Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop
Up to a point, she did.
I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
There is though enough in it that sensible people can object to.
I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.
Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?
The other 27 countries currently in the EU. For starters.
Edit: yes, technically Article 50 is an exit clause, but it doesn't seem to work particularly well in practice.
Its more than just a technicality, Article 50 is an exit clause full stop. The fact our government has been so incompetent is neither here nor there. Plus under the EU membership we have a say in the rules.
Is there an example of anywhere were a third party determines the rules, without you getting a say, and without an exit clause? That's how colonies were treated not modern nations.
Do you genuinely think that the EU would be happy to keep the UK in the backstop indefinitely?
Yes, which is why they are prepared for it to be indefinite and not have an end date or exit clause. If they weren't happy to do that, then they wouldn't be insisting it is permanent with no end date or exit clause.
(Sharp intake of breath) Those dastardly furriners, the fiends! There out to get us y'know. Paranoid? No not us!
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop
Up to a point, she did.
I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
There is though enough in it that sensible people can object to.
I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.
Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?
The other 27 countries currently in the EU. For starters.
Edit: yes, technically Article 50 is an exit clause, but it doesn't seem to work particularly well in practice.
Its more than just a technicality, Article 50 is an exit clause full stop. The fact our government has been so incompetent is neither here nor there. Plus under the EU membership we have a say in the rules.
Is there an example of anywhere were a third party determines the rules, without you getting a say, and without an exit clause? That's how colonies were treated not modern nations.
Do you genuinely think that the EU would be happy to keep the UK in the backstop indefinitely?
Yes, which is why they are prepared for it to be indefinite and not have an end date or exit clause. If they weren't happy to do that, then they wouldn't be insisting it is permanent with no end date or exit clause.
Why do you think the EU initially proposed that the backstop only cover NI?
Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop
Up to a point, she did.
I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
There is though enough in it that sensible people can object to.
I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.
Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?
The other 27 countries currently in the EU. For starters.
Edit: yes, technically Article 50 is an exit clause, but it doesn't seem to work particularly well in practice.
Its more than just a technicality, Article 50 is an exit clause full stop. The fact our government has been so incompetent is neither here nor there. Plus under the EU membership we have a say in the rules.
Is there an example of anywhere were a third party determines the rules, without you getting a say, and without an exit clause? That's how colonies were treated not modern nations.
Do you genuinely think that the EU would be happy to keep the UK in the backstop indefinitely?
Yes, which is why they are prepared for it to be indefinite and not have an end date or exit clause. If they weren't happy to do that, then they wouldn't be insisting it is permanent with no end date or exit clause.
Well quite, we'd be locked into vassal statehood indefinitely.
I can't believe I'm the only one who thinks that every piece of EU legislation proposed after we leave the political representation is going to have a 'F... the British' clause in it, something that serves no purpose other than for the EU to demonstrate what happens to states that leave?
Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop
Up to a point, she did.
I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
There is though enough in it that sensible people can object to.
I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.
Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?
The other 27 countries currently in the EU. For starters.
Edit: yes, technically Article 50 is an exit clause, but it doesn't seem to work particularly well in practice.
Its more than just a technicality, Article 50 is an exit clause full stop. The fact our government has been so incompetent is neither here nor there. Plus under the EU membership we have a say in the rules.
Is there an example of anywhere were a third party determines the rules, without you getting a say, and without an exit clause? That's how colonies were treated not modern nations.
Do you genuinely think that the EU would be happy to keep the UK in the backstop indefinitely?
Yes, which is why they are prepared for it to be indefinite and not have an end date or exit clause. If they weren't happy to do that, then they wouldn't be insisting it is permanent with no end date or exit clause.
(Sharp intake of breath) Those dastardly furriners, the fiends! There out to get us y'know. Paranoid? No not us!
You're being ridiculous.
I never said any of that. I don't think they're out to get us, I think they're out to get what they want and the backstop is what they are OK with which is why they are OK with it being permanent.
Which was the question asked, are they happy to keep the UK there indefinitely? Yes, because otherwise it being explicitly not indefinite wouldn't be an issue.
James O'Brien is apparently saying that the backstop was a British proposal.
Zat so?
This is why they are now so astonished by the UK trying to renegotiate it. They let us pick the cherries they vowed they would never allow us to pick, and now we're bitching about it.
The evidence that the ERG are secretly working as fifth columnists for Remain continues to mount.
This is (and to Richard’s OP) is what genuinely baffles me about the Ergers. The backstop is the best bit of the deal. And it is limited until such a time as a solution can be found to the Irish border. So, what is the effing problem? I know the ERG are utterly mad, but even within the normal parameters of crazy their opposition presents as sheer lunacy.
They are professional naysayers. They are cut from the same cloth as Corbyn. They think being contrary makes them look intelligent, because their fundamental insecurity is that they know they really are not that bright.
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
because it assumes being white is somehow normal !
