I thought instead of listening to our esteemed Foreign Secretary, I would read his speech which is thoughtfully re-created on The Spectator.
Boris addresses what he describes as three main concerns - Security, Spiritual and Economic.
Security is a complete red herring - the bulk of our national security derives from our membership of NATO and the collective defence of that organisation and leaving the EU has nothing to do with that. Nor is anyone suggesting we should stop working collaboratively with other European nations around areas of common concern such as fighting terrorism and dealing with migration from sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere.
Spiritual is the old bugbear of identity. Boris may claim Brexit isn't about pulling up the drawbridge but for many LEAVE voters it was in terms of immigration and indeed globalisation (of which more anon). It's all very much trying to preach internationalism but it's not a message that will resonate throughout the LEAVE community.
That was weak but the weakest part of Boris's peroration was reserved for the Economic argument. Apart from the classical waffling, all Boris could say was "Trust us. It will be all right" which is essentially where the May Government has been since July 2016.
It's all very well wibbling on how wonderful leaving the EU will be for entrepreneurs, inventors and investment bankers but it has to work for the rest of us as well and Boris had absolutely nothing to say about how we become a high-wage, high-skill economy. It's laudable and desirable but in lieu of a word on workers' rights and wages post-Brexit, there will be a concern the price of Global Britain will be borne by the majority of working people.
It wasn't a good speech because it had to be cleared through No.10. It was naturally supportive but as most May speeches, long on generalities and short on specifics. There is this vague cuddly notion of Global Britain but a lot of the LEAVE vote was, I think, a vote against globalisation and being at the mercy of international mega-corporations and their tax-dodging ways.
The Prime Minister has an opportunity to paint a picture of Britain after the EU - all we have now is a blank canvass.
Anna Soubry's excoriation of the speech and the speaker on C4 News was a joy to behold.
I thought instead of listening to our esteemed Foreign Secretary, I would read his speech which is thoughtfully re-created on The Spectator.
Boris addresses what he describes as three main concerns - Security, Spiritual and Economic.
Security is a complete red herring - the bulk of our national security derives from our membership of NATO and the collective defence of that organisation and leaving the EU has nothing to do with that. Nor is anyone suggesting we should stop working collaboratively with other European nations around areas of common concern such as fighting terrorism and dealing with migration from sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere.
Spiritual is the old bugbear of identity. Boris may claim Brexit isn't about pulling up the drawbridge but for many LEAVE voters it was in terms of immigration and indeed globalisation (of which more anon). It's all very much trying to preach internationalism but it's not a message that will resonate throughout the LEAVE community.
That was weak but the weakest part of Boris's peroration was reserved for the Economic argument. Apart from the classical waffling, all Boris could say was "Trust us. It will be all right" which is essentially where the May Government has been since July 2016.
It's all very well wibbling on how wonderful leaving the EU will be for entrepreneurs, inventors and investment bankers but it has to work for the rest of us as well and Boris had absolutely nothing to say about how we become a high-wage, high-skill economy. It's laudable and desirable but in lieu of a word on workers' rights and wages post-Brexit, there will be a concern the price of Global Britain will be borne by the majority of working people.
It wasn't a good speech because it had to be cleared through No.10. It was naturally supportive but as most May speeches, long on generalities and short on specifics. There is this vague cuddly notion of Global Britain but a lot of the LEAVE vote was, I think, a vote against globalisation and being at the mercy of international mega-corporations and their tax-dodging ways.
The Prime Minister has an opportunity to paint a picture of Britain after the EU - all we have now is a blank canvass.
Anna Soubry's excoriation of the speech and the speaker on C4 News was a joy to behold.
This is becoming a grieving site for Remoaners who cant come to terms with democracy.
I suspect that neither Mogg, nor Johnson, nor Corbyn will ever become prime minister, and in ten years time things will look very very different.
I am not sure I understand that. Why is a belief that leaving the EU and/or campaigning to stay in the EU not coming to terms with democracy?
The very essence of a democracy is the freedom to speak out and campaign against actions by the government that you think are wrong.
Well, no, that is the essence of *representative* democracy. Who knows what the essence of a direct democracy is, given that nobody except some of the ancient Greeks has ever tried it? And how does the one interact with the other? The answer, as we now know, is that it doesn't - combining the two is like having cross plies and radials on the one axle.
It surprises me that the debate is whether May or Brown will turn out to be the worse Prime Minister. Cameron is a prime example of how Old Etonianism acts as an invisibility cloak for gross incompetence. He also illustrates the point that the PM should be a lawyer or have a right hand man who is a lawyer, because lawyers are always thinking: What if I am wrong? What if this witness says x when my strategy is based on him saying y? What id the country votes Leave? Admittedly I (and everyone else) made the same mistake, but I am not paid for not making it. He was.
What I'd forgotten until 2 minutes ago is that the result of the referendum was advisory only. I am surprised we don't hear more of that, which seems to me to be the least bad point available to diehard Remainers.
Because the People chose democratically to leave the EU and to leave it in reality.
Actually, they advised the government to leave the EU. What distinguishes advice from commands, is that you aren't obliged to comply with it.
Re: Mr Meeks and others What does Fascism mean these days? Are there any Fascists? Are they intrinsically bad?
I have a slightly clearer notion of what Racism is. I couldn't define it though. Does a racist discriminate based on race - yes. Always? Who knows, but 'certainly not' I'd say. Is race invisible to a non-Racist - oh yes (allegedly)! However there seems to be no end of help that actually discriminates. Is race invisible to someone that's not arsing about with these daft questions? - Much more Yes.
This is a truism because if you are 100% aligned you can only become less aligned. Nevertheless I think the UK will be aligned with the EU in many ways where it doesn't merely shadow EU regulation because it thinks the specific regulation is a good idea or it doesn't care. The UK will need to commit to every part of the EU regulation, as it exists now and as it is brought in and changed in the future. The whole point of that alignment is to get national treatment in the EU and other countries that have signed up to the EU system. You won't get national treatment without committing to full alignment now and as the regulation changes.
Effectively we commit to doing what we are told, which is very different from collective decision-making as we have as members of the European Union.
In the same way Canada does what they are told?
What's Canada got to do with it? We are not Canada, Timbuktoo or North Korea.
