It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
Theresa May is a world championship can kicker.
I’m bored.
Crufts 2019 starts today!
Watched it last night. I’m a fan.
If you've never been, you should - it is absolutely massive.
Is it okay for a white person to describe themselves as non-coloured?
No
How about White? I assume that is racist too?
You can call yourself what you want provided you aren’t describing yourself by reference to someone else by a term they don’t like.
Call other people by the descriptors they want unless you have a compelling reason otherwise (referencing Tommy Robinson’s real name is arguably such a case but even there I’m wary). So Cape Coloureds are coloured, but otherwise the term should be avoided. That you might not understand why it’s offensive is beside the point: it’s basic manners.
A bit sad if we are so weak of mind that the activities, propaganda and adverts on social media influence us to a significant extent.
And a possible first
Not to mention breathless Guardian reporting of dodgy senate reports of, well, nothing(?), which themselves are no less propaganda efforts.
Lest we forget, the US sought strongly to influence the result in accordance with its own stated geopolitical aims, or were they just acting as kindly and altruistic friends?
Oi. Get to the back of the line.
The US was open in what it was doing - and was widely derided on here at the time. And it was fair enough: the US (indeed any country) is allowed to have a view and state it.
The accusations wrt Russia appear to have been secretive and very much a different matter.
A bit sad if we are so weak of mind that the activities, propaganda and adverts on social media influence us to a significant extent.
And a possible first
Not to mention breathless Guardian reporting of dodgy senate reports of, well, nothing(?), which themselves are no less propaganda efforts.
Lest we forget, the US sought strongly to influence the result in accordance with its own stated geopolitical aims, or were they just acting as kindly and altruistic friends?
Oi. Get to the back of the line.
The US was open in what it was doing - and was widely derided on here at the time. And it was fair enough: the US (indeed any country) is allowed to have a view and state it.
The accusations wrt Russia appear to have been secretive and very much a different matter.
You would have thought the point was too obvious to need making. But I guess Leavers won’t see what it is uncomfortable for them to see, that they have been Putin’s willing idiots.
A bit sad if we are so weak of mind that the activities, propaganda and adverts on social media influence us to a significant extent.
And a possible first
Not to mention breathless Guardian reporting of dodgy senate reports of, well, nothing(?), which themselves are no less propaganda efforts.
Lest we forget, the US sought strongly to influence the result in accordance with its own stated geopolitical aims, or were they just acting as kindly and altruistic friends?
Oi. Get to the back of the line.
The US was open in what it was doing - and was widely derided on here at the time. And it was fair enough: the US (indeed any country) is allowed to have a view and state it.
The accusations wrt Russia appear to have been secretive and very much a different matter.
The equating of US (an ally, public, and invited by Cameron) with Russian (covert, hostile, and basically a form of psyops) interference is one of the more egregious forms of Brexit denialism.
Is it okay for a white person to describe themselves as non-coloured?
No
How about White? I assume that is racist too?
You can call yourself what you want provided you aren’t describing yourself by reference to someone else by a term they don’t like.
Call other people by the descriptors they want unless you have a compelling reason otherwise (referencing Tommy Robinson’s real name is arguably such a case but even there I’m wary). So Cape Coloureds are coloured, but otherwise the term should be avoided. That you might not understand why it’s offensive is beside the point: it’s basic manners.
On Tommy Robinson I'm guessing but is his real name used because it's the name on official court documents, and he shouldn't be able to use a different name to avoid being connected to that in public discourse.
A bit sad if we are so weak of mind that the activities, propaganda and adverts on social media influence us to a significant extent.
And a possible first
Not to mention breathless Guardian reporting of dodgy senate reports of, well, nothing(?), which themselves are no less propaganda efforts.
Lest we forget, the US sought strongly to influence the result in accordance with its own stated geopolitical aims, or were they just acting as kindly and altruistic friends?
Is it okay for a white person to describe themselves as non-coloured?
No
How about White? I assume that is racist too?
You can call yourself what you want provided you aren’t describing yourself by reference to someone else by a term they don’t like.
Call other people by the descriptors they want unless you have a compelling reason otherwise (referencing Tommy Robinson’s real name is arguably such a case but even there I’m wary). So Cape Coloureds are coloured, but otherwise the term should be avoided. That you might not understand why it’s offensive is beside the point: it’s basic manners.
The only people who don't get this are people who don't want to get it. Oh, and since the PB reactionaries are enjoying getting triggered right now, Happy International Women's Day everybody.
Probably the single thing I find hardest to understand about the Brexit saga is why Theresa May thought it was a good idea to raise expectations among the Tory Brexiteers that the EU would modify the backstop.
Am I missing something? Is there some reason why this was a Cunning Plan?
Or was it just a way of postponing the problem for a week or two?
Is it okay for a white person to describe themselves as non-coloured?
No
How about White? I assume that is racist too?
You can call yourself what you want provided you aren’t describing yourself by reference to someone else by a term they don’t like.