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
Is it not normal to be white?
Exactly. It is normal to be "black" and it is normal to be "white".
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
People of colour is an Americanism, isn’t it? I’ve never heard anyone use it here. Black and coloured I have heard a fair amount. Coloured also seems to be used in preference to “mixed race” which now sounds vaguely eugenicist but describes a reality which is now totally mainstream.
It’s all a bit of a minefield and one would have hoped Mr Lammy to have been more charitable.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
Expecting wisdom from Lammy is like expecting snow in June. It might happen. But not very often.
He has form on racial bullshit, though. My favourite was his Pope smoke idiocy. More recently one of the adjectives he used when describing why he thought the Grenfell Inquiry judge was unsuitable was 'white'.
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
People of colour is an Americanism, isn’t it? I’ve never heard anyone use it here. Black and coloured I have heard a fair amount. Coloured also seems to be used in preference to “mixed race” which now sounds vaguely eugenicist but describes a reality which is now totally mainstream.
It’s all a bit of a minefield and one would have hoped Mr Lammy to have been more charitable.
Coloured is generally seen as pejorative as it had pretty unpleasant connotations in S Africa during Apartheid. I like Rudd, and she has apologised, but she should not have used the term, and Lammy is right. Move on!
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
I think too much can be made of slips of language, but then language can exclude and hurt so people should make some effort to treat others with respect (including those who do not intend to cause offence).
I think "coloured" is similar to "coloured in", so implies an action of adding colour to a blank (white) canvas (skin). If you say a "person of colour" then it sounds clearer to me that the colour is an intrinsic characteristic that is different, but equal, to being white (or a "person lacking in colour" perhaps...)
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
because it assumes being white is somehow normal !
In my naivety, I would have thought that 'people' without any epithet referred to all people, 'white people' referred specifically to the subset who have white skin, 'small people' referred to the subset who are below average height, etc. In that framework 'coloured people' is a harmless synonym for 'non-white people' (which I think is still allowed, right?), and indistinguishable from the clumsy 'people of colour' (still allowed, in fact now preferred?). But the English language seems to have been redefined in mysterious ways, by mysterious people, who not only take mysterious offence but also seem to regard any transgression of the arcane rules someone has made up as proof of prejudice.
Malcolm Turnbull is scathing about the way the 2016 referendum was set up and says there should have been a second referendum after negotiations were complete.
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
People of colour is an Americanism, isn’t it? I’ve never heard anyone use it here. Black and coloured I have heard a fair amount. Coloured also seems to be used in preference to “mixed race” which now sounds vaguely eugenicist but describes a reality which is now totally mainstream.
It’s all a bit of a minefield and one would have hoped Mr Lammy to have been more charitable.
Coloured is generally seen as pejorative as it had pretty unpleasant connotations in S Africa during Apartheid. I like Rudd, and she has apologised, but she should not have used the term, and Lammy is right. Move on!
Though it does also describe one of South Africa's ethnic groups.
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
Part of multiculturalism is that different folks have different taboos, about language, food, moral conduct and all sorts of things. Only a great deal of kindness and forbearance can possibly see us through it. I very much respect David Lammy who has a difficult job to do and is a decent man, but his foray here into what words assume in terms of power and hierarchy really isn't adequate. Having said that, which of us would volunteer to be the political representative and spokesperson for his complex constituency?
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
People of colour is an Americanism, isn’t it? I’ve never heard anyone use it here. Black and coloured I have heard a fair amount. Coloured also seems to be used in preference to “mixed race” which now sounds vaguely eugenicist but describes a reality which is now totally mainstream.
It’s all a bit of a minefield and one would have hoped Mr Lammy to have been more charitable.
Coloured is generally seen as pejorative as it had pretty unpleasant connotations in S Africa during Apartheid. I like Rudd, and she has apologised, but she should not have used the term, and Lammy is right. Move on!
Though it does also describe one of South Africa's ethnic groups.
Do they still refer to them as such? I know my SA friends avoid the term.
I've only ever heard coloured used in the context of South African racial definitions, the NAACP, and from people stuck in a decades long past when using "coloured" was seen as preferable to "negroes". I never hear it normally.
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
People of colour is an Americanism, isn’t it? I’ve never heard anyone use it here. Black and coloured I have heard a fair amount. Coloured also seems to be used in preference to “mixed race” which now sounds vaguely eugenicist but describes a reality which is now totally mainstream.
It’s all a bit of a minefield and one would have hoped Mr Lammy to have been more charitable.
As a person of colour I'm fine with it.
There's some real racism in the world, try focussing on that Mr Lammy.
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
Is it not normal to be white?
I have half-Thai grandchildren. Their skins are not 'white'...... or the slightly off-pink, as their father and paternal grandparents are, ....... but a rather nice honey colour. Can't be described as black. How does one describe them? It's sometimes quite amusing when we show their pictures to new acquaintances, and listen to the er's and stutters.
