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.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Even assuming that it is partisan spite, would it make the complaint less true?
Considering that not even Angela Merkel agrees with you, no.
The president is correct. Despite criticism from other current and former officials about Ivanka Trump taking a seat at the world leaders' table on Saturday, Angela Merkel — the coolheaded leader of Germany since 2005 and viewed by some as the new “leader of the free world” — has emerged as an unlikely defender of the young Trump amid her G-20 controversy. Speaking at a news conference on Sunday, Merkel noted that, ultimately, it is up to a country to decide who steps in when its leader has to leave a meeting.
“The delegations themselves decide, should the president not be present for a meeting, who will then take over and sit in the chair,” Merkel told reporters. “Ivanka Trump was part and parcel of the American delegation, so that is something that other delegations also do. It’s very well known that she works at the White House and is also engaged in certain initiatives.”
Oh come off it, you're basically trying to paint this as those of us who are willing to put up with a little pain to remove and weaken the poisonous ideology puported by the Tories as somehow morally reprehensible compared to someone who voted to tell the EU to piss off?
Nope.
I personally vehemently believe that the Tories are real threat to the country, every decision they have made has been for their own survival to the detriment of the country, and they continue to do so. They must be removed, and broken up in order to protect the country.
See, I don't have a problem with someone believing the Tories are bad for the country, and that they should be gotten rid of. Don't even mind the 'little bit of pain' stated above. What I do goggle at slightly is this sort of thing:-
Mad Doc wrote:I know some might consider me callous for this, and to be honest I'm amongst them, but we need to let The Tories blow up Brexit, big style.....The only issue is, this is going to hurt. It's the socio-political equivalent of having legs cut off to save the body - without anaesthetic. And it's the little people that are going to be hit the hardest.
But it's necessary.
Effectively saying that you want to this country to economically self-destruct? In order to do a bit of damage (and it will be a bit, the public forgets everything in a decade) to a single political faction? Sorry, no. I don't bite on the whole 'I think the whole country should get financially fethed in so many ways to get me a few anti-Tory headlines'. If I thought for one minute that leaving the EU would leave millions on the dole and a tenfold increase in home foreclosures, I'd never have voted the way I did.
Not to mention that in my mind, whether we stay in the EU or not was a generational issue of importance tenfold above which self obsessed spanker ends up living in Number 10 for the next handful of years. As said before, they're all going to screw us over in one way or another. Anyone who would happily put up with a repeat of the Wall Street Crash in order to 'teach' us that the Tory ideology is bad clearly has a worse ideology than the Tories.
It's not a case of teaching people a lesson, more that they don't believe that tory ideology is harmful to them. The way things are going, those working class tories are going to see exactly what it means to throw their support behind the conservatives when they're being pushed to the wall by Ukip. Just like with Brexit, no amount of warnings or evidence, debate or argument will convince them, only the evidence of their own eyes.
To me, leaving the EU is monstrously harmful and damaging to the country, and voting for that was reprehensible in my eyes, however, I'm not trying to put myself on a moral pedestal here, and you're onto a loser if you think you're going to convince anyone that your support for a policy is any better than anybody else's because of some self constructed moral standpoint.
I just want to make something very clear, however. I'm in no way relishing the damage to come, whatever the cause. Many ordinary people are going to suffer for these decisions, and no one should be happy about that. To quote from one of my favourite movies, "it's a huge **** sandwich, and we're all going to have to take a bite."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/12 04:54:27
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
To me, leaving the EU is monstrously harmful and damaging to the country, and voting for that was reprehensible in my eyes, however, I'm not trying to put myself on a moral pedestal here, and you're onto a loser if you think you're going to convince anyone that your support for a policy is any better than anybody else's because of some self constructed moral standpoint.
You're not quite getting it. It's nothing to do with 'moral pedestals'. I would never knowingly and deliberately vote for any policy that I thought would inflict massive economic harm (and therefore untold misery) on the country and the people who live here. You and me may disagree on which policies may do that harm, and that's fine. The future is an intangible with no way of knowing. At the core of it, we both want what's best for the people of the country.
