Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I personally think that a lot of the problems in our political system come from having "professional" politicians; an MP is supposed to be a representative of the area, not a lifelong career.

Now I know that historically there have been some great backbenchers, who've dedicated their lives to their constituency, but these days it's all about the trained politicians. They go and do that specific social economics degree at Oxford (I forget the name), join a political party of their choice (by rolling a dice as much as any ideological leaning it seems) and get parachuted into a safe seat to be elected. No life experience, no alternative skills or training and no connection to the area they represent.

I would much rather that a) you have to have lived in an area for at least 5-years before you can represent it as an MP and b) have a 2 or 3-term limit, so that you can't spend your whole life being an MP. I hope that would get more "Everyman" politicians and should also stop the massive groupthink problems we have because nobody in Parliament has an alternative viewpoint/background/experience.

 Jadenim wrote:
I personally think that a lot of the problems in our political system come from having "professional" politicians; an MP is supposed to be a representative of the area, not a lifelong career.

Now I know that historically there have been some great backbenchers, who've dedicated their lives to their constituency, but these days it's all about the trained politicians. They go and do that specific social economics degree at Oxford (I forget the name), join a political party of their choice (by rolling a dice as much as any ideological leaning it seems) and get parachuted into a safe seat to be elected. No life experience, no alternative skills or training and no connection to the area they represent.

I would much rather that a) you have to have lived in an area for at least 5-years before you can represent it as an MP and b) have a 2 or 3-term limit, so that you can't spend your whole life being an MP. I hope that would get more "Everyman" politicians and should also stop the massive groupthink problems we have because nobody in Parliament has an alternative viewpoint/background/experience.

Having to have lived in area is not a too big ask id agree. Also means they can learn it's problems and issues and then better represent them and improve the areas lie, economics or whatever else it needs.

Term limits, defenitely 4 max. If your not a senior gov monster or somthibf in 20 years.. Your probbly not gonna be.

For me party politics is also a big issue. Time and again politicians put party before their constituents. I think we should ban party whips and introduce the right of constituents to recall MPs. They should have more accountability to the people who voted for them and the party should have less control over them. Reduce the presidential attitude that is coming to PMs now and increase accountability.

Term limit should probably be a time limit, to account for snap elections and MPs elected at by-election. Perhaps a limit of the first election after 20 years?

 Whirlwind wrote:

More generally though, I highly, highly doubt any future general election in ten years is going to be fought on the basis of 'Let's get back into Europe' without a major economic catastrophe. I mean, seriously. Right now, we've a million and one pressing problems, from palliative care to our lack of an energy policy beyond 'Kick it down the road another five years'. When those things are still biting us in the arse in ten years, some vague liberal sense of 'how we should all totes come back together in Europe' won't even make Page 5 when it comes to voting choices, and none of the major parties will be running on it. There'll always be far more pressing immediate problems. The only way it will re-emerge is if necessity (aka economic urgency) dictate it.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. You're saying that a serious economic crisis could promote re-joining the EU to the top of the political agenda, presumably on the basis that doing so would strengthen the economy, but the reason that the EU won't be at the top of the agenda otherwise is because the country will be facing a slew of serious economic (investment/resource) challenges. It just looks like faulty logic, to me. If re-joining the EU would be the number one response to an economic crisis, surely by those lights the EU should dominate any conversation about the British economy in any context.

Unless you're saying that membership of the EU would somehow ameliorate an economic crisis but would provide no significant economic advantages under less dire circumstances. Is that what you mean?

I was going to keep out of this thread but Abbotts had a car crash interview....

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-05-02/diane-abbott-suggests-10-000-new-police-officers-pledged-by-labour-to-earn-30-per-year-in-interview-gaffe/

I listened to this live....

I can't help seeing Diane Abbot as the BoJo of the left.

She was better this morning than in last week's interview.

 Steve steveson wrote:
For me party politics is also a big issue. Time and again politicians put party before their constituents. I think we should ban party whips and introduce the right of constituents to recall MPs. They should have more accountability to the people who voted for them and the party should have less control over them. Reduce the presidential attitude that is coming to PMs now and increase accountability.