Indeed not. We're far better customers of the EU than any of them.
More seriously, 'close alignment' is the latest in a LONG list of things Remainers are stating must be retained. So far we've had SM and CU; I suspect the latest ditch will go the way of The last two.
I think one of the things that isn't helping us is this idea that we MUST do this or that. There's no moral imperative here. Why can't people just tell us what their own preference is and argue the case for it - clean break/close alignment/second referendum.
There's no moral imperative for close alignment. I am saying that's where we will probably end up. There's a benefit to receiving national treatment in EU countries and those other countries that tie into the EU system and a cost to not being aligned with it. There isn't a sustainable and acceptable Brexit outcome that doesn't include being aligned with the EU on its terms. That includes an FTA, which in itself is problematic and may never happen. The government has effectively dropped its No Deal rhetoric. Pace Mortimer, I wouldn't rule out staying in the Single Market and the Customs Union. We're in them until we decide we want a dose of WTO. The Leave case was predicated on the EU going along with our buccaneering when it has no reason to do so.
This is becoming a grieving site for Remoaners who cant come to terms with democracy.
I suspect that neither Mogg, nor Johnson, nor Corbyn will ever become prime minister, and in ten years time things will look very very different.
I am not sure I understand that. Why is a belief that leaving the EU and/or campaigning to stay in the EU not coming to terms with democracy?
The very essence of a democracy is the freedom to speak out and campaign against actions by the government that you think are wrong.
Well, no, that is the essence of *representative* democracy. Who knows what the essence of a direct democracy is, given that nobody except some of the ancient Greeks has ever tried it? And how does the one interact with the other? The answer, as we now know, is that it doesn't - combining the two is like having cross plies and radials on the one axle.
It surprises me that the debate is whether May or Brown will turn out to be the worse Prime Minister. Cameron is a prime example of how Old Etonianism acts as an invisibility cloak for gross incompetence. He also illustrates the point that the PM should be a lawyer or have a right hand man who is a lawyer, because lawyers are always thinking: What if I am wrong? What if this witness says x when my strategy is based on him saying y? What id the country votes Leave? Admittedly I (and everyone else) made the same mistake, but I am not paid for not making it. He was.
What I'd forgotten until 2 minutes ago is that the result of the referendum was advisory only. I am surprised we don't hear more of that, which seems to me to be the least bad point available to diehard Remainers.
Because the People chose democratically to leave the EU and to leave it in reality.
Actually, they advised the government to leave the EU. What distinguishes advice from commands, is that you aren't obliged to comply with it.
Sovereignty comes from the People. The prime minister at the time stated that the result of the referendum would be implemented by the government, and not one remainer, not ONE, contradicted him on that point.
If Brexit were not implemented, I believe there would be unprecedented violence arising from the anger that would cause.
This is becoming a grieving site for Remoaners who cant come to terms with democracy.
I suspect that neither Mogg, nor Johnson, nor Corbyn will ever become prime minister, and in ten years time things will look very very different.
I am not sure I understand that. Why is a belief that leaving the EU and/or campaigning to stay in the EU not coming to terms with democracy?
The very essence of a democracy is the freedom to speak out and campaign against actions by the government that you think are wrong.
Well, no, that is the essence of *representative* democracy. Who knows what the essence of a direct democracy is, given that nobody except some of the ancient Greeks has ever tried it? And how does the one interact with the other? The answer, as we now know, is that it doesn't - combining the two is like having cross plies and radials on the one axle.
It surprises me that the debate is whether May or Brown will turn out to be the worse Prime Minister. Cameron is a prime example of how Old Etonianism acts as an invisibility cloak for gross incompetence. He also illustrates the point that the PM should be a lawyer or have a right hand man who is a lawyer, because lawyers are always thinking: What if I am wrong? What if this witness says x when my strategy is based on him saying y? What id the country votes Leave? Admittedly I (and everyone else) made the same mistake, but I am not paid for not making it. He was.
What I'd forgotten until 2 minutes ago is that the result of the referendum was advisory only. I am surprised we don't hear more of that, which seems to me to be the least bad point available to diehard Remainers.
Because the People chose democratically to leave the EU and to leave it in reality.
Actually, they advised the government to leave the EU. What distinguishes advice from commands, is that you aren't obliged to comply with it.
Sovereignty comes from the People. The prime minister at the time stated that the result of the referendum would be implemented by the government, and not one remainer, not ONE, contradicted him on that point.
If Brexit were not implemented, I believe there would be unprecedented violence arising from the anger that would cause.
Anna Soubry's excoriation of the speech and the speaker on C4 News was a joy to behold.
I've no real problem with Boris - it's most unlikely he'll become Prime Minister now. Had he and Gove not conspired to kill each other in July 2016, they'd likely have defeated May but what do they say about there being no honour among friends ?
The speech was weak not because the Prime Minister's position is weak per se - it is a reflection of internal divisions - but also because it is a political and negotiating ploy not to reveal the cards in your hand. That may be perceived as weakness and it may be so but in a negotiation it may not be.
May's LEAVE coalition is held together currently by two things - fear of a second referendum and the notion everyone has that May wants what they want. The internal contradictions across the LEAVE spectrum mean some will inevitably be disappointed when the Prime Minister's view becomes clearer. Whether that disappointment transforms into opposition remains to be seen but may be enough to deny May a majority in the Commons.
Catching up wiuth earlier queries on the Labour animal welfare strategy that I helped with, which came out today:
- Yes, it proposes that all meat should be labelled stun/non-stun so consumers can choose (and in practice I expect drive out most of the non-stun). This is more relevant than halal/non-halal since 80% of halal meat is in fact stunned.
- Enforcing the Hunting Act is mostly about allowing access to land to investigate and making it a reportable offence, the two snags inhibiting effective enforcement at present.
But these are very far from the main focus of the proposals, which include such proposals as using post-Brexit subsidies to phase out the use of cages and factory farming and phasing out the "severe" experiments category (only 8% of the total but seriously unpleasant - e.g. "learned helplessness", training an animal by repeated shocks to learn that it's helpless and trigger depression).
In general they seem sensible proposals. In my very first job as a government lawyer I was involved in moves to protect badgers (and, indeed, was for a time an expert on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, especially as it related to raptors).