Call other people by the descriptors they want unless you have a compelling reason otherwise (referencing Tommy Robinson’s real name is arguably such a case but even there I’m wary). So Cape Coloureds are coloured, but otherwise the term should be avoided. That you might not understand why it’s offensive is beside the point: it’s basic manners.
I agree with that, but with one proviso: it may not be obvious what someone wants to be called. This sometimes occurs with Ms / Mrs, where people occasionally get annoyed by the use of either (though I tend to use Ms if unsure).
Likewise, I have in the past been slightly scolded for referring to someone as 'black' during a conversation - although this was over two decades ago. I'm 45, and it can be a little confusing how to refer to someone. I'd not use 'coloured', but I find even using 'black' a little unnerving. So as often as possible I try not to refer to colour or race: very often it's actually unnecessary.
Perhaps it should come down to: if you believe no offence was intended, correct, and only complain if it continues.
What seems particularly nasty about yesterday's controversy is that Rudd was trying to back up Abbott. No offence was intended.
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
Theresa May is a world championship can kicker.
I’m bored.
Crufts 2019 starts today!
Watched it last night. I’m a fan.
If you've never been, you should - it is absolutely massive.
It is great fun, a whole different world for most. I have some misgivings about inbreeding particularly in the short nosed breeds, but in the main the dogs are beautiful.
Saturday is Hounds and Terriers, and the Flyball, Agility and Heelwork to Music are amusing. Get to the Arena in good time and take refreshments, the catering is terrible.
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
Theresa May is a world championship can kicker.
I’m bored.
Crufts 2019 starts today!
Watched it last night. I’m a fan.
cant imagine why.. when you see things like poor dogs bred so they can't breathe easily// they should stop Crufts altogether imho.
A bit sad if we are so weak of mind that the activities, propaganda and adverts on social media influence us to a significant extent.
And a possible first
Not to mention breathless Guardian reporting of dodgy senate reports of, well, nothing(?), which themselves are no less propaganda efforts.
Lest we forget, the US sought strongly to influence the result in accordance with its own stated geopolitical aims, or were they just acting as kindly and altruistic friends?
Oi. Get to the back of the line.
The US was open in what it was doing - and was widely derided on here at the time. And it was fair enough: the US (indeed any country) is allowed to have a view and state it.
The accusations wrt Russia appear to have been secretive and very much a different matter.
You would have thought the point was too obvious to need making. But I guess Leavers won’t see what it is uncomfortable for them to see, that they have been Putin’s willing idiots.
This argument is just absurd. I, as a now very happy Man U fan, may not want Liverpool to win the league. Does that make me a willing idiot for Man City? The fact that Russia may have seen an advantage in the weakening of the EU is completely irrelevant to the question of what we believed was in the UK's interests.
Probably the single thing I find hardest to understand about the Brexit saga is why Theresa May thought it was a good idea to raise expectations among the Tory Brexiteers that the EU would modify the backstop.
Am I missing something? Is there some reason why this was a Cunning Plan?
Or was it just a way of postponing the problem for a week or two?
May's tin ear is characteristic of the whole fiasco.
A bit sad if we are so weak of mind that the activities, propaganda and adverts on social media influence us to a significant extent.
And a possible first
Not to mention breathless Guardian reporting of dodgy senate reports of, well, nothing(?), which themselves are no less propaganda efforts.
Lest we forget, the US sought strongly to influence the result in accordance with its own stated geopolitical aims, or were they just acting as kindly and altruistic friends?
Oi. Get to the back of the line.
The US was open in what it was doing - and was widely derided on here at the time. And it was fair enough: the US (indeed any country) is allowed to have a view and state it.
The accusations wrt Russia appear to have been secretive and very much a different matter.
You would have thought the point was too obvious to need making. But I guess Leavers won’t see what it is uncomfortable for them to see, that they have been Putin’s willing idiots.
This argument is just absurd. I, as a now very happy Man U fan, may not want Liverpool to win the league. Does that make me a willing idiot for Man City? The fact that Russia may have seen an advantage in the weakening of the EU is completely irrelevant to the question of what we believed was in the UK's interests.
You really think that it’s irrelevant to Britain’s interests that a hostile power (correctly) sees Brexit as a big plus for it?
A bit sad if we are so weak of mind that the activities, propaganda and adverts on social media influence us to a significant extent.
And a possible first
Not to mention breathless Guardian reporting of dodgy senate reports of, well, nothing(?), which themselves are no less propaganda efforts.
Lest we forget, the US sought strongly to influence the result in accordance with its own stated geopolitical aims, or were they just acting as kindly and altruistic friends?
Oi. Get to the back of the line.
The US was open in what it was doing - and was widely derided on here at the time. And it was fair enough: the US (indeed any country) is allowed to have a view and state it.
The accusations wrt Russia appear to have been secretive and very much a different matter.
You would have thought the point was too obvious to need making. But I guess Leavers won’t see what it is uncomfortable for them to see, that they have been Putin’s willing idiots.