Term limit should probably be a time limit, to account for snap elections and MPs elected at by-election. Perhaps a limit of the first election after 20 years?

Abolitioning party whips is something I also agree with, but I can see that being a harder "sell" to the public; look at how much flak Labour are getting at the moment because of the perceived lack of control Corbyn has.


Edited to use the right quote...

 jhe90 wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ultimately this whole mess can be attributed to the blind and ideologically stubborn insistence of European Union leaders to push full European integration on all member states without any consideration of alternatives, such as a two tier Europe with varying degrees of political and economic integration to suit the differing attitudes, values and desires of the various member states. If such an alternative had been in place already, instead of the current One Size Fits All policy, then the UK might not have voted to withdraw (because we would have been in the lower Tier), and the integrity of the EU as a whole would not currently be at jeopardy.

One could also argue the same applies to Scotland and Westminster.

But hey, why take an introspective look at yourselves when you can just blame the scapegoat of the "Daily Heil"?

The EU already has different 'tiers' in respect of membership of the Euro, Schengen, exceptions to directives like the Working Time Directive, the status of Norway and Switzerland, blah di blah, and other examples where the UK and other member states negotiated a different arrangement to the straight EU line.

And do not forget that the UK did put themselves into the whole EU thing. The UK was a founding member of the EFTA whose sole and only scope was free trade, they could have stayed there and everyone would be happier.

Aye it began as a smaller central Europe trade block.
All economies around same level with similar attributes and nations.

Then its grown a long way from there to point they considered letting Turkey join, a curency, passport free travel, super state, parliments, and covers 27 nations of various economic levels.

The things is maybe it has grown too big...
Trade yeah, it did not have to become a political super state and consider founding its own combined nation armed forces.

But it was there. Precisely the UK founded the EFTA as an alternative to the then EEC because their implications and objectives went much farther than mere trade.

No one forced the UK to join.

Moving back onto the election, I'm somewhat irritated by Mr Juncker's hamfisted attempt to influence election matters in Britain. It's the sort of thing that makes you think you made the correct decision by voting for Brexit. It's obvious enough that even the Greeks are going 'We know what's going on here...'

Prof Varoufakis, who spent months battling the debt collection policies of the EU-IMF Troika during Greece’s financial crisis, believes Brussels will exploit political divisions within Britain to reduce the chance of getting a fair Brexit deal.

After German chancellor Angela Merkel announced Britain should be more “constructive” when it comes to negotiating Brexit, Prof Varoufakis said this could be the beginning of an “EU runaround” for Theresa May.

He warned: “You won’t always know exactly who to talk to and that is deliberate.

“When you make a moderate proposal, they will react with blank stares and look at you as if you were reciting the Swedish National Anthem. It is their way of stonewalling. They will suddenly suspend talks claiming the need for more fact-checking."

“What they are trying to do is to reduce any benefit that Theresa May will get out of the election and downplay her democratic mandate.”

Since May's election campaign is focused upon this image she's trying to build of 'strong pragmatic leadership', if Juncker can undermine that and reduce her power base at home, he decreases her negotiating strength. Hence the sudden exceedingly obvious 'leaks' focused on damaging that perspective of her.

I accept that the EU has a responsibility to get the best deal for their own, but tactics like this irritate me. You don't see British Intelligence out there trying to undermine Macron.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlchemicalSolution wrote:

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. You're saying that a serious economic crisis could promote re-joining the EU to the top of the political agenda, presumably on the basis that doing so would strengthen the economy, but the reason that the EU won't be at the top of the agenda otherwise is because the country will be facing a slew of serious economic (investment/resource) challenges. It just looks like faulty logic, to me. If re-joining the EU would be the number one response to an economic crisis, surely by those lights the EU should dominate any conversation about the British economy in any context.

