What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
Er, they bore the brunt of the fighting against ISIS!
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
That’s a plausible argument to make (even though he has made the wrong decision)
Trump seems to have lifted his line from this column.
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
Hugh Gaitskill says he accepts the will of the people (which makes a change) but dismisses Lord Hailshsm's argument the Labour defeat 'means the extinction of Socialism'.
"Lord Hailsham is not an authority on socialism."
He had this great knack of sounding authoritative even when he knew the square root of bugger all about the topic 😆
I know you are sensitive on the subject, but I was under the impression that was the whole point of an Eton education!
Part of the point. Although Eric Anderson used to say that he job was to educate boys to be charming and interesting guests at a dinner party.
(I was close to Hailsham - he taught me constitutional theory and Latin when I was growing up - and he was particularly good at being authoritative. There was once delightful occasion when he didn’t like the vicar in our local church running the 1980 service so - from memory - he led the congregation in the 1662 instead)
So is this the EU / Bercow.stitch up, extension with 2nd referendum clause.
What could possibly go wrong?
(As 17.4m boycott the 2nd referendum......)
Well, good for them, but what does that achieve beyond adding 17.4m to the Remain winning margin? I suppose they can spend the rest of their lives sucking their teeth and muttering that ok we are still in the EU, but not legitimately in the EU. Which must be jolly satisfying.
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
Er, they bore the brunt of the fighting against ISIS!
Yes, but everyone knows the Kurds like a good fight. We were doing them a favour by getting them in a ruck with ISIS.
A fake poll is no better or worse than a genuine one at this stage in the game. Generate some random numbers, take your pick.
As I have said that two or three times today, I’ll take the opportunity to agree with you. When using them as a trigger to discuss how a future parliament would look, which seats would be under threat etc, it makes no difference whatsoever if the polls are made up by the ComRes teaboy or conducted via a carefully weighted sample of political obsessives
I'm guessing Erdogan isn't doing Turkey's chances of joining the EU much good.
EU talks have essentially been frozen since the crackdown against the alleged coup-plotters in 2016.
Yet it's never taken off the table.
Well, if you're comfortable with the proposition that "delaying something indefinitely" is not the same as "cancelling it", I can think of one or two political problems that could be applied to...
So is this the EU / Bercow.stitch up, extension with 2nd referendum clause.
What could possibly go wrong?
(As 17.4m boycott the 2nd referendum......)
Well, good for them, but what does that achieve beyond adding 17.4m to the Remain winning margin? I suppose they can spend the rest of their lives sucking their teeth and muttering that ok we are still in the EU, but not legitimately in the EU. Which must be jolly satisfying.
I’ve had 3.25 years of it and it’s not that satisfying to be honest
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
Er, they bore the brunt of the fighting against ISIS!
The argument is because they wanted to carve out a homeland / because Isis was a threat to their own way of life
(You cut out my observation that he had made the wrong decision so for clarity I add it back)
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
That’s a plausible argument to make (even though he has made the wrong decision)
You find his argument plausible? About Normandy and all?
So is this the EU / Bercow.stitch up, extension with 2nd referendum clause.
What could possibly go wrong?
(As 17.4m boycott the 2nd referendum......)
Well, good for them, but what does that achieve beyond adding 17.4m to the Remain winning margin? I suppose they can spend the rest of their lives sucking their teeth and muttering that ok we are still in the EU, but not legitimately in the EU. Which must be jolly satisfying.
I expect what they will do is wait till a General Election and vote accordingly.
Much easier to win a GE than fight the Referendum all over again.
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
Hugh Gaitskill says he accepts the will of the people (which makes a change) but dismisses Lord Hailshsm's argument the Labour defeat 'means the extinction of Socialism'.
"Lord Hailsham is not an authority on socialism."
He had this great knack of sounding authoritative even when he knew the square root of bugger all about the topic 😆
I know you are sensitive on the subject, but I was under the impression that was the whole point of an Eton education!
Part of the point. Although Eric Anderson used to say that he job was to educate boys to be charming and interesting guests at a dinner party.
(I was close to Hailsham - he taught me constitutional theory and Latin when I was growing up - and he was particularly good at being authoritative. There was once delightful occasion when he didn’t like the vicar in our local church running the 1980 service so - from memory - he led the congregation in the 1662 instead)
So is this the EU / Bercow.stitch up, extension with 2nd referendum clause.
What could possibly go wrong?
(As 17.4m boycott the 2nd referendum......)
Well, good for them, but what does that achieve beyond adding 17.4m to the Remain winning margin? I suppose they can spend the rest of their lives sucking their teeth and muttering that ok we are still in the EU, but not legitimately in the EU. Which must be jolly satisfying.
I expect what they will do is wait till a General Election and vote accordingly.
Much easier to win a GE than fight the Referendum all over again.
I think in the great Parliament versus People struggle, true Brexiteers should stand firm and refuse to vote for any Member of Parliament.
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
That’s a plausible argument to make (even though he has made the wrong decision)
You find his argument plausible? About Normandy and all?
He’s not going to end up in an orange jump suit. 🙁. His lawyer will plead insanity and keep him out of jail.
A fake poll is no better or worse than a genuine one at this stage in the game. Generate some random numbers, take your pick.