This argument is just absurd. I, as a now very happy Man U fan, may not want Liverpool to win the league. Does that make me a willing idiot for Man City? The fact that Russia may have seen an advantage in the weakening of the EU is completely irrelevant to the question of what we believed was in the UK's interests.
You really think that it’s irrelevant to Britain’s interests that a hostile power (correctly) sees Brexit as a big plus for it?
Probably the single thing I find hardest to understand about the Brexit saga is why Theresa May thought it was a good idea to raise expectations among the Tory Brexiteers that the EU would modify the backstop.
Am I missing something? Is there some reason why this was a Cunning Plan?
Or was it just a way of postponing the problem for a week or two?
Your last point nails it. She spent a month saying no changes were possible, then to keep the party together said she would try it. If they didn't know it would fail they were fools given she had told them many times we couldn't do it.
A bit sad if we are so weak of mind that the activities, propaganda and adverts on social media influence us to a significant extent.
And a possible first
Not to mention breathless Guardian reporting of dodgy senate reports of, well, nothing(?), which themselves are no less propaganda efforts.
Lest we forget, the US sought strongly to influence the result in accordance with its own stated geopolitical aims, or were they just acting as kindly and altruistic friends?
Oi. Get to the back of the line.
The US was open in what it was doing - and was widely derided on here at the time. And it was fair enough: the US (indeed any country) is allowed to have a view and state it.
The accusations wrt Russia appear to have been secretive and very much a different matter.
You would have thought the point was too obvious to need making. But I guess Leavers won’t see what it is uncomfortable for them to see, that they have been Putin’s willing idiots.
This argument is just absurd. I, as a now very happy Man U fan, may not want Liverpool to win the league. Does that make me a willing idiot for Man City? The fact that Russia may have seen an advantage in the weakening of the EU is completely irrelevant to the question of what we believed was in the UK's interests.
And more to the point, Leavers were vehemently denying at the time that there was any Russian involvement, mocking those like me who suggested otherwise. Now apparently it was all just ticketty-boo.
A bit sad if we are so weak of mind that the activities, propaganda and adverts on social media influence us to a significant extent.
And a possible first
Not to mention breathless Guardian reporting of dodgy senate reports of, well, nothing(?), which themselves are no less propaganda efforts.
Lest we forget, the US sought strongly to influence the result in accordance with its own stated geopolitical aims, or were they just acting as kindly and altruistic friends?
Oi. Get to the back of the line.
The US was open in what it was doing - and was widely derided on here at the time. And it was fair enough: the US (indeed any country) is allowed to have a view and state it.
The accusations wrt Russia appear to have been secretive and very much a different matter.
You would have thought the point was too obvious to need making. But I guess Leavers won’t see what it is uncomfortable for them to see, that they have been Putin’s willing idiots.
This argument is just absurd. I, as a now very happy Man U fan, may not want Liverpool to win the league. Does that make me a willing idiot for Man City? The fact that Russia may have seen an advantage in the weakening of the EU is completely irrelevant to the question of what we believed was in the UK's interests.
You really think that it’s irrelevant to Britain’s interests that a hostile power (correctly) sees Brexit as a big plus for it?
Yes. I don't care what they think.
Congratulations, you’ve just helped massively strengthen the forces of disorder in this world.
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
Theresa May is a world championship can kicker.
I’m bored.
Crufts 2019 starts today!
Watched it last night. I’m a fan.
If you've never been, you should - it is absolutely massive.
It is great fun, a whole different world for most. I have some misgivings about inbreeding particularly in the short nosed breeds, but in the main the dogs are beautiful.
Saturday is Hounds and Terriers, and the Flyball, Agility and Heelwork to Music are amusing. Get to the Arena in good time and take refreshments, the catering is terrible.
What is the incentive for the EU when they know Parliament will vote to rule out No Deal and for an extension leading to BINO or EUref2 if the Deal fails anyway?
What is the incentive for the EU when they know Parliament will vote to rule out No Deal and for an extension leading to BINO or EUref2 if the Deal fails anyway?
Is it okay for a white person to describe themselves as non-coloured?
No
How about White? I assume that is racist too?
You can call yourself what you want provided you aren’t describing yourself by reference to someone else by a term they don’t like.
Call other people by the descriptors they want unless you have a compelling reason otherwise (referencing Tommy Robinson’s real name is arguably such a case but even there I’m wary). So Cape Coloureds are coloured, but otherwise the term should be avoided. That you might not understand why it’s offensive is beside the point: it’s basic manners.
That hits the nail on the head. It's good manners not to offend people deliberately.
And while racists are obviously likely to use offensive racial terms, in today's world I daresay they're most likely to be used by people who enjoy stirring up pointless arguments on social media.
A bit sad if we are so weak of mind that the activities, propaganda and adverts on social media influence us to a significant extent.
And a possible first
Not to mention breathless Guardian reporting of dodgy senate reports of, well, nothing(?), which themselves are no less propaganda efforts.