If we fell into a severe prolonged Great Recession style economic catastrophe over the period of a decade, rejoining the EU would become a priority on the basis that we'd then be joining the Euro and eligible for payments and so forth. In other words, we'd get the stabilising effect of being part of a larger financial bloc on top of free trade.

The flip side of that coin would be that we'd, in effect, be ceding most financial independence (looking at the laid out plans for future EU financial integration) and buying into all the other problems that economic unity would bring. But if we were at the bottom of the well anyway, we wouldn't exactly have any way to go but up.

That all being said, that's all highly hypothetical, and I severely doubt Brexit will hurt us even half as bad economically as would be necessary to force us to that point.

 Ketara wrote:
Moving back onto the election, I'm somewhat irritated by Mr Juncker's hamfisted attempt to influence election matters in Britain. It's the sort of thing that makes you think you made the correct decision by voting for Brexit. It's obvious enough that even the Greeks are going 'We know what's going on here...'

Why would you expect the EU to pull any punches in negotiations? Are the leaks untrue? We don't see British intelligence trying to undermine the EU, true. The media, on the other hand...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Moving back onto the election, I'm somewhat irritated by Mr Juncker's hamfisted attempt to influence election matters in Britain. It's the sort of thing that makes you think you made the correct decision by voting for Brexit. It's obvious enough that even the Greeks are going 'We know what's going on here...'

Why would you expect the EU to pull any punches in negotiations? Are the leaks untrue? We don't see British intelligence trying to undermine the EU, true. The media, on the other hand...

Because they're our elections. Not Brexit negotiations. They're peripheral, at best. This is like May telling intelligence to sabotage the French election to get Le Pen to help our negotiating position, or leaking embarassing details about the personal lives of the EU negotiatiors. It's that level of slightly underhanded meddling that really makes you look at them and think 'Really? You can't just sit down to the table and start negotiations like sensible, rational, and civil adults?'

Just because you can do a thing does not mean you should.

The election is blatantly about Brexit. It wouldn't even have happened if it weren't for Brexit.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The election is blatantly about Brexit. It wouldn't even have happened if it weren't for Brexit.

The election was triggered to bury/neuter the expenses scandal. They've got a small minority (when you consider the no-shows and rebels) and could potentially have to re-fight 30 seats and lose enough of a majority to do anything.

Though I still can't decide if she'd be happy to lose or not. I don't think she wants to lead Brexit any more than I do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Moving back onto the election, I'm somewhat irritated by Mr Juncker's hamfisted attempt to influence election matters in Britain. It's the sort of thing that makes you think you made the correct decision by voting for Brexit. It's obvious enough that even the Greeks are going 'We know what's going on here...'

Why would you expect the EU to pull any punches in negotiations? Are the leaks untrue? We don't see British intelligence trying to undermine the EU, true. The media, on the other hand...

Because they're our elections. Not Brexit negotiations. They're peripheral, at best. This is like May telling intelligence to sabotage the French election to get Le Pen to help our negotiating position, or leaking embarassing details about the personal lives of the EU negotiatiors. It's that level of slightly underhanded meddling that really makes you look at them and think 'Really? You can't just sit down to the table and start negotiations like sensible, rational, and civil adults?'

Just because you can do a thing does not mean you should.

I don't think he's trying to influence our electrion; he's stated that the election will have no effect on Brexit - May's still got the same negotiating hand.

I see it partially as politics/sabre rattling, and partially as a man who's frustrated by the arrogance of May and Co, thinking that the EU27 will do what they're told and let May have her cake and eat it. His line along along is "This isn't going to be as simple as you think it is. There is no a la carte EU. Brexit is punishment enough", and at this stage I'm inclined to believe him - he's not done anything underhand and May/Davis/etc genuinely seem to have no clue as to what they are doing. I'd be pretty pissed off at them too.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The election is blatantly about Brexit. It wouldn't even have happened if it weren't for Brexit.

Really? They were arguing about holding an early election months ago for many reasons when Brexit still wasn'r even certain; to capitalise on Corbyn's inadequacy for one. Another has been named above.

