Mr. Glenn, Boris is an oaf but the focus of the national interest is not upon a single PM but the long-standing position of the United Kingdom and what is in our collective interest.
If you were worried about the collective interest of the United Kingdom, you would be very wary of riding roughshod over the views of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
All pretence of UK collectivism is out the window. Even the Conservative and Unionist Party can’t be arsed pretending any more.
'Supplicant', Mike? I thought our Soveriegnity was about to return once we threw off the cursed yoke of the EU.
Surely we are not replacing servitude to the EU with servitude to the USA?
We’re not supplicant
The UK can function perfectly well without a US trade deal
If one makes sense for both sides then great, if not then whatever
It's too important to the psychology of those Brexiteers who see it as a project to unite the 'Anglosphere'. Take away both a US trade deal and a CANZUK alliance and what's the point?
iScot will need all the refugees it can get given the outflow that will go in the opposite direction
I understand you left ukScot long ago?
I have spent some time in England, yes. iScot move to England is something me and Ms Brisk have discussed but we're quite cash poor at the moment. I'm sure those with the appropriate finances will give it some serious discussion.
Mr. Glenn, whereas you're content to ride roughshod over England and Wales, and the majority of UK voters.
Mr. Meeks, a large part of the problem is May's incompetence and the Commons collectively refusing to back any outcome.
Mr. B, you may recall I've said several times one of the key lessons of the Second Punic War is the importance of a nation's constitutional arrangements rather than individual brilliance. Rome won because its set up was practically invincible. Carthage had Hannibal's genius, but even a man so great could not overcome the Roman Senate and People.
And if she isn’t, why not? What sort of bastard employer doesn’t give an employee undergoing chemotherapy time off and ensure that someone else does that person’s work?
'Supplicant', Mike? I thought our Soveriegnity was about to return once we threw off the cursed yoke of the EU.
Surely we are not replacing servitude to the EU with servitude to the USA?
We’re not supplicant
The UK can function perfectly well without a US trade deal
If one makes sense for both sides then great, if not then whatever
Funny how people can see that is blindingly obvious for the US but switch the name US with EU and you are "insane" . . .
If you struggle to understand that, imagine California was leaving the USA. A deep trade deal with the USA would be essential not to screw their economy, but a trade deal with the EU would be somewhere between nice to have and irrelevant.
If California has reached such a point of divergence from the rest of the USA that they've decided that separation is best then they'd be insane to undergo that separation only to sign up to follow US laws.
Mr. Glenn, whereas you're content to ride roughshod over England and Wales, and the majority of UK voters.
Mr. Meeks, a large part of the problem is May's incompetence and the Commons collectively refusing to back any outcome.
Mr. B, you may recall I've said several times one of the key lessons of the Second Punic War is the importance of a nation's constitutional arrangements rather than individual brilliance. Rome won because its set up was practically invincible. Carthage had Hannibal's genius, but even a man so great could not overcome the Roman Senate and People.
The problem is simple. Leavers know what they are against. They are clueless about what they are for.
Mr. Glenn, whereas you're content to ride roughshod over England and Wales, and the majority of UK voters.
Mr. Meeks, a large part of the problem is May's incompetence and the Commons collectively refusing to back any outcome.
Mr. B, you may recall I've said several times one of the key lessons of the Second Punic War is the importance of a nation's constitutional arrangements rather than individual brilliance. Rome won because its set up was practically invincible. Carthage had Hannibal's genius, but even a man so great could not overcome the Roman Senate and People.
And if you put an oaf in charge of rearranging those constitutional arrangements ?
We just need to believe! Puts me in mind of an old Christmas tune by Greg Lake
They said there'll be a deal for Brexit They said it'll be easiest on Earth But instead the House kept on rejecting Withdrawal agreement: strangled at birth I remember twenty-ninth March Morning A springtime light and Cameron's bête noire With a snarl out of hell, Farage we know well His eyes full of hatred and fire
They sold me a dream of Brexit They told me about British might They told me a fairy story 'Till I believed their xenophobic shite And I believed in Boris Johnson And I looked to the future with excited eyes 'Till I woke with a yawn in the first Light of dawn And I saw him and through his disguise
I wish you a hopeful Brexit I wish you a brave new era All anguish pain and sadness Leave your Heart and let your road be clear They said there'll be deals so easy Global Britain bestriding Earth Will BMW directors save us? Will they hell The Brexit we get we deserve
Very good, especially the final line. England is certainly reaping what she has sowed.
I hope you'll look kindly on refugees from the south if Scotland manages to escape somehow!
Of course. We consider it an honour when folk from furth choose to become new Scots.
Mr. Meeks, surely you don't oppose admitting new members to the Meeks Financial Union? That's rather protectionist, don't you think?
[Incidentally, hope your chap's made a full recovery].
Mr. Meeks (2), that was a problem with the referendum setup. It remains bizarre that Cameron never had the official Leave campaign draw up the key tenets of what they supported (for example, ruling out the deranged idea of leaving the EU only to submit ourselves to the customs union).
While it is pretty insane that the President of a nation of immigrants should tell anyone to "go home", the despicable Trump has lowered expectations to the point that most people just shrug.
However I do think that this could be the alt-right's last hurrah on both sides of the pond. The level of corruption and lies may be corrosive of democracy in general, but the polls are showing that the right are indeed getting the blame first. Meanwhile the demographic that almost literally sold its soul to Trump- the religious right and the NRA- are facing meltdown. While I know we are supposed to be scared of the boogeyman, the fact is that Trump is seen as being a weak and cowardly leader (and indeed a vile and unpleasant human being).
Farage as the giggling accolyte to Trump is unpopular in the extreme and if there is wrong doing at TBP concerning the leaks of Sir Kim Darroch's cables, then I think that the "Perp Walk" of any TBP figure will concentrate quite a few minds.