As I have said that two or three times today, I’ll take the opportunity to agree with you. When using them as a trigger to discuss how a future parliament would look, which seats would be under threat etc, it makes no difference whatsoever if the polls are made up by the ComRes teaboy or conducted via a carefully weighted sample of political obsessives
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
That’s a plausible argument to make (even though he has made the wrong decision)
You find his argument plausible? About Normandy and all?
Normandy was not a good example
The bones of his argument is that there is a difference between a relationship based alliance and a transactional alliance.
In the latter - Kurds and the US in Kurdistan for example - if the US interests are no longer aligned with the Kurds the deal expires.
In the former - the U.K. and the US for example - you might do something that was not in your immediate interest (providing it was not a substantial negative) if it was offset by other gains across the relationship.
The irony being - of course - is that Trump is the ultimate transactional individual abd has no interests in relationships
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
Er, they bore the brunt of the fighting against ISIS!
Yes, but everyone knows the Kurds like a good fight.
I think the point Trump is making is that they can't like a good fight that much. Why weren't they at Hastings, Agincourt, Waterloo or Balaclava?
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
Er, they bore the brunt of the fighting against ISIS!
The argument is because they wanted to carve out a homeland / because Isis was a threat to their own way of life
(You cut out my observation that he had made the wrong decision so for clarity I add it back)
Wilson gave them that homeland. It was there on the map after Versailles. The problem is people claim land, like Turkey are here, that have other nationalities in The villages. Turks do it publicly in the name of security, but in reality that Kurdistan could reach the med, and so could an oil pipeline...
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
That’s a plausible argument to make (even though he has made the wrong decision)
You find his argument plausible? About Normandy and all?
Normandy was not a good example
I think that may be the part people are finding a bit strange.
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
Hugh Gaitskill says he accepts the will of the people (which makes a change) but dismisses Lord Hailshsm's argument the Labour defeat 'means the extinction of Socialism'.
"Lord Hailsham is not an authority on socialism."
He had this great knack of sounding authoritative even when he knew the square root of bugger all about the topic 😆
I know you are sensitive on the subject, but I was under the impression that was the whole point of an Eton education!
Part of the point. Although Eric Anderson used to say that he job was to educate boys to be charming and interesting guests at a dinner party.
(I was close to Hailsham - he taught me constitutional theory and Latin when I was growing up - and he was particularly good at being authoritative. There was once delightful occasion when he didn’t like the vicar in our local church running the 1980 service so - from memory - he led the congregation in the 1662 instead)
ASB was pure poetry compared to Common Worship.
Yes. I like the 1928 BCP better than the 1662 though
So the US’s actions combined with Turkey’s invasion risk leading to:-
1. A refugee crisis in Syria impacting Europe. 2. The revival of IS and more terrorism by them in the region and in Europe.
And will certainly lead to:-
3. More death and destruction in Syria. 4. The betrayal of the Kurds who did the bulk of the fighting against IS.
Why should we consider the US an ally at all? This is not the action of an ally but of a country which will cause us harm. There are ways of describing such a country. “Ally” is not one of them.
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
Er, they bore the brunt of the fighting against ISIS!
Yes, but everyone knows the Kurds like a good fight.
I think the point Trump is making is that they can't like a good fight that much. Why weren't they at Hastings, Agincourt, Waterloo or Balaclava?
So the US’s actions combined with Turkey’s invasion risk leading to:-
1. A refugee crisis in Syria impacting Europe. 2. The revival of IS and more terrorism by them in the region and in Europe.
And will certainly lead to:-
3. More death and destruction in Syria. 4. The betrayal of the Kurds who did the bulk of the fighting against IS.
Why should we consider the US an ally at all? This is not the action of an ally but of a country which will cause us harm. There are ways of describing such a country. “Ally” is not one of them.
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
That’s a plausible argument to make (even though he has made the wrong decision)
You find his argument plausible? About Normandy and all?
Normandy was not a good example
I think that may be the part people are finding a bit strange.
That’s part of what I find frustrating about modern journalism
He’s actually making an important and interesting point. But they are so keen to yell “gotcha” that they miss what actually matters.
They are "seeking to obtain" an extension as Parliament wishes.
But Boris is then perfectly entitled to send another letter saying he doesn't want or agree with it if he wishes
We're getting to the point where Benn must be infringing Boris's human rights!
I think that's right - Boris can send another letter but the EU will know they should rightly ignore it. It's clear which will be the official letter.
The second letter doesn’t say he doesn’t want an extension. It says how he will use an extension
It wont be up to him how he uses it, they know by the fact of the extension itself that he can be overruled by Parliament whenever it chooses.
Parliament can’t force him to negotiate.
The point was parliament will choose to do as it pleases, regardless of his intentions, and ultimately his plans still require them to pass a deal or allow no deal, and this side of an election they won't do anything.
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
That’s a plausible argument to make (even though he has made the wrong decision)
You find his argument plausible? About Normandy and all?
He’s not going to end up in an orange jump suit. 🙁. His lawyer will plead insanity and keep him out of jail.
