set its final terms for a deal, which will be a softish brexit of some kind, incompatible with the red lines.
The UK can either accept that or crash out in flames.
Everyone except the super hard brexiteers knows that to crash out in flames will be at best a major problem.
Therefore May will accept the final EU terms.
Push does finally appear to be approaching shove in the Tory Party.
They've been kicking their divisions on Europe down the road ever since we joined, but we've now got Mogg repeatedly criticising the PM, Chancellor and entire Civil Service, Soubry saying she'll leave if Mogg / Johnson etc take over, and May in the middle of it now incapable of anything other than parroting whichever 2 phrases they trained her to parrot most recently. A leadership contest at the same time as Brexit is going to be all sorts of giggles, should it come to pass.
Darkjim wrote: Push does finally appear to be approaching shove in the Tory Party.
They've been kicking their divisions on Europe down the road ever since we joined, but we've now got Mogg repeatedly criticising the PM, Chancellor and entire Civil Service, Soubry saying she'll leave if Mogg / Johnson etc take over, and May in the middle of it now incapable of anything other than parroting whichever 2 phrases they trained her to parrot most recently. A leadership contest at the same time as Brexit is going to be all sorts of giggles, should it come to pass.
Soubry is as much a Tory as I am, and I've despised that party for almost 40 years getting. She's a Blairite to the core. A lot of the Tory problems stem from the fact that there are very few Conservatives in the Conservative party.
Soubry actually is a member of the Conservative Party, she actually was selected by the Conservative Party to stand in their interest at an actual general election in which she actually was elected.
Presumably not by Labour Party members.
The problems stem from the fact that the Conservative Party is, or has usually been, a broad church.
Soubry may be on the left of the party, but so are a lot of other people. Then there are some hard right members of the party, and a spectrum in between.
The Conservative mantra has always been to paper over the gaps between these groups, in order to form a solid looking right wing part which reliably wins elections.
UKIP started to break up that happy accomodation by threatening to rob away the hard right support from the Tories. Cameron's referendum was intended to squash UKIP, but when lost it unleashed demons of passion which could not be controlled.
Today's Conservative Party is in a state of barely suppressed civil war over the issue of Brexit. Their key problem is that it simply is not possible to achieve a compromise between the hard Brexiteers and everyone else.
Soubry actually is a member of the Conservative Party, she actually was selected by the Conservative Party to stand in their interest at an actual general election in which she actually was elected.
Presumably not by Labour Party members.
The problems stem from the fact that the Conservative Party is, or has usually been, a broad church.
Soubry may be on the left of the party, but so are a lot of other people. Then there are some hard right members of the party, and a spectrum in between.
The Conservative mantra has always been to paper over the gaps between these groups, in order to form a solid looking right wing part which reliably wins elections.
UKIP started to break up that happy accomodation by threatening to rob away the hard right support from the Tories. Cameron's referendum was intended to squash UKIP, but when lost it unleashed demons of passion which could not be controlled.
Today's Conservative Party is in a state of barely suppressed civil war over the issue of Brexit. Their key problem is that it simply is not possible to achieve a compromise between the hard Brexiteers and everyone else.
I could join the Conservative party right now, but as the Iron Duke once said, being born in a stable does not make a man a horse...
Blue Blairites selecting another blue Blairite does not make one a Conservative.
I've yet to hear a single Conservative viewpoint being uttered from Soubry.
Ketara wrote: There's a reason 'Economics for Idiots' is officially one of the most borrowed books in Westminster Library.
Because parliament is full of idiots?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steve steveson wrote: I don’t think they should join the Lib Dem’s, as no one would take them seriously, but I do think there would be value in the Center leaning members of both parties looking to form a new party.
Perhaps we should ask Macron whether he will open up a branch of En Marche in the UK? There might be consistency then between the two countries. Can you be the leader of two countries at once?
Blue Blairites selecting another blue Blairite does not make one a Conservative.
I've yet to hear a single Conservative viewpoint being uttered from Soubry.
A name should not dictate what a party is or wants to be. Just because what a party was in the past does not mean it should define its future. If the Conservative party all became Marxists they are still the Conservative party. If we wanted parties that were constrained by past ideologies then we may as well as just rename everything to being under 5 parties:- far right nut jobs; centre right, capital orientated; centre, no particular preference in ideology; centre left, social orientated; far left nut jobs.
Whirlwind wrote: Can you be the leader of two countries at once?
Historically? Absolutely. Personal Unions, while uncommon, aren't outrageously uncommon through history and the UK itself is an example of a constellation in which someone's leader of more than one country at a time.
Ketara wrote: There's a reason 'Economics for Idiots' is officially one of the most borrowed books in Westminster Library.
Because parliament is full of idiots?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steve steveson wrote: I don’t think they should join the Lib Dem’s, as no one would take them seriously, but I do think there would be value in the Center leaning members of both parties looking to form a new party.
Perhaps we should ask Macron whether he will open up a branch of En Marche in the UK? There might be consistency then between the two countries. Can you be the leader of two countries at once?
Blue Blairites selecting another blue Blairite does not make one a Conservative.
I've yet to hear a single Conservative viewpoint being uttered from Soubry.
A name should not dictate what a party is or wants to be. Just because what a party was in the past does not mean it should define its future. If the Conservative party all became Marxists they are still the Conservative party. If we wanted parties that were constrained by past ideologies then we may as well as just rename everything to being under 5 parties:- far right nut jobs; centre right, capital orientated; centre, no particular preference in ideology; centre left, social orientated; far left nut jobs.
With all due respect - that's wishy-washy nonsense.
If you applied that logic to the Nazi party i.e don't judge them by past actions, because they now believe in equality for all and nuclear disarmament, etc etc
you'd get laughed out of town.
I expect a Communist party to be Communist. A Conservative party to be Conservative, and the SNP to believe in Scottish independence etc etc
is that too much to ask for?
As I've said before, the poison of Blairism has badly infected British politics for nigh 20 years
You can only occupy the centre ground for so long...
I could join the Conservative party right now, but as the Iron Duke once said, being born in a stable does not make a man a horse...
.. Issue here of course being you'd then need to be selected by your local constituency group, get approval from Con. HQ and win an election to count as a Con. MP.
All of which Anna Soubry has done.
I've yet to hear a single Conservative viewpoint being uttered from Soubry.
I don't think the names have much bearing beyond historic baggage. I'd vote for a Nazi or conservative party if they were left of centre, and I'd stop voting labour if they moved right.
They need to be viewed on their current actions.
Some people will always vote for a party regardless of the policies though, which is pretty dangerous.
FARMERS have had to leave thousands of tonnes of fresh fruit and vegetables to rot in fields because of the fall in the number of workers coming to Scotland from the EU since the UK voted for Brexit.
One farmer in Fife said he dumped enough vegetables to “feed 15,000 people for a year” because there “wasn’t enough hands” to harvest it. Another farmer in Angus said the region requires 4,000 seasonal workers a year and there simply aren’t enough unemployed locals to pick the fruit he grows.
he National Farmers Union (NFU) has surveyed Scottish farmers about the “threats facing your businesses as a result of possible labour shortages” which it says have been “compounded by negotiations to leave the EU”.