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
People of colour is an Americanism, isn’t it? I’ve never heard anyone use it here. Black and coloured I have heard a fair amount. Coloured also seems to be used in preference to “mixed race” which now sounds vaguely eugenicist but describes a reality which is now totally mainstream.
It’s all a bit of a minefield and one would have hoped Mr Lammy to have been more charitable.
Coloured is generally seen as pejorative as it had pretty unpleasant connotations in S Africa during Apartheid. I like Rudd, and she has apologised, but she should not have used the term, and Lammy is right. Move on!
Though it does also describe one of South Africa's ethnic groups.
Do they still refer to them as such? I know my SA friends avoid the term.
As far as I know, Cape Coloureds call themselves such, and prefer others to use the term.
Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop
Up to a point, she did.
I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
There is though enough in it that sensible people can object to.
I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.
Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?
The other 27 countries currently in the EU. For starters.
Edit: yes, technically Article 50 is an exit clause, but it doesn't seem to work particularly well in practice.
Its more than just a technicality, Article 50 is an exit clause full stop. The fact our government has been so incompetent is neither here nor there. Plus under the EU membership we have a say in the rules.
Is there an example of anywhere were a third party determines the rules, without you getting a say, and without an exit clause? That's how colonies were treated not modern nations.
Do you genuinely think that the EU would be happy to keep the UK in the backstop indefinitely?
Yes, which is why they are prepared for it to be indefinite and not have an end date or exit clause. If they weren't happy to do that, then they wouldn't be insisting it is permanent with no end date or exit clause.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
People of colour is an Americanism, isn’t it? I’ve never heard anyone use it here. Black and coloured I have heard a fair amount. Coloured also seems to be used in preference to “mixed race” which now sounds vaguely eugenicist but describes a reality which is now totally mainstream.
It’s all a bit of a minefield and one would have hoped Mr Lammy to have been more charitable.
Coloured is generally seen as pejorative as it had pretty unpleasant connotations in S Africa during Apartheid. I like Rudd, and she has apologised, but she should not have used the term, and Lammy is right. Move on!
Though it does also describe one of South Africa's ethnic groups.
Do they still refer to them as such? I know my SA friends avoid the term.
Earlier this week somebody on here provided a link to a quite late epsode of Til Death Us Do Part. It was made in 1972 and included a guest appearance by Spike Milligan in the guise of an East Asian. There was a scene in a railway carriage where Alf Garnett refers to 'Pakis' in response to which Milligan said he did not like them and called them 'Wogs'. The audience found it very funny.
Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop
Up to a point, she did.
I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
There is though enough in it that sensible people can object to.
I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.
Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?
The other 27 countries currently in the EU. For starters.
Edit: yes, technically Article 50 is an exit clause, but it doesn't seem to work particularly well in practice.
Its more than just a technicality, Article 50 is an exit clause full stop. The fact our government has been so incompetent is neither here nor there. Plus under the EU membership we have a say in the rules.
Is there an example of anywhere were a third party determines the rules, without you getting a say, and without an exit clause? That's how colonies were treated not modern nations.
Do you genuinely think that the EU would be happy to keep the UK in the backstop indefinitely?
Yes, which is why they are prepared for it to be indefinite and not have an end date or exit clause. If they weren't happy to do that, then they wouldn't be insisting it is permanent with no end date or exit clause.
Mr. Thompson, I think there are some others who feel that way. If we do get another referendum and May's deal is an option, I'll look at it in great detail, but at the moment my feeling is it clings to the obligations of membership and deprives us of the potential advantages (freedom of action, primarily) of leaving.
A happy side effect of disliking just about every credible outcome is not having a dog in the fight, as it were.
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
Is it not normal to be white?
I have half-Thai grandchildren. Their skins are not 'white'...... or the slightly off-pink, as their father and paternal grandparents are, ....... but a rather nice honey colour. Can't be described as black. How does one describe them? It's sometimes quite amusing when we show their pictures to new acquaintances, and listen to the er's and stutters.
For the first time in two years Cox seems to have the EU rattled...
Well he is a leaver. Also he was leading the Cabinet resistance to Mays deal. After his experience of talking to the EU so he gets first hand understanding of how they are operating and what their objectives are, it would not surprise me if he came back and articulated his legal advice in even more stringent terms.
Talking of political correctness gone mad, I was talking to a friend who until recently worked for the NHS who told me that he got into trouble with the diversity police for using the word 'gobbledygook' in an email.
Talking of political correctness gone mad, I was talking to a friend who until recently worked for the NHS who told me that he got into trouble with the diversity police for using the word 'gobbledygook' in an email.
Talking of political correctness gone mad, I was talking to a friend who until recently worked for the NHS who told me that he got into trouble with the diversity police for using the word 'gobbledygook' in an email.