Lest we forget, the US sought strongly to influence the result in accordance with its own stated geopolitical aims, or were they just acting as kindly and altruistic friends?
Oi. Get to the back of the line.
The US was open in what it was doing - and was widely derided on here at the time. And it was fair enough: the US (indeed any country) is allowed to have a view and state it.
The accusations wrt Russia appear to have been secretive and very much a different matter.
You would have thought the point was too obvious to need making. But I guess Leavers won’t see what it is uncomfortable for them to see, that they have been Putin’s willing idiots.
This argument is just absurd. I, as a now very happy Man U fan, may not want Liverpool to win the league. Does that make me a willing idiot for Man City? The fact that Russia may have seen an advantage in the weakening of the EU is completely irrelevant to the question of what we believed was in the UK's interests.
And more to the point, Leavers were vehemently denying at the time that there was any Russian involvement, mocking those like me who suggested otherwise. Now apparently it was all just ticketty-boo.
That's not the way I remember it at the time or since. What leavers have disputed is that the attempts by Russia to influence the vote had any material effect. When you compare their efforts with Dominic Cumming's 2 bn messages, the overwhelming media coverage and all the efforts of the respective campaigns I think that the onus of proof that some idiot bots/trolls made a difference is on those contending it. On the plus side for that argument it was close. But not that close.
Don't forget Corbyn in all this. Corbyn doesn't want a referendum, he wants an election. He can say that May has failed and call for a 21 month extension saying that gives time for an election and for the election winner to talk to the EU. It also buys time for him to not need to push hard on a referendum since it brings his desired election preference back into play.
If Corbyn pushes an amendment the Speaker will always call it. Corbyn can't get an election and talk to the EU within a 3 month window. He has no reason to prefer a tiny extension.
What if the Commons vote for 21 months contingent on a GE?
A bit sad if we are so weak of mind that the activities, propaganda and adverts on social media influence us to a significant extent.
And a possible first
Not to mention breathless Guardian reporting of dodgy senate reports of, well, nothing(?), which themselves are no less propaganda efforts.
Lest we forget, the US sought strongly to influence the result in accordance with its own stated geopolitical aims, or were they just acting as kindly and altruistic friends?
Oi. Get to the back of the line.
The US was open in what it was doing - and was widely derided on here at the time. And it was fair enough: the US (indeed any country) is allowed to have a view and state it.
The accusations wrt Russia appear to have been secretive and very much a different matter.
You would have thought the point was too obvious to need making. But I guess Leavers won’t see what it is uncomfortable for them to see, that they have been Putin’s willing idiots.
This argument is just absurd. I, as a now very happy Man U fan, may not want Liverpool to win the league. Does that make me a willing idiot for Man City? The fact that Russia may have seen an advantage in the weakening of the EU is completely irrelevant to the question of what we believed was in the UK's interests.
You really think that it’s irrelevant to Britain’s interests that a hostile power (correctly) sees Brexit as a big plus for it?
Yes. I don't care what they think.
Congratulations, you’ve just helped massively strengthen the forces of disorder in this world.
Don't forget Corbyn in all this. Corbyn doesn't want a referendum, he wants an election. He can say that May has failed and call for a 21 month extension saying that gives time for an election and for the election winner to talk to the EU. It also buys time for him to not need to push hard on a referendum since it brings his desired election preference back into play.
If Corbyn pushes an amendment the Speaker will always call it. Corbyn can't get an election and talk to the EU within a 3 month window. He has no reason to prefer a tiny extension.
What if the Commons vote for 21 months contingent on a GE?
Probably the single thing I find hardest to understand about the Brexit saga is why Theresa May thought it was a good idea to raise expectations among the Tory Brexiteers that the EU would modify the backstop.
Am I missing something? Is there some reason why this was a Cunning Plan?
Or was it just a way of postponing the problem for a week or two?
I don't think this can be decided until it is clear what the next step actually will be. The tradition of last moment agreement is fairly well established. Whether TM, the AG etc are heroes or villains of the backstop question is going to have to wait.
Except that it is a bit less likely that 29th March will be exit day - though it should not be ruled out - I'm not sure that we know much more now than we did 9 months ago about the winners and losers.
It might be that by this time to be a hero just a modestly competent Brexit would be quite sufficient - perhaps say for example, one which didn't precipitate World War III, nuclear Armageddon or the immediate melting of the polar ice cap.
What is the incentive for the EU when they know Parliament will vote to rule out No Deal and for an extension leading to BINO or EUref2 if the Deal fails anyway?
Quite. They're not worried enough to give in.
Indeed, it is the ERG who should start to be getting worried
Getting excuses in early. Of course, the government and the EU have already agreed. Failure is not the EU’s fault, it lies at the door of the ERG.
I only hope you're right that this is a conspiracy between the government and the EU, rather than a cock-up in which each one is misinterpreting the other's intentions.
What is the incentive for the EU when they know Parliament will vote to rule out No Deal and for an extension leading to BINO or EUref2 if the Deal fails anyway?