The results of the survey – which are expected to make difficult reading for UK Government rural affairs minister Michael Gove – will be announced on Thursday by NFU Scotland President Andrew McCornick at the union’s AGM.
It is anticipated that farmers will demand a return of the Seasonal Agricultural Workers’ Scheme (SAWS) – closed by the UK Government in 2013 – which granted permits for thousands of workers from outside the EU to come to the UK to assist with harvest before returning home.
The NFU hopes an influx of those seasonal workers would fill a workforce gap which was created after a 20 per cent fall in the number of EU workers in some parts of Scotland last year.
McCornick said: “Access to workers remains a key priority, particularly for some very successful parts of our industry that are heavily dependent on non-UK labour.
“This year, there has been a shortage of between 10 and 20 percent of seasonal workers coming from the EU. To tackle that it is essential that we have a UK Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme in place for 2018 with work permits for up to 20,000 workers from outside the EU.”
NFU Scotland’s Horticulture Committee Chairman, James Porter, who grows soft fruit in Carnoustie, said there is “hardly a punnet of Scottish strawberries or a head of broccoli that isn’t picked by non-UK workers”. He has called on Gove to introduce a pilot seasonal scheme in Scotland.
He said: “For a major soft fruit area like Angus, the importance of seasonal workers cannot be underestimated. There are only 1,400 long term unemployed in Angus, yet Angus Soft Fruits – the group that I supply with soft fruit – needs a seasonal workforce of 4,000 to pick crops. With the massive growth that we have seen in our soft fruit and veg sectors in Scotland it is simply impossible for that labour to be sourced locally.
“Immigration is a political hot potato, but it is important to note that these seasonal workers would have next to no impact on the UK’s net immigration figures as, seasonal workers would all return home.
“If the political climate in England makes it difficult to introduce a seasonal workers scheme there, I am certain a pilot would be well received in Scotland.”
The SNP’s Europe spokesman Stephen Gethins MP said the UK Government’s “lack of action” to help farmers and other food and drink producers “will mean higher prices and more waste”.
He added: “It’s increasingly apparent that taking us out of the EU will impact across a range of sectors affecting each and every one of us – this includes the food and drink sector where farmers and other businesses rely on workers from across the EU who harvest the food that we eat.”
A spokeswoman for the Department of Food, Agriculture and Rural Affairs, which Michael Gove runs, said: “We recognise securing a strong agricultural workforce is crucial as we develop a new approach to farming outside the EU.
“The Government has commissioned advice from the Migration Advisory Committee to better understand reliance on EU migrant workers across the wider economy and we will work closely with our food and farming industry to consider their specific needs.”
FARMER FORCED TO LEAVE ENOUGH FOOD TO FEED 15,000 IN FIELDS TO ROT
James Orr produces broccoli, cauliflower, potatoes, carrots and parsnips at Milton of Blebo Farm outside St Andrews. He must employ at least 30 people in the peak months of August to November but said he had “15 per cent fewer people than I would have liked” last year.
He said: “We simply could not harvest everything and as a result we left produce in the field to rot. We worked out there was enough broccoli to feed 15,000 people for a year, in terms of their annual consumption. Had we had enough hands to pick it we could certainly have sold it. We supply just over 1,000 tonnes of broccoli but we ended up coming up short on that contract. We reckon we lost somewhere between £30,000 and £50,000.”
Orr is now making “difficult decisions” about how much he can produce this year. “We have to decide whether we have the confidence to put the crop in the ground not knowing whether we’re going to have enough hands to harvest it,” he said.
Orr is also involved with farmers’ co-operative East of Scotland Growers which has a membership responsible for producing between 20 and 25 per cent of the UK’s broccoli requirement. “We’re quite big players but Brexit means that is now at risk,” Orr added. “It would effectively be imported if we can’t produce it.”
Ok May and the pack of right wing ultras pulling her strings just went from incompetent and darkly funny to full on 1984 sinister.
She is setting up a ministry of truth to decide what are proper sources of news and ensure that newspapers are meeting good standards. Which would be ok if she was not in it up to her neck with Darce and Murdoch.
Also the internet and social media are bad for "Democracy" and MP's should not be abused or questioned, at least we now know what she was doing in China.
So we have the love child of Mr Burns and Cruela du Ville who lacks there empathy and humanity. Deciding that the best way to stay in power is to turn us into a low budget Chinese knock off with the added bonus of inbreeds like Smug and Johnson.
With all due respect - that's wishy-washy nonsense.
If you applied that logic to the Nazi party i.e don't judge them by past actions, because they now believe in equality for all and nuclear disarmament, etc etc
you'd get laughed out of town.
I expect a Communist party to be Communist. A Conservative party to be Conservative, and the SNP to believe in Scottish independence etc etc
is that too much to ask for?
As I've said before, the poison of Blairism has badly infected British politics for nigh 20 years
You can only occupy the centre ground for so long...
That's too simplistic and is trying to pigeon hole a view into a simple sound bite. The actions of the party or individual is important and those views change over time, that is to be expected. Conservatives could become left wing orientated with a view to 'conserving' the environment. It's unlikely a party calling themselves the Nazis is likely to get much headway, because of past connotations but that doesn't stop them having policies that are completely unlike those of the past (let's say full global disarmament in a peaceful manner). Symbols and names change in meaning (take the swastika for example, that was around a lot longer before the 1930s)
A man who alleged he was the victim of a VIP child abuse ring faces multiple charges relating to the possession of indecent images of children.
The man, known as Nick, claimed a paedophile ring was responsible for murdering three children.
He also said he was systematically abused and tortured by senior politicians and members of the armed forces during the 1970s and 80s.
The claims triggered the abandoned Met Police investigation Operation Midland.
Those he accused included former Conservative politicians Lord Brittan and Harvey Proctor, and Field Marshall Lord Bramall.
After the Met launched Operation Midland in 2014 they held a press conference where a senior detective described Nick's allegations as "credible and true".
In 2015, the Met carried out a series of high-profile dawn raids on the homes of those Nick had accused.
All of them denied his allegations and no evidence whatsoever was found to support Nick's claims.
After the £2.5m investigation was closed, without any charges, the Met apologised for the way they had conducted the inquiry and paid compensation to those who were accused.
A report into Operation Midland, carried out by a retired High Court judge, said the Met had made a series of errors in the investigation and made 25 recommendations on how police should handle similar allegations in the future.
Nick's real identity cannot be reported for legal reasons.
The offences he was charged with last year - but which can only be reported now - relate to indecent images of children of varying levels of seriousness, including the most serious.
Some of the offences are alleged to have happened during the same period he was talking to Operation Midland detectives.
"Nick" is also being investigated for perverting the course of justice and fraud - a file of evidence for those offences has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.
The perils of politically motivated investigations.