Equally, allying to Trump will make Johnson even more unpopular than he already is- and lets face it, Johnson could only win a GE by gaming the FPTP system in the same way that Trump did, because the chances look pretty low that he even breaks 26% of the vote. Trumpism- corrupt and Russian supported, is deeply unpopular and if Johnson allies himself to it, he will be shackling himself to a political corpse.
The UK situation is of course still very volatile, but whereas Theresa May gets some pity, and even some respect, Johnson will have no honeymoon at all. Adding support for Trump to the charge list of recklessness and arrogant incompetence could will be the straw that breaks the Tory back. I think TBP will mirror UKIP or even the Referendum Party and hurt the Tories without winning enough themselves, but meanwhile the Tories get strung up by the Liberal Democrats. In 1997 the Tories lost more than half their seats. I wonder what the odds are that they do even worse at the next election?
The longer they leave it the more likely that events conspire to kill them off.
By the way... these are not just my thoughts- several Conservatives have said the same things to me, they genuinely say that the chances of survival for the Tories are increasingly remote, and several of them actually welcome the reckoning that they think the party will get.
The 45% who favour right wing parties aren't going to vanish, even if the Conservatives do. They'll just vote for another right wing party, probably more right wing than the Conservatives.
At the moment, I'd expect Trump to be re-elected.
The Conservatives aren't going to disappear. But they could suffer a double squeeze from the Brexit Party and the Lib Dems. A lot of us would enjoy that.
The Commons has had years to back a deal, support no deal, or go for a second referendum. They've opposed every credible option after incompetently endorsing the referendum result even though they've since done nothing to actually support it through the Commons (or even to oppose it).
Boris is almost certain to be a woeful PM. One silver lining could be that terrible leaders can occasionally lead to good things. Magna Carta and King John spring to mind.
Mr. Meeks, surely you don't oppose admitting new members to the Meeks Financial Union? That's rather protectionist, don't you think?
[Incidentally, hope your chap's made a full recovery].
Mr. Meeks (2), that was a problem with the referendum setup. It remains bizarre that Cameron never had the official Leave campaign draw up the key tenets of what they supported (for example, ruling out the deranged idea of leaving the EU only to submit ourselves to the customs union).
All members of the union have a veto on new entrants.
That's definitely two for a VoNC I reckon. Clarke being the other.
May is probably a third - and there will be more. Just look for any sane Tory retiring or potentially in the near future...
There is nothing 'sane' about prostrating yourself as supplicants saying you will accept any deal whatsoever no matter how bad.
Whether that be with the EU or USA either way it is insane.
I simply don't see the circumstnces where Conservative MPs in rural seats sign up for an FTA that allows in US farm produce in. Likewise, I can't see the Greens or the LibDems going for something that removes restrictions on GM products. (And even prevents GM products as being labeled as such.)
The only political party that could get that deal through is the Labour Party - whose city dwelling voters would benefit from the deal. Unfortunately, the Labour Party (a) isn't going to vote for a Tory FTA and (b) dislike the idea of trade generally.
Outside Tate Modern this morning someone (not me!) had written on the pavement in large chalk letters “FU*K BORIS”.
Could be art. Could be a political statement. Or both. Or a PB’er unable to get online. Or, possibly, one of Boris’s many discarded women. Or maybe someone expressing a long held desire.
When I go home this evening I’ll see whether it is still there.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
That's definitely two for a VoNC I reckon. Clarke being the other.
May is probably a third - and there will be more. Just look for any sane Tory retiring or potentially in the near future...
There is nothing 'sane' about prostrating yourself as supplicants saying you will accept any deal whatsoever no matter how bad.
Whether that be with the EU or USA either way it is insane.
I simply don't see the circumstnces where Conservative MPs in rural seats sign up for an FTA that allows in US farm produce in. Likewise, I can't see the Greens or the LibDems going for something that removes restrictions on GM products. (And even prevents GM products as being labeled as such.)
The only political party that could get that deal through is the Labour Party - whose city dwelling voters would benefit from the deal. Unfortunately, the Labour Party (a) isn't going to vote for a Tory FTA and (b) dislike the idea of trade generally.
And they won’t vote for something which might harm the NHS.
Boris Johnson follows the ideas of those he surrounds himself with. It looks as though he's going to surround himself with the most extreme Brexit zealots. Expect government policy to be set accordingly.
The sense I get, on the contrary, is that Boris is holding to a position in order to be unassailable in winning the contest to be leader, and that is all we know for sure. While this tells us something about his style it is perfectly possible, and likely, that he has plans of which not a word has been said and may have little relation to what has been said.
In addition he will be under the direction of events outside his command, including the constant imminent threat of losing a VONC even from day 1.
Putting these together we are trying to predict the 1967 Grand National. Fun, but not realistic.
I predict Foinavon will win the 1967 Grand National.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
Boris Johnson follows the ideas of those he surrounds himself with. It looks as though he's going to surround himself with the most extreme Brexit zealots. Expect government policy to be set accordingly.
The sense I get, on the contrary, is that Boris is holding to a position in order to be unassailable in winning the contest to be leader, and that is all we know for sure. While this tells us something about his style it is perfectly possible, and likely, that he has plans of which not a word has been said and may have little relation to what has been said.
In addition he will be under the direction of events outside his command, including the constant imminent threat of losing a VONC even from day 1.
Putting these together we are trying to predict the 1967 Grand National. Fun, but not realistic.
I predict Foinavon will win the 1967 Grand National.
Mr. Glenn, whereas you're content to ride roughshod over England and Wales, and the majority of UK voters.
Mr. Meeks, a large part of the problem is May's incompetence and the Commons collectively refusing to back any outcome.
