Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s looking like a no-deal brexit or else an Article 50 exten

12357

Comments

  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    kinabalu said:

    Selebian said:

    That's quite a leap though! I remember in 2017 ideas that May would pivot to soft Brexit with a good majority, we never got to test that as she remained an ERG hostage. The same could happen to Johnson (if he just scraped a majority, say) even if his wish would be to switch to a deal.

    Given the choice, I'd take Corbyn. The parliamentary labour party may or may not have the balls to rein in a majority Corbyn government, but there are still sensible people in the PLP; what remains of the parliamentary Conservative party seems fully signed up to follow Johnson over any cliff he likes.

    So that's another (1).

    Making 2 of those (you, noo) and 2 x (3)s (pulp, topping).

    Dead heat. Hung Parliament.
    Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I was voting Labour. It's likely I'll vote Lib Dem, but I won't make up my mind until shortly before I go to the polling station / fill out my postal ballot. Green and Labour are in contention, plus if there's some really interesting independent I'll check them out but probably not.
    The only certainties are Ukip, Brexit and Tories are ruled out. If it was today, it'd be Lib Dem but I'll keep an open mind.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited October 2019

    isam said:

    kjh said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.

    The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
    Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.

    There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.

    Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.

    We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
    Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
    Of course. What do you think humans ate back then?


    Sorry to be a pedant, but dinosaurs predated homo sapiens. On the subject of meat being un-environmental, this is partly misleading as many ecologies would cease to exist if meat production stopped, and many grass habitats would be replaced by cereal production. As with all things, it is all a bit more complex than vegan eco-warriors with their own political agendas would have us believe.
    If only I wasn’t joking 🤣

    I really didn’t think anyone would be fool enough to correct me there 🤷🏻‍♂️
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    edited October 2019
    kinabalu said:

    https://www.ft.com/content/21f8dd54-e8f8-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55

    I agree with this article.

    Come the GE, people will fall into one of the following categories -

    1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn.
    2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum.
    3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit.

    Tough choices but them's the rules on this one.

    I am in (2). I want a Labour government more than I do not want Ref2.

    But that's me. I'm a bit niche, I think. (2) will be the smallest group.

    By contrast (1) and (3) will describe many millions and their relative size will determine the election result.

    If (1) is bigger than (3) - it's Lab minority govt.
    If (3) is bigger than (1) - it's Con majority.

    This is simplifying, obviously, but IMO in a useful way.



    I'm a 2, big surprise I know...
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257

    Selebian said:

    On the Taoiseach (apparent, it had passsed me by) controversy, Wikipedia is interesting (if right!)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoiseach

    (According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".

    So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.

    But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.

    I think to prove how respectful we are, we should all learn the plural 'taoisigh' just in case. Then it's also important to know whether you're talking to a mainly northern and western Irish audience (and so pronounce it "Teeshee"), or a southern Irish one (for "Teesheeg")
    True :-)

    It would also be interesting to know the words used in Ireland to refer to our current prime minister (although most of them probably not printable, I'd guess!)
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    isam said:

    kjh said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.

    The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
    Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.

    There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.

    Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.

    We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
    Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
    Of course. What do you think humans ate back then?


    Sorry to be a pedant, but dinosaurs predated homo sapiens...
    Yes, that's what predators do. Good thing we were able to fight back.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    isam said:

    Here’s a question. Imagine Britain does not leave the EU on 31 October. Imagine further that you are Jeremy Corbyn. Do you want to have an election immediately and if so do you want a short or long campaign?

    How do you go about laying for decent dough that the GE won’t take place this year?

    If you hit the bids, there isn’t much money there and you’re giving away a few %, but if you leave an offer up and something happens that makes a GE more likely while you’re not monitoring Betfair, you get hoovered
    Giving up a couple of % by hitting the bids would seem safer in this game considering there could be a sudden "event" that would indeed flatten your position.
  • kinabalu said:

    Selebian said:

    That's quite a leap though! I remember in 2017 ideas that May would pivot to soft Brexit with a good majority, we never got to test that as she remained an ERG hostage. The same could happen to Johnson (if he just scraped a majority, say) even if his wish would be to switch to a deal.

    Given the choice, I'd take Corbyn. The parliamentary labour party may or may not have the balls to rein in a majority Corbyn government, but there are still sensible people in the PLP; what remains of the parliamentary Conservative party seems fully signed up to follow Johnson over any cliff he likes.

    So that's another (1).

    Making 2 of those (you, noo) and 2 x (3)s (pulp, topping).

    Dead heat. Hung Parliament.
    It would be nice to have the ability to proactively vote for a hung parliament to express disdain at the two fuckwits that lead the two main parties.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Noo said:

    Taoiseach or not? If referring to him directly then yes, if reporting about him in the UK to a UK audience, PM is fine, it isn't incumbent on British citizens to know what the Irish Gaelic term for their chief minister is, but it is useful for the press to refer to him by terms their readership are most likely to understand

    I think you missed the link earlier saying that it's his title in English too.
    Ireland is an English speaking country. It's of no consequence that the word has entered the English language from Gaelic. We use words from French like parliament or representative, or from Latin like congress and senate. Now we have one from Gaelic.
    That's all fine. However there is no problem imo referring to him in terms people are more likely to understand in the media. We dont always use the legally official titles of people. I mean it's the Queen, not Elizabeth II, by the grace of God etc etc here or anywhere else in general
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,915
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    https://www.ft.com/content/21f8dd54-e8f8-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55

    I agree with this article.

    Come the GE, people will fall into one of the following categories -

    1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn.
    2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum.
    3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit.

    Tough choices but them's the rules on this one.

    I am in (2). I want a Labour government more than I do not want Ref2.

    But that's me. I'm a bit niche, I think. (2) will be the smallest group.

    By contrast (1) and (3) will describe many millions and their relative size will determine the election result.

    If (1) is bigger than (3) - it's Lab minority govt.
    If (3) is bigger than (1) - it's Con majority.

    This is simplifying, obviously, but IMO in a useful way.

    4. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and reckon he tilts to a deal post election with a good majority.
    Your group 4 is simply a subset of group 3 with an enhanced capacity for self-delusion.
    If we're still in the EU AND Johnson gets a majority do you honestly think he'll charge headlong to the WTO exits ?

    We'll be out with something like the May deal. Clearly the pivot toward "No deal" is needed right now to try and get Brexiteer votes onside.
    Why do you think he wanted an election on 14th October. So he could extend after gaining a majority. That was an optimistic plan A; he wants to leave with a deal and post election he can give away far more than he can pre-election.
    It's possible. But I think you are underestimating the degree of radicalisation occuring in the Tory party and overestimating their ability to win a serious majority. The Tories are becoming the Brexit party and will embrace no deal. The choice really is Corbyn or no deal, I'm afraid, and I know which side of that choice I am on.
  • Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    On the Taoiseach (apparent, it had passsed me by) controversy, Wikipedia is interesting (if right!)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoiseach

    (According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".