South Korea has already indicated that it wants to address its trade deficit with the U.K., which was particularly high between 2012 and 2015, before granting Britain continued market access during transition, EU diplomats and business people said.
“Exports are South Korea’s credo No. 1, and trade balance is their credo No. 2,” said Christoph Heider, president of the European Chamber of Commerce in Korea, who is in close contact with the government in Seoul. “I expect that Great Britain will have to make concessions if it wants to stay in the trade deal during the transition.”
Trade threats during the transition period might provide extra leverage to third countries on future deals, potentially forcing longer-term concessions on the U.K. in return for maintaining trade in the short term.
r_squared wrote: He's talking gak, the definition of Trolling. Throw in an outrageous statement to inflame and back it up with nothing, sit back and watch people argue over feth all. Ignore him.
....
Bring back UKIP.
So.... kettle, how black thou art?
Ketara wrote: 'I can't provide any evidence that she was explicitly actually aware of precisely what occurred there, but I'm damn well sure going to act like I can through vague insinuation!'
Well, there was the resignation of Sir Arthur Young, but you can always claim that she never bothered to read his resignation after only 8 months in Kenya, or bothered to ask him about it when she later knighted him. He even had the nasty habit of writing to his superiors in protest. '"The other lamentable aspect of this case is the horror of some of the so-called screening camps which, in my judgement, now present a state of affairs so deplorable that they should be investigated without delay. An African who is unfortunate enough to suffer from the brutalities which are clearly evident has no-one to whom he can complain,"
The fact that there was also a tour, by various ministers from white hall, allowing them to watch the torturers in action.
To put it mildly, while I can't, as you point out, 100% prove that she knew in explicit detail what went on, the odds of her Majesty being in the dark were, shall we say, rather slim. I suspect that Iain Macleod did not come up with the idea of destroying the most damning of the Colonial Office documents out of thin air.
Well, there was the resignation of Sir Arthur Young, but you can always claim that she never bothered to read his resignation after only 8 months in Kenya, or bothered to ask him about it when she later knighted him. He even had the nasty habit of writing to his superiors in protest. '"The other lamentable aspect of this case is the horror of some of the so-called screening camps which, in my judgement, now present a state of affairs so deplorable that they should be investigated without delay. An African who is unfortunate enough to suffer from the brutalities which are clearly evident has no-one to whom he can complain,"
The fact that there was also a tour, by various ministers from white hall, allowing them to watch the torturers in action.
To put it mildly, while I can't, as you point out, 100% prove that she knew in explicit detail what went on, the odds of her Majesty being in the dark were, shall we say, rather slim. I suspect that Iain Macleod did not come up with the idea of destroying the most damning of the Colonial Office documents out of thin air.
See, I'll be honest, you've actually linked nothing to the Queen specifically knowing anything at all about Kenyan colonial politics/events beyond 'I reckon she must have discussed it with these people that she knighted twenty years later'. It's not so much as not being able to prove 100% as much as it is being able to prove 1%. You're simply taking the fact that the Queen knighted two people, and the separate fact that some rather nasty occurrences happened in Kenya that those people were cognisant of, and saying that it proves the Queen knew all about it (and thus endorsed it by knighting one of the fellows responsible).
After a little digging, it would appear that Young's resignation letter was actually suppressed by the British Government and more implicit to begin with. All the letters I could find in which he explicitly discussed what was going on were sent to the Governor, not the Queen. The Governor being a representative of the British Government, if technically installed by the Queen (like most of the Government). The press had no idea what was going on for the most part, beyond the occasional allegation. There were a few books published in the 50's from eyewitness accounts, but virtually all the charges were flatly denounced or contradicted by the Government. Indeed, the whole affair seems to have been generally buried for the most part at the time and immediately subsequently. Only recently does it seem to have surfaced in any detail.
I find it quite plausible that the Prime Minister wasn't making a habit of wandering in to the Queen and saying, 'Hey, did you know those gents we sent out in your name are off torturing people and committing war crimes? Yeah, we're denying it everywhere else, but I figured I'd let you know'. I also find it quite plausible that the Queen didn't say whilst tapping the relevant gentlemen on the shoulder with a sword 'You know gents, I've been dying to ask you about what happened in that one little slice of Empire from twenty years ago....'
Note that I'm not saying that you're wrong. But having assessed all the evidence I could lay my hands on after twenty minutes or so of idle reading, it appears just as likely that she may well not have known (or even somewhat more so). Again, if you have any relevant evidence/proof, I'd welcome the opportunity to learn something new, but right now your criticism of the lady would appear unjustified. I daresay on the balance of probability that she vaguely was aware something was up and some less than savoury things happened over there; but such an imprecise moniker could likely have been applied to half the Empire. Kenya likely didn't stick out any more than the rest of them did as far as contemporary events/politics went at the time.
Official impact assessment for the now rather interesting Customs Bill - measures the impact of leaving EU & Customs Union, with and without legislating for UK law replacement. Doesn’t model actual exit from the customs union:
"It would be utterly perverse for the EU to impose tariffs on trade between the UK and the European Union and I don't think they would be so destructive to do that," says Bernard Jenkin #r4today
.. do they perhaps not know what WTO rules actually means ?
A man who alleged he was the victim of a VIP child abuse ring faces multiple charges relating to the possession of indecent images of children.
The man, known as Nick, claimed a paedophile ring was responsible for murdering three children.
He also said he was systematically abused and tortured by senior politicians and members of the armed forces during the 1970s and 80s.
The claims triggered the abandoned Met Police investigation Operation Midland.
Those he accused included former Conservative politicians Lord Brittan and Harvey Proctor, and Field Marshall Lord Bramall.
After the Met launched Operation Midland in 2014 they held a press conference where a senior detective described Nick's allegations as "credible and true".
In 2015, the Met carried out a series of high-profile dawn raids on the homes of those Nick had accused.
All of them denied his allegations and no evidence whatsoever was found to support Nick's claims.
After the £2.5m investigation was closed, without any charges, the Met apologised for the way they had conducted the inquiry and paid compensation to those who were accused.
A report into Operation Midland, carried out by a retired High Court judge, said the Met had made a series of errors in the investigation and made 25 recommendations on how police should handle similar allegations in the future.
Nick's real identity cannot be reported for legal reasons.
The offences he was charged with last year - but which can only be reported now - relate to indecent images of children of varying levels of seriousness, including the most serious.
Some of the offences are alleged to have happened during the same period he was talking to Operation Midland detectives.
"Nick" is also being investigated for perverting the course of justice and fraud - a file of evidence for those offences has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.
The perils of politically motivated investigations.
I thought that sometimes the victims of abuse can become abusers later in life - creating a vicious chain - not saying that happened here but its possible?
A man who alleged he was the victim of a VIP child abuse ring faces multiple charges relating to the possession of indecent images of children.
The man, known as Nick, claimed a paedophile ring was responsible for murdering three children.
He also said he was systematically abused and tortured by senior politicians and members of the armed forces during the 1970s and 80s.
The claims triggered the abandoned Met Police investigation Operation Midland.