To actively will for mass economic damage though? In order to teach some people a lesson? That lesson, lest we forget, being that they should think the same way as you on politics?
No, I'm not of the opinion that's a thing to respect. I don't believe it's something I need to convince anyone of either. Anyone who thinks they have the right to cause that sort of misery to force people to think the same way as them is doing morality wrong.
EDIT:-I've thought about it a bit, and concluded that this probably isn't how Mad Doc meant his words to be taken. We're all on the internet, text is an imperfect form of communication, and political answers can be hastily typed. He tends to be reasonably standup chap even if we disagree on some political stuff, so it's probably the case. I'd actually be surprised on reflection, if he was suddenly advocating something as facist as I've been reading him as saying.
Accordingly, until he has a chance to clarify whether or not he actually is actively hoping for the country to suffer massive economic harm, just so the Tories can get one in the eye and more people have to think like him, I'll retract my previous comments.
Carry on, gentlemen.
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2017/07/12 00:10:41
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And if it was Chelsea Clinton, filling in for her mother? Would you still feel the same way?
I doubt it. I think this is just petty partisan spite.
Yes.
even with her having a PHD in International relations.
From Oxford university.
Ivanka has a perpetual look to her that someone has told a joke that everyone else finds funny but she doesn't get.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And if it was Chelsea Clinton, filling in for her mother? Would you still feel the same way?
I doubt it. I think this is just petty partisan spite.
I think most people would have just as much of a problem - but it wouldn't have arisen because almost every other potential leader of a major Western nation would never crowbar their woefully unqualified kids into their administrations in the first place. The issue isn't even so much that it's his daughter, it's the purely nepotistic appointing of an unelected person with no appropriate experience of any kind, and their immediately serving at the highest level of diplomacy.
They've lead us down this path. Brexit is going to go wrong. We're all going to suffer.
The single silver lining is that the Tories can't now palm it off and claim 'it was all them mate, we'd have done better'.
The knock-on effect of that is the very possible shattering of any and all power media barons wield over our elected representatives.
I think this is it; no-one wants the UK to suffer, but since Brexit is a Tory clusterfeth from start to finish, there's hope that since it's going to be bad it'll be a fairly short-sharp pain, causing people to realise how nasty and incompetent the Tories are, and allowing the country to start fixing things sooner.
They were responsible for the referendum, the campaign, the negotiations, so we need to make sure they are also responsible for the fall out.
Any party offering assistance in negotiations will inevitably cop the blame, probably with Das Daily Heil calling them 'sabouteurs' and other such ludicrous nonsense.
Tories baked this poop pie, time for them to eat it.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Even assuming that it is partisan spite, would it make the complaint less true?
Considering that not even Angela Merkel agrees with you, no.
The president is correct. Despite criticism from other current and former officials about Ivanka Trump taking a seat at the world leaders' table on Saturday, Angela Merkel — the coolheaded leader of Germany since 2005 and viewed by some as the new “leader of the free world” — has emerged as an unlikely defender of the young Trump amid her G-20 controversy. Speaking at a news conference on Sunday, Merkel noted that, ultimately, it is up to a country to decide who steps in when its leader has to leave a meeting.
“The delegations themselves decide, should the president not be present for a meeting, who will then take over and sit in the chair,” Merkel told reporters. “Ivanka Trump was part and parcel of the American delegation, so that is something that other delegations also do. It’s very well known that she works at the White House and is also engaged in certain initiatives.”
Rather than wishing Brexit to fail in order to teach one political party and a section of the country a harsh lesson, I'd rather we made it a success. And it could be a success if the work was put into it which unfortunately I'm not seeing from May's cabal. They should have planned to go WTO rules with anything beyond that as a bonus. It's the uncertainly that's causing the problems.
what did people make of Bojo's latest efforts in the HoC ?