And even if it were true, I repeat, just because you can do something does not mean you should. We could try bugging the hotel room of their negotiators, to gain an advantage, but it would be immoral. Likewise, directly spinning leaks (which may very well be completely made up) to try and influence our election is pretty damn low. Let's not forget the architect of this leak, Mr 'British deserters' Juncker. The bloke who has said such wonderful things as:-

When it becomes serious, you have to lie.

The bloke orchestrated the laws and tax haven that half the European multinationals fund their profits through, for Pete's sake. I don't understand how even people fully in favour of the EU can bear to see this man stand as the European President, he's a blight upon democracy. That's not even an insult, he's down as saying:-

I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic

He's a right royal git, and he and his ilk have done more harm to the European project and in causing the subsequent Brexit than any newspaper headline.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

I see it partially as politics/sabre rattling, and partially as a man who's frustrated by the arrogance of May and Co, thinking that the EU27 will do what they're told and let May have her cake and eat it. His line along along is "This isn't going to be as simple as you think it is. There is no a la carte EU. Brexit is punishment enough", and at this stage I'm inclined to believe him - he's not done anything underhand and May/Davis/etc genuinely seem to have no clue as to what they are doing. I'd be pretty pissed off at them too.

You honestly think that a written report about his meeting with May and his discussion with Merkel after wards just 'fell off his desk' and the binman found it later? It's not a leak, it's him ringing up a paper and saying, 'Hey, I've got a story you can run'.

With that in mind and putting the veracity to one side, you then have to question; what was the purpose? The negotiations haven't officially begun yet, they won't until after our election. It's not going to change May's mind on anything. So the timing is strange, no?

The only purpose it has, especially considering the wording, is to try and strike a blow at May's public image. Considering what the rest of Europe makes of her is pretty irrelevant right now, that narrows the audience down to one group of people: namely the British, ala the people about to go to the polls.

This is of course, without even going into whether he's telling the truth or not, and whether it would be a good or bad thing if he was.

Accordingly,considering the EU is still drawing on our public purse for its budget, to watch its President actively try and use underhanded tactics like this to try and meddle in our democratic process is pretty irritating.

 AlchemicalSolution wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

More generally though, I highly, highly doubt any future general election in ten years is going to be fought on the basis of 'Let's get back into Europe' without a major economic catastrophe. I mean, seriously. Right now, we've a million and one pressing problems, from palliative care to our lack of an energy policy beyond 'Kick it down the road another five years'. When those things are still biting us in the arse in ten years, some vague liberal sense of 'how we should all totes come back together in Europe' won't even make Page 5 when it comes to voting choices, and none of the major parties will be running on it. There'll always be far more pressing immediate problems. The only way it will re-emerge is if necessity (aka economic urgency) dictate it.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. You're saying that a serious economic crisis could promote re-joining the EU to the top of the political agenda, presumably on the basis that doing so would strengthen the economy, but the reason that the EU won't be at the top of the agenda otherwise is because the country will be facing a slew of serious economic (investment/resource) challenges. It just looks like faulty logic, to me. If re-joining the EU would be the number one response to an economic crisis, surely by those lights the EU should dominate any conversation about the British economy in any context.

Unless you're saying that membership of the EU would somehow ameliorate an economic crisis but would provide no significant economic advantages under less dire circumstances. Is that what you mean?

Erm, I never said this? I think Ketara stated this not me?

 Ketara wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The election is blatantly about Brexit. It wouldn't even have happened if it weren't for Brexit.

Really? They were arguing about holding an early election months ago for many reasons when Brexit still wasn'r even certain; to capitalise on Corbyn's inadequacy for one. Another has been named above.

And even if it were true, I repeat, just because you can do something does not mean you should. We could try bugging the hotel room of their negotiators, to gain an advantage, but it would be immoral. Likewise, directly spinning leaks (which may very well be completely made up) to try and influence our election is pretty damn low.

Sure, if they're making stuff up I'll happily agree with you.