Indeed. The only chance of any movement from the EU side is if they are convinced that no deal is otherwise the outcome.
Sadly a large number of our own Parliamentarians are helping them along here. If the PM had said after the deal was defeated that it was going to be no deal (and kept her cabinet in line behind her), the EU would have been negotiating now.
A bit sad if we are so weak of mind that the activities, propaganda and adverts on social media influence us to a significant extent.
And a possible first
Not to mention breathless Guardian reporting of dodgy senate reports of, well, nothing(?), which themselves are no less propaganda efforts.
Lest we forget, the US sought strongly to influence the result in accordance with its own stated geopolitical aims, or were they just acting as kindly and altruistic friends?
Oi. Get to the back of the line.
The US was open in what it was doing - and was widely derided on here at the time. And it was fair enough: the US (indeed any country) is allowed to have a view and state it.
The accusations wrt Russia appear to have been secretive and very much a different matter.
You would have thought the point was too obvious to need making. But I guess Leavers won’t see what it is uncomfortable for them to see, that they have been Putin’s willing idiots.
This argument is just absurd. I, as a now very happy Man U fan, may not want Liverpool to win the league. Does that make me a willing idiot for Man City? The fact that Russia may have seen an advantage in the weakening of the EU is completely irrelevant to the question of what we believed was in the UK's interests.
You really think that it’s irrelevant to Britain’s interests that a hostile power (correctly) sees Brexit as a big plus for it?
Yes. I don't care what they think.
Congratulations, you’ve just helped massively strengthen the forces of disorder in this world.
Wow. So much power. Next up, world hunger.
It’s far easier to mess things up than sort them out.
Probably the single thing I find hardest to understand about the Brexit saga is why Theresa May thought it was a good idea to raise expectations among the Tory Brexiteers that the EU would modify the backstop.
Am I missing something? Is there some reason why this was a Cunning Plan?
Or was it just a way of postponing the problem for a week or two?
What she's been doing all the way through is, given people demanding impossible thing and insisting that they're possible, she goes off and tries to do them, banging her head repeatedly on the wall they insisted didn't exist while everyone looks on in increasing discomfort which proves to all but the most stubbornly bonkers that they're impossible.
Mr. HYUFD, quite. The line "Please give us something or we'll, er, delay leaving!" is hardly a Spartan threat.
Mr. Walker, who else would they blame? Themselves? The electorate?
Yes, for No Deal to be a serious threat the Tories really needed a landslide on a hard Brexit platform in 2017 and a majority of 100, instead the EU saw May lose her majority and knows there is now a clear Remain or BINO majority in the Commons and Lords
What is the incentive for the EU when they know Parliament will vote to rule out No Deal and for an extension leading to BINO or EUref2 if the Deal fails anyway?
Indeed. The only chance of any movement from the EU side is if they are convinced that no deal is otherwise the outcome.
Sadly a large number of our own Parliamentarians are helping them along here. If the PM had said after the deal was defeated that it was going to be no deal (and kept her cabinet in line behind her), the EU would have been negotiating now.
Yeah, remember all those Remainers like Gove and Boris who campaigned during the referendum saying No Deal wasn't going to happen because it was just Project Fear.
A bit sad if we are so weak of mind that the activities, propaganda and adverts on social media influence us to a significant extent.
And a possible first
Not to mention breathless Guardian reporting of dodgy senate reports of, well, nothing(?), which themselves are no less propaganda efforts.
Lest we forget, the US sought strongly to influence the result in accordance with its own stated geopolitical aims, or were they just acting as kindly and altruistic friends?
Oi. Get to the back of the line.
The US was open in what it was doing - and was widely derided on here at the time. And it was fair enough: the US (indeed any country) is allowed to have a view and state it.
The accusations wrt Russia appear to have been secretive and very much a different matter.
You would have thought the point was too obvious to need making. But I guess Leavers won’t see what it is uncomfortable for them to see, that they have been Putin’s willing idiots.
This argument is just absurd. I, as a now very happy Man U fan, may not want Liverpool to win the league. Does that make me a willing idiot for Man City? The fact that Russia may have seen an advantage in the weakening of the EU is completely irrelevant to the question of what we believed was in the UK's interests.
You really think that it’s irrelevant to Britain’s interests that a hostile power (correctly) sees Brexit as a big plus for it?
Yes. I don't care what they think.
Congratulations, you’ve just helped massively strengthen the forces of disorder in this world.
Wow. So much power. Next up, world hunger.
It’s far easier to mess things up than sort them out.
Sigh. You give with one hand but take away with the other Alastair. It's almost capricious.
What is the incentive for the EU when they know Parliament will vote to rule out No Deal and for an extension leading to BINO or EUref2 if the Deal fails anyway?
Indeed. The only chance of any movement from the EU side is if they are convinced that no deal is otherwise the outcome.
Sadly a large number of our own Parliamentarians are helping them along here. If the PM had said after the deal was defeated that it was going to be no deal (and kept her cabinet in line behind her), the EU would have been negotiating now.