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
People of colour is an Americanism, isn’t it? I’ve never heard anyone use it here. Black and coloured I have heard a fair amount. Coloured also seems to be used in preference to “mixed race” which now sounds vaguely eugenicist but describes a reality which is now totally mainstream.
It’s all a bit of a minefield and one would have hoped Mr Lammy to have been more charitable.
As a person of colour I'm fine with it.
There's some real racism in the world, try focussing on that Mr Lammy.
Another comma in that final sentence might've been a good idea.
Talking of political correctness gone mad, I was talking to a friend who until recently worked for the NHS who told me that he got into trouble with the diversity police for using the word 'gobbledygook' in an email.
What on earth is the matter with gobbledygook? Apart from the obvious.
Talking of political correctness gone mad, I was talking to a friend who until recently worked for the NHS who told me that he got into trouble with the diversity police for using the word 'gobbledygook' in an email.
What on earth is the matter with gobbledygook? Apart from the obvious.
Absolutely nothing whatsoever, which is exactly the point. These people are mad.
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
Is it not normal to be white?
I have half-Thai grandchildren. Their skins are not 'white'...... or the slightly off-pink, as their father and paternal grandparents are, ....... but a rather nice honey colour. Can't be described as black. How does one describe them? It's sometimes quite amusing when we show their pictures to new acquaintances, and listen to the er's and stutters.
Sure it is. It is just a time-limited backstop. They can quite reasonably say that if the backstop time expires without a deal they will cease and desist all trade and co-operation deals with us and will put us back into a no deal scenario unless \we renew the backstop or sign an alternative.
We would then be back to where we are now and able to democratically determine whether to renew the backstop, adopt no deal at that time, or ratify an alternative deal. How would that put the EU in any worse a position than it is now or was any time since Article 50 was created by the Lisbon Treaty? Any co-operation becomes conditional then upon the backstop or better being agreed, while leaving us the ability to walk away if that is what we democratically determine is better - in the full knowledge that is then a no deal scenario so would be a last resort.
The irony of the outrage over Rudd comment is that she was rising above party politics and actually sticking up for a member of the other team i.e. Abbott over the abuse she has received.
Its not like she was attacking somebody because they are the wrong skin colour, you know like Lammy over comic relief.
Sure it is. It is just a time-limited backstop. They can quite reasonably say that if the backstop time expires without a deal they will cease and desist all trade and co-operation deals with us and will put us back into a no deal scenario unless \we renew the backstop or sign an alternative.
We would then be back to where we are now and able to democratically determine whether to renew the backstop, adopt no deal at that time, or ratify an alternative deal. How would that put the EU in any worse a position than it is now or was any time since Article 50 was created by the Lisbon Treaty? Any co-operation becomes conditional then upon the backstop or better being agreed, while leaving us the ability to walk away if that is what we democratically determine is better - in the full knowledge that is then a no deal scenario so would be a last resort.
Yep.
All that needs to happen is for the backstop , like A50 itself, to have an "renewal" date (note doesn't even have to be an "expiry date" just a date when both parties can review and renew if needs be)
Huda Elmi @hudaelmi_ The Equality & Human Rights Commission is a failed experiment. If tomorrow it were to cease in existence, most of the people it was created to support wouldn’t even notice. We need to abolish it & bring back separate, well resourced governmental bodies for each equality strand!
OT but in answer to Anazina's misplaced lauding of LNER as a nationalised railway.
Yes LNER is a very comfortable and well run service. Or at least it was. All those improvements came about whilst it was in private hands and there is basically no investment once it has returned to public hands. Just as happened the last time it was in public ownership, it rests on the laurels earnt whilst it was a privately run company and does nothing to maintain or improve the service.
It has cut schedules and services and, based at least on the number of times I have now had to reclaim my fare under the delay/repay scheme (One in 3 years prior to going back into public hands and 4 times in the 9 months since it reverted to state ownership) it has abandoned all pretence of trying to run a reliable service.
For the first time in nearly 4 years I am seriously looking at going back to flying to Aberdeen as it is more reliable.
The irony of the outrage over Rudd comment is that she was rising above party politics and actually sticking up for a member of the other team i.e. Abbott over the abuse she has received.
Its not like she was attacking somebody because they are the wrong skin colour, you know like Lammy over comic relief.
Mr. Nabavi, my mother used to work in a school. Brainstorming sessions had to be renamed 'brain showers'.
I suspect epileptics have rather more pressing concerns, to be honest, but there we are.
I remember this. We had the same thing in a primary school a few years ago where I was clerking the governing body. When it came up everyone else started shuffling their feet and looking sideways at me as the only epileptic in the room. I told them it was a load of cobblers but as I recall they decided to go with the PC nonsense anyway.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever get another chance is just delusional.
Huda Elmi @hudaelmi_ The Equality & Human Rights Commission is a failed experiment. If tomorrow it were to cease in existence, most of the people it was created to support wouldn’t even notice. We need to abolish it & bring back separate, well resourced governmental bodies for each equality strand!