Mr. B, you may recall I've said several times one of the key lessons of the Second Punic War is the importance of a nation's constitutional arrangements rather than individual brilliance. Rome won because its set up was practically invincible. Carthage had Hannibal's genius, but even a man so great could not overcome the Roman Senate and People.
Slightly Off topic: Not sure if you have seen this brilliant Roman site:
Boris Johnson follows the ideas of those he surrounds himself with. It looks as though he's going to surround himself with the most extreme Brexit zealots. Expect government policy to be set accordingly.
The sense I get, on the contrary, is that Boris is holding to a position in order to be unassailable in winning the contest to be leader, and that is all we know for sure. While this tells us something about his style it is perfectly possible, and likely, that he has plans of which not a word has been said and may have little relation to what has been said.
In addition he will be under the direction of events outside his command, including the constant imminent threat of losing a VONC even from day 1.
Putting these together we are trying to predict the 1967 Grand National. Fun, but not realistic.
I predict Foinavon will win the 1967 Grand National.
How did I do?
Even in a race noted for shocks, no deal Brexit can safely be disregarded.
Mr. Meeks, that does neglect that a great many people were not content with our membership of the EU. Brown reneged on a manifesto pledge to tie us in even closer without recourse to the electorate, but Cameron (pro-EU, and with little help from the EU) tried to get something and it was so feeble it ended up helping out Leave rather than Remain.
The ideal, which won't happen, would be associate membership. Lose the majority of the political side, even if it means losing a small part of the economics, and integrate no further (possibly excepting with referendum-based approval).
But with both sides unwilling to compromise and willing to go for all or nothing, we're going to almost certainly end up with a result in which a large minority, if not outright majority, are unhappy. It won't settle anything, just move the war's conflict to a battlefield a few yards down the road.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
Once the UK has broken up, “Brexit” will cease to have any meaning. The Remain victory will be unchallenged.
Dr. Foxy, I hadn't seen that, but do follow that particular Twitter account. Looks very cool indeed.
When I first did background work for the Bane of Souls world, maybe a decade or more ago, there were some supercool online medieval/fantasy demographics calculators for cities and kingdoms.
You input age of the nation, geographical size, that sort of thing, and the calculator spews out how many big cities there are, their populations, how many castles there are, ruined castles, population density and so on.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There is an article in the Times today that touches on this
In the Brexit culture war, neither side can countenance the other side winning
Could have been done just after the referendum, referencing the closeness of the result and the need to find some kind of middle way (i.e. soft Brexit) with something for everyone.
Would take a hell of a leader to pull it off now though.
Outside Tate Modern this morning someone (not me!) had written on the pavement in large chalk letters “FU*K BORIS”.
Could be art. Could be a political statement. Or both. Or a PB’er unable to get online. Or, possibly, one of Boris’s many discarded women. Or maybe someone expressing a long held desire.
When I go home this evening I’ll see whether it is still there.
I can go one better than that. On the A4, just before the roundabout that gets you to Mrs May's home address, some tinker spray painted (in big yellow letters) BREXIT across the road (both lanes), a couple of weeks ago. It's still there.
Again, not sure if this was a demand or an accusation, but she has to drive over it every time she comes back from Waitrose, now.
Re previous thread and Mike’s thesis about the “uniquely feel good” cricket match having “the potential to change our politics”, I certainly hope so. The English victory in 1966 immediately preceded two politics-changing events:
- the 1966 Carmarthen by-election - the 1967 Hamilton by-election
Wales and Scotland have never been the same since. Good chap that Russian linesman.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
Huawei is planning major layoffs at its US research labs as it struggles under the weight of the Commerce Department blacklisting, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. The embattled Chinese telecom's Futurewei R&D subsidiary employs about 850 people in Texas, California and Washington state.
Outside Tate Modern this morning someone (not me!) had written on the pavement in large chalk letters “FU*K BORIS”.
Could be art. Could be a political statement. Or both. Or a PB’er unable to get online. Or, possibly, one of Boris’s many discarded women. Or maybe someone expressing a long held desire.
When I go home this evening I’ll see whether it is still there.
I can go one better than that. On the A4, just before the roundabout that gets you to Mrs May's home address, some tinker spray painted (in big yellow letters) BREXIT across the road (both lanes), a couple of weeks ago. It's still there.
Again, not sure if this was a demand or an accusation, but she has to drive over it every time she comes back from Waitrose, now.
One shouldn’t condone vandalism, but both the Tate Modern and the A4 perpetrators seem to have caught the zeitgeist.
Boris Johnson follows the ideas of those he surrounds himself with. It looks as though he's going to surround himself with the most extreme Brexit zealots. Expect government policy to be set accordingly.
The sense I get, on the contrary, is that Boris is holding to a position in order to be unassailable in winning the contest to be leader, and that is all we know for sure. While this tells us something about his style it is perfectly possible, and likely, that he has plans of which not a word has been said and may have little relation to what has been said.
In addition he will be under the direction of events outside his command, including the constant imminent threat of losing a VONC even from day 1.
Putting these together we are trying to predict the 1967 Grand National. Fun, but not realistic.
I predict Foinavon will win the 1967 Grand National.
How did I do?
Even in a race noted for shocks, no deal Brexit can safely be disregarded.
Agree. There's going to be a pileup but I don't think that particular horse will emerge from the ruck, though it remains true that it must be in the armoury for negotiations, otherwise Article 50 has no meaning. That leaves ultimately Remain, TMs deal with a tweak or a closer arrangement - Norway or Norway+ - the only choices. Goodness knows how you get there.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
Once the UK has broken up, “Brexit” will cease to have any meaning. The Remain victory will be unchallenged.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.