Those he accused included former Conservative politicians Lord Brittan and Harvey Proctor, and Field Marshall Lord Bramall.
After the Met launched Operation Midland in 2014 they held a press conference where a senior detective described Nick's allegations as "credible and true".
In 2015, the Met carried out a series of high-profile dawn raids on the homes of those Nick had accused.
All of them denied his allegations and no evidence whatsoever was found to support Nick's claims.
After the £2.5m investigation was closed, without any charges, the Met apologised for the way they had conducted the inquiry and paid compensation to those who were accused.
A report into Operation Midland, carried out by a retired High Court judge, said the Met had made a series of errors in the investigation and made 25 recommendations on how police should handle similar allegations in the future.
Nick's real identity cannot be reported for legal reasons.
The offences he was charged with last year - but which can only be reported now - relate to indecent images of children of varying levels of seriousness, including the most serious.
Some of the offences are alleged to have happened during the same period he was talking to Operation Midland detectives.
"Nick" is also being investigated for perverting the course of justice and fraud - a file of evidence for those offences has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.
The perils of politically motivated investigations.
Or, and this is largely tinfoil hat turf, those he accused as seriously powerful.
...It never struck one as that plausible that whilst Ted Heath was the Pm of the UK , during the height of the IRA bombing campaign, that he was nipping off on his own to abduct/abuse and/or murder orphans.
It's the party of the free market in full-on hypocrisy mode as they see a danger of losing two of their most active press supporters.
The Sun this week :
Spoiler:
meanwhile Anna Soubury received death threats earlier this week
"Decent journalism to ascertain the truth". I think at this point Murdoch has spent about £50M on payoffs (£11M to Brooks alone) and legal fees to avoid any of the "truth" about phone-hacking becoming public. Can't wait to be subsiding that sort of thing.
I can understand wanting to do something about news-scraping. It's handy for the consumer but it does steal advertising away from the producer. Why it needs special legislation I don't understand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: ...It never struck one as that plausible that whilst Ted Heath was the Pm of the UK , during the height of the IRA bombing campaign, that he was nipping off on his own to abduct/abuse and/or murder orphans.
It depends on who else was involved. I doubt he was going to be allowed to wander the streets on his own looking for victims, but being dropped off at a friends country manner by security services who take a few hours cigarette break? Seems pretty plausible to me. He'd have more excuses for needing privacy than most.
Kilkrazy wrote: That is the same Daily Mail that branded British judges upholding citizen rights under constitutional law as "Enemies of the People."
I wouldn't wipe my rear with the mail, but a free press in a free nation, which ours is supposed to be, has every right to say that, however distasteful it may be...
Can't believe I'm defending the Mail
but liberty is for everybody, not just the people you like
If you look at what happened to, say, Lord Mountbatten, I don't think it's all very likely.
I'm sure Heath was gay and was from that generation where " that sort of thing" wasn't approved of and so forth.
But I think it's a stretch to go from there to him drowning children off of his yacht.
I also am sure Heath was gay. But he has been dead for years, how are the police going to prosecute him? I think Cliff Richard probably is gay too. If he wants to keep his privacy he is entitled to.
Doesn't this whole thing feed off the old (and disproven) prejudice about gay men being paedophiles?
It's easier to believe that the extensive investigation has turned up no evidence, as police say, rather than been successfully suppressed by shadowy forces. I don't see how such a widespread conspiracy could be kept quiet in the mdoern world.
I'm sadly not all that surprised, since it essentially was May who led the government effort to evade the requirements of parliamentary sovereignty in that case.
The British Government has demanded total secrecy in its free trade talks with the US for a post-Brexit deal, i can reveal. Liam Fox’s Department for International Trade (DIT) has quietly opened preliminary discussions with a team of American officials. Both sides have agreed that their talks will be classified as either “sensitive” or “confidential”, and information will be shared only among approved individuals. Nothing can be released for four years after talks are concluded, unless both sides waive the secrecy rule, according to documents seen by i.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: Where does the blue passport thing come from, I've only ever heard it referred to ironically once or twice.
May proudly proclaimed in December that after Brexit the UK can get back its "iconic blue passports" which were phased out in the 1980s in favour of the current burgendy red jobs.
There are a few ironies, though:
1. The EU pattern passport we have now can be any colour including blue if we want. It was our government's choice to make it red.
2. The EU passport design we have to use now, and can abandon after Brexit, conforms to the ICAA rules for passport design. After Brexit we will still have to use the same design if we want any British people to be able to fly abroad, or if we want any foreigners to enter the UK (because of the way passport reading machines work.)
3. Finally, the principle use of a passport is to get into different countries. After Brexit of course the UK passport will be a lot less useful for this.
The reason you hear this referred to ironically is becuase it is such a major example of the complete self-delusion around aspects of Brexit.
‘Black cab rapist’ was hired as stripper for OUCA cabaret social
John Worboys performed striptease at the infamous ‘West One Cabaret’ in 1989
The Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) once hired the ‘Black cab rapist’ then working as a stripper, for an infamous cabaret social.
John Worboys, then know as ‘Terry the Minder’, performed a striptease for Tory members, alongside a female stripper named “the exotic Vashanti”.
The event at Hertford College was attended by a young Sally Bercow (then Illman), wife of Commons Speaker John Bercow. She was blindfolded on stage before Worboys suggestively placed a banana in her hand.
According to a report at the time, prominent Tory backbencher Jacob Rees Mogg “heartily approved of [the event].
Now dubbed the ‘Black Cab Rapist’, Worboys was later jailed in 2009 after being convicted of 19 sexual assault charges. He notoriously drugged multiple women in his taxi.
The announcement that he would be released after serving only nine years of his sentence was met with heavy criticism nationwide last week.
Following the ‘West One Cabaret’ event, the Senior Proctor of the University refused to recognise OUCA as an official society, banning the Association from using the ‘Oxford University’ title in its name. The Association were also prohibited from holding events at Hertford. The ban apparently remains in place today.
The event provoked outrage across the University. The Entertainments Officer who organised the event did not disclose the nature of the event prior to the evening, but ex-President Lee Roberts stated that the officer put the proposal for a striptease in his election manifesto.
Timothy Doyle, President of OUCA, told Cherwell: “That a stripper should be invited to perform at an Association event is quite inconceivable today. The account of this event is disturbing, and unlike anything I have ever experienced during my time in the Association.
“It cannot be considered to reflect on the Association of today, or our values.”
Steve Best, OUCA president for Hilary 1989, told Cherwell at the time: “Had we been aware of the content of the acts in the cabaret, we would never have allowed the event to go ahead.”
Felicity Spector, then OUSU President, said: “It was indecent and disgusting. They’re sick!”
A January 1989 Cherwell editorial read: “Simulated oral sex in public cannot be defended on the ground that it gives other people pleasure (it doesn’t) or that it is not something to be taken seriously.
“Not only has OUCA permanently ruined its own reputation, it has also damaged the image of the whole university. Everybody suffers from the sel sh antics of a small group of untypical students.