    So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.

    But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.

    I think to prove how respectful we are, we should all learn the plural 'taoisigh' just in case. Then it's also important to know whether you're talking to a mainly northern and western Irish audience (and so pronounce it "Teeshee"), or a southern Irish one (for "Teesheeg")
    True :-)

    It would also be interesting to know the words used in Ireland to refer to our current prime minister (although most of them probably not printable, I'd guess!)
    They've probably paid the UK the compliment of using some prime Anglo Saxon.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Wales doing a Wales :D
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,076
    Cyclefree said:

    I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.

    And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.

    It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.

    I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.

    Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.

    Enjoy your pig!, but farming is farming...

    A traveller stopped by a farm, and the farmer was feeding his pigs in the yard. He noted that one of the pigs had a wooden leg, and couldn't resist asking why.

    The farmer replied "that pig saved my life, when I fell in the pond, he grabbed hold of my jacket, and pulled me to safety"

    Traveller: "is that how he came to injure his leg?"

    Farmer. "No, he wasn't injured at all, but a pig that good you shouldn't eat all at once..."
  • Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    On the Taoiseach (apparent, it had passsed me by) controversy, Wikipedia is interesting (if right!)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoiseach

    (According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".

    So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.

    But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.

    I think to prove how respectful we are, we should all learn the plural 'taoisigh' just in case. Then it's also important to know whether you're talking to a mainly northern and western Irish audience (and so pronounce it "Teeshee"), or a southern Irish one (for "Teesheeg")
    True :-)

    It would also be interesting to know the words used in Ireland to refer to our current prime minister (although most of them probably not printable, I'd guess!)
    They've probably paid the UK the compliment of using some prime Anglo Saxon.
    Fecking ejit is probably the most likely description.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.

    And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.

    It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.

    I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.

    Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.

    Your chickens will finish all your kitchen scraps not sure what you'll do with the pig (singular).
    I know four people who raised their own chickens. In one case the exercise in sustainability even lasted three or four years. Stick to buying lion-marked eggs imo, assuming some idiot hasn't come along and stopped the practice as part of an American free trade deal.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    https://www.ft.com/content/21f8dd54-e8f8-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55

    I agree with this article.

    Come the GE, people will fall into one of the following categories -

    1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn.
    2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum.
    3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit.

    Tough choices but them's the rules on this one.

    I am in (2). I want a Labour government more than I do not want Ref2.

    But that's me. I'm a bit niche, I think. (2) will be the smallest group.

    By contrast (1) and (3) will describe many millions and their relative size will determine the election result.

    If (1) is bigger than (3) - it's Lab minority govt.
    If (3) is bigger than (1) - it's Con majority.

    This is simplifying, obviously, but IMO in a useful way.

    4. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and reckon he tilts to a deal post election with a good majority.
    Your group 4 is simply a subset of group 3 with an enhanced capacity for self-delusion.
    If we're still in the EU AND Johnson gets a majority do you honestly think he'll charge headlong to the WTO exits ?

    We'll be out with something like the May deal. Clearly the pivot toward "No deal" is needed right now to try and get Brexiteer votes onside.
    Why do you think he wanted an election on 14th October. So he could extend after gaining a majority. That was an optimistic plan A; he wants to leave with a deal and post election he can give away far more than he can pre-election.
    It's possible. But I think you are underestimating the degree of radicalisation occuring in the Tory party and overestimating their ability to win a serious majority. The Tories are becoming the Brexit party and will embrace no deal. The choice really is Corbyn or no deal, I'm afraid, and I know which side of that choice I am on.
    A thin Tory majority might precipitate "No deal", a good one certainly wouldn't.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    It's either serious and a ridiculous plan, or it's a wind up or lie which is a pathetic and shitty thing to pretend to do.
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    kjh said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.

    The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
    Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.

    There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.

    Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.

    We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
    Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
    Of course. What do you think humans ate back then?


    Sorry to be a pedant, but dinosaurs predated homo sapiens. On the subject of meat being un-environmental, this is partly misleading as many ecologies would cease to exist if meat production stopped, and many grass habitats would be replaced by cereal production. As with all things, it is all a bit more complex than vegan eco-warriors with their own political agendas would have us believe.
    If only I wasn’t joking 🤣

    I really didn’t think anyone would be fool enough to correct me there 🤷🏻‍♂️
    As you are a Brexiteer I assumed you would believe cartoon characters were real.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,678
    kinabalu said:

    nichomar said:

    Stop Brexit and stop Johnson vote lib dem problem solved

    Yes, but the hard choice comes in seats where Lab is best placed to gain from Con or where Lab is defending from Con.

    Voting LD there is fine - it's always fine to vote your 1st pref - but it would be abdicating from the tactical battle.

    If you want to join that battle (in those seats) you will need to ask yourself which prospect upsets you the most - PM Corbyn or Brexit?
    What should a voter do in Bootle? Asking for a friend.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Pulpstar said:

    Johnson's current plan is to seemingly push as hard as he can for "No deal" with the hope that in extremis the 'remain forces' in parliament together with the EU can and will prevent the UK leaving on October 31st.
    It makes him look a touch foolish heading into a GE campaign but can be spun as THEY won't let us leave which keeps the Brexit party at a manageable slice of the 47% the Tories + Brexit I reckon are heading for.
    He must be sweating slightly given the lack of remain organisation right now but they should come good in the end.

    I suspect Dominic Cummings would be a strong Diplomacy player.

    If he has to extend TBP will say Johnson has failed to deliver on his promise, if Johnson campaigns on no deal no talks TBP will say (rightly) you can’t trust him he lied about do or die the only guaranteed way of definitely leaving is by voting TBP. that message will go down well enough to inflict serious damage to the Torys
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722

    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    On the Taoiseach (apparent, it had passsed me by) controversy, Wikipedia is interesting (if right!)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoiseach

    (According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".

    So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.

    But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.

    I think to prove how respectful we are, we should all learn the plural 'taoisigh' just in case. Then it's also important to know whether you're talking to a mainly northern and western Irish audience (and so pronounce it "Teeshee"), or a southern Irish one (for "Teesheeg")
    True :-)

    It would also be interesting to know the words used in Ireland to refer to our current prime minister (although most of them probably not printable, I'd guess!)
    They've probably paid the UK the compliment of using some prime Anglo Saxon.
    Fecking ejit is probably the most likely description.
    About right!
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,462

    isam said:

    kjh said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.

    The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
    Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.

    There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.

    Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.

    We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
    Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
    Of course. What do you think humans ate back then?


    Sorry to be a pedant, but dinosaurs predated homo sapiens. On the subject of meat being un-environmental, this is partly misleading as many ecologies would cease to exist if meat production stopped, and many grass habitats would be replaced by cereal production. As with all things, it is all a bit more complex than vegan eco-warriors with their own political agendas would have us believe.
    See previous posts. It was joke. Really regretting this now. It wasn't even very good.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,678
    nichomar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Johnson's current plan is to seemingly push as hard as he can for "No deal" with the hope that in extremis the 'remain forces' in parliament together with the EU can and will prevent the UK leaving on October 31st.
    It makes him look a touch foolish heading into a GE campaign but can be spun as THEY won't let us leave which keeps the Brexit party at a manageable slice of the 47% the Tories + Brexit I reckon are heading for.
    He must be sweating slightly given the lack of remain organisation right now but they should come good in the end.