I do not think that reasonable people can rely on voters voting Conservative to keep the Corbynites from power, but a change in the voting system to STV (or any reasonable alternative) would do so definitively.
Mr. Rex, that's the reason for the persistence of daft politically correct bullshit. People are convinced they're doing good on behalf of others. It's self-righteous beyond reason.
Cf junk food and healthy women in bikinis being banned from tube ads.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever WANT another chance is just delusional.
The irony of the outrage over Rudd comment is that she was rising above party politics and actually sticking up for a member of the other team i.e. Abbott over the abuse she has received.
Its not like she was attacking somebody because they are the wrong skin colour, you know like Lammy over comic relief.
Racist Remainer Rudd ? Are all remainers racists ? I mean all leavers are because someone somewhere something. So goose gander etc..
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever get another chance is just delusional.
The idea that the deal is leaving is lunacy. It's a trap designed by the civil service to reel us back in, with no ability to stop it. Keep trying to convince yourself but it's not going to convince anyone else.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever WANT another chance is just delusional.
That better?
Nope. We will very much want it in the future. We just won't be allowed it by a Parliament who will have been shaken by how close we came this time.
Democracy dies if we do not abide by the referendum result.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever get another chance is just delusional.
The idea that the deal is leaving is lunacy. It's a trap designed by the civil service to reel us back in, with no ability to stop it. Keep trying to convince yourself but it's not going to convince anyone else.
Plainly, the deal is Leaving.
It may not be the Leave that you want, but it's certainly Leave.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever get another chance is just delusional.
I do accept the deal and think MPs should ratify it and lets all move on...
However, the concerns about the backstop remain and a tweek along the linked outlined by @Philip_Thompson would be very preferable.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever get another chance is just delusional.
Rejecting the deal is only lunacy if you think any Brexit is better than a bad Brexit.
As for never: Maybe, maybe not. Scottish devolution got stopped in the 1970s but still went ahead eventually in the 1990s.
I think if Brexit gets frustrated the idea that matters will just lie there is delusional. The issues that led to Brexit in the first place will still exist. Pent up in this nation will be a lot of annoyed people who will happily go for Brexit again if given another chance - are you suggesting if Brexit stops you'll just like down and play possum and never seek another vote or for for it if another vote happens? The EU will continue to integrate, the Eurozone will continue to integrate.
Brexit if it gets halted will only be tried again following another referendum - and that will only be called if the PM is themselves a Leaver . . . which means it should then be negotiated smarter than our Remain-backing PM has negotiated it.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever get another chance is just delusional.
The idea that the deal is leaving is lunacy. It's a trap designed by the civil service to reel us back in, with no ability to stop it. Keep trying to convince yourself but it's not going to convince anyone else.
Plainly, the deal is Leaving.
It may not be the Leave that you want, but it's certainly Leave.
Plainly it is not, it is only designed to look like leaving until the inevitable imposition of the backstop.
Rejecting the deal is only lunacy if you think any Brexit is better than a bad Brexit.
As for never: Maybe, maybe not. Scottish devolution got stopped in the 1970s but still went ahead eventually in the 1990s.
I think if Brexit gets frustrated the idea that matters will just lie there is delusional. The issues that led to Brexit in the first place will still exist. Pent up in this nation will be a lot of annoyed people who will happily go for Brexit again if given another chance - are you suggesting if Brexit stops you'll just like down and play possum and never seek another vote or for for it if another vote happens? The EU will continue to integrate, the Eurozone will continue to integrate.
Brexit if it gets halted will only be tried again following another referendum - and that will only be called if the PM is themselves a Leaver . . . which means it should then be negotiated smarter than our Remain-backing PM has negotiated it.
There won't be another referendum. If we do not leave now it is over for good. Like I said if you think otherwise you are delusional.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever get another chance is just delusional.
The idea that the deal is leaving is lunacy. It's a trap designed by the civil service to reel us back in, with no ability to stop it. Keep trying to convince yourself but it's not going to convince anyone else.
Plainly, the deal is Leaving.
It may not be the Leave that you want, but it's certainly Leave.
Agreed. I'm not suggesting its not Leave, but its not the Leave I voted for. I voted to Take Back Control not abdicate it forever.
If I'd been told in 2016 the choice was between Remain and the Backstop I'd have voted Remain.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever WANT another chance is just delusional.
That better?
Nope. We will very much want it in the future. We just won't be allowed it by a Parliament who will have been shaken by how close we came this time.
Democracy dies if we do not abide by the referendum result.
In your opinion. Others may take a different view, and arguments can be made either way. Brexit has caused a massive division. Leaving the EU or staying will not heal this. Approximately 50% of people will be angry, with some of that 50% more angry than others, whatever the outcome.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever get another chance is just delusional.
The idea that the deal is leaving is lunacy. It's a trap designed by the civil service to reel us back in, with no ability to stop it. Keep trying to convince yourself but it's not going to convince anyone else.