“No-one can take a political group seriously which sees obscene acts as nothing more than a joke.
“The message is clear. Those who organised and took part in this degrading display have no place in a university which rejects sexual depravity.”
‘Black cab rapist’ was hired as stripper for OUCA cabaret social
John Worboys performed striptease at the infamous ‘West One Cabaret’ in 1989
The Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) once hired the ‘Black cab rapist’ then working as a stripper, for an infamous cabaret social.
John Worboys, then know as ‘Terry the Minder’, performed a striptease for Tory members, alongside a female stripper named “the exotic Vashanti”.
The event at Hertford College was attended by a young Sally Bercow (then Illman), wife of Commons Speaker John Bercow. She was blindfolded on stage before Worboys suggestively placed a banana in her hand.
According to a report at the time, prominent Tory backbencher Jacob Rees Mogg “heartily approved of [the event].
Now dubbed the ‘Black Cab Rapist’, Worboys was later jailed in 2009 after being convicted of 19 sexual assault charges. He notoriously drugged multiple women in his taxi.
The announcement that he would be released after serving only nine years of his sentence was met with heavy criticism nationwide last week.
Following the ‘West One Cabaret’ event, the Senior Proctor of the University refused to recognise OUCA as an official society, banning the Association from using the ‘Oxford University’ title in its name. The Association were also prohibited from holding events at Hertford. The ban apparently remains in place today.
The event provoked outrage across the University. The Entertainments Officer who organised the event did not disclose the nature of the event prior to the evening, but ex-President Lee Roberts stated that the officer put the proposal for a striptease in his election manifesto.
Timothy Doyle, President of OUCA, told Cherwell: “That a stripper should be invited to perform at an Association event is quite inconceivable today. The account of this event is disturbing, and unlike anything I have ever experienced during my time in the Association.
“It cannot be considered to reflect on the Association of today, or our values.”
Steve Best, OUCA president for Hilary 1989, told Cherwell at the time: “Had we been aware of the content of the acts in the cabaret, we would never have allowed the event to go ahead.”
Felicity Spector, then OUSU President, said: “It was indecent and disgusting. They’re sick!”
A January 1989 Cherwell editorial read: “Simulated oral sex in public cannot be defended on the ground that it gives other people pleasure (it doesn’t) or that it is not something to be taken seriously.
“Not only has OUCA permanently ruined its own reputation, it has also damaged the image of the whole university. Everybody suffers from the sel sh antics of a small group of untypical students.
“No-one can take a political group seriously which sees obscene acts as nothing more than a joke.
“The message is clear. Those who organised and took part in this degrading display have no place in a university which rejects sexual depravity.”
well
yeah.
blimey eh ?
It's a reflection on the people involved, but I don't think it indicates anything more.
‘Black cab rapist’ was hired as stripper for OUCA cabaret social
John Worboys performed striptease at the infamous ‘West One Cabaret’ in 1989
The Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) once hired the ‘Black cab rapist’ then working as a stripper, for an infamous cabaret social.
John Worboys, then know as ‘Terry the Minder’, performed a striptease for Tory members, alongside a female stripper named “the exotic Vashanti”.
The event at Hertford College was attended by a young Sally Bercow (then Illman), wife of Commons Speaker John Bercow. She was blindfolded on stage before Worboys suggestively placed a banana in her hand.
According to a report at the time, prominent Tory backbencher Jacob Rees Mogg “heartily approved of [the event].
Now dubbed the ‘Black Cab Rapist’, Worboys was later jailed in 2009 after being convicted of 19 sexual assault charges. He notoriously drugged multiple women in his taxi.
The announcement that he would be released after serving only nine years of his sentence was met with heavy criticism nationwide last week.
Following the ‘West One Cabaret’ event, the Senior Proctor of the University refused to recognise OUCA as an official society, banning the Association from using the ‘Oxford University’ title in its name. The Association were also prohibited from holding events at Hertford. The ban apparently remains in place today.
The event provoked outrage across the University. The Entertainments Officer who organised the event did not disclose the nature of the event prior to the evening, but ex-President Lee Roberts stated that the officer put the proposal for a striptease in his election manifesto.
Timothy Doyle, President of OUCA, told Cherwell: “That a stripper should be invited to perform at an Association event is quite inconceivable today. The account of this event is disturbing, and unlike anything I have ever experienced during my time in the Association.
“It cannot be considered to reflect on the Association of today, or our values.”
Steve Best, OUCA president for Hilary 1989, told Cherwell at the time: “Had we been aware of the content of the acts in the cabaret, we would never have allowed the event to go ahead.”
Felicity Spector, then OUSU President, said: “It was indecent and disgusting. They’re sick!”
A January 1989 Cherwell editorial read: “Simulated oral sex in public cannot be defended on the ground that it gives other people pleasure (it doesn’t) or that it is not something to be taken seriously.
“Not only has OUCA permanently ruined its own reputation, it has also damaged the image of the whole university. Everybody suffers from the sel sh antics of a small group of untypical students.
“No-one can take a political group seriously which sees obscene acts as nothing more than a joke.
“The message is clear. Those who organised and took part in this degrading display have no place in a university which rejects sexual depravity.”
well
yeah.
blimey eh ?
That sort of stuff was pretty standard in the 1980s. When I went to medical school at Liverpool in the early 80s, the freshers' initiation party involved various puerile simulated sex acts, no strippers though.
It was embarrassing at the time and very rightly done away with long ago.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: Where does the blue passport thing come from, I've only ever heard it referred to ironically once or twice.
Farage seems to make a big deal of it from time to time, because apparently having "European Union" written on the passport cover is a form of oppression.
It's also, as far as I can tell, the only victory Brexiteers can claim at this point, even though the victory itself is entirely pointless.
It's also, as far as I can tell, the only victory Brexiteers can claim at this point, even though the victory itself is entirely pointless.
If only David Cameron had realised that if he'd just gone to the EU and asked for blue passports he would have won the referendum!
Still at least we still get to pay extra for that blue colour! (Note its to pay for the extra border costs but as they are basically linked to the same cause)
Kilkrazy wrote: That is the same Daily Mail that branded British judges upholding citizen rights under constitutional law as "Enemies of the People."
I wouldn't wipe my rear with the mail, but a free press in a free nation, which ours is supposed to be, has every right to say that, however distasteful it may be...
Not when it applies selectively and could be used to incite violence though.
If a paper from a Mosque started calling a group of people "enemies of the people" they'd likely be arrested for supporting terrorism or radicalising people. If a fail of a paper does it that just happens to support the Tory party then it is freedom of speech...
There are dark times when I think the only positive from Brexit may be that the pro-Brexiteers will find themselves so painfully anally shafted by the results that they will be awoken to sad reality.
The rest of us simply must put up with the fall-out in the meantime. After the awakening we may be able to get the nation back on track. It will take 10-20 years, but eventually we will get there.
In lighter times I feel that with a bit of luck, Brexit will at the worst result in another 10 years of stagnation, drift and slow decline. I mean, surely it can't be as bad as the worst estimates?