What Charles is saying is that Trump is using Normandy as a metaphor. He badly misspoke, but his point does make sense. If he'd said 'What you have to understand is that whist the Kurds were fighting alongside us, it wasn't like we were storming the beaches at Normandy together - they were fighting for their land, acting in their own self interest.'
I agree that the USA's treatment of the Kurds has been apalling by the way. But it's silly to assume that Trump is actually resentful that there was no Kurdish assistance in the liberation of France. It's Twitter outrage.
So is this the EU / Bercow.stitch up, extension with 2nd referendum clause.
What could possibly go wrong?
(As 17.4m boycott the 2nd referendum......)
Well, good for them, but what does that achieve beyond adding 17.4m to the Remain winning margin? I suppose they can spend the rest of their lives sucking their teeth and muttering that ok we are still in the EU, but not legitimately in the EU. Which must be jolly satisfying.
They will save their energy to fight the battle that matters. Electing MPs who will do the job.
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
Er, they bore the brunt of the fighting against ISIS!
Yes, but everyone knows the Kurds like a good fight.
I think the point Trump is making is that they can't like a good fight that much. Why weren't they at Hastings, Agincourt, Waterloo or Balaclava?
They weren’t down Romford high street last Friday night either.
I can certainly see why the EU would want an election or referendum, but do they actually have a mechanism that would cause a condition like that on an extension to have real teeth (ie to guarantee one to take place) rather than just being effectively "we strongly suggest this"? The extension agreement is between the EU and the UK government (right?) and the UK government has just demonstrated that it doesn't have the ability to deliver an election even if it wants one.
So the US’s actions combined with Turkey’s invasion risk leading to:-
1. A refugee crisis in Syria impacting Europe. 2. The revival of IS and more terrorism by them in the region and in Europe.
And will certainly lead to:-
3. More death and destruction in Syria. 4. The betrayal of the Kurds who did the bulk of the fighting against IS.
Why should we consider the US an ally at all? This is not the action of an ally but of a country which will cause us harm. There are ways of describing such a country. “Ally” is not one of them.
Because this situation is temporary. There is considerable damage being done to trust, but as long as the Republicans can pull their fingers out and usher Trump off and into his waiting indictments, things will start to renormalise. The nightmare scenario is the crime syndicate beds in and a Trumpesque replacement is found. But the majority of the GOP won't really want that.
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
Hugh Gaitskill says he accepts the will of the people (which makes a change) but dismisses Lord Hailshsm's argument the Labour defeat 'means the extinction of Socialism'.
"Lord Hailsham is not an authority on socialism."
He had this great knack of sounding authoritative even when he knew the square root of bugger all about the topic 😆
I know you are sensitive on the subject, but I was under the impression that was the whole point of an Eton education!
Part of the point. Although Eric Anderson used to say that he job was to educate boys to be charming and interesting guests at a dinner party.
(I was close to Hailsham - he taught me constitutional theory and Latin when I was growing up - and he was particularly good at being authoritative. There was once delightful occasion when he didn’t like the vicar in our local church running the 1980 service so - from memory - he led the congregation in the 1662 instead)
ASB was pure poetry compared to Common Worship.
Yes. I like the 1928 BCP better than the 1662 though
You must be talking godlish. I’d find Swahili as intelligible.
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
That’s a plausible argument to make (even though he has made the wrong decision)
You find his argument plausible? About Normandy and all?
He’s not going to end up in an orange jump suit. 🙁. His lawyer will plead insanity and keep him out of jail.
What Charles is saying is that Trump is using Normandy as a metaphor. He badly misspoke, but his point does make sense. If he'd said 'What you have to understand is that whist the Kurds were fighting alongside us, it wasn't like we were storming the beaches at Normandy together - they were fighting for their land, acting in their own self interest.'
I agree that the USA's treatment of the Kurds has been apalling by the way. But it's silly to assume that Trump is actually resentful that there was no Kurdish assistance in the liberation of France. It's Twitter outrage.
I'm all for criticising twitter outrage, but when the only possibly reasonable interpretation requires a complete rewriting of what he said to clarify what he actually may have meant, an amount of outrage does not seem unreasonable given his own opinion of his abilities as a communicator, and given overall sensitivity of these areas requiring a little more precision of language.
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
That’s a plausible argument to make (even though he has made the wrong decision)
You find his argument plausible? About Normandy and all?
Normandy was not a good example
I think that may be the part people are finding a bit strange.
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
That’s a plausible argument to make (even though he has made the wrong decision)
You find his argument plausible? About Normandy and all?
Normandy was not a good example
I think that may be the part people are finding a bit strange.
Just watching a recording of the 'Tory Party at War'. Very funny particularly Alan Duncan. Speaks his mind! like 'Priti Patel the most useless and incompetent minister we've ever had'. Most of his predictions were right though Including that Patel would be in a Johnson Cabinet. What a bunch of shits the ERG were. How anyone voted for Johnson is just baffling. Surprisingly Farage is more likable than I'd imagined but in that company it's not too difficult
Where can I find this show?
Channel 4 about a week ago. It's in two parts. That's the first
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
That’s a plausible argument to make (even though he has made the wrong decision)
You find his argument plausible? About Normandy and all?
He’s not going to end up in an orange jump suit. 🙁. His lawyer will plead insanity and keep him out of jail.