If Parliament can't do its job I am happy to respect democracy and suspend this Parliament to reflect it. Once we have exited Parliament can resume its prevarications.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
The two options in the referendum were effectively:
- A Eurosceptic compromise (Remain) - No compromise (Leave)
The rejection of May’s deal is just a continuation of the rejection of compromise. Brexiteers would rather risk total defeat.
Mr. P, unlike the entirely honest rejection of a manifesto pledge for a referendum?
Had Brown given us a referendum it could've been a great pressure valve, enabling a democratic signal of discontent with the EU without actually leaving.
Instead he lied, smirked, turned up late, and signed away any chance of that happening.
Mr. Meeks, aye, shades of the Peloponnesian War in that.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.
If Parliament can't do its job I am happy to respect democracy and suspend this Parliament to reflect it. Once we have exited Parliament can resume its prevarications.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit and no mandate for suspending democracy to achieve it. You and your crazed fellow travellers are the enemies of democracy.
Outside Tate Modern this morning someone (not me!) had written on the pavement in large chalk letters “FU*K BORIS”.
Could be art. Could be a political statement. Or both. Or a PB’er unable to get online. Or, possibly, one of Boris’s many discarded women. Or maybe someone expressing a long held desire.
When I go home this evening I’ll see whether it is still there.
On the bridge parapet above the M4 at the exit to the M32 near Bristol someone had, last week, painted something much, much worse about Boris. It suggested two alleged traits for which Boris could doubtless litigate against. Amusing nonetheless.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.
All true. But both sides are not without reason behind them. Hard Remainers can point to the pathetic failure of the assemblage of diverse leavers to be properly organised, and Leavers are not entirely unhinged if they point out that the democracy of the referendum cannot in principle be allowed to be subverted by the very parliament whose job it is to agree a mode of leaving, and have not exactly helped, and indeed clearly intend mostly to remain if they can get away with blaming someone else for it.
Boris Johnson follows the ideas of those he surrounds himself with. It looks as though he's going to surround himself with the most extreme Brexit zealots. Expect government policy to be set accordingly.
The sense I get, on the contrary, is that Boris is holding to a position in order to be unassailable in winning the contest to be leader, and that is all we know for sure. While this tells us something about his style it is perfectly possible, and likely, that he has plans of which not a word has been said and may have little relation to what has been said.
In addition he will be under the direction of events outside his command, including the constant imminent threat of losing a VONC even from day 1.
Putting these together we are trying to predict the 1967 Grand National. Fun, but not realistic.
I predict Foinavon will win the 1967 Grand National.
How did I do?
Even in a race noted for shocks, no deal Brexit can safely be disregarded.
Agree. There's going to be a pileup but I don't think that particular horse will emerge from the ruck, though it remains true that it must be in the armoury for negotiations, otherwise Article 50 has no meaning. That leaves ultimately Remain, TMs deal with a tweak or a closer arrangement - Norway or Norway+ - the only choices. Goodness knows how you get there.
No Deal Brexit in 2019 is currently priced at 2/1 against. Worth a tenner?
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.
All true. But both sides are not without reason behind them. Hard Remainers can point to the pathetic failure of the assemblage of diverse leavers to be properly organised, and Leavers are not entirely unhinged if they point out that the democracy of the referendum cannot in principle be allowed to be subverted by the very parliament whose job it is to agree a mode of leaving, and have not exactly helped, and indeed clearly intend mostly to remain if they can get away with blaming someone else for it.
That’s nonsense. Remainers need to accept that a democratic mandate must be met through democracy. And Leavers must accept that their cluelessness about what they want does not allow them to subvert Parliamentary democracy. Excusing either is dangerous.
Outside Tate Modern this morning someone (not me!) had written on the pavement in large chalk letters “FU*K BORIS”.
Could be art. Could be a political statement. Or both. Or a PB’er unable to get online. Or, possibly, one of Boris’s many discarded women. Or maybe someone expressing a long held desire.
When I go home this evening I’ll see whether it is still there.
That's from the Stormzy song. He did it at Glasto.
'Supplicant', Mike? I thought our Soveriegnity was about to return once we threw off the cursed yoke of the EU.
Surely we are not replacing servitude to the EU with servitude to the USA?
We’re not supplicant
The UK can function perfectly well without a US trade deal
If one makes sense for both sides then great, if not then whatever
It's too important to the psychology of those Brexiteers who see it as a project to unite the 'Anglosphere'. Take away both a US trade deal and a CANZUK alliance and what's the point?
These people are idiots. We are always going to trade more with Europe - it's called geography.
English wine shelves are row upon row of Australian, NZ, Californian, SA etc wines, and very, very skimpy on the infinitely better products of her immediate geographical neighbours to the south and east.
English wine consumers clearly are idiots, but fortunately for the country her businesspeople are not ideologues. They know that when it comes to procurement and export, geography is more important than language.
Don't worry, if global warming goes unchecked, Scotland will be covered in vineyards by 2080.
Outside Tate Modern this morning someone (not me!) had written on the pavement in large chalk letters “FU*K BORIS”.
Could be art. Could be a political statement. Or both. Or a PB’er unable to get online. Or, possibly, one of Boris’s many discarded women. Or maybe someone expressing a long held desire.
When I go home this evening I’ll see whether it is still there.
That's from the Stormzy song. He did it at Glasto.
Showing how 'DWTK' I am.
Am I alone in thinking Glastonbury an even bigger bore than cr*cket and f**tball and neither knowing nor caring who Stormzy is?
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.
If Parliament can't do its job I am happy to respect democracy and suspend this Parliament to reflect it. Once we have exited Parliament can resume its prevarications.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit and no mandate for suspending democracy to achieve it. You and your crazed fellow travellers are the enemies of democracy.
If Parliament is suspended then no changes to the law occur. If we exit without a deal that is because Parliament has voted for that to occur if nothing else has happened first before then. It will take a change in the law to stop that happening.