However if the PM said she was going for No Deal it would make it harder to force the ERG behind her Deal, only the risk of BINO or EUref2 can do that and May does not have the numbers in the Commons for No Deal now anyway, especially as at least 50 Tory MPs prefer BINO or EUref2 to No Deal
A bit sad if we are so weak of mind that the activities, propaganda and adverts on social media influence us to a significant extent.
And a possible first
Not to mention breathless Guardian reporting of dodgy senate reports of, well, nothing(?), which themselves are no less propaganda efforts.
Lest we forget, the US sought strongly to influence the result in accordance with its own stated geopolitical aims, or were they just acting as kindly and altruistic friends?
Oi. Get to the back of the line.
The US was open in what it was doing - and was widely derided on here at the time. And it was fair enough: the US (indeed any country) is allowed to have a view and state it.
The accusations wrt Russia appear to have been secretive and very much a different matter.
You would have thought the point was too obvious to need making. But I guess Leavers won’t see what it is uncomfortable for them to see, that they have been Putin’s willing idiots.
This argument is just absurd. I, as a now very happy Man U fan, may not want Liverpool to win the league. Does that make me a willing idiot for Man City? The fact that Russia may have seen an advantage in the weakening of the EU is completely irrelevant to the question of what we believed was in the UK's interests.
Agree. Apart from voting for motherhood and apple pie, how can you vote for anyone, anytime without, as it happens, being on the same side as bad people. I could say that all Labour voters are useful idiots of anti-Semites, but that would be so misleading as to be to false.
Probably the single thing I find hardest to understand about the Brexit saga is why Theresa May thought it was a good idea to raise expectations among the Tory Brexiteers that the EU would modify the backstop.
Am I missing something? Is there some reason why this was a Cunning Plan?
Or was it just a way of postponing the problem for a week or two?
I don't think this can be decided until it is clear what the next step actually will be. The tradition of last moment agreement is fairly well established. Whether TM, the AG etc are heroes or villains of the backstop question is going to have to wait.
Except that it is a bit less likely that 29th March will be exit day - though it should not be ruled out - I'm not sure that we know much more now than we did 9 months ago about the winners and losers.
It might be that by this time to be a hero just a modestly competent Brexit would be quite sufficient - perhaps say for example, one which didn't precipitate World War III, nuclear Armageddon or the immediate melting of the polar ice cap.
Maybe you're right, but even so I don't understand what was to be gained by raising expectations.
Isn't the idea of expectation management to lower them, so that if you do pull it off against the odds it will look more impressive?
A bit sad if we are so weak of mind that the activities, propaganda and adverts on social media influence us to a significant extent.
And a possible first
Not to mention breathless Guardian reporting of dodgy senate reports of, well, nothing(?), which themselves are no less propaganda efforts.
Lest we forget, the US sought strongly to influence the result in accordance with its own stated geopolitical aims, or were they just acting as kindly and altruistic friends?
Oi. Get to the back of the line.
The US was open in what it was doing - and was widely derided on here at the time. And it was fair enough: the US (indeed any country) is allowed to have a view and state it.
The accusations wrt Russia appear to have been secretive and very much a different matter.
You would have thought the point was too obvious to need making. But I guess Leavers won’t see what it is uncomfortable for them to see, that they have been Putin’s willing idiots.
This argument is just absurd. I, as a now very happy Man U fan, may not want Liverpool to win the league. Does that make me a willing idiot for Man City? The fact that Russia may have seen an advantage in the weakening of the EU is completely irrelevant to the question of what we believed was in the UK's interests.
You really think that it’s irrelevant to Britain’s interests that a hostile power (correctly) sees Brexit as a big plus for it?
Yes. I don't care what they think.
Congratulations, you’ve just helped massively strengthen the forces of disorder in this world.
Gosh ! Not just "strengthen" but "massively strengthen the forces of disorder".
No evidence has been produced that Russian interference had any substantial effect whatsoever.
It is just straightforward racism by Meeks.
The people who bear the responsibility for voting for Brexit are not the Russians, but the British.
Just as the people who bear the responsibility for voting in Trump are the Americans, not the Russians.
For some people, the bogeymen are capitalists, for some Jews, for some Muslims, For Meeks, it is Russians.
The British race is about the only F1 event in the world that runs on a purely commercial basis with no government support. Both sides will negotiate hard but I'm pretty sure they will get there in the end, it's not in anyone's interest to see the race cancelled.
What is the incentive for the EU when they know Parliament will vote to rule out No Deal and for an extension leading to BINO or EUref2 if the Deal fails anyway?
Quite. They're not worried enough to give in.
Indeed, it is the ERG who should start to be getting worried
ERG have understood all along that No Deal was the only weapon that would make the EU bend. That this strategy has been sunk by the bulk of the 650 MPs (and I include the Speaker within that number) is hardly their fault....but it is now clearly a strategy that has failed. They need to row behind the PMs Shit Deal, before even that is off the menu. Getting her deal within sight of the finishing post, when nothing else is, surely now has to be the way to get to to a Brexit endpoint.