What Charles is saying is that Trump is using Normandy as a metaphor. He badly misspoke, but his point does make sense. If he'd said 'What you have to understand is that whist the Kurds were fighting alongside us, it wasn't like we were storming the beaches at Normandy together - they were fighting for their land, acting in their own self interest.'
I agree that the USA's treatment of the Kurds has been apalling by the way. But it's silly to assume that Trump is actually resentful that there was no Kurdish assistance in the liberation of France. It's Twitter outrage.
Are you saying we should dig around in Trump's insanity for the nugget of truth that might be at the heart of his ramblings? And is this spirit of consensus something that is integral to Trump's project, or the attitude of his rapey fratboy fanclub? No, it isn't. So stuff him and his stupid orange head.
Not really granting him one when all parties want one anyway. Come Halloween Boris may not wish to be 'granted' an election if the Faragites withdraw their support.
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
That’s a plausible argument to make (even though he has made the wrong decision)
You find his argument plausible? About Normandy and all?
He’s not going to end up in an orange jump suit. 🙁. His lawyer will plead insanity and keep him out of jail.
What Charles is saying is that Trump is using Normandy as a metaphor. He badly misspoke, but his point does make sense. If he'd said 'What you have to understand is that whist the Kurds were fighting alongside us, it wasn't like we were storming the beaches at Normandy together - they were fighting for their land, acting in their own self interest.'
I agree that the USA's treatment of the Kurds has been apalling by the way. But it's silly to assume that Trump is actually resentful that there was no Kurdish assistance in the liberation of France. It's Twitter outrage.
I'm all for criticising twitter outrage, but when the only possibly reasonable interpretation requires a complete rewriting of what he said to clarify what he actually may have meant, an amount of outrage does not seem unreasonable given his own opinion of his abilities as a communicator, and given overall sensitivity of these areas requiring a little more precision of language.
But it's sloppy and silly to assume the most outlandish interpretation, especially as Trump referenced an article he'd drawn the point from that apparently someone from PB had little difficulty finding. I agree having such a poor communicator as POTUS is sub-optimal, but the sensitivities of the issues surely require us to use more care not less.
I can certainly see why the EU would want an election or referendum, but do they actually have a mechanism that would cause a condition like that on an extension to have real teeth (ie to guarantee one to take place) rather than just being effectively "we strongly suggest this"? The extension agreement is between the EU and the UK government (right?) and the UK government has just demonstrated that it doesn't have the ability to deliver an election even if it wants one.
It's a good point - hard to see how, between now and 31 October, the EU can be guaranteed that an election or referendum will take place during the extension period.
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
That’s a plausible argument to make (even though he has made the wrong decision)
You find his argument plausible? About Normandy and all?
He’s not going to end up in an orange jump suit. 🙁. His lawyer will plead insanity and keep him out of jail.
What Charles is saying is that Trump is using Normandy as a metaphor. He badly misspoke, but his point does make sense. If he'd said 'What you have to understand is that whist the Kurds were fighting alongside us, it wasn't like we were storming the beaches at Normandy together - they were fighting for their land, acting in their own self interest.'
I agree that the USA's treatment of the Kurds has been apalling by the way. But it's silly to assume that Trump is actually resentful that there was no Kurdish assistance in the liberation of France. It's Twitter outrage.
I didn’t infer any resentment from him. What I did infer was crass idiocy. It was an ill-timed, moronic comment that was apropos of nothing. Any attempt to intellectualise it is a mistake.
Just watching a recording of the 'Tory Party at War'. Very funny particularly Alan Duncan. Speaks his mind! like 'Priti Patel the most useless and incompetent minister we've ever had'. Most of his predictions were right though Including that Patel would be in a Johnson Cabinet. What a bunch of shits the ERG were. How anyone voted for Johnson is just baffling. Surprisingly Farage is more likable than I'd imagined but in that company it's not too difficult
Where can I find this show?
Channel 4 about a week ago. It's in two parts. That's the first
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
That’s a plausible argument to make (even though he has made the wrong decision)
You find his argument plausible? About Normandy and all?
He’s not going to end up in an orange jump suit. 🙁. His lawyer will plead insanity and keep him out of jail.
What Charles is saying is that Trump is using Normandy as a metaphor. He badly misspoke, but his point does make sense. If he'd said 'What you have to understand is that whist the Kurds were fighting alongside us, it wasn't like we were storming the beaches at Normandy together - they were fighting for their land, acting in their own self interest.'
I agree that the USA's treatment of the Kurds has been apalling by the way. But it's silly to assume that Trump is actually resentful that there was no Kurdish assistance in the liberation of France. It's Twitter outrage.
Are you saying we should dig around in Trump's insanity for the nugget of truth that might be at the heart of his ramblings? And is this spirit of consensus something that is integral to Trump's project, or the attitude of his rapey fratboy fanclub? No, it isn't. So stuff him and his stupid orange head.
Not at all. I'm saying we should probably seek to find the most plausible explanation for his stranger public statements, even if it's more mundane and less fun than declaring him a lunatic.
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
Er, they bore the brunt of the fighting against ISIS!
Yes, but everyone knows the Kurds like a good fight.