If Parliament wanted a deal it has had multiple opportunities to approve one and turned it down every time. If Parliament wanted revocation it has had multiple opportunities to revoke and turned it down every time. If Parliament wanted to have a referendum it has had multiple opportunities to enact a second referendum and turned it down every time.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
The two options in the referendum were effectively:
- A Eurosceptic compromise (Remain) - No compromise (Leave)
The rejection of May’s deal is just a continuation of the rejection of compromise. Brexiteers would rather risk total defeat.
Absolutely. If we wanted compromise we'd have voted Remain. That lost and to quote somebody who should have known better: Nothing has changed.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.
All true. But both sides are not without reason behind them. Hard Remainers can point to the pathetic failure of the assemblage of diverse leavers to be properly organised, and Leavers are not entirely unhinged if they point out that the democracy of the referendum cannot in principle be allowed to be subverted by the very parliament whose job it is to agree a mode of leaving, and have not exactly helped, and indeed clearly intend mostly to remain if they can get away with blaming someone else for it.
That’s nonsense. Remainers need to accept that a democratic mandate must be met through democracy. And Leavers must accept that their cluelessness about what they want does not allow them to subvert Parliamentary democracy. Excusing either is dangerous.
Which is why I believe there needs to be a second referendum - what options exist in it is irrelevant but we can't permanently revoke without a second referendum and we can't leave for No Deal without one.
May's deal is about as Leave as you can get without a second referendum being required...
Saying that publicly doesn’t gain anything for the UK.
I see value in calling him out when he makes overtly racist public statements, or explicitly promotes far right content on Twitter.
No need for loose language like 'scum' or 'jerk' - leave that to the likes of me - just calmly and publicly condemn as offensive and wrong.
I doubt that will materially impact the terms of any trade deal we end up doing with the USA.
I get the impression that Trump gets nowhere the detail of important decisions - he is allowed to pretend to be the Big Man, meanwhile more serious people crack on with stuff.
And of course he probably will be gone well before we are signing any trade deal.
Mr. P, unlike the entirely honest rejection of a manifesto pledge for a referendum?
Had Brown given us a referendum it could've been a great pressure valve, enabling a democratic signal of discontent with the EU without actually leaving.
Instead he lied, smirked, turned up late, and signed away any chance of that happening.
Mr. Meeks, aye, shades of the Peloponnesian War in that.
Blair not Brown decided the referendum was no longer needed because the treaty had been downgraded after its rejection by the French and Dutch.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
The two options in the referendum were effectively:
- A Eurosceptic compromise (Remain) - No compromise (Leave)
The rejection of May’s deal is just a continuation of the rejection of compromise. Brexiteers would rather risk total defeat.
Absolutely. If we wanted compromise we'd have voted Remain. That lost and to quote somebody who should have known better: Nothing has changed.
Something has changed. We now have millions of people in Britain willing to defend European integration and our place in the EU.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.
All true. But both sides are not without reason behind them. Hard Remainers can point to the pathetic failure of the assemblage of diverse leavers to be properly organised, and Leavers are not entirely unhinged if they point out that the democracy of the referendum cannot in principle be allowed to be subverted by the very parliament whose job it is to agree a mode of leaving, and have not exactly helped, and indeed clearly intend mostly to remain if they can get away with blaming someone else for it.
That’s nonsense. Remainers need to accept that a democratic mandate must be met through democracy. And Leavers must accept that their cluelessness about what they want does not allow them to subvert Parliamentary democracy. Excusing either is dangerous.
Which is why I believe there needs to be a second referendum - what options exist in it is irrelevant but we can't permanently revoke without a second referendum and we can't leave for No Deal without one.
May's deal is about as Leave as you can get without a second referendum being required...
Can you please explain why we could sign the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum, despite all parties manifestos at the time pledging a referendum if they were elected . . . but a harder Leave than May's deal requires one?
Is it just because you're not getting your way now? Or is there a principle involved that was shown when Lisbon was ratified?
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
The two options in the referendum were effectively:
- A Eurosceptic compromise (Remain) - No compromise (Leave)
The rejection of May’s deal is just a continuation of the rejection of compromise. Brexiteers would rather risk total defeat.
Absolutely. If we wanted compromise we'd have voted Remain. That lost and to quote somebody who should have known better: Nothing has changed.
Something has changed. We now have millions of people in Britain willing to defend European integration and our place in the EU.
Fantastic. Let them vote at the next election. Its called democracy.
Mr. P, unlike the entirely honest rejection of a manifesto pledge for a referendum?
Had Brown given us a referendum it could've been a great pressure valve, enabling a democratic signal of discontent with the EU without actually leaving.
Instead he lied, smirked, turned up late, and signed away any chance of that happening.
Mr. Meeks, aye, shades of the Peloponnesian War in that.
Blair not Brown decided the referendum was no longer needed because the treaty had been downgraded after its rejection by the French and Dutch.
Blair and Brown are both responsible. Either could have honoured the commitment to a referendum. Blair decided to ditch the referendum despite it being a manifesto, and Brown agreed with that and was the one to sign the treaty and ratify it without one - not Blair.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.
All true. But both sides are not without reason behind them. Hard Remainers can point to the pathetic failure of the assemblage of diverse leavers to be properly organised, and Leavers are not entirely unhinged if they point out that the democracy of the referendum cannot in principle be allowed to be subverted by the very parliament whose job it is to agree a mode of leaving, and have not exactly helped, and indeed clearly intend mostly to remain if they can get away with blaming someone else for it.
That’s nonsense. Remainers need to accept that a democratic mandate must be met through democracy. And Leavers must accept that their cluelessness about what they want does not allow them to subvert Parliamentary democracy. Excusing either is dangerous.