    I suspect Dominic Cummings would be a strong Diplomacy player.

    If he has to extend TBP will say Johnson has failed to deliver on his promise, if Johnson campaigns on no deal no talks TBP will say (rightly) you can’t trust him he lied about do or die the only guaranteed way of definitely leaving is by voting TBP. that message will go down well enough to inflict serious damage to the Torys
    Problem - Farage doesn't want Brexit. It means he can't moan anymore.
  • eristdoof said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.

    The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
    Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.

    There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.

    Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.

    We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
    The decision not to eat parts of a dead animal is often made for ethical reasons. Because you are happy to eat meat, it does not mean this is not an ethical issue.
    It’s a choice.

    Fundamentally there are no ethical issues.
    Have you never wondered what sort of life that piece of meet had? How it lived, how it died? I have loved eating meat all my life, but even I used to get the odd pang of guilt when factory farming cruelty has been highlighted in the media.
    I've stopped eating meat on health grounds ultimately, but the ethical side of it is a bonus for me. As you say, it's a choice, and people shouldn't be vilified or judged on their preferred diet. Unless you're a Tory, as eating babies is bad.
  • Noo said:

    Wales doing a Wales :D

    Let's hope Fiji can keep it going, but I suspect they cannot!
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    "1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn.
    2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum.
    3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit."

    What if one`s priority is to protect the Union?
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited October 2019

    isam said:

    isam said:

    kjh said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.

    The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
    Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.

    There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.

    Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.

    We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
    Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
    Of course. What do you think humans ate back then?


    Sorry to be a pedant, but dinosaurs predated homo sapiens. On the subject of meat being un-environmental, this is partly misleading as many ecologies would cease to exist if meat production stopped, and many grass habitats would be replaced by cereal production. As with all things, it is all a bit more complex than vegan eco-warriors with their own political agendas would have us believe.
    If only I wasn’t joking 🤣

    I really didn’t think anyone would be fool enough to correct me there 🤷🏻‍♂️
    As you are a Brexiteer I assumed you would believe cartoon characters were real.
    Well that was boringly predictable! 🤣

    Honest to God I was hoping you wouldn’t try to wriggle out of it with an insult so I could think slightly better of you.

    You have ruined my hopes and dreams!
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 3,630
    TGOHF2 said:

    Noo said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Selebian said:

    On the Taoiseach (apparent, it had passsed me by) controversy, Wikipedia is interesting (if right!)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoiseach

    (According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".

    So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.

    But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.

    I think PM is fine for Leo - best not to encourage the use of twee dead languages.
    English is a twee dead language?
    Use of English is cultural appropriation by the Irish - they should be cancelled.

    In other news - Rooney vs Vardy - lol.
    Maybe English people shouldn't refer to Irish as a "twee dead language" and joke about cultural appropriation as it was English legislation that attempted to murder the language and culture of the peoples colonised.

    http://www.theirishstory.com/2018/10/11/to-extinguish-their-sinister-traditions-and-customs-the-historic-bans-on-the-legal-use-of-the-irish-and-welsh-languages/#targetText=The first British Law enacted,language when interacting with them.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981
    Cyclefree said:

    I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.

    And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.

    It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.

    I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.

    Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.

    It sounds like a great plan :+1:

    Make sure the local foxes do not enjoy your chickens. How is the post-Brexit apocalyptic redoubt coming along? IIRC, you move in soon...
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Is that the whole of Fiji they are playing?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    eristdoof said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.

    The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
    Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.

    There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.

    Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.

    We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
    The decision not to eat parts of a dead animal is often made for ethical reasons. Because you are happy to eat meat, it does not mean this is not an ethical issue.
    It’s a choice.

    Fundamentally there are no ethical issues.
    Have you never wondered what sort of life that piece of meet had? How it lived, how it died? I have loved eating meat all my life, but even I used to get the odd pang of guilt when factory farming cruelty has been highlighted in the media.
    I've stopped eating meat on health grounds ultimately, but the ethical side of it is a bonus for me. As you say, it's a choice, and people shouldn't be vilified or judged on their preferred diet. Unless you're a Tory, as eating babies is bad.
    I stopped eating chicken when Sainsbury's withdrew the higher welfare option.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    edited October 2019
    Pulpstar said:

    If we're still in the EU AND Johnson gets a majority do you honestly think he'll charge headlong to the WTO exits ?

    We'll be out with something like the May deal. Clearly the pivot toward "No deal" is needed right now to try and get Brexiteer votes onside.
    Why do you think he wanted an election on 14th October. So he could extend after gaining a majority. That was an optimistic plan A; he wants to leave with a deal and post election he can give away far more than he can pre-election.

    This might be correct, I'm not sure. If it is it begs an interesting question -

    Imagine that the opposition had held off on all of the resistance activity, just allowed Johnson to plough on with his Do or Die gambit. He then fails to get his Deal and must decide off his own bat - no duress - what to do about 31 Oct.

    Does he crash us out on WTO? Or does he ask for an extension for more talks?

    You must have an opinion on this?
  • eristdoof said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.

    The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
    Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.

    There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.

    Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.

    We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
    The decision not to eat parts of a dead animal is often made for ethical reasons. Because you are happy to eat meat, it does not mean this is not an ethical issue.
    It’s a choice.

    Fundamentally there are no ethical issues.
    Have you never wondered what sort of life that piece of meet had? How it lived, how it died? I have loved eating meat all my life, but even I used to get the odd pang of guilt when factory farming cruelty has been highlighted in the media.
    I've stopped eating meat on health grounds ultimately, but the ethical side of it is a bonus for me. As you say, it's a choice, and people shouldn't be vilified or judged on their preferred diet. Unless you're a Tory, as eating babies is bad.
    I personally believe it is unethical to be a vegetarian.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    edited October 2019
    Looks like the Scottish court has said they won't compel the PM in advance to write The Letter, but the appellants can come back in a couple of weeks if he hasn't.
    Someone with a better understanding of these things help out here?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    edited October 2019
    kle4 said:

    I think it's pretty weird to blame modern day Britons for the decision of Henry II to give responsibility for taking/holding Ireland to John Lackland.

    Yesterday everyone here was united condemning the ridiculous Leave.EU poster that referenced Merkel and WWII. It was clearly, and rightly, seen as ridiculous to cling to grudges of WWII, which ended less than a century ago.

    Yet some think it's clever, or wise, or witty, to hark back to the doings of the Angevins in the 12th century. As if that's remotely relevant to or the responsibility of anyone around today.