 Ketara wrote:
Moving back onto the election, I'm somewhat irritated by Mr Juncker's hamfisted attempt to influence election matters in Britain. It's the sort of thing that makes you think you made the correct decision by voting for Brexit. It's obvious enough that even the Greeks are going 'We know what's going on here...'

I accept that the EU has a responsibility to get the best deal for their own, but tactics like this irritate me. You don't see British Intelligence out there trying to undermine Macron.

This assumes of course that May was perfectly innocent in all this. After all she was the one that invited Juncker to Downing Street to start the negotiations during the middle of the election. She did not have to do this. This didn't come about because the EU demanded the UK PM turnup at an EU conference. I could easily turn it on it's head and say this was a 'play' by Empress May to try and get some concession during the election to show how "weak and idiotic" she is and hence sell the a load of scripted twaddle to the general public. However it appears the EU weren't having any of it and went "on your bike" because whatever those terms suggested were unrealistic. Instead she failed spectacularly and tried to keep quiet, yet because the EU is a group of nations and open to all members the discussion was widely discussed and hence leaked. The idea that the EU is out to get us or influence the election is likely a bit far fetched - look to Russia if you want that. However they are now working to the best interest of the EU and don't have to give two toots about what the UK thinks (and I think this keeps getting buried as an inconvenient truth). That Merkel had to change her speech gives a good indication that she is telling the German people that a good deal where they can openly trade with the UK without tariffs is getting highly unlikely and things are likely to go down hill fast. Of course May can't flat out tell them they are liars if it did occurs so instead hides behind I can't recall auto button...http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-jean-claude-juncker-bbc_uk_590774f3e4b0bb2d08701234?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

You can see the relations deteriorating already with May stating she is going to be a "bloody difficult woman" if the articles are to be believed. We might as well accept we are going WTO at this rate.

On the other hand when she refuses to openly debate with the public or press and basically spins the same line over and over then I can see why she isn't going to get very far with actual skilled negotiators.

On aside this is quite funny...http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-cardboard-cutout_uk_5908376de4b02655f83ff48f?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

Also here are a few things buried by the election..

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/awkward-buried-election_uk_59066d4be4b02655f83e5edd?utm_hp_ref=uk-news

Juncker is dragged over here to deal with an issue not of his making, is looking forward to dealing with someone for the next 2 years who gets her policies from the comments sections of The Daily Express, having already heard 'No deal is better than a bad deal' and threats about withdrawal of security co-operation if Britain doesn't get it's way, has to sit in a chair possibly previously occupied by Paul Dacre when he came to tea, and he's supposed to play nice? Lol.

Loving all the faux-horror in the press at a spot of leaking though, like it isn't something we Brits do. Extralols.

 Whirlwind wrote:

This assumes of course that May was perfectly innocent in all this. After all she was the one that invited Juncker to Downing Street to start the negotiations during the middle of the election. She did not have to do this. This didn't come about because the EU demanded the UK PM turnup at an EU conference. I could easily turn it on it's head and say this was a 'play' by Empress May to try and get some concession during the election to show how "weak and idiotic" she is and hence sell the a load of scripted twaddle to the general public. However it appears the EU weren't having any of it and went "on your bike" because whatever those terms suggested were unrealistic. Instead she failed spectacularly and tried to keep quiet, yet because the EU is a group of nations and open to all members the discussion was widely discussed and hence leaked.

If that's honestly what you think happened? To the extent that you'll automatically take the side of someone who publicly said they'll happily lie on serious matters? You think that the conversations between the EU president and German Chancellor are so 'widely discussed' within the space of about 48 hours, random newspapers know what was said? And that a routine unadvertised pre-meeting between (theoretically) public officials was some dastardly plot by May to somehow manipulate the EU President into giving concessions to announce even though negotiations haven't started ?

I'm not really sure I can discuss this further with you if so, because that logic is loose and speculative enough to wrap my cat in. Seriously.

I can't think of a single example of you ever saying anything good about the Tories, or bad about the EU. It's reached the point now where I know what you're going to say before you say it. If someone does either of those things, you bury them in five foot long quote chains and insist that they must be ill-educated, under the influence of evil newspapers, lack critical thinking, and so on.