But two things:-
1. I like foie gras, I admit. Don't often eat it. But I do like it. I'm not sure how you can ban it, given current rules.
2. On banning the export of live animals, this will I hope mean that there is much more veal for sale in the UK. It is because we don't - traditionally - eat veal that so many young calves are exported to the Continent where they do.
A little foie gras goes a very long way, I find. I don't think we produce it here, so presumably we can stop it at the border when we have Taken Back Control? and it will be just one more incentive to visit the Pyrenees.
I thought we banned live exports years ago. LOL at your "Oh goody, more veal for us" response, which I think many would regard as verging on trolling.
I thought instead of listening to our esteemed Foreign Secretary, I would read his speech which is thoughtfully re-created on The Spectator.
Boris addresses what he describes as three main concerns - Security, Spiritual and Economic.
Security is a complete red herring - the bulk of our national security derives from our membership of NATO and the collective defence of that organisation and leaving the EU has nothing to do with that. Nor is anyone suggesting we should stop working collaboratively with other European nations around areas of common concern such as fighting terrorism and dealing with migration from sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere.
Spiritual is the old bugbear of identity. Boris may claim Brexit isn't about pulling up the drawbridge but for many LEAVE voters it was in terms of immigration and indeed globalisation (of which more anon). It's all very much trying to preach internationalism but it's not a message that will resonate throughout the LEAVE community.
That was weak but the weakest part of Boris's peroration was reserved for the Economic argument. Apart from the classical waffling, all Boris could say was "Trust us. It will be all right" which is essentially where the May Government has been since July 2016.
It's all very well wibbling on how wonderful leaving the EU will be for entrepreneurs, inventors and investment bankers but it has to work for the rest of us as well and Boris had absolutely nothing to say about how we become a high-wage, high-skill economy. It's laudable and desirable but in lieu of a word on workers' rights and wages post-Brexit, there will be a concern the price of Global Britain will be borne by the majority of working people.
It wasn't a good speech because it had to be cleared through No.10. It was naturally supportive but as most May speeches, long on generalities and short on specifics. There is this vague cuddly notion of Global Britain but a lot of the LEAVE vote was, I think, a vote against globalisation and being at the mercy of international mega-corporations and their tax-dodging ways.
The Prime Minister has an opportunity to paint a picture of Britain after the EU - all we have now is a blank canvass.
Anna Soubry's excoriation of the speech and the speaker on C4 News was a joy to behold.
I am sure it was
Given that she represents your party rather than mine, you'd have enjoyed it all the more.
I thought instead of listening to our esteemed Foreign Secretary, I would read his speech which is thoughtfully re-created on The Spectator.
Boris addresses what he describes as three main concerns - Security, Spiritual and Economic.
Security is a complete red herring - the bulk of our national security derives from our membership of NATO and the collective defence of that organisation and leaving the EU has nothing to do with that. Nor is anyone suggesting we should stop working collaboratively with other European nations around areas of common concern such as fighting terrorism and dealing with migration from sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere.
Spiritual is the old bugbear of identity. Boris may claim Brexit isn't about pulling up the drawbridge but for many LEAVE voters it was in terms of immigration and indeed globalisation (of which more anon). It's all very much trying to preach internationalism but it's not a message that will resonate throughout the LEAVE community.
That was weak but the weakest part of Boris's peroration was reserved for the Economic argument. Apart from the classical waffling, all Boris could say was "Trust us. It will be all right" which is essentially where the May Government has been since July 2016.
It's all very well wibbling on how wonderful leaving the EU will be for entrepreneurs, inventors and investment bankers but it has to work for the rest of us as well and Boris had absolutely nothing to say about how we become a high-wage, high-skill economy. It's laudable and desirable but in lieu of a word on workers' rights and wages post-Brexit, there will be a concern the price of Global Britain will be borne by the majority of working people.
It wasn't a good speech because it had to be cleared through No.10. It was naturally supportive but as most May speeches, long on generalities and short on specifics. There is this vague cuddly notion of Global Britain but a lot of the LEAVE vote was, I think, a vote against globalisation and being at the mercy of international mega-corporations and their tax-dodging ways.
The Prime Minister has an opportunity to paint a picture of Britain after the EU - all we have now is a blank canvass.
Anna Soubry's excoriation of the speech and the speaker on C4 News was a joy to behold.
I am sure it was
Given that she represents your party rather than mine, you'd have enjoyed it all the more.
She is a lib dem in all but name. They are both as bad as each other
Anna Soubry's excoriation of the speech and the speaker on C4 News was a joy to behold.
I've no real problem with Boris - it's most unlikely he'll become Prime Minister now. Had he and Gove not conspired to kill each other in July 2016, they'd likely have defeated May but what do they say about there being no honour among friends ?
The speech was weak not because the Prime Minister's position is weak per se - it is a reflection of internal divisions - but also because it is a political and negotiating ploy not to reveal the cards in your hand. That may be perceived as weakness and it may be so but in a negotiation it may not be.
May's LEAVE coalition is held together currently by two things - fear of a second referendum and the notion everyone has that May wants what they want. The internal contradictions across the LEAVE spectrum mean some will inevitably be disappointed when the Prime Minister's view becomes clearer. Whether that disappointment transforms into opposition remains to be seen but may be enough to deny May a majority in the Commons.
I hope with all my heart that Anna Soubrey, whose own constituents voted to leave, loses her seat at the next election.
Catching up wiuth earlier queries on the Labour animal welfare strategy that I helped with, which came out today:
- Yes, it proposes that all meat should be labelled stun/non-stun so consumers can choose (and in practice I expect drive out most of the non-stun). This is more relevant than halal/non-halal since 80% of halal meat is in fact stunned.
- Enforcing the Hunting Act is mostly about allowing access to land to investigate and making it a reportable offence, the two snags inhibiting effective enforcement at present.
But these are very far from the main focus of the proposals, which include such proposals as using post-Brexit subsidies to phase out the use of cages and factory farming and phasing out the "severe" experiments category (only 8% of the total but seriously unpleasant - e.g. "learned helplessness", training an animal by repeated shocks to learn that it's helpless and trigger depression).
In general they seem sensible proposals. In my very first job as a government lawyer I was involved in moves to protect badgers (and, indeed, was for a time an expert on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, especially as it related to raptors).