    Why not go back one more century and attack the Normans for the Harrying of the North? Or a century further back and attack the Scandinavians for Viking naughtiness?

    Well said.

    There is a relevance to knowing the history, long and short term, but people pick and choose when to make it ok to focus so heavily on it, usually for political advantage.
    The key thing is perception in Ireland. In my experience there is a strong difference in the minds of Irish people between English/British people (many of whom they know, are related to, and deal with on a daily basis) and the British Government. Talking of 1169 and all that is all very well but the subsequent 8 centuries, through Cromwell and the Famine, up to, including and beyond Bloody Sunday (which resulted in the burning down of the U.K. Embassy) has left an intractable subconscious mistrust of our government there. Whatever the political realities they also regard the 6 counties as part of the “land” to which they beyond, whatever State it belongs to.

    So they are not blaming English or British people. History, however, has resulted in a stereotype of the Government that is as deeply ingrained, if not more, than the perceptions of the German Government here (as we saw yesterday) that may be equally invalid. It is that lack of trust in the Government, which has let them down time and time again over many centuries, that has led to the demand for the backstop. Whether that is “fair” to us as a people, or not, is somewhat irrelevant. We are negotiating with them and we have to understand that perspective and come to an accommodation with it if we want a deal.
  • Mr iSam, it wasn't intended to be an insult, I was being sympathetic to your condition.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722
    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If we're still in the EU AND Johnson gets a majority do you honestly think he'll charge headlong to the WTO exits ?

    We'll be out with something like the May deal. Clearly the pivot toward "No deal" is needed right now to try and get Brexiteer votes onside.
    Why do you think he wanted an election on 14th October. So he could extend after gaining a majority. That was an optimistic plan A; he wants to leave with a deal and post election he can give away far more than he can pre-election.

    This might be correct, I'm not sure. If it is it begs an interesting question -

    Imagine that the opposition had held off on all of the resistance activity, just allowed Johnson to plough on with his Do or Die gambit. He then fails to get his Deal and must decide off his own bat - no duress - what to do about 31 Oct.

    Does he crash us out on WTO? Or does he ask for an extension for more talks?

    You must have an opinion on this?
    Good question. Trouble is, he has the likes of Priti Patel and JRM in, or close to, the Cabinet urging him on to OUT.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Stocky said:

    "1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn.
    2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum.
    3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit."

    What if one`s priority is to protect the Union?

    Then you are screwed.

    1) PM Corbyn requires the SNP so a referendum.
    2) PM Corbyn requires the SNP so a referendum.
    3) Any deal requires treating NI differently which will result in additional pressure for a Scottish Referendum.

    Basically unless we revoke the chances are Scotland will want to leave.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    Mr iSam, it wasn't intended to be an insult, I was being sympathetic to your condition.

    Enough of your trolling for now. Try to think before making silly mistakes in future
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    nichomar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Johnson's current plan is to seemingly push as hard as he can for "No deal" with the hope that in extremis the 'remain forces' in parliament together with the EU can and will prevent the UK leaving on October 31st.
    It makes him look a touch foolish heading into a GE campaign but can be spun as THEY won't let us leave which keeps the Brexit party at a manageable slice of the 47% the Tories + Brexit I reckon are heading for.
    He must be sweating slightly given the lack of remain organisation right now but they should come good in the end.

    I suspect Dominic Cummings would be a strong Diplomacy player.

    If he has to extend TBP will say Johnson has failed to deliver on his promise, if Johnson campaigns on no deal no talks TBP will say (rightly) you can’t trust him he lied about do or die the only guaranteed way of definitely leaving is by voting TBP. that message will go down well enough to inflict serious damage to the Torys
    Problem - Farage doesn't want Brexit. It means he can't moan anymore.
    That’s why he will do his best to ruin the Torys chances and he can enjoy not doing any work and getting well paid for it whilst still continuing to moan.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Noo said:

    Looks like the Scottish court has said they won't compel the PM in advance to write The Letter, but the appellants can come back in a couple of weeks if he hasn't.
    Someone with a better understanding of these things help out here?

    Presumably means the SC cannot now get involved before the event either
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    kinabalu said:

    nichomar said:

    Stop Brexit and stop Johnson vote lib dem problem solved

    Yes, but the hard choice comes in seats where Lab is best placed to gain from Con or where Lab is defending from Con.

    Voting LD there is fine - it's always fine to vote your 1st pref - but it would be abdicating from the tactical battle.

    If you want to join that battle (in those seats) you will need to ask yourself which prospect upsets you the most - PM Corbyn or Brexit?
    What should a voter do in Bootle? Asking for a friend.

    Go down the pub
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If we're still in the EU AND Johnson gets a majority do you honestly think he'll charge headlong to the WTO exits ?

    We'll be out with something like the May deal. Clearly the pivot toward "No deal" is needed right now to try and get Brexiteer votes onside.
    Why do you think he wanted an election on 14th October. So he could extend after gaining a majority. That was an optimistic plan A; he wants to leave with a deal and post election he can give away far more than he can pre-election.

    This might be correct, I'm not sure. If it is it begs an interesting question -

    Imagine that the opposition had held off on all of the resistance activity, just allowed Johnson to plough on with his Do or Die gambit. He then fails to get his Deal and must decide off his own bat - no duress - what to do about 31 Oct.

    Does he crash us out on WTO? Or does he ask for an extension for more talks?

    You must have an opinion on this?
    Oh we'd be out I expect. But that's not the primary plan. The primary plan is to be stopped by a combination of the remain parliament opposition and the courts.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722
    edited October 2019
    eek said:

    Stocky said:

    "1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn.
    2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum.
    3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit."

    What if one`s priority is to protect the Union?

    Then you are screwed.

    1) PM Corbyn requires the SNP so a referendum.
    2) PM Corbyn requires the SNP so a referendum.
    3) Any deal requires treating NI differently which will result in additional pressure for a Scottish Referendum.

    Basically unless we revoke the chances are Scotland will want to leave.
    How about...... possibly a revolutionary idea...... asking the people of N. Ireland, possibly county by county:

    Leave the EU under whatever conditions rUK achieves..... customs posts, whatever

    Or

    Remain in the EU as part of the RoI.

    If as HYUFD has suggested, Antrim still votes to stay in the UK then treat it like Gibraltar.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    Noo said:

    Looks like the Scottish court has said they won't compel the PM in advance to write The Letter, but the appellants can come back in a couple of weeks if he hasn't.
    Someone with a better understanding of these things help out here?

    They’ve delayed the judgement on whether to issue an order and also on the nobile officium until the 21st October .

    If Bozo doesn’t ask for an extension or tries to obstruct the Act then he’s toast on that day . The court will provide remedy then .

    And because he’s given written undertakings to obey the law then he’s in serious trouble if he doesn’t .
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Noo said:

    Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I was voting Labour. It's likely I'll vote Lib Dem, but I won't make up my mind until shortly before I go to the polling station / fill out my postal ballot. Green and Labour are in contention, plus if there's some really interesting independent I'll check them out but probably not.
    The only certainties are Ukip, Brexit and Tories are ruled out. If it was today, it'd be Lib Dem but I'll keep an open mind.