Can't imagine Davis was particularly impressed.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Future War Cultist wrote: Rather than wishing Brexit to fail in order to teach one political party and a section of the country a harsh lesson, I'd rather we made it a success. And it could be a success if the work was put into it which unfortunately I'm not seeing from May's cabal. They should have planned to go WTO rules with anything beyond that as a bonus. It's the uncertainly that's causing the problems.
Last year, I was shot down in flames for arguing that A50 should have been activated on June 24th. The reasons given by the naysayers was that we had no plan.
12 months on, we still have no plan, but if we had activated A50, the worst of Brexit would probably be over, and at least we would know where to go.
We wasted 12 months for nothing
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: what did people make of Bojo's latest efforts in the HoC ?
Can't imagine Davis was particularly impressed.
What did he do this time?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/12 10:34:25
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Well Cameron threw a strop and abandoned his post after not instructing the civil service to prepare for the possibility of an Out vote, then we had to have the Tory leadership contest, Gina Miller trying to hold it up and then that pointless election. It's been an uphill struggle all the way. I think it's only now they've actually even started to look at it seriously.
Well Cameron threw a strop and abandoned his post after not instructing the civil service to prepare for the possibility of an Out vote, then we had to have the Tory leadership contest, Gina Miller trying to hold it up and then that pointless election. It's been an uphill struggle all the way. I think it's only now they've actually even started to look at it seriously.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as somebody once said.
They've tried everything to stop Brexit: courtroom battles, parliamentary stalling tactics, Tim Farron, a GE, hard Brexit, soft Brexit, business propaganda, turning the Guardian into a Juncker press release, and so on...
They won't stop, and neither should we.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Future War Cultist wrote: Rather than wishing Brexit to fail in order to teach one political party and a section of the country a harsh lesson, I'd rather we made it a success. And it could be a success if the work was put into it which unfortunately I'm not seeing from May's cabal. They should have planned to go WTO rules with anything beyond that as a bonus. It's the uncertainly that's causing the problems.
It's not wishing it to fail.
It's already failing. Our negotiators appear completely inept. There is no plan. Just mindless little soundbites and Boris being let out of his cage once in a while.
I just don't want to see any other party tarred alongside the Tories, whose fault this entire debacle happens to be.
Much as I loathe the gruesome twosome, May not letting Boris or Gove slink off back under their respective rocks is about the only smart thing she's done.
I still suspect we'll see Article 50 revoked in due time. We're not going to get anything remotely like a good deal, and business simply will not stand for 'no deal', on account it'd properly wreck our economy.
The pressure is already mounting - and one wonders if that might just be part of the Tory plan after all. Deliberately bodge it, and let public pressure turn the tide.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
That could actually be it. Make such a deliberate bollocks of it we give up and retract it. May was a Remainer in the referendum campaign after all. They can't be allowed to get away with it.
I still suspect we'll see Article 50 revoked in due time
And see Farage coming out of retirement as a result? I think most Remainers would take Brexit over that
On a serious note, just because The Guardian newspaper says Brexit negotiations are failing, doesn't mean they are. Of course Barnier and Juncker will talk down the UK at every turn, I'd be disappointed if they didn't. It's a good, tactical move from them to put pressure on the UK public with a running commentary. The government needs to hold its nerve and push on.
Vested interests have a clear stake in pushing this line that Brexit is failing.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Future War Cultist wrote: Rather than wishing Brexit to fail in order to teach one political party and a section of the country a harsh lesson, I'd rather we made it a success. And it could be a success if the work was put into it which unfortunately I'm not seeing from May's cabal. They should have planned to go WTO rules with anything beyond that as a bonus. It's the uncertainly that's causing the problems.
How do we make it a success though? Everyone wants different, conflicting things. We've got no cards, credibility or plan.
How do we make it a success though? Everyone wants different, conflicting things. We've got no cards, credibility or plan.