I think the point Trump is making is that they can't like a good fight that much. Why weren't they at Hastings, Agincourt, Waterloo or Balaclava?
They weren’t down Romford high street last Friday night either.
Just watching a recording of the 'Tory Party at War'. Very funny particularly Alan Duncan. Speaks his mind! like 'Priti Patel the most useless and incompetent minister we've ever had'. Most of his predictions were right though Including that Patel would be in a Johnson Cabinet. What a bunch of shits the ERG were. How anyone voted for Johnson is just baffling. Surprisingly Farage is more likable than I'd imagined but in that company it's not too difficult
Where can I find this show?
Channel 4 about a week ago. It's in two parts. That's the first
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
Hugh Gaitskill says he accepts the will of the people (which makes a change) but dismisses Lord Hailshsm's argument the Labour defeat 'means the extinction of Socialism'.
"Lord Hailsham is not an authority on socialism."
He had this great knack of sounding authoritative even when he knew the square root of bugger all about the topic 😆
I know you are sensitive on the subject, but I was under the impression that was the whole point of an Eton education!
Part of the point. Although Eric Anderson used to say that he job was to educate boys to be charming and interesting guests at a dinner party.
(I was close to Hailsham - he taught me constitutional theory and Latin when I was growing up - and he was particularly good at being authoritative. There was once delightful occasion when he didn’t like the vicar in our local church running the 1980 service so - from memory - he led the congregation in the 1662 instead)
ASB was pure poetry compared to Common Worship.
Yes. I like the 1928 BCP better than the 1662 though
You must be talking godlish. I’d find Swahili as intelligible.
Regardless of whether you believe or not, the beauty and economy of the language in the 1928 book of common prayer (keeping the majesty of the 1662 form while losing some of the archaic wording) makes listening to it an intensely pleasurable experience
Boris is in a bit of bind really regarding the forthcoming Tory manifesto:
Commit to No Deal and he has a rebellion of 50 to 80 Tory MPs; avoid committing to No Deal and he'll be fighting Farage and his mob in the GE.
I look forward to seeing which way he screws up that decision.
Boris will leave the option of No Deal open to keep the Brexit Party vote down, then once he wins a Tory majority and has no need of the DUP go for a NI only backstop Deal with the EU
Boris is in a bit of bind really regarding the forthcoming Tory manifesto:
Commit to No Deal and he has a rebellion of 50 to 80 Tory MPs; avoid committing to No Deal and he'll be fighting Farage and his mob in the GE.
I look forward to seeing which way he screws up that decision.
As has been theorized, by bullshitting that a deal will be had, but if not then no deal, with the hope that it minimises the Farage retaliation (it won't satisfy Farage himself but can it keep BXP down to around 10% or less?) and the rebels have their figleaf, which is all they want since if they genuinely believed no deal was not and is not the Boris plan they are hopelessly clueless and I don't buy that all of them are.
Boris is in a bit of bind really regarding the forthcoming Tory manifesto:
Commit to No Deal and he has a rebellion of 50 to 80 Tory MPs; avoid committing to No Deal and he'll be fighting Farage and his mob in the GE.
I look forward to seeing which way he screws up that decision.
Um, no. Seek a deal, be ready to leave without one. You can't 'seek' no deal. You can't 'demand' no agreement. You can't even rob a bank if the bank gives you the money. Amazed this concept has to be explained again and again.
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
That’s a plausible argument to make (even though he has made the wrong decision)
You find his argument plausible? About Normandy and all?
He’s not going to end up in an orange jump suit. 🙁. His lawyer will plead insanity and keep him out of jail.
What Charles is saying is that Trump is using Normandy as a metaphor. He badly misspoke, but his point does make sense. If he'd said 'What you have to understand is that whist the Kurds were fighting alongside us, it wasn't like we were storming the beaches at Normandy together - they were fighting for their land, acting in their own self interest.'
I agree that the USA's treatment of the Kurds has been apalling by the way. But it's silly to assume that Trump is actually resentful that there was no Kurdish assistance in the liberation of France. It's Twitter outrage.
Are you saying we should dig around in Trump's insanity for the nugget of truth that might be at the heart of his ramblings? And is this spirit of consensus something that is integral to Trump's project, or the attitude of his rapey fratboy fanclub? No, it isn't. So stuff him and his stupid orange head.
Not at all. I'm saying we should probably seek to find the most plausible explanation for his stranger public statements, even if it's more mundane and less fun than declaring him a lunatic.
Seeking plausible explanations for things he says is a mug's game. He's a pathological liar, a self-serving manipulator and a vicious, gaslighting enemy of the truth. You will never derive any insight from listening to him. I don't say that kind of thing about anyone; I find it very interesting listening to people I disagree with if there's a chance they are sincere, but Trump is anything but. There's no truth or meaning to be had from him. None at all.
Question: if the woman involved in the alleged car crash in Northants sets foot in any country where the Queen is head of state, such as Barbados or Canada, could she be extradited to the UK?
For God's sake everyone: get a six week extension and have the F*CKING election.
And then we at least stand a chance of having a government. I almost don't care what hue right now, so long as we get a new selection of MPs.