    No I didn't assume that. It's about whether the vote you cast makes PM Johnson or PM Corbyn more likely. Which depends on your seat dynamics.

    For example - if it's a seat where Lab has a chance to beat Con and the LDs don't, and you STILL vote LD, that's great but you would not then be a (1).
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059

    Noo said:

    Looks like the Scottish court has said they won't compel the PM in advance to write The Letter, but the appellants can come back in a couple of weeks if he hasn't.
    Someone with a better understanding of these things help out here?

    Presumably means the SC cannot now get involved before the event either
    As I understand it he gave undertakings (or their Scottish equivalent) to the Court. If there is a breach of those undertakings (again, apologies for my ignorance of Scots terminology here) the persuers can come back and seek an order.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Andrew Neil's got Tony Blair on his program this evening.
  • eristdoof said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.

    The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
    Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.

    There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.

    Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.

    We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
    The decision not to eat parts of a dead animal is often made for ethical reasons. Because you are happy to eat meat, it does not mean this is not an ethical issue.
    It’s a choice.

    Fundamentally there are no ethical issues.
    Have you never wondered what sort of life that piece of meet had? How it lived, how it died? I have loved eating meat all my life, but even I used to get the odd pang of guilt when factory farming cruelty has been highlighted in the media.
    I've stopped eating meat on health grounds ultimately, but the ethical side of it is a bonus for me. As you say, it's a choice, and people shouldn't be vilified or judged on their preferred diet. Unless you're a Tory, as eating babies is bad.
    I personally believe it is unethical to be a vegetarian.
    If I said I was giving millions of quid to a charity of your choice, you'd still think I was a knuckle dragging , xenophobic racist retard, so go ram yer personal beliefs up yer jacksey :)
  • isam said:

    Mr iSam, it wasn't intended to be an insult, I was being sympathetic to your condition.

    Enough of your trolling for now. Try to think before making silly mistakes in future
    I think it was a logical conclusion, and no I am not trolling. There are a large number of people who believe that dinosaurs existed when humans were around. Too much Flintstones and Rachel Welsh movies.

    Bit like there are a large number of people who think Brexit is worthwhile generally read too many war comics. 🤣 🤣
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149
    nico67 said:

    Noo said:

    Looks like the Scottish court has said they won't compel the PM in advance to write The Letter, but the appellants can come back in a couple of weeks if he hasn't.
    Someone with a better understanding of these things help out here?

    They’ve delayed the judgement on whether to issue an order and also on the nobile officium until the 21st October .

    If Bozo doesn’t ask for an extension or tries to obstruct the Act then he’s toast on that day . The court will provide remedy then .

    And because he’s given written undertakings to obey the law then he’s in serious trouble if he doesn’t .
    And here's someone who agrees with you.

    https://twitter.com/GrayInGlasgow/status/1181874591356112896
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    eek said:

    This is why I'm holding my nose and will be voting Labour.

    The 1s have it, the 1s have it.

    Corbyn on his way to Downing St.

    Gosh.
  • Lots of welsh people currently muting about bloody french...and nought to do with brexit.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    isam said:

    Mr iSam, it wasn't intended to be an insult, I was being sympathetic to your condition.

    Enough of your trolling for now. Try to think before making silly mistakes in future
    I think it was a logical conclusion, and no I am not trolling. There are a large number of people who believe that dinosaurs existed when humans were around. Too much Flintstones and Rachel Welsh movies.

    Bit like there are a large number of people who think Brexit is worthwhile generally read too many war comics. 🤣 🤣
    Go away
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    nico67 said:

    Noo said:

    Looks like the Scottish court has said they won't compel the PM in advance to write The Letter, but the appellants can come back in a couple of weeks if he hasn't.
    Someone with a better understanding of these things help out here?

    They’ve delayed the judgement on whether to issue an order and also on the nobile officium until the 21st October .

    If Bozo doesn’t ask for an extension or tries to obstruct the Act then he’s toast on that day . The court will provide remedy then .

    And because he’s given written undertakings to obey the law then he’s in serious trouble if he doesn’t .
    A Scottish court delivering the extension letter would be Game Set and Match politically speaking for Johnson, providing he's still allowed into the Commons at that point.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    In early August I posted the following and think it worth a re-post:

    "Though I`m not a Conservative Party supporter I, like many liberals, value the Conservative Party (often secretly) as a far preferable option to a collectivist party.

    Through this lens, we have four major issues which are not all solvable:

    1) Brexit issue needs putting behind us fast one way or another
    2) The Conservative Party`s chances of winning another election are close to nil with the upsurge of the Brexit Party. We could be witnessing the death of the Conservative Party if Brexit does not happen.
    3) The threat of a Corbyn government must be extinguished
    4) The Union is under threat if Brexit goes ahead

    I, like many, are in despair. All because of Cameron`s dratted referendum.

    Can anyone cheer me up??"

    I wouln`t change a word of this. I`m beginning to think that it may (perversely) be a good thing if Corbyn became PM and, in effect, cancelled Brexit via a referendum.

    Then we stay in EU, LP can take the blame, union still intact, LP get thrashed at the following GE.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265

    eristdoof said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.

    The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
    Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.



    Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.

    We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
    The decision not to eat parts of a dead animal is often made for ethical reasons. Because you are happy to eat meat, it does not mean this is not an ethical issue.
    It’s a choice.

    Fundamentally there are no ethical issues.
    Have you never wondered what sort of life that piece of meet had? How it lived, how it died? I have loved eating meat all my life, but even I used to get the odd pang of guilt when factory farming cruelty has been highlighted in the media.
    I've stopped eating meat on health grounds ultimately, but the ethical side of it is a bonus for me. As you say, it's a choice, and people shouldn't be vilified or judged on their preferred diet. Unless you're a Tory, as eating babies is bad.
    I stopped eating chicken when Sainsbury's withdrew the higher welfare option.
    Yes, that was a rare example of a blatant reversal of company policy - see my day job campaign on this:

    https://www.sustainweb.org/news/apr18_shamesburys/

    The balance of scientific argument has moved pretty sharply against Western levels of meat consumption, even if one leaves the ethical issue to one side, because of the indirect effects of factory farming - see the EAT:Lancet report and others.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722

    isam said:

    Mr iSam, it wasn't intended to be an insult, I was being sympathetic to your condition.

    Enough of your trolling for now. Try to think before making silly mistakes in future
    I think it was a logical conclusion, and no I am not trolling. There are a large number of people who believe that dinosaurs existed when humans were around. Too much Flintstones and Rachel Welsh movies.

    Bit like there are a large number of people who think Brexit is worthwhile generally read too many war comics. 🤣 🤣
    You could, I understand, find Bible Belt Americans who believe the dinosaurs died out because there was room on the Ark. Or some such twaddle.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    kinabalu said:

    eek said:

    This is why I'm holding my nose and will be voting Labour.