And you know what? In many cases, I agree with you! But still.

On certain issues, you just take an automatic stance, no matter how loose the logic, in order to maintain your beliefs. We've reached the stage now where I seriously believe if the government published photographic evidence and written testimonials of EU officials secretly operating death squads, you'd insist it was all a scam from the evil Empress May to distract us so she could insert a straw into our wallets and suck out the cash! And you'd believe it!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Darkjim wrote:
Juncker is dragged over here to deal with an issue not of his making, is looking forward to dealing with someone for the next 2 years who gets her policies from the comments sections of The Daily Express, having already heard 'No deal is better than a bad deal' and threats about withdrawal of security co-operation if Britain doesn't get it's way, has to sit in a chair possibly previously occupied by Paul Dacre when he came to tea, and he's supposed to play nice? Lol.

Loving all the faux-horror in the press at a spot of leaking though, like it isn't something we Brits do. Extralols.

Amazing, isn't it? It's almost as if people have different moral beliefs to you!

I'm not sure where morality comes into it, unless you're suggesting from the first para, that in the current situation Juncker should bring some morality to the table, despite it's utter absence in any of the discussion prior. Or from the second, that the British press are genuinely horrified at the thought of a leak? Surely not that.

Also, perhaps a calmer tone, and not chucking round accusations of 5 foot reply chains when the only 2 such above on this page are ... err ... yours. Honestly, you'll get this one locked too.

Edit - by 'too', I mean locked as well as the other one, not that you got that one locked. Poorly phrased..

 Darkjim wrote:
[
I'm not sure where morality comes into it, unless you're suggesting from the first para, that in the current situation Juncker should bring some morality to the table, despite it's utter absence in any of the discussion prior. Or from the second, that the British press are genuinely horrified at the thought of a leak? Surely not that.

So...you're saying that there should be no consideration of morality in any of the Brexit negotiations? How very curious. Ready the Royal Navy to bombard Paris, that'll be a valuable bargaining chip!

Also, perhaps a calmer tone, and not chucking round accusations of 5 foot reply chains when the only 2 such above on this page are ... err ... yours. Honestly, you'll get this one locked too.

I'm entirely calm old bean, but since you appear to be new to the party, me and Whirlwind have had discussed many an item in five foot quote chains in the last thread. We generally do quite well for ourselves without wandering over the line into vulgarities or insults. Your concern is appreciated though.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

This assumes of course that May was perfectly innocent in all this. After all she was the one that invited Juncker to Downing Street to start the negotiations during the middle of the election. She did not have to do this. This didn't come about because the EU demanded the UK PM turnup at an EU conference. I could easily turn it on it's head and say this was a 'play' by Empress May to try and get some concession during the election to show how "weak and idiotic" she is and hence sell the a load of scripted twaddle to the general public. However it appears the EU weren't having any of it and went "on your bike" because whatever those terms suggested were unrealistic. Instead she failed spectacularly and tried to keep quiet, yet because the EU is a group of nations and open to all members the discussion was widely discussed and hence leaked.

If that's honestly what you think happened? To the extent that you'll automatically take the side of someone who publicly said they'll happily lie on serious matters? You think that the conversations between the EU president and German Chancellor are so 'widely discussed' within the space of about 48 hours, random newspapers know what was said? And that a routine unadvertised pre-meeting between (theoretically) public officials was some dastardly plot by May to somehow manipulate the EU President into giving concessions to announce even though negotiations haven't started ?

I'm not really sure I can discuss this further with you if so, because that logic is loose and speculative enough to wrap my cat in. Seriously.

I can't think of a single example of you ever saying anything good about the Tories, or bad about the EU. It's reached the point now where I know what you're going to say before you say it. If someone does either of those things, you bury them in five foot long quote chains and insist that they must be ill-educated, under the influence of evil newspapers, lack critical thinking, and so on.

And you know what? In some cases, I even agree with you! But still.