But two things:-
1. I like foie gras, I admit. Don't often eat it. But I do like it. I'm not sure how you can ban it, given current rules.
2. On banning the export of live animals, this will I hope mean that there is much more veal for sale in the UK. It is because we don't - traditionally - eat veal that so many young calves are exported to the Continent where they do.
A little foie gras goes a very long way, I find. I don't think we produce it here, so presumably we can stop it at the border when we have Taken Back Control? and it will be just one more incentive to visit the Pyrenees.
I thought we banned live exports years ago. LOL at your "Oh goody, more veal for us" response, which I think many would regard as verging on trolling.
Why trolling? Calves are a by-product of milk production. We can either eat them or export them. Veal makes wonderful dishes. We could I suppose kill them and throw them away but that seems a shame.
I am a European. I like European cuisine. The British prejudice against veal - provided it is humanely farmed - is nonsensical. Oh and I like offal too. And calves' brains - which is a great delicacy in Italy - and utterly delicious.
Anna Soubry's excoriation of the speech and the speaker on C4 News was a joy to behold.
I've no real problem with Boris - it's most unlikely he'll become Prime Minister now. Had he and Gove not conspired to kill each other in July 2016, they'd likely have defeated May but what do they say about there being no honour among friends ?
The speech was weak not because the Prime Minister's position is weak per se - it is a reflection of internal divisions - but also because it is a political and negotiating ploy not to reveal the cards in your hand. That may be perceived as weakness and it may be so but in a negotiation it may not be.
May's LEAVE coalition is held together currently by two things - fear of a second referendum and the notion everyone has that May wants what they want. The internal contradictions across the LEAVE spectrum mean some will inevitably be disappointed when the Prime Minister's view becomes clearer. Whether that disappointment transforms into opposition remains to be seen but may be enough to deny May a majority in the Commons.
I hope with all my heart that Anna Soubrey, whose own constituents voted to leave, loses her seat at the next election.
She has to win the support of her local association to even be put forward
I’m afraid that as someone who likes both veal and foie gras I’m going to be on Nick Palmer’s naughty list.
I will be joining you. But both are delicious and no Labour - or Tory - puritan is going to stop me enjoying them. Though I eat far more veal than foie gras, in any case.
I thought instead of listening to our esteemed Foreign Secretary, I would read his speech which is thoughtfully re-created on The Spectator.
Boris addresses what he describes as three main concerns - Security, Spiritual and Economic.
Security is a complete red herring - the bulk of our national security derives from our membership of NATO and the collective defence of that organisation and leaving the EU has nothing to do with that. Nor is anyone suggesting we should stop working collaboratively with other European nations around areas of common concern such as fighting terrorism and dealing with migration from sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere.
Spiritual is the old bugbear of identity. Boris may claim Brexit isn't about pulling up the drawbridge but for many LEAVE voters it was in terms of immigration and indeed globalisation (of which more anon). It's all very much trying to preach internationalism but it's not a message that will resonate throughout the LEAVE community.
That was weak but the weakest part of Boris's peroration was reserved for the Economic argument. Apart from the classical waffling, all Boris could say was "Trust us. It will be all right" which is essentially where the May Government has been since July 2016.
It's all very well wibbling on how wonderful leaving the EU will be for entrepreneurs, inventors and investment bankers but it has to work for the rest of us as well and Boris had absolutely nothing to say about how we become a high-wage, high-skill economy. It's laudable and desirable but in lieu of a word on workers' rights and wages post-Brexit, there will be a concern the price of Global Britain will be borne by the majority of working people.
It wasn't a good speech because it had to be cleared through No.10. It was naturally supportive but as most May speeches, long on generalities and short on specifics. There is this vague cuddly notion of Global Britain but a lot of the LEAVE vote was, I think, a vote against globalisation and being at the mercy of international mega-corporations and their tax-dodging ways.
The Prime Minister has an opportunity to paint a picture of Britain after the EU - all we have now is a blank canvass.
Anna Soubry's excoriation of the speech and the speaker on C4 News was a joy to behold.
I am sure it was
Given that she represents your party rather than mine, you'd have enjoyed it all the more.
She is a lib dem in all but name. They are both as bad as each other
There was a time when Soubry's brand of One Nation, pro-European conservatism dominated the party. Before your time I shouldn't wonder.
I thought instead of listening to our esteemed Foreign Secretary, I would read his speech which is thoughtfully re-created on The Spectator.
Boris addresses what he describes as three main concerns - Security, Spiritual and Economic.
Security is a complete red herring - the bulk of our national security derives from our membership of NATO and the collective defence of that organisation and leaving the EU has nothing to do with that. Nor is anyone suggesting we should stop working collaboratively with other European nations around areas of common concern such as fighting terrorism and dealing with migration from sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere.
Spiritual is the old bugbear of identity. Boris may claim Brexit isn't about pulling up the drawbridge but for many LEAVE voters it was in terms of immigration and indeed globalisation (of which more anon). It's all very much trying to preach internationalism but it's not a message that will resonate throughout the LEAVE community.
That was weak but the weakest part of Boris's peroration was reserved for the Economic argument. Apart from the classical waffling, all Boris could say was "Trust us. It will be all right" which is essentially where the May Government has been since July 2016. I
It's all very well wibbling on how wonderful leaving the EU will be for entrepreneurs, inventors and investment bankers but it has to work for the rest of us as well and Boris had absolutely nothing to say about how we become a high-wage, high-skill economy. It's laudable and desirable but in lieu of a word on workers' rights and wages post-Brexit, there will be a concern the price of Global Britain will be borne by the majority of working people.
The Prime Minister has an opportunity to paint a picture of Britain after the EU - all we have now is a blank canvass.
Anna Soubry's excoriation of the speech and the speaker on C4 News was a joy to behold.
I am sure it was
Given that she represents your party rather than mine, you'd have enjoyed it all the more.
She is a lib dem in all but name. They are both as bad as each other
There was a time when Soubry's brand of One Nation, pro-European conservatism dominated the party. Before your time I shouldn't wonder.
I think the speech today by Boris Johnson was laughable.