Which is why I believe there needs to be a second referendum - what options exist in it is irrelevant but we can't permanently revoke without a second referendum and we can't leave for No Deal without one.
May's deal is about as Leave as you can get without a second referendum being required...
Can you please explain why we could sign the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum, despite all parties manifestos at the time pledging a referendum if they were elected . . . but a harder Leave than May's deal requires one?
Is it just because you're not getting your way now? Or is there a principle involved that was shown when Lisbon was ratified?
It's because Boris stated during the referendum that No Deal wasn't an option...
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.
If Parliament can't do its job I am happy to respect democracy and suspend this Parliament to reflect it. Once we have exited Parliament can resume its prevarications.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit and no mandate for suspending democracy to achieve it. You and your crazed fellow travellers are the enemies of democracy.
If Parliament is suspended then no changes to the law occur. If we exit without a deal that is because Parliament has voted for that to occur if nothing else has happened first before then. It will take a change in the law to stop that happening.
If Parliament wanted a deal it has had multiple opportunities to approve one and turned it down every time. If Parliament wanted revocation it has had multiple opportunities to revoke and turned it down every time. If Parliament wanted to have a referendum it has had multiple opportunities to enact a second referendum and turned it down every time.
Parliament needs to crap or get off the pan.
Leavers need to respect Parliamentary democracy. It's that straightforward. Suspending Parliament is the act of enemies of democracy.
I'd completely missed that most of Not For Change UK, plus John Woodcock, have now declared themselves to be The Independents in the latest bout of the People's Front of Judea Reenactment Society: https://www.theindependents.org.uk
Outside Tate Modern this morning someone (not me!) had written on the pavement in large chalk letters “FU*K BORIS”.
Could be art. Could be a political statement. Or both. Or a PB’er unable to get online. Or, possibly, one of Boris’s many discarded women. Or maybe someone expressing a long held desire.
When I go home this evening I’ll see whether it is still there.
On the bridge parapet above the M4 at the exit to the M32 near Bristol someone had, last week, painted something much, much worse about Boris. It suggested two alleged traits for which Boris could doubtless litigate against. Amusing nonetheless.
There will be no "Boris Johnson is Innocent" campaigns I reckon. Because he isn't, the twat.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.
If Parliament can't do its job I am happy to respect democracy and suspend this Parliament to reflect it. Once we have exited Parliament can resume its prevarications.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit and no mandate for suspending democracy to achieve it. You and your crazed fellow travellers are the enemies of democracy.
If Parliament is suspended then no changes to the law occur. If we exit without a deal that is because Parliament has voted for that to occur if nothing else has happened first before then. It will take a change in the law to stop that happening.
If Parliament wanted a deal it has had multiple opportunities to approve one and turned it down every time. If Parliament wanted revocation it has had multiple opportunities to revoke and turned it down every time. If Parliament wanted to have a referendum it has had multiple opportunities to enact a second referendum and turned it down every time.
Parliament needs to crap or get off the pan.
Leavers need to respect Parliamentary democracy. It's that straightforward. Suspending Parliament is the act of enemies of democracy.
What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if mid to late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine our post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it. So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?
I would expect Boris (or any other UK PM) to say as little as possible about this. Trump is a matter for the American people. They elected him and they get a second chance to reconsider the matter shortly.
The job of our PM is to promote our interests. Falling out with the incumbent choice of the American people does not do that, even if, perhaps particularly when, the man is a racist arse.
This is self indulgent twaddle. Virtue signalling at its most extreme. I find the idea that it might actually shift anyone's vote in our elections depressing and unlikely in equal measure.
What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine are post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it . So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?
I've highlighted the relevant bit for you. This is not difficult stuff.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.
All true. But both sides are not without reason behind them. Hard Remainers can point to the pathetic failure of the assemblage of diverse leavers to be properly organised, and Leavers are not entirely unhinged if they point out that the democracy of the referendum cannot in principle be allowed to be subverted by the very parliament whose job it is to agree a mode of leaving, and have not exactly helped, and indeed clearly intend mostly to remain if they can get away with blaming someone else for it.
That’s nonsense. Remainers need to accept that a democratic mandate must be met through democracy. And Leavers must accept that their cluelessness about what they want does not allow them to subvert Parliamentary democracy. Excusing either is dangerous.
Which is why I believe there needs to be a second referendum - what options exist in it is irrelevant but we can't permanently revoke without a second referendum and we can't leave for No Deal without one.
May's deal is about as Leave as you can get without a second referendum being required...
Can you please explain why we could sign the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum, despite all parties manifestos at the time pledging a referendum if they were elected . . . but a harder Leave than May's deal requires one?
Is it just because you're not getting your way now? Or is there a principle involved that was shown when Lisbon was ratified?
It's because Boris stated during the referendum that No Deal wasn't an option...
Blair and Brown stated ratifying what became Lisbon without a referendum wasn't an option. Did you object when Lisbon was ratified?
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
The two options in the referendum were effectively:
- A Eurosceptic compromise (Remain) - No compromise (Leave)
The rejection of May’s deal is just a continuation of the rejection of compromise. Brexiteers would rather risk total defeat.
Absolutely. If we wanted compromise we'd have voted Remain. That lost and to quote somebody who should have known better: Nothing has changed.
Something has changed. We now have millions of people in Britain willing to defend European integration and our place in the EU.
Fantastic. Let them vote at the next election. Its called democracy.
Let their representatives vote in parliament. Its called democracy.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.
All true. But both sides are not without reason behind them. Hard Remainers can point to the pathetic failure of the assemblage of diverse leavers to be properly organised, and Leavers are not entirely unhinged if they point out that the democracy of the referendum cannot in principle be allowed to be subverted by the very parliament whose job it is to agree a mode of leaving, and have not exactly helped, and indeed clearly intend mostly to remain if they can get away with blaming someone else for it.