What counts as a success?
Yea this is a key point that is often overlooked imo.
I think a lot of people weighed up the options in the referendum and decided that the potential economic pain was a price worth paying for less foreign influence over our laws and a drop in immigration. So regardless of an economic arrangement, success for them would be just that, less immigration and the elimination of the primacy of European law.
Whether that achieves their unstated motivated in my eyes of returning England to the halycon days before globalism, if those ever existed, is yet to be seen.
I can also imagine those same people looking on with glee at all the wailing laments from London city slickers about how Brexit will hurt the finiancial services industry!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/12 11:54:07
The Grand Plan, the bold vision, that is sorely absent - that's what will make Brexit a success.
Root and branch reform is what's needed, starting with out 12th century parliament.
A federal system, an elected senate. More teeth for parliamentary watchdogs and standards commission. More oversight for police and security services.
Better protections for free speech for individuals and newspapers. A crack down on the surveillance state.
A war on corruption and enforcing the rule of law will make Britain an attractive place to do business. Clean up the electoral system
Massive infrastructure projects from John O Groats to Land's end: super highways, high speed rail, airports upgraded, flood defences built for global warming, better broadband etc etc
The northern powerhouse needs to set sail, turn our cities into centres of excellence for R and D for robots, internet whatever
build more ships for the Navy to protect our free trade ethos with the rest of the world.
more police to reign in the criminal gangs blighting Britain,
etc etc etc
I could go on all day, and yeah, I haven't priced all of this
But we need a can do attitude, we need to build build build and get stuck in.
If I were PM, that's what I would do. Build our way out of this.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
And he said that the government had "no plan" for what to do in the event of no deal being agreed with the EU
And he was asked if there was a strategy, either public or private, for what would happen if there was no agreement on Brexit.
"There is no plan for no deal because we are going to get a great deal," he replied.
His comments come after No 10 sources played down suggestions that Theresa May plans to walk out of Brexit talks in September to show defiance over EU demands for a divorce bill worth tens of billions of pounds.
'Shocking complacency'
Mrs May has said that her view going into the Brexit negotiations was that "no deal is better than a bad deal".
Mr Johnson's comments seem to be at odds with Brexit Secretary David Davis, who told the BBC last month that the government had "worked up in detail" the "no deal" option on Brexit.
Asked about the foreign secretary's remarks, the prime minister's spokeswoman said: "We have said it is right to plan for all eventualities, and that planning is taking place across government."
Downing Street has slapped down Boris Johnson after he said there is “no plan” for leaving the EU without a Brexit deal.
Theresa May’s official spokesman refuted claims by the Foreign Secretary that the Government had not planned for crashing out of the EU in March 2019 with no deal in place.
It comes as some members of the Government have tried to distance themselves from Theresa May’s harder pre-election stance that “no deal is better than a bad deal”.
After hearing of Mr Johnson's words, the No 10 spokesman said: “I've repeatedly said that contingency planning is taking place for a range of scenarios.”
Ms May’s “no deal” rhetoric has been criticised by some of her own MPs since the election, meanwhile Chancellor Philip Hammond has chosen to say that leaving with no deal would be “very, very bad”.
Speaking in the Commons on Tuesday, Mr Johnson said: “There is no plan for no deal, because we’re going to get a great deal and I would, just for the sake of example and illustration, I would remind the honourable lady that there was a time when Britain was not in what we then called the Common Market.”
TBF if there was/is a plan I probably wouldn't tell Boris either
The Grand Plan, the bold vision, that is sorely absent
Seems daft beyond belief to vote and act as if we had one then really.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Speaking on current negotiations, I view this current EU insistence on EU law being given primacy above British law for EU citizens in the UK a bloody cheek. EU citizens don't get recourse to the ECJ when in America, in Israel, in China, in India, in Japan, or any other independent nation in the world. Why on earth should they have a different set of rights and appeals to a UK citizen in the UK? The minute you agree to such a thing, you're in effect declaring yourself a vassal state, as your law is suborned to that of a foreign power when dealing with its citizens on your own soil.