He thought he was playing a blinder by aligning himself with Leave at the last moment in 2016. His support of Leave was a case of a useful idiot joining a campaign he historically had little in common with. I won't be the last to mock him but his attempt to reach out to Remain voters will be as effective as Ed Miliband claiming he was one nation in 2015. Labour lost and the Tories got a majority for the fist time in over two decades!
Johnson is just building on the foundations of his nefarious campaign to try and seize NO.10. I do actually wonder if he has become deluded and thinks he is some sort of Churchill type figure fighting for British prestige. The problem with that analogy is Churchill was the anti- fascist bulwark of last resort against a genuine national threat unlike the imagined threat of the EU. Instead of revealing how Immigration was going to be rolled back or how the £350 million of additional spending was going to be delivered he just talked platitudes, many of which are a total contradiction of the platform he joined in 2016.
Catching up wiuth earlier queries on the Labour animal welfare strategy that I helped with, which came out today:
- Yes, it proposes that all meat should be labelled stun/non-stun so consumers can choose (and in practice I expect drive out most of the non-stun). This is more relevant than halal/non-halal since 80% of halal meat is in fact stunned.
- Enforcing the Hunting Act is mostly about allowing access to land to investigate and making it a reportable offence, the two snags inhibiting effective enforcement at present.
But these are very far from the main focus of the proposals, which include such proposals as using post-Brexit subsidies to phase out the use of cages and factory farming and phasing out the "severe" experiments category (only 8% of the total but seriously unpleasant - e.g. "learned helplessness", training an animal by repeated shocks to learn that it's helpless and trigger depression).
In general they seem sensible proposals. In my very first job as a government lawyer I was involved in moves to protect badgers (and, indeed, was for a time an expert on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, especially as it related to raptors).
But two things:-
1. I like foie gras, I admit. Don't often eat it. But I do like it. I'm not sure how you can ban it, given current rules.
2. On banning the export of live animals, this will I hope mean that there is much more veal for sale in the UK. It is because we don't - traditionally - eat veal that so many young calves are exported to the Continent where they do.
A little foie gras goes a very long way, I find. I don't think we produce it here, so presumably we can stop it at the border when we have Taken Back Control? and it will be just one more incentive to visit the Pyrenees.
I thought we banned live exports years ago. LOL at your "Oh goody, more veal for us" response, which I think many would regard as verging on trolling.
Why trolling? Calves are a by-product of milk production. We can either eat them or export them. Veal makes wonderful dishes. We could I suppose kill them and throw them away but that seems a shame.
I am a European. I like European cuisine. The British prejudice against veal - provided it is humanely farmed - is nonsensical. Oh and I like offal too. And calves' brains - which is a great delicacy in Italy - and utterly delicious.
I agree entirely; I was just pointing out that PETA might not.
I hope with all my heart that Anna Soubrey, whose own constituents voted to leave, loses her seat at the next election.
You do know MPs aren't mouthpieces for the prevailing view in their constituency ? Soubry is entitled to her view - it doesn't stop her representing her constituency or her constituents.
Is an MP mandated to follow the opinions of her constituents ? Not to my knowledge.
I hope with all my heart that Anna Soubrey, whose own constituents voted to leave, loses her seat at the next election.
You do know MPs aren't mouthpieces for the prevailing view in their constituency ? Soubry is entitled to her view - it doesn't stop her representing her constituency or her constituents.
Is an MP mandated to follow the opinions of her constituents ? Not to my knowledge.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 1774
I hope with all my heart that Anna Soubrey, whose own constituents voted to leave, loses her seat at the next election.
You do know MPs aren't mouthpieces for the prevailing view in their constituency ? Soubry is entitled to her view - it doesn't stop her representing her constituency or her constituents.
Is an MP mandated to follow the opinions of her constituents ? Not to my knowledge.
She has advocated the government ignoring the wishes of her constituents, which was to leave the EU in reality -this is the problem. She would not be betraying if she were to simply disagree with them. But to advocate that her constituents vote be ignored-for that she should lose her seat.
I hope with all my heart that Anna Soubrey, whose own constituents voted to leave, loses her seat at the next election.
You do know MPs aren't mouthpieces for the prevailing view in their constituency ? Soubry is entitled to her view - it doesn't stop her representing her constituency or her constituents.
Is an MP mandated to follow the opinions of her constituents ? Not to my knowledge.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 1774
Anna is entitled to her view and will be answerable to her constituents at the next election
I hope with all my heart that Anna Soubrey, whose own constituents voted to leave, loses her seat at the next election.
You do know MPs aren't mouthpieces for the prevailing view in their constituency ? Soubry is entitled to her view - it doesn't stop her representing her constituency or her constituents.
Is an MP mandated to follow the opinions of her constituents ? Not to my knowledge.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 1774
Anna is entitled to her view and will be answerable to her constituents at the next election
And for not just expressing her views, but for advocating that her constituents views be ignored, I hope that she loses her seat at the next election.
I hope with all my heart that Anna Soubrey, whose own constituents voted to leave, loses her seat at the next election.
You do know MPs aren't mouthpieces for the prevailing view in their constituency ? Soubry is entitled to her view - it doesn't stop her representing her constituency or her constituents.
Is an MP mandated to follow the opinions of her constituents ? Not to my knowledge.
She has advocated the government ignoring the wishes of her constituents, which was to leave the EU in reality -this is the problem. She would not be betraying if she were to simply disagree with them. But to advocate that her constituents vote be ignored-for that she should lose her seat.
And if all her constituents decided to throw you off a cliff should she lose her seat for opposing that?
I hope with all my heart that Anna Soubrey, whose own constituents voted to leave, loses her seat at the next election.
You do know MPs aren't mouthpieces for the prevailing view in their constituency ? Soubry is entitled to her view - it doesn't stop her representing her constituency or her constituents.
Is an MP mandated to follow the opinions of her constituents ? Not to my knowledge.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 1774
Anna is entitled to her view and will be answerable to her constituents at the next election
And for not just expressing her views, but for advocating that her constituents views be ignored, I hope that she loses her seat at the next election.
She has to win the nomination as conservative candidate first
I hope with all my heart that Anna Soubrey, whose own constituents voted to leave, loses her seat at the next election.
You do know MPs aren't mouthpieces for the prevailing view in their constituency ? Soubry is entitled to her view - it doesn't stop her representing her constituency or her constituents.