Kilkrazy wrote: There are dark times when I think the only positive from Brexit may be that the pro-Brexiteers will find themselves so painfully anally shafted by the results that they will be awoken to sad reality.
The rest of us simply must put up with the fall-out in the meantime. After the awakening we may be able to get the nation back on track. It will take 10-20 years, but eventually we will get there.
In lighter times I feel that with a bit of luck, Brexit will at the worst result in another 10 years of stagnation, drift and slow decline. I mean, surely it can't be as bad as the worst estimates?
Depends if you like eating I guess
Probably not much fun if you have a medical condition or become ill.
As a disabled person not very happy given the UN consider the Tory filth have been breaching my human rights even with the various euro courts watching them. Likely to get pretty hairy when they go fully feral with no checks and balances at all.
If ever wanted to live the running man, Hunger Games or Clockwork Orange then you may have a bit of fun. Saying that the last time the country went full tory we got 2000ad and 40k not sure it is worth it mind.
Even the best estimates are pretty bad when all of the government services are already struggling with the cuts. Knock 1% off the GDP and we'll need to make more cuts somewhere else
r_squared wrote: He's talking gak, the definition of Trolling. Throw in an outrageous statement to inflame and back it up with nothing, sit back and watch people argue over feth all. Ignore him.
....
Bring back UKIP.
So.... kettle, how black thou art?
So, as well as not providing any evidence except supposition, you attempt to deflect by selectively quoting three words with no context out of my whole post. Get a grip. If you want to make childish and inflammatory accusations without a shred of evidence you need to get yourself over to a proper conspiracy forum rather than waste our time with your rubbish on here.
Happily, as the problem is clearly not chronic underfunding by the ideological gakbags currently in charge, it's a lack of US corporations running things, Brexit has the answer. Can't wait. Ha.
r_squared wrote: He's talking gak, the definition of Trolling. Throw in an outrageous statement to inflame and back it up with nothing, sit back and watch people argue over feth all. Ignore him.
....
Bring back UKIP.
So.... kettle, how black thou art?
So, as well as not providing any evidence except supposition, you attempt to deflect by selectively quoting three words with no context out of my whole post. Get a grip. If you want to make childish and inflammatory accusations without a shred of evidence you need to get yourself over to a proper conspiracy forum rather than waste our time with your rubbish on here.
You realize you have just done what Baron accused you of again, right?
I noticed you are from Boston looking at your location. I think of all the places that have shot themselves in the foot with Brexit, Boston is one of the worst. It will utterly collapse on itself, and I honestly can't wait, it's full of horrid bitter racists that dislike eastern Europeans that are working longer and harder than them.
It really is every man for himself now. I have a good job, low mortgage to value of the house, resession proof hopefully with some decent savings. But so many brits are going to suffer. I have sympathy for those too ill-educated to understand what they were voting for. All those that did it because the docs had a few non-english speakers in the waiting room, those that did it because they seriously thought the NHS was saved by voting out, get nothing.
Happily, as the problem is clearly not chronic underfunding by the ideological gakbags currently in charge, it's a lack of US corporations running things, Brexit has the answer. Can't wait. Ha.
I think Tory party policy is:-
If you are ill and rich businesses will treat you. If you are poor and ill please die quickly. There a bulk packages of cyanide over in the cabinet...
Happily, as the problem is clearly not chronic underfunding by the ideological gakbags currently in charge, it's a lack of US corporations running things, Brexit has the answer. Can't wait. Ha.
I think Tory party policy is:-
If you are ill and rich businesses will treat you. If you are poor and ill please die quickly. There a bulk packages of cyanide over in the cabinet...
The Japanese ambassador to the UK has a blunt warning for Theresa May - If there is no profitability of continuing operations in the UK.. no private company can continue operations.. it's as simple as that.. this is all high stakes & we should keep that in mind
... Gets better by the day.
Grayling is involved so it'll probably go wrong or bust soon enough.
leaked reports suggested the UK would be granted about 1200 licenses.
We've got somewhere between 17,00 - 75,000 drivers/haulers who'd need them.
.. Genuinely never thought I'd live to watch my own country vote to put economic sanctions upon itself.
whembly wrote:This "disfunction" is primarily the result of government intervention on both the Federal and State level.
We'd probably have more in common then you think.
It's because it's an industry with a profit motive, that the government fethed up some regulations on top of that is just the icing on a shitcake.
...uh whut?
Off top of my head...
Mylan? Teva? Amgen? Bristol-Meyers? Allergan? Those are european Pharmaceutical companies... are they not 'for-profit'??
Seimens and Teleflx?? These are massive German companies in "healthcare industry"...are they not 'for-profit' too?
Does your German poo-cakes taste better?
Oh wait, you mean the actual care providers? Like hospitals?
No idea what you have... so, can't compare.
Fun fact: ~65% of hospitals in the US are non-profit. ~15% of hospitals are for profit (a dying breed where 5 yrs ago, it was closer to 25%) ~20% of hospitals are government owned (VA being the largest) ~Emergency Room visits cannot be turned away due to inability to pay (see EMTALA Act)
The biggest differences between the US and European models is the 'middle man'... Health Insurance vs. direct taxation.
Do we have fundamental problems in the US? Yes...
Much of it is exacerbated by Federal and State laws.
Sheesh, that doesn't mean we don't have things to offer...
So, as well as not providing any evidence except supposition, you attempt to deflect by selectively quoting three words with no context out of my whole post. Get a grip. If you want to make childish and inflammatory accusations without a shred of evidence you need to get yourself over to a proper conspiracy forum rather than waste our time with your rubbish on here.
May I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the rules of this forum, as personal attacks on your fellow posters are strictly prohibited. Which has been pretty much all you've done rather than actually disprove anything I said (and props to Ketra for having done his research.)
Having spent time in hospitals in the UK an US; the US system seems profit driven and hugely inefficient, with a big hospital visit resulting in financial destruction even when insured. You seem to be paying about 10x more in health insurance, and your co-pays cost more than the treatment itself does elsewhere. It's the Tory wet dream.
The US system doesn't seem that bad in isolation, but it doesn't stack up well against anyone else.
Healthcare really shouldn't be profit driven or in the hands of private companies or you end up in the situation where people ignore conditions until it becomes insufferable or kills them, or forces them to self treat or get alleyway medical care.We as a society should be better than that.
Having spent time in hospitals in the UK an US; the US system seems profit driven and hugely inefficient, with a big hospital visit resulting in financial destruction even when insured. You seem to be paying about 10x more in health insurance, and your co-pays cost more than the treatment itself does elsewhere. It's the Tory wet dream.
The US system doesn't seem that bad in isolation, but it doesn't stack up well against anyone else.
Healthcare really shouldn't be profit driven or in the hands of private companies or you end up in the situation where people ignore conditions until it becomes insufferable or kills them, or forces them to self treat or get alleyway medical care.We as a society should be better than that.