I can't quite decide if they're being serious in demanding this, or if it's a case of 'Ask for the stars so you get the minor continent you actually wanted'.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/12 13:39:54
The Grand Plan, the bold vision, that is sorely absent
Seems daft beyond belief to vote and act as if we had one then really.
This. If you don't have a plan the responsible action is to come up with one, not to expect the people who told you this was a bad idea in the first place to salvage it for you.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
It is ridiculous. You should have the same rights as people in the country where you live, wherever that is. And 'circumstances' change all the time regardless of whether you're a citizen or not, laws and economies change and evolve.
Mr Barnier said the European Court of Justice (ECJ) must have jurisdiction to guarantee citizens' rights.
Absurd. We can't leave the EU, and have EU citizens living under different laws/rights to British citizens in our country. It seems that they just aren't interested in serious negotiation. No country would stand for this. As Ketara says above, the EU don't expect the US to give EU visitors different rights.
All I can imagine is that there are those in the EU who aren't interested in negotiation, they just want it to collapse to punish the UK as a show of force to other EU members - all the EU citizens caught up in this disaster are expendable.
I'm completely with Howard and Ketera on this. It's frankly insulting that they think that their courts and laws can continue to have jurisdiction over us after we leave. You'll receive the same rights as everyone else. That's the way it has to be. Imagine for example U.S citizens living within the U.K retaining their rights to own and use firearms and the U.S Supreme Court being able to force the UK to uphold this. That's essentially what they're demanding off us for EU citizens and it's not going to work. And they should really know this. This is why I say it's a complete and utter waste of time even negotiating with them if they're going to make these completely duff idiot demands. Oh, and this is partly why I voted to leave. Their arrogance, hubris and nit picky need to rule over everything they see.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm completely with Howard and Ketera on this. It's frankly insulting that they think that their courts and laws can continue to have jurisdiction over us after we leave. You'll receive the same rights as everyone else. That's the way it has to be. Imagine for example U.S citizens living within the U.K retaining their rights to own and use firearms and the U.S Supreme Court being able to force the UK to uphold this. That's essentially what they're demanding off us for EU citizens and it's not going to work.
It's a bit more like the US insisting that US citizens living the UK have their human rights protected irrespective of how the UK might modify their perception of human rights and the US Supreme Court forcing the UK to respect this. Which is actually something the US does. It's something the UK does, too. And quite right.
Ketara wrote: Speaking on current negotiations, I view this current EU insistence on EU law being given primacy above British law for EU citizens in the UK a bloody cheek. EU citizens don't get recourse to the ECJ when in America, in Israel, in China, in India, in Japan, or any other independent nation in the world. Why on earth should they have a different set of rights and appeals to a UK citizen in the UK? The minute you agree to such a thing, you're in effect declaring yourself a vassal state, as your law is suborned to that of a foreign power when dealing with its citizens on your own soil.
I can't quite decide if they're being serious in demanding this, or if it's a case of 'Ask for the stars so you get the minor continent you actually wanted'.
Great point.
Personally, I think the EU are chancing their arm.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm completely with Howard and Ketera on this. It's frankly insulting that they think that their courts and laws can continue to have jurisdiction over us after we leave. You'll receive the same rights as everyone else. That's the way it has to be. Imagine for example U.S citizens living within the U.K retaining their rights to own and use firearms and the U.S Supreme Court being able to force the UK to uphold this. That's essentially what they're demanding off us for EU citizens and it's not going to work.
It's a bit more like the US insisting that US citizens living the UK have their human rights protected irrespective of how the UK might modify their perception of human rights and the US Supreme Court forcing the UK to respect this. Which is actually something the US does. It's something the UK does, too. And quite right.
Eh? Since when did the Supreme Court of the USA influence UK law?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/12 15:59:34
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
was that we had no plan.