What is the incentive for the EU when they know Parliament will vote to rule out No Deal and for an extension leading to BINO or EUref2 if the Deal fails anyway?
Indeed. The only chance of any movement from the EU side is if they are convinced that no deal is otherwise the outcome.
Sadly a large number of our own Parliamentarians are helping them along here. If the PM had said after the deal was defeated that it was going to be no deal (and kept her cabinet in line behind her), the EU would have been negotiating now.
However if the PM said she was going for No Deal it would make it harder to force the ERG behind her Deal, only the risk of BINO or EUref2 can do that and May does not have the numbers in the Commons for No Deal now anyway, especially as at least 50 Tory MPs prefer BINO or EUref2 to No Deal
The mistake was not declaring the deal to be a dodo after it was voted down by 230, saying straight away that it was now no deal unless significant concessions came from the EU and accompanied by a high-profile announcement of several billion in contingency spending from the Chancellor. The UK team give the impression of never having negotiated anything before.
Probably the single thing I find hardest to understand about the Brexit saga is why Theresa May thought it was a good idea to raise expectations among the Tory Brexiteers that the EU would modify the backstop.
Am I missing something? Is there some reason why this was a Cunning Plan?
Or was it just a way of postponing the problem for a week or two?
I don't think this can be decided until it is clear what the next step actually will be. The tradition of last moment agreement is fairly well established. Whether TM, the AG etc are heroes or villains of the backstop question is going to have to wait.
Except that it is a bit less likely that 29th March will be exit day - though it should not be ruled out - I'm not sure that we know much more now than we did 9 months ago about the winners and losers.
It might be that by this time to be a hero just a modestly competent Brexit would be quite sufficient - perhaps say for example, one which didn't precipitate World War III, nuclear Armageddon or the immediate melting of the polar ice cap.
Maybe you're right, but even so I don't understand what was to be gained by raising expectations.
Isn't the idea of expectation management to lower them, so that if you do pull it off against the odds it will look more impressive?
Cameron and the EU renegotiations come to mind.
The action was taken in desperation, she would have said anything.
The US was open in what it was doing - and was widely derided on here at the time. And it was fair enough: the US (indeed any country) is allowed to have a view and state it.
The accusations wrt Russia appear to have been secretive and very much a different matter.
You would have thought the point was too obvious to need making. But I guess Leavers won’t see what it is uncomfortable for them to see, that they have been Putin’s willing idiots.
This argument is just absurd. I, as a now very happy Man U fan, may not want Liverpool to win the league. Does that make me a willing idiot for Man City? The fact that Russia may have seen an advantage in the weakening of the EU is completely irrelevant to the question of what we believed was in the UK's interests.
You really think that it’s irrelevant to Britain’s interests that a hostile power (correctly) sees Brexit as a big plus for it?
Yes. I don't care what they think.
Congratulations, you’ve just helped massively strengthen the forces of disorder in this world.
Gosh ! Not just "strengthen" but "massively strengthen the forces of disorder".
No evidence has been produced that Russian interference had any substantial effect whatsoever.
It is just straightforward racism by Meeks.
The people who bear the responsibility for voting for Brexit are not the Russians, but the British.
Just as the people who bear the responsibility for voting in Trump are the Americans, not the Russians.
For some people, the bogeymen are capitalists, for some Jews, for some Muslims, For Meeks, it is Russians.
I should ignore your ravings but South Ossetia, Crimea, east Ukraine and Transnistria all say hi, not to mention the continuing attempts at destabilising the Baltic states, Poland and Serbia to name but a few. I haven’t even mentioned the Middle East or the repeated poisoning of people on British soil. So crawl back under the rock you came from.
Theoretical question: imagine Barbados has 5 murders a year (not true) and London has 130 murders a year (roughly true). Which has the higher murder rate? Answer = Barbados, (when taking the population into account). A lot of the general public would probably instinctively feel that Barbados is safer, even if you informed them of the respective populations.
Indeed the murder rate in London has barely moved in decades. The latest moral panic is a triumph of journalism over statistics.
A bit sad if we are so weak of mind that the activities, propaganda and adverts on social media influence us to a significant extent.
And a possible first
Not to mention breathless Guardian reporting of dodgy senate reports of, well, nothing(?), which themselves are no less propaganda efforts.
Lest we forget, the US sought strongly to influence the result in accordance with its own stated geopolitical aims, or were they just acting as kindly and altruistic friends?
Oi. Get to the back of the line.
The US was open in what it was doing - and was widely derided on here at the time. And it was fair enough: the US (indeed any country) is allowed to have a view and state it.
The accusations wrt Russia appear to have been secretive and very much a different matter.
You would have thought the point was too obvious to need making. But I guess Leavers won’t see what it is uncomfortable for them to see, that they have been Putin’s willing idiots.