Is an MP mandated to follow the opinions of her constituents ? Not to my knowledge.
She has advocated the government ignoring the wishes of her constituents, which was to leave the EU in reality -this is the problem. She would not be betraying if she were to simply disagree with them. But to advocate that her constituents vote be ignored-for that she should lose her seat.
And if all her constituents decided to throw you off a cliff should she lose her seat for opposing that?
Throwing me off a cliff would be an illegal act of violence, which is in no way comparable to the perfectly legal act of withdrawing from the EU.
Adonis and Lineker tearing chunks out of each other on twitter I see. Much like some of the extreme remainers on PB they seem incapable of keeping their composure and displaying the maturity required to win round the Brexit centre ground.
I hope with all my heart that Anna Soubrey, whose own constituents voted to leave, loses her seat at the next election.
You do know MPs aren't mouthpieces for the prevailing view in their constituency ? Soubry is entitled to her view - it doesn't stop her representing her constituency or her constituents.
Is an MP mandated to follow the opinions of her constituents ? Not to my knowledge.
She has advocated the government ignoring the wishes of her constituents, which was to leave the EU in reality -this is the problem. She would not be betraying if she were to simply disagree with them. But to advocate that her constituents vote be ignored-for that she should lose her seat.
And if all her constituents decided to throw you off a cliff should she lose her seat for opposing that?
Throwing me off a cliff would be an illegal act of violence, which is in no way comparable to the perfectly legal act of withdrawing from the EU.
And I repeat: I am not criticising her for disagreeing with her constituents, I am disagreeing with her for advocating that her constituents views, legally and democratically expressed be ignored.
Adonis and Lineker tearing chunks out of each other on twitter I see. Much like some of the extreme remainers on PB they seem incapable of keeping their composure and displaying the maturity required to win round the Brexit centre ground.
I’m afraid that as someone who likes both veal and foie gras I’m going to be on Nick Palmer’s naughty list.
I will be joining you. But both are delicious and no Labour - or Tory - puritan is going to stop me enjoying them. Though I eat far more veal than foie gras, in any case.
One of the things that makes me think is that by and large the EU doesn't enforce morality Potential controversial issues where it could but doesn't (Or moves very slowly) Ireland Abortion, UK Hunting, Spain Bull fighting, France Food Gras, Denmark/Holland sow stalls, Hungary - OK Orban annoys them but Hungary will stay in the EU.. there'll be other issues too.
I have not screamed fascist at every opportunity. I have used it in relation to one particular poster for precisely explained reasons. Candidly, I expected better of you.
It seems that Leavers prefer to keep the company of those engaging in fascist forms of debate to having those forms of debate accurately labelled.
I have asked Leave posters to dissociate themselves from fascist approaches. You and they prefer to complain about accurate labelling rather than seek to counter a particularly vile form of argument.
Lost count of the number of times most leave voters on here have argued vehemently against the tactics of leave.eu etc, but nothing we say will ever be enough to prevent you from tarring us with that brush.
I voted leave because I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws I live under, because I believe in democracy and think it an important social good.
But no, we're all fascists. Carry on lobbing grenades from your side of the trench. None so blind as those who will not see, etc.
Is anyone saying that all those who voted leave are fascists/racists/xenophobes etc? I think the point most critics make is that *some* leavers were one or all of these things, likely enough to push Brexit over the winning line. I understand that this may be an uncomfortable fact for those pure believers in democracy and sovereignty, but it's tedious to have that fact consistently deflected by outraged screeches about being tarred with the same brush.
If it is a bad apple, 1% spoiling it for everyone, argument, it would defuse the situation considerably if those advancing it, said that. But I read this from Roger downthread
"My prejudice and loathing of Leavers is almost complete and I struggle not to find their attitudes suspect on almost every level."
and I find it hard to read that as a one percenter kind of position.
I think one can loathe and be prejudiced against people for reasons other than 'just' racism etc, though being an amiable creature, I try not to be consumed by those feelings.
My general point is that it's probably more than one percent, and that's the burr under the saddle for upstanding leavers. I know I'd be discomfited if a proposition I supported was carried by the votes of racists.
Catching up wiuth earlier queries on the Labour animal welfare strategy that I helped with, which came out today:
- Yes, it proposes that all meat should be labelled stun/non-stun so consumers can choose (and in practice I expect drive out most of the non-stun). This is more relevant than halal/non-halal since 80% of halal meat is in fact stunned.
- Enforcing the Hunting Act is mostly about allowing access to land to investigate and making it a reportable offence, the two snags inhibiting effective enforcement at present.
But these are very far from the main focus of the proposals, which include such proposals as using post-Brexit subsidies to phase out the use of cages and factory farming and phasing out the "severe" experiments category (only 8% of the total but seriously unpleasant - e.g. "learned helplessness", training an animal by repeated shocks to learn that it's helpless and trigger depression).
In general they seem sensible proposals. In my very first job as a government lawyer I was involved in moves to protect badgers (and, indeed, was for a time an expert on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, especially as it related to raptors).
But two things:-
1. I like foie gras, I admit. Don't often eat it. But I do like it. I'm not sure how you can ban it, given current rules.
2. On banning the export of live animals, this will I hope mean that there is much more veal for sale in the UK. It is because we don't - traditionally - eat veal that so many young calves are exported to the Continent where they do.
A little foie gras goes a very long way, I find. I don't think we produce it here, so presumably we can stop it at the border when we have Taken Back Control? and it will be just one more incentive to visit the Pyrenees.
I thought we banned live exports years ago. LOL at your "Oh goody, more veal for us" response, which I think many would regard as verging on trolling.
Why trolling? Calves are a by-product of milk production. We can either eat them or export them. Veal makes wonderful dishes. We could I suppose kill them and throw them away but that seems a shame.
I am a European. I like European cuisine. The British prejudice against veal - provided it is humanely farmed - is nonsensical. Oh and I like offal too. And calves' brains - which is a great delicacy in Italy - and utterly delicious.
I agree entirely; I was just pointing out that PETA might not.
Adonis and Lineker tearing chunks out of each other on twitter I see. Much like some of the extreme remainers on PB they seem incapable of keeping their composure and displaying the maturity required to win round the Brexit centre ground.