Plainly, the deal is Leaving.
It may not be the Leave that you want, but it's certainly Leave.
Agreed. I'm not suggesting its not Leave, but its not the Leave I voted for. I voted to Take Back Control not abdicate it forever.
If I'd been told in 2016 the choice was between Remain and the Backstop I'd have voted Remain.
And, I'd have voted Leave, because I prefer some of what I what I want to none of it.
Rejecting the deal is only lunacy if you think any Brexit is better than a bad Brexit.
As for never: Maybe, maybe not. Scottish devolution got stopped in the 1970s but still went ahead eventually in the 1990s.
I think if Brexit gets frustrated the idea that matters will just lie there is delusional. The issues that led to Brexit in the first place will still exist. Pent up in this nation will be a lot of annoyed people who will happily go for Brexit again if given another chance - are you suggesting if Brexit stops you'll just like down and play possum and never seek another vote or for for it if another vote happens? The EU will continue to integrate, the Eurozone will continue to integrate.
Brexit if it gets halted will only be tried again following another referendum - and that will only be called if the PM is themselves a Leaver . . . which means it should then be negotiated smarter than our Remain-backing PM has negotiated it.
There won't be another referendum. If we do not leave now it is over for good. Like I said if you think otherwise you are delusional.
If that happens so be it. I'd rather Remain than Leave into the Backstop. But I think you're wrong. There is every chance the next Conservative PM after May [or after a Labour/other government] will be a Leaver who is better prepared and calls a referendum.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever get another chance is just delusional.
The idea that the deal is leaving is lunacy. It's a trap designed by the civil service to reel us back in, with no ability to stop it. Keep trying to convince yourself but it's not going to convince anyone else.
Rubbish. The Deal Leaving. The fact it is not the pure Brexit you want is your problem. All the reasonable Brexiteers on here accept that the Deal fulfils both the letter and the spirit of the referendum. Moreover it is all you are going to get. I don't fear a No Deal but I know it will never be allowed to happen. It is this or nothing and all the consequences of that.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever get another chance is just delusional.
The Judean People's Front is arguing with the People's Front of Judea.
Rejecting the deal is only lunacy if you think any Brexit is better than a bad Brexit.
As for never: Maybe, maybe not. Scottish devolution got stopped in the 1970s but still went ahead eventually in the 1990s.
I think if Brexit gets frustrated the idea that matters will just lie there is delusional. The issues that led to Brexit in the first place will still exist. Pent up in this nation will be a lot of annoyed people who will happily go for Brexit again if given another chance - are you suggesting if Brexit stops you'll just like down and play possum and never seek another vote or for for it if another vote happens? The EU will continue to integrate, the Eurozone will continue to integrate.
Brexit if it gets halted will only be tried again following another referendum - and that will only be called if the PM is themselves a Leaver . . . which means it should then be negotiated smarter than our Remain-backing PM has negotiated it.
There won't be another referendum. If we do not leave now it is over for good. Like I said if you think otherwise you are delusional.
If that happens so be it. I'd rather Remain than Leave into the Backstop. But I think you're wrong. There is every chance the next Conservative PM after May [or after a Labour/other government] will be a Leaver who is better prepared and calls a referendum.
We won't be in the backstop forever. It will be in both sides interests to agree a trade deal because there are things that both sides will want that the backstop doesn't give them.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever WANT another chance is just delusional.
That better?
Nope. We will very much want it in the future. We just won't be allowed it by a Parliament who will have been shaken by how close we came this time.
Democracy dies if we do not abide by the referendum result.
In your opinion. Others may take a different view, and arguments can be made either way. Brexit has caused a massive division. Leaving the EU or staying will not heal this. Approximately 50% of people will be angry, with some of that 50% more angry than others, whatever the outcome.
But only one of those tells people that democracy no longer means anything. If we remain you are telling people their votes are worthless.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever WANT another chance is just delusional.
That better?
Nope. We will very much want it in the future. We just won't be allowed it by a Parliament who will have been shaken by how close we came this time.
Democracy dies if we do not abide by the referendum result.
The flame of democracy does not burn in your head alone, and if you lose faith it does not mean democracy is dead.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever get another chance is just delusional.
The Judean People's Front is arguing with the People's Front of Judea.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever WANT another chance is just delusional.
That better?
Nope. We will very much want it in the future. We just won't be allowed it by a Parliament who will have been shaken by how close we came this time.
Democracy dies if we do not abide by the referendum result.
Why. As others have said ad nauseam the electorate is allowed to change its mind.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever get another chance is just delusional.
The idea that the deal is leaving is lunacy. It's a trap designed by the civil service to reel us back in, with no ability to stop it. Keep trying to convince yourself but it's not going to convince anyone else.
Plainly, the deal is Leaving.
It may not be the Leave that you want, but it's certainly Leave.