This argument is just absurd. I, as a now very happy Man U fan, may not want Liverpool to win the league. Does that make me a willing idiot for Man City? The fact that Russia may have seen an advantage in the weakening of the EU is completely irrelevant to the question of what we believed was in the UK's interests.
You really think that it’s irrelevant to Britain’s interests that a hostile power (correctly) sees Brexit as a big plus for it?
Yes. I don't care what they think.
Congratulations, you’ve just helped massively strengthen the forces of disorder in this world.
If the Russians had instead calculated that we were likely to be more destabilising to the EU by remaining in it for a bit, would you have voted Leave?
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
Theresa May is a world championship can kicker.
I’m bored.
Crufts 2019 starts today!
Watched it last night. I’m a fan.
cant imagine why.. when you see things like poor dogs bred so they can't breathe easily// they should stop Crufts altogether imho.
Is it okay for a white person to describe themselves as non-coloured?
No
How about White? I assume that is racist too?
You can call yourself what you want provided you aren’t describing yourself by reference to someone else by a term they don’t like.
Call other people by the descriptors they want unless you have a compelling reason otherwise (referencing Tommy Robinson’s real name is arguably such a case but even there I’m wary). So Cape Coloureds are coloured, but otherwise the term should be avoided. That you might not understand why it’s offensive is beside the point: it’s basic manners.
Yes, and it really is that simple.
This mini thread deserves the “Only from the PB Tories, Only on PB” epithet, that one of our former colleagues was fond of.
Is it okay for a white person to describe themselves as non-coloured?
No
How about White? I assume that is racist too?
You can call yourself what you want provided you aren’t describing yourself by reference to someone else by a term they don’t like.
Call other people by the descriptors they want unless you have a compelling reason otherwise (referencing Tommy Robinson’s real name is arguably such a case but even there I’m wary). So Cape Coloureds are coloured, but otherwise the term should be avoided. That you might not understand why it’s offensive is beside the point: it’s basic manners.
The only people who don't get this are people who don't want to get it. Oh, and since the PB reactionaries are enjoying getting triggered right now, Happy International Women's Day everybody.
The ladies in our office have set a pink theme to commemorate it. I’m wearing a brand new salmon pink t-shirt.
Comments
Don't call me white
Don't call me white
Don't call me white
The accusations wrt Russia appear to have been secretive and very much a different matter.
You need to go back to Charlie Wilson or to the restoration of the Shah
Of course, the government and the EU have already agreed. Failure is not the EU’s fault, it lies at the door of the ERG.
https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1103918414081318912?s=21
Am I missing something? Is there some reason why this was a Cunning Plan?
Or was it just a way of postponing the problem for a week or two?
Likewise, I have in the past been slightly scolded for referring to someone as 'black' during a conversation - although this was over two decades ago. I'm 45, and it can be a little confusing how to refer to someone. I'd not use 'coloured', but I find even using 'black' a little unnerving. So as often as possible I try not to refer to colour or race: very often it's actually unnecessary.
Perhaps it should come down to: if you believe no offence was intended, correct, and only complain if it continues.
What seems particularly nasty about yesterday's controversy is that Rudd was trying to back up Abbott. No offence was intended.
Saturday is Hounds and Terriers, and the Flyball, Agility and Heelwork to Music are amusing. Get to the Arena in good time and take refreshments, the catering is terrible.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/07/facebook-fake-account-network-spread-hate-speech?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
And while racists are obviously likely to use offensive racial terms, in today's world I daresay they're most likely to be used by people who enjoy stirring up pointless arguments on social media.
..in F1 this time
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/47490727
Mr. Walker, who else would they blame? Themselves? The electorate?
Except that it is a bit less likely that 29th March will be exit day - though it should not be ruled out - I'm not sure that we know much more now than we did 9 months ago about the winners and losers.
It might be that by this time to be a hero just a modestly competent Brexit would be quite sufficient - perhaps say for example, one which didn't precipitate World War III, nuclear Armageddon or the immediate melting of the polar ice cap.
Sadly a large number of our own Parliamentarians are helping them along here. If the PM had said after the deal was defeated that it was going to be no deal (and kept her cabinet in line behind her), the EU would have been negotiating now.
Isn't the idea of expectation management to lower them, so that if you do pull it off against the odds it will look more impressive?
Cameron and the EU renegotiations come to mind.
No evidence has been produced that Russian interference had any substantial effect whatsoever.
It is just straightforward racism by Meeks.
The people who bear the responsibility for voting for Brexit are not the Russians, but the British.
Just as the people who bear the responsibility for voting in Trump are the Americans, not the Russians.
For some people, the bogeymen are capitalists, for some Jews, for some Muslims, For Meeks, it is Russians.
NEW THREAD
Green surge klaxon?
This mini thread deserves the “Only from
the PB Tories, Only on PB” epithet, that one of our former colleagues was fond of.
I’d happily accept a shocking pink passport with bilious green lettering if it would make this whole sorry shambles go away.