On certain issues, you just take an automatic stance, no matter how loose the logic, in order to maintain your beliefs. We've reached the stage now where I seriously believe if the government published photographic evidence and written testimonials of EU officials secretly operating death squads, you'd insist it was all a scam from the evil Empress May to distract us so she could insert a straw into our wallets and suck out the cash! And you'd believe it!

To be fair, you have both layered your own narrative over the story, both of which are based on your own opinions, and precious few facts.

In other news, George Osborne, lady part of the year?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39782600

Definitely nothing unsavory in the editor of the Evening Standard also having a £650k a year "advisory" role for a US investment firm. Did someone say urban liberal elite?

Mind you, his editorial piece today was bang on. The Tories are running a campaign that basically consists of hiding the prospective PM from possible public engagement and repeating "Strong and Stable" as often as possible without mentioning any policies.

 Ketara wrote:

 Darkjim wrote:
[
I'm not sure where morality comes into it, unless you're suggesting from the first para, that in the current situation Juncker should bring some morality to the table, despite it's utter absence in any of the discussion prior. Or from the second, that the British press are genuinely horrified at the thought of a leak? Surely not that.

So...you're saying that there should be no consideration of morality in any of the Brexit negotiations? How very curious. Ready the Royal Navy to bombard Paris, that'll be a valuable bargaining chip!

Also, perhaps a calmer tone, and not chucking round accusations of 5 foot reply chains when the only 2 such above on this page are ... err ... yours. Honestly, you'll get this one locked too.

I'm entirely calm old bean, but since you appear to be new to the party, me and Whirlwind have had discussed many an item in five foot quote chains in the last thread. We generally do quite well for ourselves without wandering over the line into vulgarities or insults. Your concern is appreciated though.

Pfft, you were making up song lyrics about me (and others) a week or two back, how quickly they forget ...

Certainly some consideration of morality would be very welcome, though I think there are one or two legal problems with bombing Paris, beyond the moral considerations. Do I think we will do anything we can get away with? Yup. There has been little or no morality in evidence thus far. Why would the party dragged to the table against it's will be the first to try? Perhaps if we had made any gestures of goodwill rather than weak, vague and more or less instantly retracted threats, you would have point, but all we've done thus far is turn into Farage en masse and had a collective paddy (through the medium of our proud national press) every time Johnny Foreigner has had the gall to not immediately agree to everything we demand.

Junker symbolizes all that is wrong with the EU in one sweaty drunken package, and as of late he's going off the deep end. I hope Le Pen wins just to give him the big metaphorical slap across the face he so richly deserves.

Yanis Varoufakis (prat that he is) told us what we can expect from the EU during these negotations. Lots of blank stares at any request, with lots of going back and forth to 'check facts'. You'll never quite know who's doing the negotiating for them, and for some mysterious reason ( ) Merkal will be keep fully in the loop even though it's supposed to be between us and the EU itself. Just like with Cameron's...I guess the word would be negotiations. It's all a pathetic ploy to weaken the other side (us) and push towards saying sorry and coming back into the fold.

Strange this. They were all apparently our friends right up until we couldn't stand wasting any more money on them and following their bs orders, were they've now really turned on us. The word 'users' springs to mind. Like kids who are only friends with that one other kid whilst he gives them stuff.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Junker symbolizes all that is wrong with the EU in one sweaty drunken package, and as of late he's going off the deep end. I hope Le Pen wins just to give him the big metaphorical slap across the face he so richly deserves.

Yanis Varoufakis (prat that he is) told us what we can expect from the EU during these negotations. Lots of blank stares at any request, with lots of going back and forth to 'check facts'. You'll never quite know who's doing the negotiating for them, and for some mysterious reason ( ) Merkal will be keep fully in the loop even though it's supposed to be between us and the EU itself. Just like with Cameron's...I guess the word would be negotiations. It's all a pathetic ploy to weaken the other side (us) and push towards saying sorry and coming back into the fold.