    The 1s have it, the 1s have it.

    Corbyn on his way to Downing St.

    Gosh.
    I doubt I'm enough to make any difference - it's a Labour seat with virtually zero LD support at the last election.

    Also I rarely vote for the winning party so I'm probably guaranteeing a Boris Majority with my vote.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    nico67 said:

    Noo said:

    Looks like the Scottish court has said they won't compel the PM in advance to write The Letter, but the appellants can come back in a couple of weeks if he hasn't.
    Someone with a better understanding of these things help out here?

    They’ve delayed the judgement on whether to issue an order and also on the nobile officium until the 21st October .

    If Bozo doesn’t ask for an extension or tries to obstruct the Act then he’s toast on that day . The court will provide remedy then .

    And because he’s given written undertakings to obey the law then he’s in serious trouble if he doesn’t .
    Which makes the likely timeline
    No deal can be agreed
    Extension requested
    Election called
    Tories stand on a leave immediately platform (with fig leaf of accept Boris offer or immediate no deal exit)
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    eek said:

    Stocky said:

    "1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn.
    2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum.
    3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit."

    What if one`s priority is to protect the Union?

    Then you are screwed.

    1) PM Corbyn requires the SNP so a referendum.
    2) PM Corbyn requires the SNP so a referendum.
    3) Any deal requires treating NI differently which will result in additional pressure for a Scottish Referendum.

    Basically unless we revoke the chances are Scotland will want to leave.
    How about...... possibly a revolutionary idea...... asking the people of N. Ireland, possibly county by county:

    Leave the EU under whatever conditions rUK achieves..... customs posts, whatever

    Or

    Remain in the EU as part of the RoI.

    If as HYUFD has suggested, Antrim still votes to stay in the UK then treat it like Gibraltar.
    Why county by county - you should go the whole hog and go house by house in the way Baarle-Nassau's border works.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    Depressing but acute FT analysis

    https://www.ft.com/content/fa53836e-e8d7-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55

    In short: we are very possibly headed for political violence.

    Great.

    Worth pointing out the journalist is at the saner end of the Remainer spectrum.
  • Sounds like an excellent compromise from the Inner House. No perceived overreach by ruling preemptively but keeping the case open so they can act on the facts if needed on 21/10. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/09/court-delays-decision-on-forcing-pm-to-seek-brexit-extension

    My understanding is the English and Welsh case fronted by Liberty ( which is neutral on all aspects of Brexit ) hasn't gone to court yet. But they are near their initial crowdfunder target.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149

    isam said:

    Mr iSam, it wasn't intended to be an insult, I was being sympathetic to your condition.

    Enough of your trolling for now. Try to think before making silly mistakes in future
    I think it was a logical conclusion, and no I am not trolling. There are a large number of people who believe that dinosaurs existed when humans were around. Too much Flintstones and Rachel Welsh movies.

    Bit like there are a large number of people who think Brexit is worthwhile generally read too many war comics. 🤣 🤣
    You could, I understand, find Bible Belt Americans who believe the dinosaurs died out because there was room on the Ark. Or some such twaddle.

    Don't have to go that far -

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/26/northern-ireland-ulster-museum-creationism
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    TGOHF2 said:

    Selebian said:

    On the Taoiseach (apparent, it had passsed me by) controversy, Wikipedia is interesting (if right!)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoiseach

    (According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".

    So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.

    But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.

    I think PM is fine for Leo - best not to encourage the use of twee dead languages.
    D'ye want to let the members of the world's biggest Rangers supporters' club know that they speak a twee dead language?

    https://tinyurl.com/y4vr52n9
    It is a twee dead language tho. The death spiral of Irish gaelic is long and sad. Compare and contrast with Hebrew, which attempted the same thing, and delivered brilliantly.
  • Mr Palmer, hmm, a selective argument. The important word in your sentence was "levels". There is no genuine scientific consensus in favour of vegetarianism. It is essentially politics. I have nothing against people wanting to eat boring vegetarian food as long as they don't attempt to assume some moral superiority for doing so, or attempt to coerce and bully vulnerable teenagers into following their philosophy.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.

    And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.

    It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.

    I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.

    Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.

    Your chickens will finish all your kitchen scraps not sure what you'll do with the pig (singular).
    Bacon, lots of lovely pork and the blood used for sanguinaccio, a delicious Neapolitan chocolate cake!
  • Byronic said:

    Depressing but acute FT analysis

    https://www.ft.com/content/fa53836e-e8d7-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55

    In short: we are very possibly headed for political violence.

    Great.

    Worth pointing out the journalist is at the saner end of the Remainer spectrum.

    I notice that german chancellors office has said they wont comment on private conversations re yesterdays spat. I think we can take that she said basically what was leaked.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,076

    isam said:

    Mr iSam, it wasn't intended to be an insult, I was being sympathetic to your condition.

    Enough of your trolling for now. Try to think before making silly mistakes in future
    I think it was a logical conclusion, and no I am not trolling. There are a large number of people who believe that dinosaurs existed when humans were around. Too much Flintstones and Rachel Welsh movies.

    Bit like there are a large number of people who think Brexit is worthwhile generally read too many war comics. 🤣 🤣
    You could, I understand, find Bible Belt Americans who believe the dinosaurs died out because there was room on the Ark. Or some such twaddle.
    Sadly, the Ark exhibition in Kentucky had to close due to flooding. Who says God doesn't have a sense of humour?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/26/owners-replica-noahs-ark-sue-insurers-flood-damage-compensation/
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    I'm a 2, big surprise I know...

    That IS a shocker :smile:

    Funnily enough, on principle I preferred the old Brexit policy of Soft Brexit, no Ref2. But I realize it had to be ditched to stem loss of Remainer support.

    Back to tactical voting though -

    How would you vote if you lived in a Con/LD marginal?
  • If at the European Council someone, say Orban, chose to say no extension then what next?

    Interesting to see a Hungarian MEP on Sky claiming she thought Orban might veto an extension as it's what Putin would want.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722
    Carnyx said:

    isam said:

    Mr iSam, it wasn't intended to be an insult, I was being sympathetic to your condition.

    Enough of your trolling for now. Try to think before making silly mistakes in future
    I think it was a logical conclusion, and no I am not trolling. There are a large number of people who believe that dinosaurs existed when humans were around. Too much Flintstones and Rachel Welsh movies.

    Bit like there are a large number of people who think Brexit is worthwhile generally read too many war comics. 🤣 🤣
    You could, I understand, find Bible Belt Americans who believe the dinosaurs died out because there was room on the Ark. Or some such twaddle.

    Don't have to go that far -

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/26/northern-ireland-ulster-museum-creationism
    No wonder they're anti-EU! It was of course originally down to the Treaty of Rome...... hence Old Red Socks himself.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,919
    Bryonic: Indeed: Regardless of the outcome the topic of our relationship with the EU is going to be a running sore in UK politics for decades, in a way that it never was previously.