Agreed. I'm not suggesting its not Leave, but its not the Leave I voted for. I voted to Take Back Control not abdicate it forever.
If I'd been told in 2016 the choice was between Remain and the Backstop I'd have voted Remain.
And, I'd have voted Leave, because I prefer some of what I what I want to none of it.
I appreciate that. We're all different people and have different priorities. It doesn't make people who disagree with us wrong.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever WANT another chance is just delusional.
That better?
Nope. We will very much want it in the future. We just won't be allowed it by a Parliament who will have been shaken by how close we came this time.
Democracy dies if we do not abide by the referendum result.
The flame of democracy does not burn in your head alone, and if you lose faith it does not mean democracy is dead.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever get another chance is just delusional.
The idea that the deal is leaving is lunacy. It's a trap designed by the civil service to reel us back in, with no ability to stop it. Keep trying to convince yourself but it's not going to convince anyone else.
Rubbish. The Deal Leaving. The fact it is not the pure Brexit you want is your problem. All the reasonable Brexiteers on here accept that the Deal fulfils both the letter and the spirit of the referendum. Moreover it is all you are going to get. I don't fear a No Deal but I know it will never be allowed to happen. It is this or nothing and all the consequences of that.
It has fuck all to do with "pure brexit", literally no one who voted to leave did so to reduce this country to vassalage with regards to our trading arrangements. It is precisely the opposite of leave. If the conservatives wish to do that then they will suffer the consequences.
Mr. Thompson: Well clearly I was taking the mickey, but the fact is your protestations every time the EU make any move is that "they" are trying to screw "us", and makes you sound a little, well, paranoid, or even perhaps xenophobic (which I am sure you are not). The EU negotiators are understandably exasperated at our petulance . Read Mike's article. It sums it up nicely.
That's not my protestation at all. In fact I doubt you could find a single post by me ever where I've said that.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
Rejecting the deal is lunacy for anyone who was actually really wanting to leave the EU in the first place. As I said to you last night. If we do not leave now we never will. The idea we will ever WANT another chance is just delusional.
That better?
Nope. We will very much want it in the future. We just won't be allowed it by a Parliament who will have been shaken by how close we came this time.
Democracy dies if we do not abide by the referendum result.
Why. As others have said ad nauseam the electorate is allowed to change its mind.
And as I have said before, democracy is asking a question and enacting the answer. Not asking the question for the sake of a veneer of democracy and then ignoring the answer. That is what dictatorships do.
It has fuck all to do with "pure brexit", literally no one who voted to leave did so to reduce this country to vassalage with regards to our trading arrangements. It is precisely the opposite of leave. If the conservatives wish to do that then they will suffer the consequences.
And the Deal does not do that except in the minds of delusional fools like you.
It has fuck all to do with "pure brexit", literally no one who voted to leave did so to reduce this country to vassalage with regards to our trading arrangements. It is precisely the opposite of leave. If the conservatives wish to do that then they will suffer the consequences.
And the Deal does not do that except in the minds of delusional fools like you.
One thing that's struck me is that next Weds is going to be the ultimate popcorn moment. The deal falls on Tuesday (I still reckon by >100 votes)
Then literally a day later the Tories have to vote on no deal. If it's whipped, there are surely dozens of resignations either way? So I think the Tories may have to offer a free vote and split down the middle. The acrimony will be off the scale won't it? All on a vote that has no chance whatsoever of getting a majority. That's the outcome of making Brexit a great big purity test.
Will Theresa May even have a majority when the extension vote comes along.
Comments
https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1103680613922557952
Is that really supposed to be the reason why the once-harmless (in fact once-preferred) phrase is now unacceptable? If so, why is 'people of colour' OK? Surely exactly the same objection applies?
I was thinking that this childrens' book could be used at that school in Birmingham where all the protests are taking place.
Whereas the Tory GE 2022 manifesto will have a big photo of Jezza, with the words 'Stop him' on it.
I can't believe I'm the only one who thinks that every piece of EU legislation proposed after we leave the political representation is going to have a 'F... the British' clause in it, something that serves no purpose other than for the EU to demonstrate what happens to states that leave?
I never said any of that. I don't think they're out to get us, I think they're out to get what they want and the backstop is what they are OK with which is why they are OK with it being permanent.
Which was the question asked, are they happy to keep the UK there indefinitely? Yes, because otherwise it being explicitly not indefinite wouldn't be an issue.
Can we send Lammy to re-education camp?
I’ve never heard anyone use it here. Black and coloured I have heard a fair amount. Coloured also seems to be used in preference to “mixed race” which now sounds vaguely eugenicist but describes a reality which is now totally mainstream.
It’s all a bit of a minefield and one would have hoped Mr Lammy to have been more charitable.
He has form on racial bullshit, though. My favourite was his Pope smoke idiocy. More recently one of the adjectives he used when describing why he thought the Grenfell Inquiry judge was unsuitable was 'white'.