Businesses want and need to make a profit which is not a limitation for public bodies. As such a business orientated healthcare system isn't just concentrating on the health of the patient but also the health of the business. Their goal is to extract the most profitable amount of money out of a patient. Therefore if suppose you get cancer then a quick more painless method of treatment is likely to cost more as that inevitably means less time in treatment more specialised, higher costing drugs. More painful mass market treatments will therefore be more available but not necessarily better for the patient but may only be available to poorer parts of society. A state run system should make a decision in the best interests of the patient only.
Pharmaceuticals does have similar issues. They concentrate on profitable items, however in some areas such as new antibiotics which we desperately need there is little investment because it simply isn't profitable. This could lead to serious issues if nothing is really done until all our antibiotics start becoming worthless meaning even routine operations become hazardous due to bacterial infection.
whembly wrote:This "disfunction" is primarily the result of government intervention on both the Federal and State level.
We'd probably have more in common then you think.
It's because it's an industry with a profit motive, that the government fethed up some regulations on top of that is just the icing on a shitcake.
...uh whut?
Off top of my head...
Mylan? Teva? Amgen? Bristol-Meyers? Allergan? Those are european Pharmaceutical companies... are they not 'for-profit'??
Seimens and Teleflx?? These are massive German companies in "healthcare industry"...are they not 'for-profit' too?
Does your German poo-cakes taste better?
Oh wait, you mean the actual care providers? Like hospitals?
No idea what you have... so, can't compare.
Fun fact: ~65% of hospitals in the US are non-profit. ~15% of hospitals are for profit (a dying breed where 5 yrs ago, it was closer to 25%) ~20% of hospitals are government owned (VA being the largest) ~Emergency Room visits cannot be turned away due to inability to pay (see EMTALA Act)
The biggest differences between the US and European models is the 'middle man'... Health Insurance vs. direct taxation.
Do we have fundamental problems in the US? Yes...
Much of it is exacerbated by Federal and State laws.
Sheesh, that doesn't mean we don't have things to offer...
Here, no operation or treatment can be denied due to inability to pay. The fact you hold up not being turned away at an emergency room as some kind of plus is depressing. You are literally saying that "We don't let people bleed to death outside our hospital" is some kind of achievement. Also, after these people are treated, I imagine they are still billed for it? They just aren't flat out refused.
I mean, you have companies which provide dialysis which discourage their patients from getting transplants
Also, it won't be your non-profit healthcare providers who try to buy up NHS contracts. It'll be the parasitical for-profit companies.
Warning - this link contains a picture of Richard Desmond - NSF anywhere.
Confirmation Dirty Des is leaving the newspaper business. What a sad loss. No doubt his profit making Health Peoples Not At All Owned By A Pornographer Honestly Lottery will now get his full attention.
Will be fascinating to see where the Express goes from here. Completely down the toilet hopefully. And I say this as someone who has seen and loves The Day The Earth Caught Fire, which depicts The Express actually doing journalism. A very long time ago.
Having spent time in hospitals in the UK an US; the US system seems profit driven and hugely inefficient, with a big hospital visit resulting in financial destruction even when insured. You seem to be paying about 10x more in health insurance, and your co-pays cost more than the treatment itself does elsewhere. It's the Tory wet dream.
Reminds me a book written by american that went to japan and injured himself in the process but avoided going to hospital dreading hospital bill since he didn't have insurance and was thinking how much it would cost in US.
Eventually there was no option but to go and he was preparing to abandon his project there. Getting bill he prepared for worst and...40$.
I remember someone pointing out that the reason that US citizens are terrified of public healthcare is because they think treatments cost what they are billed, and don't think the country can afford to give everyone healthcare at that cost.
What they don't realise (because they don't have any other data point) is that treatments cost a fraction of what they are overcharged and they'll save a fortune on a free-at-use service.
That and it all sounds a bit communist.
Well they probably don't have to (interfere with editorial independence), The Express has had no editorial independence since he took over, at least. So no more 4 pages spreads about parties Mrs Desmond hosts, no more missing out all the names of Desmonds friends and business associates next time there is a Panama Papers type event, maybe even no more National Lottery 'stories' making incredibly misleading claims about a non-profit organisation that gives far more per £ to charity than Desmonds own lottery. And it's difficult to imagine the treatment of Express staff could get any worse, those that survive the merger anyway.
Whether it will still be convinced that the woes of the country are all down to migrants and the Foreign Aid fund, time will tell.
Our entire Brexit "strategy" reminds one of those poor sods with massive debts who just stop opening their post and hope things will work out.
Meanwhile UKIP's press office is encouraging journalists to attend next week's emergency gathering on the future of the party with the promise that last time they had such a meeting "there were stage invasions, blows and somebody died".
Our entire Brexit "strategy" reminds one of those poor sods with massive debts who just stop opening their post and hope things will work out.
Meanwhile UKIP's press office is encouraging journalists to attend next week's emergency gathering on the future of the party with the promise that last time they had such a meeting "there were stage invasions, blows and somebody died".
Well ho ho ho.
The last time there was a UKIP punch-up it was two of their MEPs fighting each other.
Our entire Brexit "strategy" reminds one of those poor sods with massive debts who just stop opening their post and hope things will work out.
Meanwhile UKIP's press office is encouraging journalists to attend next week's emergency gathering on the future of the party with the promise that last time they had such a meeting "there were stage invasions, blows and somebody died".
That can’t be right. Pro leave said that we would have no problem negotiating trade deals in the time. Surely can can’t have been making stuff up again?
Mylan? Teva? Amgen? Bristol-Meyers? Allergan?
Those are european Pharmaceutical companies... are they not 'for-profit'??
Seimens and Teleflx?? These are massive German companies in "healthcare industry"...are they not 'for-profit' too?
Does your German poo-cakes taste better?
Oh wait, you mean the actual care providers? Like hospitals?
No idea what you have... so, can't compare.
Fun fact:
~65% of hospitals in the US are non-profit.
~15% of hospitals are for profit (a dying breed where 5 yrs ago, it was closer to 25%)
~20% of hospitals are government owned (VA being the largest)
~Emergency Room visits cannot be turned away due to inability to pay (see EMTALA Act)
The biggest differences between the US and European models is the 'middle man'... Health Insurance vs. direct taxation.
Do we have fundamental problems in the US? Yes...
Much of it is exacerbated by Federal and State laws.
Sheesh, that doesn't mean we don't have things to offer...
Others have already addressed some bits (and it's a UK politics thread so I'l stop after this post) but it is about the healthcare industry as a whole (not just the middle man you mention) and how it's set up, not about individual suppliers.
Spoiler:
We have for-profit pharmaceutical companies and all that (we got capitalism too!) but the bits that have contact with patients are regulated (they are not allowed to advertise prescription medication or run those freaky fear-mongering ads). That Medical bankruptcies are even a thing one has to consider or that gofundme is somehow seen as a regular last resort is just terrifying.