    Remain/Leave is going to be the Whig/Tory of the C21st.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,578
    Interesting US polling.
    https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016d-add6-d627-a1ed-bff795650002

    Around 48% say that it's either very or somewhat important that the Democratic nominee be under the age of 70 ... and a very similar distribution say it's equally important they should have "decades of political experience".

    And a bare majority favour removing Trump by impeachment.
  • Byronic said:

    Depressing but acute FT analysis

    https://www.ft.com/content/fa53836e-e8d7-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55

    In short: we are very possibly headed for political violence.

    Great.

    Worth pointing out the journalist is at the saner end of the Remainer spectrum.

    haha, good one. "the saner end of the remainer spectrum". Hilarious. I am sure loonies are not completely limited to supporting Leave, but I am yet to hear anyone put forward a non emotional rational argument that clearly demonstrates its benefit.
  • Fiji playing some great rugby.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,578
    Cyclefree said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.

    And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.

    It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.

    I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.

    Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.

    Your chickens will finish all your kitchen scraps not sure what you'll do with the pig (singular).
    Bacon, lots of lovely pork and the blood used for sanguinaccio, a delicious Neapolitan chocolate cake!
    And you have problems with chocolate in coffee ?
    :smile:
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    kinabalu said:

    I'm a 2, big surprise I know...

    That IS a shocker :smile:

    Funnily enough, on principle I preferred the old Brexit policy of Soft Brexit, no Ref2. But I realize it had to be ditched to stem loss of Remainer support.

    Back to tactical voting though -

    How would you vote if you lived in a Con/LD marginal?
    Hmm... it varies TBH sometimes LD sometimes not. I'd more happily vote SNP or Greens or PC tactically.
  • If you want to download the Inner House ruling...

    https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/court-of-session
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722
    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Mr iSam, it wasn't intended to be an insult, I was being sympathetic to your condition.

    Enough of your trolling for now. Try to think before making silly mistakes in future
    I think it was a logical conclusion, and no I am not trolling. There are a large number of people who believe that dinosaurs existed when humans were around. Too much Flintstones and Rachel Welsh movies.

    Bit like there are a large number of people who think Brexit is worthwhile generally read too many war comics. 🤣 🤣
    You could, I understand, find Bible Belt Americans who believe the dinosaurs died out because there was room on the Ark. Or some such twaddle.
    Sadly, the Ark exhibition in Kentucky had to close due to flooding. Who says God doesn't have a sense of humour?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/26/owners-replica-noahs-ark-sue-insurers-flood-damage-compensation/
    Missed that, but I really, if ever read the Telegraph nowadays.
  • Byronic said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Selebian said:

    On the Taoiseach (apparent, it had passsed me by) controversy, Wikipedia is interesting (if right!)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoiseach

    (According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".

    So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.

    But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.

    I think PM is fine for Leo - best not to encourage the use of twee dead languages.
    D'ye want to let the members of the world's biggest Rangers supporters' club know that they speak a twee dead language?

    https://tinyurl.com/y4vr52n9
    It is a twee dead language tho. The death spiral of Irish gaelic is long and sad. Compare and contrast with Hebrew, which attempted the same thing, and delivered brilliantly.
    Modern Hebrew is an artificial language isn't it, which used the dead ancient Hebrew as a template. Apparently, although they had a living Jewish language to hand in Yiddish, the founders of Israel decided not to utilize it - it was considered too eastern European and a bit low brow.
  • Andrew Neil's got Tony Blair on his program this evening.

    Thanks for the warning, 2 mad cat men
  • If at the European Council someone, say Orban, chose to say no extension then what next?

    Interesting to see a Hungarian MEP on Sky claiming she thought Orban might veto an extension as it's what Putin would want.

    Good to see you as someone who is still a true believer in Brexit referring to the only person who will genuinely gain from it. Brexit: Putin's greatest ever foreign policy achievement.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited October 2019
    Byronic said:

    Depressing but acute FT analysis

    https://www.ft.com/content/fa53836e-e8d7-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55

    In short: we are very possibly headed for political violence.

    Great.

    Worth pointing out the journalist is at the saner end of the Remainer spectrum.

    I like the way the author of that piece follows my lead in calling them "Brexiters" as a synonym for "tossers".
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,076
    My economist brother did tip Greek Eurobonds to me at the height of the crisis, but I didn't have the bottle. He was right though.

    Between QE restarting in the US and negative interest rates, the economy does look to be on a rather sticky wicket.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    kinabalu said:

    Noo said:

    Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I was voting Labour. It's likely I'll vote Lib Dem, but I won't make up my mind until shortly before I go to the polling station / fill out my postal ballot. Green and Labour are in contention, plus if there's some really interesting independent I'll check them out but probably not.
    The only certainties are Ukip, Brexit and Tories are ruled out. If it was today, it'd be Lib Dem but I'll keep an open mind.

    No I didn't assume that. It's about whether the vote you cast makes PM Johnson or PM Corbyn more likely. Which depends on your seat dynamics.

    For example - if it's a seat where Lab has a chance to beat Con and the LDs don't, and you STILL vote LD, that's great but you would not then be a (1).
    Ultra safe Labour seat. Conservatives and Lib Dems have both been distant second places in recent years. Labour MP who is well liked, hasn't hit any controversy, and is in tune with the constituency in general policy and on Brexit.
    No danger whatsoever of an upset, so no reason for me to vote tactically.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    DougSeal said:

    kle4 said:

    I think it's pretty weird to blame modern day Britons for the decision of Henry II to give responsibility for taking/holding Ireland to John Lackland.

    Yesterday everyone here was united condemning the ridiculous Leave.EU poster that referenced Merkel and WWII. It was clearly, and rightly, seen as ridiculous to cling to grudges of WWII, which ended less than a century ago.

    Yet some think it's clever, or wise, or witty, to hark back to the doings of the Angevins in the 12th century. As if that's remotely relevant to or the responsibility of anyone around today.

    Why not go back one more century and attack the Normans for the Harrying of the North? Or a century further back and attack the Scandinavians for Viking naughtiness?

    Well said.

    There is a relevance to knowing the history, long and short term, but people pick and choose when to make it ok to focus so heavily on it, usually for political advantage.
    The key thing is perception in Ireland. In my experience there is a strong difference in the minds of Irish people between English/British people (many of whom they know, are related to, and deal with on a daily basis) and the British Government. Talking of 1169 and all that is all very well but the subsequent 8 centuries, through Cromwell and the Famine, up to, including and beyond Bloody Sunday (which resulted in the burning down of the U.K. Embassy) has left an intractable subconscious mistrust of our government there. Whatever the political realities they also regard the 6 counties as part of the “land” to which they beyond, whatever State it belongs to.