And that centre ground has to be won
But the centre ground should not be defined as those who want a so called "Soft Brexit" by keeping us in the Single market, which would mean that the UK would remain under the control of the EU and there would be Brexit in Name Only. This is not a centre ground position, it is a Remoaner strategy to thwart a democratic referendum vote.
The real centre ground are those who accept the referendum result as a mandate to leave the EU in reality.
I hope with all my heart that Anna Soubrey, whose own constituents voted to leave, loses her seat at the next election.
You do know MPs aren't mouthpieces for the prevailing view in their constituency ? Soubry is entitled to her view - it doesn't stop her representing her constituency or her constituents.
Is an MP mandated to follow the opinions of her constituents ? Not to my knowledge.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 1774
Anna is entitled to her view and will be answerable to her constituents at the next election
And for not just expressing her views, but for advocating that her constituents views be ignored, I hope that she loses her seat at the next election.
She has to win the nomination as conservative candidate first
Adonis is basically AC Grayling these days. Attacking the BBC is not a smart move, its on balance a more remain than leave organisation IMO but much like the NHS or the army its political suicide to attack it in the way he has. It seems like he's losing the argument and going down blasting everything in his path.
Adonis and Lineker tearing chunks out of each other on twitter I see. Much like some of the extreme remainers on PB they seem incapable of keeping their composure and displaying the maturity required to win round the Brexit centre ground.
And that centre ground has to be won
But the centre ground should not be defined as those who want a so called "Soft Brexit" by keeping us in the Single market, which would mean that the UK would remain under the control of the EU and there would be Brexit in Name Only. This is not a centre ground position, it is a Remoaner strategy to thwart a democratic referendum vote.
The real centre ground are those who accept the referendum result as a mandate to leave the EU in reality.
I hope with all my heart that Anna Soubrey, whose own constituents voted to leave, loses her seat at the next election.
You do know MPs aren't mouthpieces for the prevailing view in their constituency ? Soubry is entitled to her view - it doesn't stop her representing her constituency or her constituents.
Is an MP mandated to follow the opinions of her constituents ? Not to my knowledge.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 1774
Anna is entitled to her view and will be answerable to her constituents at the next election
And for not just expressing her views, but for advocating that her constituents views be ignored, I hope that she loses her seat at the next election.
She has to win the nomination as conservative candidate first
Adonis is basically AC Grayling these days. Attacking the BBC is not a smart move, its on balance a more remain than leave organisation IMO but much like the NHS or the army its political suicide to attack it in the way he has. It seems like he's losing the argument and going down blasting everything in his path.
The BBC is much better than the pro EU Sky. I would say the BBC do seem to try to be balanced
How about give them the power to ask the relevant authorities in the UK?
They already have that. I have dealt with a number of cases where the French regulator has asked for interviews of UK bankers and does them but it has to go via the FCA or other UK authority. So they have to comply with the relevant Memorandum of Understanding and it takes time etc and there are various rules re what they can and can't do with any evidence collected etc.
This would be something more - it would appear to give the European authorities direct enforcement jurisdiction over UK-based firm. It is not at all clear whether the domestic authorities would need to be involved. And it raises all sorts of issues - what about legal privilege, for instance? This is not recognised for in-house lawyers in Continental Europe, which would create a big problem for in-house legal departments in UK companies. What about client confidentiality? How would any information seized by shared and with whom? What about the rules against self-incrimination? What rules would apply to interviews or things said during such a raid? Etc etc.
Plus if the Europeans get such powers, expect the US authorities to demand the same PDQ. And anyone who's dealt with them will go white at the idea of the US authorities being able to raid firms in the UK without having to take account of UK criminal and civil law requirements.
Now, there's a lot of detail in such proposals and they may not turn out to be as bad as all that but remember that we won't be consulted. And the bulk of the EU knows the square root of damn all about the common law or about English criminal law. They don't even have habeas corpus, for God's sake, let alone the right to silence or innocent until proven guilty etc.
The combination of something like this and the continuation of the EAW can cause all sorts of issues for such firms. And don't assume this will only affect big bad investment banks either. The financial sector is very much more than that.
I have not screamed fascist at every opportunity. I have used it in relation to one particular poster for precisely explained reasons. Candidly, I expected better of you.
It seems that Leavers prefer to keep the company of those engaging in fascist forms of debate to having those forms of debate accurately labelled.
I have asked Leave posters to dissociate themselves from fascist approaches. You and they prefer to complain about accurate labelling rather than seek to counter a particularly vile form of argument.
Lost count of the number of times most leave voters on here have argued vehemently against the tactics of leave.eu etc, but nothing we say will ever be enough to prevent you from tarring us with that brush.
I voted leave because I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws I live under, because I believe in democracy and think it an important social good.
But no, we're all fascists. Carry on lobbing grenades from your side of the trench. None so blind as those who will not see, etc.
If it is a bad apple, 1% spoiling it for everyone, argument, it would defuse the situation considerably if those advancing it, said that. But I read this from Roger downthread
"My prejudice and loathing of Leavers is almost complete and I struggle not to find their attitudes suspect on almost every level."
and I find it hard to read that as a one percenter kind of position.
I think one can loathe and be prejudiced against people for reasons other than 'just' racism etc, though being an amiable creature, I try not to be consumed by those feelings.
My general point is that it's probably more than one percent, and that's the burr under the saddle for upstanding leavers. I know I'd be discomfited if a proposition I supported was carried by the votes of racists.
Every time I vote in a general election, I'm voting in the company of racists, misogynists, various flavours of -phobe, idiots and the terminally uninformed. It's part and parcel of life. I pay it no mind.
I prefer to make my judgements based on each individual I encounter. For example, I don't consider the average Labour supporter an anti-Semite. Further, I have the good manners to assume the best in my interlocutors, particularly on PB, which is a cut above the common herd. However, if some of those interlocutors wish to consider me a racist, a xenophobe or whatever the epithet du jour is, they're very welcome to do so.
I hope with all my heart that Anna Soubrey, whose own constituents voted to leave, loses her seat at the next election.
You do know MPs aren't mouthpieces for the prevailing view in their constituency ? Soubry is entitled to her view - it doesn't stop her representing her constituency or her constituents.