A six week extension for a GE will just lead to a further extension after the GE to allow whatever government is elected to pursue it's version of Brexit or Ref2. (Unless the LDs win a majority, in which case 6 weeks should be enough time to Revoke.)
Excepting a LD miracle, six months is the minimum extension period the EU should be offering imo.
Question: if the woman involved in the alleged car crash in Northants sets foot in any country where the Queen is head of state, such as Barbados or Canada, could she be extradited to the UK?
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
Hugh Gaitskill says he accepts the will of the people (which makes a change) but dismisses Lord Hailshsm's argument the Labour defeat 'means the extinction of Socialism'.
"Lord Hailsham is not an authority on socialism."
He had this great knack of sounding authoritative even when he knew the square root of bugger all about the topic 😆
I know you are sensitive on the subject, but I was under the impression that was the whole point of an Eton education!
Part of the point. Although Eric Anderson used to say that he job was to educate boys to be charming and interesting guests at a dinner party.
(I was close to Hailsham - he taught me constitutional theory and Latin when I was growing up - and he was particularly good at being authoritative. There was once delightful occasion when he didn’t like the vicar in our local church running the 1980 service so - from memory - he led the congregation in the 1662 instead)
ASB was pure poetry compared to Common Worship.
Yes. I like the 1928 BCP better than the 1662 though
You must be talking godlish. I’d find Swahili as intelligible.
Regardless of whether you believe or not, the beauty and economy of the language in the 1928 book of common prayer (keeping the majesty of the 1662 form while losing some of the archaic wording) makes listening to it an intensely pleasurable experience
I wasn’t making a point about my disbelief, more that I hadn’t the faintest idea what you were on about. Anyway, I’ll take your word for it.
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
That’s a plausible argument to make (even though he has made the wrong decision)
You find his argument plausible? About Normandy and all?
He’s not going to end up in an orange jump suit. 🙁. His lawyer will plead insanity and keep him out of jail.
What Charles is saying is that Trump is using Normandy as a metaphor. He badly misspoke, but his point does make sense. If he'd said 'What you have to understand is that whist the Kurds were fighting alongside us, it wasn't like we were storming the beaches at Normandy together - they were fighting for their land, acting in their own self interest.'
I agree that the USA's treatment of the Kurds has been apalling by the way. But it's silly to assume that Trump is actually resentful that there was no Kurdish assistance in the liberation of France. It's Twitter outrage.
Are you saying we should dig around in Trump's insanity for the nugget of truth that might be at the heart of his ramblings? And is this spirit of consensus something that is integral to Trump's project, or the attitude of his rapey fratboy fanclub? No, it isn't. So stuff him and his stupid orange head.
Not at all. I'm saying we should probably seek to find the most plausible explanation for his stranger public statements, even if it's more mundane and less fun than declaring him a lunatic.
Seeking plausible explanations for things he says is a mug's game. He's a pathological liar, a self-serving manipulator and a vicious, gaslighting enemy of the truth. You will never derive any insight from listening to him. I don't say that kind of thing about anyone; I find it very interesting listening to people I disagree with if there's a chance they are sincere, but Trump is anything but. There's no truth or meaning to be had from him. None at all.
Except that what he is saying is that a Kurds were allies of convenience and hence can expect no loyalty from the US
That *matters*.
And you can bet that other countries will be listening to that, not laughing about Normandy
So the US’s actions combined with Turkey’s invasion risk leading to:-
1. A refugee crisis in Syria impacting Europe. 2. The revival of IS and more terrorism by them in the region and in Europe.
And will certainly lead to:-
3. More death and destruction in Syria. 4. The betrayal of the Kurds who did the bulk of the fighting against IS.
Why should we consider the US an ally at all? This is not the action of an ally but of a country which will cause us harm. There are ways of describing such a country. “Ally” is not one of them.
It was Assad and Putin who defeated IS in Syria, not the Kurds.
The Kurds bravely defended their own lands and were supported alongside the Free Syrian Army by US, UK and French air strikes but it was only the Syrian Army with Russian Air support who drove IS out of Syria
Very interesting with huge betting implications. But the quote from Corbyn's preleased speech text mentions nothing about late November or October 21st. It's either sloppy journalism from the Sun, editorialising or a premptive leak to rein Corbyn in. It'll be interesting to see which.
Question: if the woman involved in the alleged car crash in Northants sets foot in any country where the Queen is head of state, such as Barbados or Canada, could she be extradited to the UK?
Diplomatic immunity protects from prosecution so it’s not extradition that matters
Boris is in a bit of bind really regarding the forthcoming Tory manifesto:
Commit to No Deal and he has a rebellion of 50 to 80 Tory MPs; avoid committing to No Deal and he'll be fighting Farage and his mob in the GE.
I look forward to seeing which way he screws up that decision.
Um, no. Seek a deal, be ready to leave without one. You can't 'seek' no deal. You can't 'demand' no agreement. You can't even rob a bank if the bank gives you the money. Amazed this concept has to be explained again and again.
If he continues to seek a deal, Farage will be fighting him.
Boris is in a bit of bind really regarding the forthcoming Tory manifesto:
Commit to No Deal and he has a rebellion of 50 to 80 Tory MPs; avoid committing to No Deal and he'll be fighting Farage and his mob in the GE.