Strange this. They were all apparently our friends right up until we couldn't stand wasting any more money on them and following their bs orders, were they've now really turned on us. The word 'users' springs to mind. Like kids who are only friends with that one other kid whilst he gives them stuff.

You're the one who keeps insisting that the UK has to be harsh and only look out for its own interests. Why would you expect the EU to be different?

Cognitive Dissonance.

 r_squared wrote:

To be fair, you have both layered your own narrative over the story, both of which are based on your own opinions, and precious few facts.

Oh, totally. I'm perfectly happy for people to pick holes in my logic if they can though, it was only ever a theory based on the likely balance of probabilities. I mean, it is technically possible he never meant for it to leak and is firing the people responsible even as I type.

I can't say I'm entirely convinced of the likelihood of that though.

In other news, George Osborne, lady part of the year?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39782600

Definitely nothing unsavory in the editor of the Evening Standard also having a £650k a year "advisory" role for a US investment firm. Did someone say urban liberal elite?

He's not bitter he got booted from the seat of power, no, not at all....

 Darkjim wrote:

Pfft, you were making up song lyrics about me (and others) a week or two back, how quickly they forget ...

Errrr.....you mean this?

"Petty nationalists to the left of me, self-righteous pseudo-liberals to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you.....And I'm wonderin' what it is I should do..."

You're aware I was talking about political parties and which way to vote, right? I didn't quote anybody or target it at anyone. I'm mildly perturbed you'd go out of your way to assume it was talking about you.

Certainly some consideration of morality would be very welcome, though I think there are one or two legal problems with bombing Paris, beyond the moral considerations. Do I think we will do anything we can get away with? Yup. There has been little or no morality in evidence thus far. Why would the party dragged to the table against it's will be the first to try? Perhaps if we had made any gestures of goodwill rather than weak, vague and more or less instantly retracted threats, you would have point, but all we've done thus far is turn into Farage en masse and had a collective paddy (through the medium of our proud national press) every time Johnny Foreigner has had the gall to not immediately agree to everything we demand.

I can't recall a single item from the UK Government even beginning to cross into the realms of the rudeness Juncker's shown, along with a handful of other Eurocrats. So far, the official line has been more or less 'We want a constructive relationship, let's all get on with it'. Even now, that's what May's office is saying.

People have pointed out (fairly so) that Juncker is a figurehead, and much like Farage, gets a lot of publicity for rude comments that likely mean diddly squat in the negotiations. Frankly, if he was jumping up and down doing Hitler salutes at us and issuing voodoo curses on May, I wouldn't care. It's him trying (albeit however crudely) to interfere in the electoral process I object to. I'd say the same thing if it was America trying to tar a Mexican candidate, or (to take a real case) Russia trying to influence American elections.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Strange this. They were all apparently our friends right up until we couldn't stand wasting any more money on them and following their bs orders, were they've now really turned on us. The word 'users' springs to mind. Like kids who are only friends with that one other kid whilst he gives them stuff.

You're the one who keeps insisting that the UK has to be harsh and only look out for its own interests. Why would you expect the EU to be different?

I think the reason a lot of people feel surprised at the news that the EU is out to nobble us, is because a lot of people still keep insisting that it's a wonderful organisation designed to help empower and advance all of Europe for the glory and benefit of all. It's a bit hard to reconcile that with an administration, that when it hears a countries decided to up sticks and bon voyage, sets out to actively screw it over for a mixture of vengeance, advantage, and deterrent.

Don't get me wrong, I never expected any different personally, the EU is a nascent and somewhat undemocratic superpower, there was no way it was ever going to abstain from playing the Great Game with the rest of us. I think some people (both brexiters and remainers alike) who didn't quite realise the disconnect between the euro-rhetoric and reality are shocked though.

 Ketara wrote:

"Petty nationalists to the left of me, self-righteous pseudo-liberals to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you.....And I'm wonderin' what it is I should do..."

You're aware I was talking about political parties, right? I didn't quote anybody or target it at anyone. I'm mildly perturbed you'd go out of your way to assume it was talking about you.

The missed opportunity here man... just... so tragic...