That’s nonsense. Remainers need to accept that a democratic mandate must be met through democracy. And Leavers must accept that their cluelessness about what they want does not allow them to subvert Parliamentary democracy. Excusing either is dangerous.
As has been pointed out many times by both sides, there was no further instruction on the ballot paper other than "leave". The default position that all leave voters were aware of is that the UK would leave the EU without a deal. Saying there would be a deal was just political bollocks from Leave.EU. Just like the political bollocks that is spouted all the time in election campaigns of any type.
The small print, however, remains that we are due to leave the EU, and always were, with no deal if no deal is negotiated. And it hasn't been.
I mean even our favourite Leavers on here are super happy with leaving without a deal because their vote meant that it was a strong possibility.
What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine are post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it . So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?
I've highlighted the relevant bit for you. This is not difficult stuff.
I would expect Boris (or any other UK PM) to say as little as possible about this. Trump is a matter for the American people. They elected him and they get a second chance to reconsider the matter shortly.
The job of our PM is to promote our interests. Falling out with the incumbent choice of the American people does not do that, even if, perhaps particularly when, the man is a racist arse.
This is self indulgent twaddle. Virtue signalling at its most extreme. I find the idea that it might actually shift anyone's vote in our elections depressing and unlikely in equal measure.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine are post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it . So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?
I've highlighted the relevant bit for you. This is not difficult stuff.
More than two-thirds voted for this and made it our law.
Sure. I'm sure you could find many laws that more than two thirds voted for. Now you need to find me where Parliament voted to allow the Prime Minister to seek to prorogue Parliament in order to secure a disorderly no deal Brexit. I'll wait.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
The two options in the referendum were effectively:
- A Eurosceptic compromise (Remain) - No compromise (Leave)
The rejection of May’s deal is just a continuation of the rejection of compromise. Brexiteers would rather risk total defeat.
Absolutely. If we wanted compromise we'd have voted Remain. That lost and to quote somebody who should have known better: Nothing has changed.
Something has changed. We now have millions of people in Britain willing to defend European integration and our place in the EU.
Fantastic. Let them vote at the next election. Its called democracy.
Let their representatives vote in parliament. Its called democracy.
It's called "parliamentary democracy" and there's just too many Labour MP remainiacs for it to function properly at the moment. They've voted quite a bit on this issue after all. But heh at least your SNP bloc can vote purely and surely on the matter.
All true. But both sides are not without reason behind them. Hard Remainers can point to the pathetic failure of the assemblage of diverse leavers to be properly organised, and Leavers are not entirely unhinged if they point out that the democracy of the referendum cannot in principle be allowed to be subverted by the very parliament whose job it is to agree a mode of leaving, and have not exactly helped, and indeed clearly intend mostly to remain if they can get away with blaming someone else for it.
That’s nonsense. Remainers need to accept that a democratic mandate must be met through democracy. And Leavers must accept that their cluelessness about what they want does not allow them to subvert Parliamentary democracy. Excusing either is dangerous.
As has been pointed out many times by both sides, there was no further instruction on the ballot paper other than "leave". The default position that all leave voters were aware of is that the UK would leave the EU without a deal. Saying there would be a deal was just political bollocks from Leave.EU. Just like the political bollocks that is spouted all the time in election campaigns of any type.
The small print, however, remains (!) that we are due to leave the EU, and always were, with no deal if no deal is negotiated. And it hasn't been.
I mean even our favourite Leavers on here are super happy with leaving without a deal because their vote meant that it was a strong possibility.
I don't know about "super happy". I did not expect our politicians to be as incompetent, dishonest and disingenuous as they have been. No matter how cynical you think you are our politicians leave you feeling naive.
But I do agree that leaving with no deal was always a possible outcome and it is simply not true to say that the British people did not vote for it.
All true. But both sides are not without reason behind them. Hard Remainers can point to the pathetic failure of the assemblage of diverse leavers to be properly organised, and Leavers are not entirely unhinged if they point out that the democracy of the referendum cannot in principle be allowed to be subverted by the very parliament whose job it is to agree a mode of leaving, and have not exactly helped, and indeed clearly intend mostly to remain if they can get away with blaming someone else for it.
That’s nonsense. Remainers need to accept that a democratic mandate must be met through democracy. And Leavers must accept that their cluelessness about what they want does not allow them to subvert Parliamentary democracy. Excusing either is dangerous.
As has been pointed out many times by both sides, there was no further instruction on the ballot paper other than "leave". The default position that all leave voters were aware of is that the UK would leave the EU without a deal. Saying there would be a deal was just political bollocks from Leave.EU. Just like the political bollocks that is spouted all the time in election campaigns of any type.
The small print, however, remains (!) that we are due to leave the EU, and always were, with no deal if no deal is negotiated. And it hasn't been.
I mean even our favourite Leavers on here are super happy with leaving without a deal because their vote meant that it was a strong possibility.
I don't know about "super happy". I did not expect our politicians to be as incompetent, dishonest and disingenuous as they have been. No matter how cynical you think you are our politicians leave you feeling naive.
But I do agree that leaving with no deal was always a possible outcome and it is simply not true to say that the British people did not vote for it.
All the Leavers who claimed that no deal Brexit was Project Fear are now claiming the British public voted for it. A little bit of humility and contrition on their part would be in order.
Comments
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/poll-majority-of-tory-members-would-accept-scottish-independence-as-price-of-brexit-1-4949043
Mr. Meeks, a large part of the problem is May's incompetence and the Commons collectively refusing to back any outcome.