I look forward to seeing which way he screws up that decision.
Not really.
He'll go into it with his proposal as his preferred option and No Deal as his back up option.
That will give the One Nation lot enough of a fig leaf to stay in the tent.
Correct and he can time date it. EU have until 31st Jan to accept my deal or we leave with no deal. When will you have your new deal negotiated by Mr Corbyn?
Boris is in a bit of bind really regarding the forthcoming Tory manifesto:
Commit to No Deal and he has a rebellion of 50 to 80 Tory MPs; avoid committing to No Deal and he'll be fighting Farage and his mob in the GE.
I look forward to seeing which way he screws up that decision.
Um, no. Seek a deal, be ready to leave without one. You can't 'seek' no deal. You can't 'demand' no agreement. You can't even rob a bank if the bank gives you the money. Amazed this concept has to be explained again and again.
If he continues to seek a deal, Farage will be fighting him.
So what?
BXP is already down to 13% in the polls and when the campaign gets underway they'll lose at least another 5-6% as people will understand there's only one way Brexit can be secured and that's with Boris.
For God's sake everyone: get a six week extension and have the F*CKING election.
And then we at least stand a chance of having a government. I almost don't care what hue right now, so long as we get a new selection of MPs.
Absurd.
Has rcs1000 been hacked? Increasingly last couple of days doesn’t sound like the usual sageful thinking ☹️
One of the issues with a GE sorting this out is if we don’t get very much of a selection of new MPs, and the parties and their positions aren’t any different on the other side. The polls indicate a Tory majority but that picture could change after the starting gun, with Boris in a weaker position now than six weeks ago because claims he could negotiate a deal brexit are not as credible now as they once were. The polls could change in campaign due to the key policies and personalities coming under scrutiny. If the Tories campaigned on No Deal, Labour, with their safety first All voters will get a vote on a CU brexit deal v remain, no backstop problem and ability to agree a CU Deal with EU in matter of hours would win that contest.
But the most likely outcome is ending back where we are now with similar numbers, players, positions and no resolution.
For God's sake everyone: get a six week extension and have the F*CKING election.
And then we at least stand a chance of having a government. I almost don't care what hue right now, so long as we get a new selection of MPs.
A six week extension for a GE will just lead to a further extension after the GE to allow whatever government is elected to pursue it's version of Brexit or Ref2. (Unless the LDs win a majority, in which case 6 weeks should be enough time to Revoke.)
Excepting a LD miracle, six months is the minimum extension period the EU should be offering imo.
We don't know whether the Lib Dem pledge to revoke A50 via prerogative power is legal. It would certainly end up in the Supreme Court via a reverse Miller case brought by Brexiters. Given the implications of either the Supreme Court or CJEU finding we had actually left by accident months down the line I'd expect even a Lib Dem majority government would need to extend to cover themselves. And a Lib Dem majority government would see some remarkably unexpected people elected. There may be several Stephen Lloyds in there so a majority Lib Dem government may not have a majority for a Revoke Act.
Question: if the woman involved in the alleged car crash in Northants sets foot in any country where the Queen is head of state, such as Barbados or Canada, could she be extradited to the UK?
Diplomatic immunity protects from prosecution so it’s not extradition that matters
Diplomatic immunity can be waived. It's possible, though not likely, it could be waived but she not be extradited from the US. Under those circumstances, the question becomes relevant.
So the US’s actions combined with Turkey’s invasion risk leading to:-
1. A refugee crisis in Syria impacting Europe. 2. The revival of IS and more terrorism by them in the region and in Europe.
And will certainly lead to:-
3. More death and destruction in Syria. 4. The betrayal of the Kurds who did the bulk of the fighting against IS.
Why should we consider the US an ally at all? This is not the action of an ally but of a country which will cause us harm. There are ways of describing such a country. “Ally” is not one of them.
It was Assad and Putin who defeated IS in Syria, not the Kurds.
Why Nov 26th (a Tuesday) and not the 28th (a Thursday)?
I was wondering that? It's a rather odd detail that makes me think it could just be a genuine report (as if it was fake news you'd make it Thursday 28th)
Why Nov 26th (a Tuesday) and not the 28th (a Thursday)?
I was wondering that? It's a rather odd detail that makes me think it could just be a genuine report (as if it was fake news you'd make it Thursday 28th)
Article states it’s the earliest day it could be held.
So the US’s actions combined with Turkey’s invasion risk leading to:-
1. A refugee crisis in Syria impacting Europe. 2. The revival of IS and more terrorism by them in the region and in Europe.
And will certainly lead to:-
3. More death and destruction in Syria. 4. The betrayal of the Kurds who did the bulk of the fighting against IS.
Why should we consider the US an ally at all? This is not the action of an ally but of a country which will cause us harm. There are ways of describing such a country. “Ally” is not one of them.
It was Assad and Putin who defeated IS in Syria, not the Kurds.
HYUFD gets his history wrong again!
This is from Fox News Security correspondent. Trump may be pretty short of friends soon.
Question: if the woman involved in the alleged car crash in Northants sets foot in any country where the Queen is head of state, such as Barbados or Canada, could she be extradited to the UK?