Underneath will be "Are you thinking what we're thinking?"
I think "coloured" is similar to "coloured in", so implies an action of adding colour to a blank (white) canvas (skin). If you say a "person of colour" then it sounds clearer to me that the colour is an intrinsic characteristic that is different, but equal, to being white (or a "person lacking in colour" perhaps...)
There's some real racism in the world, try focussing on that Mr Lammy.
How does one describe them? It's sometimes quite amusing when we show their pictures to new acquaintances, and listen to the er's and stutters.
My objection has been all along the undemocratic backstop. To me it is a breach of fundamental human rights, to take away anyone's ability to determine who sets the laws and regulations they live under. Signing away our rights to elect who does that, without any ability to revoke that, is unacceptable.
No ifs, no buts. It is undemocratic and I place my belief in democracy above any discomfort it may cause.
I've said I am OK with both No Deal and Remain in preference to the backstop which I appreciate is a relatively unique and unusual perspective given most people here are fully for either Leave or Remain. To me though the backstop is a policy that I can not support.
How do you square that with an allegation of xenophobia? If I was xenophobic, I would not be OK with Remaining in the EU as a preferable alternative now would I?
I don't think rejecting the backstop is petulance. There are issues of principle involved here which is why it is more than the 'usual suspects' who take umbrage at it.
A happy side effect of disliking just about every credible outcome is not having a dog in the fight, as it were.
Which I think was her eligibility criterion in the first place (ie being Len's ex-wife).
Apart from the obvious.
Remember Gareth in "The Office" re-educating his father to say "coloureds" rather than "darkies"?
We would then be back to where we are now and able to democratically determine whether to renew the backstop, adopt no deal at that time, or ratify an alternative deal. How would that put the EU in any worse a position than it is now or was any time since Article 50 was created by the Lisbon Treaty? Any co-operation becomes conditional then upon the backstop or better being agreed, while leaving us the ability to walk away if that is what we democratically determine is better - in the full knowledge that is then a no deal scenario so would be a last resort.
I suspect epileptics have rather more pressing concerns, to be honest, but there we are.
Its not like she was attacking somebody because they are the wrong skin colour, you know like Lammy over comic relief.
All that needs to happen is for the backstop , like A50 itself, to have an "renewal" date (note doesn't even have to be an "expiry date" just a date when both parties can review and renew if needs be)
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-47485217/does-donald-trump-get-apple-boss-s-name-wrong
Huda Elmi
@hudaelmi_
The Equality & Human Rights Commission is a failed experiment. If tomorrow it were to cease in existence, most of the people it was created to support wouldn’t even notice. We need to abolish it & bring back separate, well resourced governmental bodies for each equality strand!
Oh no, the other thing..
Yes LNER is a very comfortable and well run service. Or at least it was. All those improvements came about whilst it was in private hands and there is basically no investment once it has returned to public hands. Just as happened the last time it was in public ownership, it rests on the laurels earnt whilst it was a privately run company and does nothing to maintain or improve the service.
It has cut schedules and services and, based at least on the number of times I have now had to reclaim my fare under the delay/repay scheme (One in 3 years prior to going back into public hands and 4 times in the 9 months since it reverted to state ownership) it has abandoned all pretence of trying to run a reliable service.
For the first time in nearly 4 years I am seriously looking at going back to flying to Aberdeen as it is more reliable.
Cf junk food and healthy women in bikinis being banned from tube ads.
Democracy dies if we do not abide by the referendum result.
It may not be the Leave that you want, but it's certainly Leave.
However, the concerns about the backstop remain and a tweek along the linked outlined by @Philip_Thompson would be very preferable.
As for never: Maybe, maybe not. Scottish devolution got stopped in the 1970s but still went ahead eventually in the 1990s.
I think if Brexit gets frustrated the idea that matters will just lie there is delusional. The issues that led to Brexit in the first place will still exist. Pent up in this nation will be a lot of annoyed people who will happily go for Brexit again if given another chance - are you suggesting if Brexit stops you'll just like down and play possum and never seek another vote or for for it if another vote happens? The EU will continue to integrate, the Eurozone will continue to integrate.
Brexit if it gets halted will only be tried again following another referendum - and that will only be called if the PM is themselves a Leaver . . . which means it should then be negotiated smarter than our Remain-backing PM has negotiated it.
If I'd been told in 2016 the choice was between Remain and the Backstop I'd have voted Remain.
The deal falls on Tuesday (I still reckon by >100 votes)
Then literally a day later the Tories have to vote on no deal.
If it's whipped, there are surely dozens of resignations either way?
So I think the Tories may have to offer a free vote and split down the middle. The acrimony will be off the scale won't it? All on a vote that has no chance whatsoever of getting a majority. That's the outcome of making Brexit a great big purity test.
Will Theresa May even have a majority when the extension vote comes along.