    So they are not blaming English or British people. History, however, has resulted in a stereotype of the Government that is as deeply ingrained, if not more, than the perceptions of the German Government here (as we saw yesterday) that may be equally invalid. It is that lack of trust in the Government, which has let them down time and time again over many centuries, that has led to the demand for the backstop. Whether that is “fair” to us as a people, or not, is somewhat irrelevant. We are negotiating with them and we have to understand that perspective and come to an accommodation with it if we want a deal.
    That's very fair. The British Empire was generally a brilliant thing - yes yes, whatever, sue me - but our history in Ireland is a stain.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Cyclefree said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.

    And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.

    It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.

    I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.

    Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.

    Your chickens will finish all your kitchen scraps not sure what you'll do with the pig (singular).
    Bacon, lots of lovely pork and the blood used for sanguinaccio, a delicious Neapolitan chocolate cake!
    Ah yes of course that makes sense it just sounded like "I intend having a pig" that it was some kind of pet.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    If at the European Council someone, say Orban, chose to say no extension then what next?

    Interesting to see a Hungarian MEP on Sky claiming she thought Orban might veto an extension as it's what Putin would want.

    Quite, brexit plays right into his desire to weaken the EU
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Byronic said:

    Depressing but acute FT analysis

    https://www.ft.com/content/fa53836e-e8d7-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55

    In short: we are very possibly headed for political violence.

    Great.

    Worth pointing out the journalist is at the saner end of the Remainer spectrum.

    I notice that german chancellors office has said they wont comment on private conversations re yesterdays spat. I think we can take that she said basically what was leaked.
    Oh, definitely. She would deny it if she could, the rest of the EU is incredulous. But she can't deny it. Why? Because she said it, or close to it, and she cannot be sure it was not recorded by the Brits. Indeed, it surely was.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Mr iSam, it wasn't intended to be an insult, I was being sympathetic to your condition.

    Enough of your trolling for now. Try to think before making silly mistakes in future
    I think it was a logical conclusion, and no I am not trolling. There are a large number of people who believe that dinosaurs existed when humans were around. Too much Flintstones and Rachel Welsh movies.

    Bit like there are a large number of people who think Brexit is worthwhile generally read too many war comics. 🤣 🤣
    You could, I understand, find Bible Belt Americans who believe the dinosaurs died out because there was room on the Ark. Or some such twaddle.
    Sadly, the Ark exhibition in Kentucky had to close due to flooding. Who says God doesn't have a sense of humour?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/26/owners-replica-noahs-ark-sue-insurers-flood-damage-compensation/
    I watched "American Animals" yesterday, set in Kentucky. A really excellent, haunting film. I appreciate that you have given up your television on account of climate change, etc but you should really try to find a way of watching it.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2019
    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Depressing but acute FT analysis

    https://www.ft.com/content/fa53836e-e8d7-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55

    In short: we are very possibly headed for political violence.

    Great.

    Worth pointing out the journalist is at the saner end of the Remainer spectrum.

    I notice that german chancellors office has said they wont comment on private conversations re yesterdays spat. I think we can take that she said basically what was leaked.
    Oh, definitely. She would deny it if she could, the rest of the EU is incredulous. But she can't deny it. Why? Because she said it, or close to it, and she cannot be sure it was not recorded by the Brits. Indeed, it surely was.
    Well the Americans definitely will have recorded it! And the russians, chinese, etc.
  • Scott_P said:
    I am not sure this is news. It is the reason why so many leavers who bang on about democracy and the "will-o-the-people" are so against a second referendum, even if it were to give further clarity. They know they conned people once, but it will be hard to do it a second time.
  • Scott_P said:
    That's probably true, not because of any love for the EU but because politicians on both sides have royally fecked things up and leaving just isn't possible, hell, it's probably not even sane to leave the EU now.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,578
    kinabalu said:

    https://www.ft.com/content/21f8dd54-e8f8-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55

    I agree with this article.

    Come the GE, people will fall into one of the following categories -

    1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn.
    2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum.
    3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit.

    Tough choices but them's the rules on this one.

    I am in (2). I want a Labour government more than I do not want Ref2.

    But that's me. I'm a bit niche, I think. (2) will be the smallest group.

    By contrast (1) and (3) will describe many millions and their relative size will determine the election result.

    If (1) is bigger than (3) - it's Lab minority govt.
    If (3) is bigger than (1) - it's Con majority.

    This is simplifying, obviously, but IMO in a useful way.

    There are other categories - for example:
    4. Would not vote for a party led by either Corbyn or Johnson. Full stop.

    A not insignificant number.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    edited October 2019
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.

    And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.

    It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.

    I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.

    Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.

    Your chickens will finish your chickens anything that has come from your kitchen all your kitchen scraps not sure what you'll do with the pig (singular).
    Sorry to have to say this but that is illegal. It is to my mind a ludicrous law but it is illegal to feed your chickens anything that has passed through your kitchen. That includes for example the outer leaves of your cauliflower or the stems of your broccoli
  • eristdoof said:

    Foxy said:



    The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.

    Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.



    Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.

    We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
    The decision not to eat parts of a dead animal is often made for ethical reasons. Because you are happy to eat meat, it does not mean this is not an ethical issue.
    It’s a choice.

    Fundamentally there are no ethical issues.
    Have you never wondered what sort of life that piece of meet had? How it lived, how it died? I have loved eating meat all my life, but even I used to get the odd pang of guilt when factory farming cruelty has been highlighted in the media.
    I've stopped eating meat on health grounds ultimately, but the ethical side of it is a bonus for me. As you say, it's a choice, and people shouldn't be vilified or judged on their preferred diet. Unless you're a Tory, as eating babies is bad.
    I stopped eating chicken when Sainsbury's withdrew the higher welfare option.
    Yes, that was a rare example of a blatant reversal of company policy - see my day job campaign on this:

    https://www.sustainweb.org/news/apr18_shamesburys/

    The balance of scientific argument has moved pretty sharply against Western levels of meat consumption, even if one leaves the ethical issue to one side, because of the indirect effects of factory farming - see the EAT:Lancet report and others.
    Regarding the ethics of meat-eating, I was interested to read recently that Richard Dawkins believes that our current treatment of animals will be viewed as morally indefensible in the future. He thinks that we should all be aspiring to be vegetarian and that this will ultimately become the norm.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Depressing but acute FT analysis

    https://www.ft.com/content/fa53836e-e8d7-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55

    In short: we are very possibly headed for political violence.

    Great.

    Worth pointing out the journalist is at the saner end of the Remainer spectrum.

    I notice that german chancellors office has said they wont comment on private conversations re yesterdays spat. I think we can take that she said basically what was leaked.
    Oh, definitely. She would deny it if she could, the rest of the EU is incredulous. But she can't deny it. Why? Because she said it, or close to it, and she cannot be sure it was not recorded by the Brits. Indeed, it surely was.
    Yes exactly. Varadkar can say what he likes about what he said to Boris on the margins because it wasn't recorded but Merkel cannot be sure. Newsflash, foreigners lie as much as British PMs. They are politicians, hence they lie.
This discussion has been closed.