It’s had a fair deal of coverage here on NPR, reported fairly straight. But the clear consensus is that there is no way she’ll lose her protection or immunity.
So the US’s actions combined with Turkey’s invasion risk leading to:-
1. A refugee crisis in Syria impacting Europe. 2. The revival of IS and more terrorism by them in the region and in Europe.
And will certainly lead to:-
3. More death and destruction in Syria. 4. The betrayal of the Kurds who did the bulk of the fighting against IS.
Why should we consider the US an ally at all? This is not the action of an ally but of a country which will cause us harm. There are ways of describing such a country. “Ally” is not one of them.
It was Assad and Putin who defeated IS in Syria, not the Kurds.
The Kurds bravely defended their own lands and were supported alongside the Free Syrian Army by US, UK and French air strikes but it was only the Syrian Army with Russian Air support who drove IS out of Syria
Is there anything you can envisage Trump or Johnson doing that wouldn't get your whole hearted support?
Comments
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/10/08/critics-aghast-as-trump-keeps-word-about-no-more-wars-n2554328?amp=true&__twitter_impression=true
(I was close to Hailsham - he taught me constitutional theory and Latin when I was growing up - and he was particularly good at being authoritative. There was once delightful occasion when he didn’t like the vicar in our local church running the 1980 service so - from memory - he led the congregation in the 1662 instead)
(You cut out my observation that he had made the wrong decision so for clarity I add it back)
Much easier to win a GE than fight the Referendum all over again.
The bones of his argument is that there is a difference between a relationship based alliance and a transactional alliance.
In the latter - Kurds and the US in Kurdistan for example - if the US interests are no longer aligned with the Kurds the deal expires.
In the former - the U.K. and the US for example - you might do something that was not in your immediate interest (providing it was not a substantial negative) if it was offset by other gains across the relationship.
The irony being - of course - is that Trump is the ultimate transactional individual abd has no interests in relationships
Turks do it publicly in the name of security, but in reality that Kurdistan could reach the med, and so could an oil pipeline...
1. A refugee crisis in Syria impacting Europe.
2. The revival of IS and more terrorism by them in the region and in Europe.
And will certainly lead to:-
3. More death and destruction in Syria.
4. The betrayal of the Kurds who did the bulk of the fighting against IS.
Why should we consider the US an ally at all? This is not the action of an ally but of a country which will cause us harm. There are ways of describing such a country. “Ally” is not one of them.
He’s actually making an important and interesting point. But they are so keen to yell “gotcha” that they miss what actually matters.
I agree that the USA's treatment of the Kurds has been apalling by the way. But it's silly to assume that Trump is actually resentful that there was no Kurdish assistance in the liberation of France. It's Twitter outrage.
Doth your cap to Brussels on the way out.
The nightmare scenario is the crime syndicate beds in and a Trumpesque replacement is found. But the majority of the GOP won't really want that.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10102153/labour-grant-boris-election-nov-26/
And is this spirit of consensus something that is integral to Trump's project, or the attitude of his rapey fratboy fanclub? No, it isn't. So stuff him and his stupid orange head.
And then we at least stand a chance of having a government. I almost don't care what hue right now, so long as we get a new selection of MPs.
(Unless they insist we extend to June 2022
Commit to No Deal and he has a rebellion of 50 to 80 Tory MPs; avoid committing to No Deal and he'll be fighting Farage and his mob in the GE.
I look forward to seeing which way he screws up that decision.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10102153/labour-grant-boris-election-nov-26/
I don't say that kind of thing about anyone; I find it very interesting listening to people I disagree with if there's a chance they are sincere, but Trump is anything but. There's no truth or meaning to be had from him. None at all.
Excepting a LD miracle, six months is the minimum extension period the EU should be offering imo.
He'll go into it with his proposal as his preferred option and No Deal as his back up option.
That will give the One Nation lot enough of a fig leaf to stay in the tent.
That *matters*.
And you can bet that other countries will be listening to that, not laughing about Normandy
The Kurds bravely defended their own lands and were supported alongside the Free Syrian Army by US, UK and French air strikes but it was only the Syrian Army with Russian Air support who drove IS out of Syria
Not sure the PLP will go with it though... Jezza may need Len to tell em' what's what!
BXP is already down to 13% in the polls and when the campaign gets underway they'll lose at least another 5-6% as people will understand there's only one way Brexit can be secured and that's with Boris.
https://twitter.com/leicesterliz/status/1182052040622710784?s=19
One of the issues with a GE sorting this out is if we don’t get very much of a selection of new MPs, and the parties and their positions aren’t any different on the other side. The polls indicate a Tory majority but that picture could change after the starting gun, with Boris in a weaker position now than six weeks ago because claims he could negotiate a deal brexit are not as credible now as they once were. The polls could change in campaign due to the key policies and personalities coming under scrutiny. If the Tories campaigned on No Deal, Labour, with their safety first All voters will get a vote on a CU brexit deal v remain, no backstop problem and ability to agree a CU Deal with EU in matter of hours would win that contest.
But the most likely outcome is ending back where we are now with similar numbers, players, positions and no resolution.
https://twitter.com/JenGriffinFNC/status/1182053870744276993?s=19