It doesn't help much that most of the hospitals are not-profit or that the VA owns most of the rest when people still get huge bills in the end (thousands of dollars even with deductibles). That only emergency rooms are not allowed to turn away people and what this implies for other medical institutions is also really odd (to put it mildly).
And Germany also has a mixed health insurance system (public/private) like the USA, the difference is ours are better and heavier regulated so they can't pull the same tricks they are allowed over there. It's not just the government and regulations that lead to bad results (or we would have the same issues as the USA but worse as we regulate them even more). The whole "industry" over there seems to be set up to extract money and helping people is just a tolerated side effect like a dangling carrot to keep them paying. It's set up to make profit now instead of proactively investing money in preventive care to save everyone money in the long term. That's why the US system spends more than most other developed countries (per capita: nearly double as much as Germany, for example) yet doesn't even deliver the best results.
It's not just evil regulations that are keeping the US system from delivering on its potential and when somebody comes along and implies that this type of system seeping into our healthcare could be a good thing it just misses the point of why our systems are still better and more affordable for the average citizen. For now our systems work better (but there's still enough that could and should be improved), yet there are already enough people here (not just you but people who live here) who want to privatise it even more and add bits and pieces with a profit motive and move in the direction of an US style system.
Who in their right mind would want to spend more money and get worse results just to be able to say that they solved the problem by deregulation? We have enough problems with way too many people taking homeopathic bs and that type of "alternative medicine" seriously. There's no need to add another pile of complications next to it.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan, a Tory MP and officer in the European Research Group of Brexit-supporting Conservatives, accused Barnier of “playing hardball”.
I mean really, are they really shocked by this? That the EU would act in its own best interests - it's like some of the MPs really think that everyone should bow down before the UK and give it everything it wants at little cost. I'm not entirely sure what fantasy land they think we live on.
Our entire Brexit "strategy" reminds one of those poor sods with massive debts who just stop opening their post and hope things will work out.
Meanwhile UKIP's press office is encouraging journalists to attend next week's emergency gathering on the future of the party with the promise that last time they had such a meeting "there were stage invasions, blows and somebody died".
That can’t be right. Pro leave said that we would have no problem negotiating trade deals in the time. Surely can can’t have been making stuff up again?
There's also the question as whether larger countries will accept this. Trade deals with the EU give those countries access to certain elements of the economy that will be scattered over the EU. In exchange the EU gets access to the things it want's. If a country viewed accessing Germany's industrial manufacturing base as a benefit and in return offered access to their electronics (lets say South Korea for example as they have been quoted as saying the UK can't expect the same arrangements IIRC). If we can't bring Germany industrial manufacturing to the table then they are going to be less inclined just to freely offer South Korean electronics trade deal as they may not value our cheese industry at all.
The UK's global message is awfully confused...
Treat us an independent trading nation...
But give us the same EU deals!
Let us make our own trade agreements
But they will be aligned with the EU
and so on.
Current Government is biggest set of clowns ever being led forward by a group of right wing nutcases and a PM that just wants to ignore it all.
When officials at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy were asked if they had been tasked to conduct work looking at potential economic opportunities from amending employment rights after Brexit law, they declined to comment.
fragment by fragment the facade continues to peel away.
When officials at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy were asked if they had been tasked to conduct work looking at potential economic opportunities from amending employment rights after Brexit law, they declined to comment.
fragment by fragment the facade continues to peel away.
I think people misunderstand what the Tories mean by improving workers rights. It means for the wealthy and large corporations they will improve their rights over the workers. I think the Tories prefer to see something along these lines..
EU workers already have some of the best rights in the world, as do EU consumers.
Mind you, UK workers have less rights than the rest of the EU, thanks to the UK's opt-out from the Working Time Directive. There might be a clue there.
This is hardly surprising given that Britons don't know what they themselves want from withdrawal. (Except the 48% of the population who are against it, of course.)
Kilkrazy wrote: EU workers already have some of the best rights in the world, as do EU consumers.
Mind you, UK workers have less rights than the rest of the EU, thanks to the UK's opt-out from the Working Time Directive. There might be a clue there.
This is hardly surprising given that Britons don't know what they themselves want from withdrawal. (Except the 48% of the population who are against it, of course.)
I think equally likely headlines would be:-
"EU doesn't understand what Theresa May wants from withdrawal"
"Rest of World doesn't understand what Theresa May wants from withdrawal"
"Theresa May doesn't understand what Theresa May wants from withdrawal"
"God doesn't understand what Theresa May wants from withdrawal (which is very confusing for God as it is on the understanding it should know everything)"
All Theresa May wants is to stumble upon some magical solution that sees both wings of the party support her past withdrawal. She doesn't have a idealogical position on Brexit, which is why she has "been very clear" in saying only things that can possibly be construed as supporting any standpoint if you squint hard enough. As soon as she says something that shifts too far in one direction you get the likes of Rees-Mogg or Soubry complaining, or the head of a trade union or business group piping up.
So apparently in the next three weeks May is going to provide another major speech about how we are going to leave the EU despite numerous major speeches before.
However this time they are calling it the "Road to Wrexit".
By all accounts May is basing this road to Wrexit plan on the following principle:-
or perhaps this is a better representation of our Wrexit journey along the road.
Just think of the insanity of that for a second. It's being trumpeted a major positive that the PM and Foreign Secretary agree on a major part of how the UK will interact with the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, TM is off to Stormont today to meet the Irish PM....
Just think of the insanity of that for a second. It's being trumpeted a major positive that the PM and Foreign Secretary agree on a major part of how the UK will interact with the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, TM is off to Stormont today to meet the Irish PM....
Apparently Boris will produce a solution which achieves a marvellous compromise between the Hard, Soft and Remain viewpoints, thus allaying the worries of the 48%.
I shall be very interested to see what this is.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As far as I can see, there are broadly three possible end states:
1. Remain.
2. Hard Brexit.
3. Some magical "have your cake and eat it" formula which combines some kind of membership of the customs union or free trade area allowing us freedom of capital and services while not having free movement of people or the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Thisis the only way to achieve an economically non-disastrous Brext while respecting the government's "red lines"
I cannot see how this can be achieved without the EU seriously compromising its principles (violating its own red lines.)
It's 3. If the EU accept, victory is ours, Boris is PM, trebles and unwanted pregnancies all round. If they don't, then blame the EU, Boris is PM, trebles and etc etc.
Darkjim wrote: It's 3. If the EU accept, victory is ours, Boris is PM, trebles and unwanted pregnancies all round. If they don't, then blame the EU, Boris is PM, trebles and etc etc.
Can you imagine Boris the Clown as PM and Gove, no clue on economics, as the CotE? I think I'd want to go and build a new island in the sea somewhere and laugh at the fallout.
We can at least acknowledge that May believes that her actions are in the best interests of the Conservative Party, and occasionally the country, even if she is absolutely terrible at it. Boris is only motivated by what's best for Boris, and he's perfectly willing to chuck anyone under the bus.
Having him as PM n charge of Brexit would be the equivalent of putting marmite on your gak sandwich.
Her heart was never in it.
a budget... 