Mr. B, you may recall I've said several times one of the key lessons of the Second Punic War is the importance of a nation's constitutional arrangements rather than individual brilliance. Rome won because its set up was practically invincible. Carthage had Hannibal's genius, but even a man so great could not overcome the Roman Senate and People.
I wouldn't be eroding your financial sovereignty. I'd be enhancing it
[Incidentally, hope your chap's made a full recovery].
Mr. Meeks (2), that was a problem with the referendum setup. It remains bizarre that Cameron never had the official Leave campaign draw up the key tenets of what they supported (for example, ruling out the deranged idea of leaving the EU only to submit ourselves to the customs union).
The Commons has had years to back a deal, support no deal, or go for a second referendum. They've opposed every credible option after incompetently endorsing the referendum result even though they've since done nothing to actually support it through the Commons (or even to oppose it).
Boris is almost certain to be a woeful PM. One silver lining could be that terrible leaders can occasionally lead to good things. Magna Carta and King John spring to mind.
The only political party that could get that deal through is the Labour Party - whose city dwelling voters would benefit from the deal. Unfortunately, the Labour Party (a) isn't going to vote for a Tory FTA and (b) dislike the idea of trade generally.
Could be art. Could be a political statement. Or both. Or a PB’er unable to get online. Or, possibly, one of Boris’s many discarded women. Or maybe someone expressing a long held desire.
When I go home this evening I’ll see whether it is still there.
How did I do?
https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/1148333448194662401?s=19
In the Brexit culture war, neither side can countenance the other side winning
Mr. Meeks, that does neglect that a great many people were not content with our membership of the EU. Brown reneged on a manifesto pledge to tie us in even closer without recourse to the electorate, but Cameron (pro-EU, and with little help from the EU) tried to get something and it was so feeble it ended up helping out Leave rather than Remain.
The ideal, which won't happen, would be associate membership. Lose the majority of the political side, even if it means losing a small part of the economics, and integrate no further (possibly excepting with referendum-based approval).
But with both sides unwilling to compromise and willing to go for all or nothing, we're going to almost certainly end up with a result in which a large minority, if not outright majority, are unhappy. It won't settle anything, just move the war's conflict to a battlefield a few yards down the road.
When I first did background work for the Bane of Souls world, maybe a decade or more ago, there were some supercool online medieval/fantasy demographics calculators for cities and kingdoms.
You input age of the nation, geographical size, that sort of thing, and the calculator spews out how many big cities there are, their populations, how many castles there are, ruined castles, population density and so on.
Very cool stuff.
Would take a hell of a leader to pull it off now though.
Better a culture war settled with ballots than bullets.
Again, not sure if this was a demand or an accusation, but she has to drive over it every time she comes back from Waitrose, now.
- the 1966 Carmarthen by-election
- the 1967 Hamilton by-election
Wales and Scotland have never been the same since. Good chap that Russian linesman.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
https://www.cnet.com/news/huawei-reportedly-plans-massive-us-layoffs/
- A Eurosceptic compromise (Remain)
- No compromise (Leave)
The rejection of May’s deal is just a continuation of the rejection of compromise. Brexiteers would rather risk total defeat.
Had Brown given us a referendum it could've been a great pressure valve, enabling a democratic signal of discontent with the EU without actually leaving.
Instead he lied, smirked, turned up late, and signed away any chance of that happening.
Mr. Meeks, aye, shades of the Peloponnesian War in that.
Ruth is a cold, phoney warrior.
Showing how 'DWTK' I am.
Anyway, it was where buskers are allowed to perform and in chalk. So no vandalism involved.
All that was needed was Dick van Dyke singing a cheery song.
Still, shows that Boris has cut through though possibly not as @HYUFD understands it.
Yes? Don’t care.
If Parliament wanted a deal it has had multiple opportunities to approve one and turned it down every time.
If Parliament wanted revocation it has had multiple opportunities to revoke and turned it down every time.
If Parliament wanted to have a referendum it has had multiple opportunities to enact a second referendum and turned it down every time.
Parliament needs to crap or get off the pan.
May's deal is about as Leave as you can get without a second referendum being required...
No need for loose language like 'scum' or 'jerk' - leave that to the likes of me - just calmly and publicly condemn as offensive and wrong.
I doubt that will materially impact the terms of any trade deal we end up doing with the USA.
I get the impression that Trump gets nowhere the detail of important decisions - he is allowed to pretend to be the Big Man, meanwhile more serious people crack on with stuff.
And of course he probably will be gone well before we are signing any trade deal.
Is it just because you're not getting your way now? Or is there a principle involved that was shown when Lisbon was ratified?
https://twitter.com/AbolishEton/status/1150737246066286592?s=19
Both liars.
Notable that Sarah Wollaston isn't there, which suggests that maybe she is indeed on her way to the Lib Dems. Same day as Bebb and Lee perhaps (as trailed at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7244617/Two-Tory-MPs-defection-watch-amid-fears-defect-Lib-Dems-Boris-PM.html)?
The job of our PM is to promote our interests. Falling out with the incumbent choice of the American people does not do that, even if, perhaps particularly when, the man is a racist arse.
This is self indulgent twaddle. Virtue signalling at its most extreme. I find the idea that it might actually shift anyone's vote in our elections depressing and unlikely in equal measure.
Those people are not like me.
The small print, however, remains that we are due to leave the EU, and always were, with no deal if no deal is negotiated. And it hasn't been.
I mean even our favourite Leavers on here are super happy with leaving without a deal because their vote meant that it was a strong possibility.
Ayes: 494
Noes: 122
More than two-thirds voted for this and made it our law.
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
494 to 122 = 80.2% voted Aye to us leaving without a deal after two years.
But I do agree that leaving with no deal was always a possible outcome and it is simply not true to say that the British people did not vote for it.
2. That was a previous parliament. It can't bind its successor, as you know.
3. In any case it can change its mind.