Is an MP mandated to follow the opinions of her constituents ? Not to my knowledge.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 1774
Anna is entitled to her view and will be answerable to her constituents at the next election
And for not just expressing her views, but for advocating that her constituents views be ignored, I hope that she loses her seat at the next election.
She has to win the nomination as conservative candidate first
Adonis is basically AC Grayling these days. Attacking the BBC is not a smart move, its on balance a more remain than leave organisation IMO but much like the NHS or the army its political suicide to attack it in the way he has. It seems like he's losing the argument and going down blasting everything in his path.
The BBC is much better than the pro EU Sky. I would say the BBC do seem to try to be balanced
completely agree, the BBC has a reasonable mix of pro EU, anti EU and those who can't tell. It's only the website editor who I think is particularly liberal on most issues. Sky have Faisal Islam who is so terrible on Brexit that they might aswell replace him with Ian Dunt or Matthew Parris.
I hope with all my heart that Anna Soubrey, whose own constituents voted to leave, loses her seat at the next election.
You do know MPs aren't mouthpieces for the prevailing view in their constituency ? Soubry is entitled to her view - it doesn't stop her representing her constituency or her constituents.
Is an MP mandated to follow the opinions of her constituents ? Not to my knowledge.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 1774
Anna is entitled to her view and will be answerable to her constituents at the next election
And for not just expressing her views, but for advocating that her constituents views be ignored, I hope that she loses her seat at the next election.
She has to win the nomination as conservative candidate first
Adonis is basically AC Grayling these days. Attacking the BBC is not a smart move, its on balance a more remain than leave organisation IMO but much like the NHS or the army its political suicide to attack it in the way he has. It seems like he's losing the argument and going down blasting everything in his path.
The BBC is much better than the pro EU Sky. I would say the BBC do seem to try to be balanced
I don't think Sky is pro-EU. It is more or less balanced on Brexit and you would not expect anything else from an organisation owned by Rupert Murdoch who hates the EU. It is either balanced or its going to be anti-EU. People mistake not hearing what they want to hear on a subject for being biased. I used to be like that when Gordon Brown was PM and I think back now and see the error of my ways.
Every time I advocate Soft Brexit on here I am accused of being a wrecker or trying to sabotage Brexit.
Soft Brexit means keeping things exactly the same despite leaving. By staying in the Single Market, the EU would continue to control our laws and borders, Freedom of movement would continue, nothing would have changed except the mere appearance of Brexit.
Those who advocate it are therefore trying to subvert the will of the People and sabotage Brexit in reality -for what is the point of leaving if we are still under EU control?
I hope with all my heart that Anna Soubrey, whose own constituents voted to leave, loses her seat at the next election.
You do know MPs aren't mouthpieces for the prevailing view in their constituency ? Soubry is entitled to her view - it doesn't stop her representing her constituency or her constituents.
Is an MP mandated to follow the opinions of her constituents ? Not to my knowledge.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 1774
Anna is entitled to her view and will be answerable to her constituents at the next election
And for not just expressing her views, but for advocating that her constituents views be ignored, I hope that she loses her seat at the next election.
She has to win the nomination as conservative candidate first
Adonis is basically AC Grayling these days. Attacking the BBC is not a smart move, its on balance a more remain than leave organisation IMO but much like the NHS or the army its political suicide to attack it in the way he has. It seems like he's losing the argument and going down blasting everything in his path.
The BBC is much better than the pro EU Sky. I would say the BBC do seem to try to be balanced
I don't think Sky is pro-EU. It is more or less balanced on Brexit and you would not expect anything else from an organisation owned by Rupert Murdoch who hates the EU. It is either balanced or its going to be anti-EU. People mistake not hearing what they want to hear on a subject for being biased. I used to be like that when Gordon Brown was PM and I think back now and see the error of my ways.
I watch Sky daily and from Faisal Islam to Adam Boulton they cannot conceal their EU bias.
Everything they report is always from the EU stance and there are many on here who would agree. My wife is not political but even she notices it
I hope with all my heart that Anna Soubrey, whose own constituents voted to leave, loses her seat at the next election.
You do know MPs aren't mouthpieces for the prevailing view in their constituency ? Soubry is entitled to her view - it doesn't stop her representing her constituency or her constituents.
Is an MP mandated to follow the opinions of her constituents ? Not to my knowledge.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 1774
Anna is entitled to her view and will be answerable to her constituents at the next election
And for not just expressing her views, but for advocating that her constituents views be ignored, I hope that she loses her seat at the next election.
She has to win the nomination as conservative candidate first
Adonis is basically AC Grayling these days. Attacking the BBC is not a smart move, its on balance a more remain than leave organisation IMO but much like the NHS or the army its political suicide to attack it in the way he has. It seems like he's losing the argument and going down blasting everything in his path.
The BBC is much better than the pro EU Sky. I would say the BBC do seem to try to be balanced
completely agree, the BBC has a reasonable mix of pro EU, anti EU and those who can't tell. It's only the website editor who I think is particularly liberal on most issues. Sky have Faisal Islam who is so terrible on Brexit that they might aswell replace him with Ian Dunt or Matthew Parris.
Every time I advocate Soft Brexit on here I am accused of being a wrecker or trying to sabotage Brexit.
Soft Brexit means keeping things exactly the same despite leaving. By staying in the Single Market, the EU would continue to control our laws and borders, Freedom of movement would continue, nothing would have changed except the mere appearance of Brexit.
Those who advocate it are therefore trying to subvert the will of the People and sabotage Brexit in reality -for what is the point of leaving if we are still under EU control?
Most Remainers know the best way to sabotage Brexit is to try to implement the hardest possible version, ideally with no deal, and then wait for it to fail. I think you're being paid by Soros.
I have not screamed fascist at every opportunity. I have used it in relation to one particular poster for precisely explained reasons. Candidly, I expected better of you.
It seems that Leavers prefer to keep the company of those engaging in fascist forms of debate to having those forms of debate accurately labelled.
I have asked Leave posters to dissociate themselves from fascist approaches. You and they prefer to complain about accurate labelling rather than seek to counter a particularly vile form of argument.
Lost count of the number of times most leave voters on here have argued vehemently against the tactics of leave.eu etc, but nothing we say will ever be enough to prevent you from tarring us with that brush.
I voted leave because I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws I live under, because I believe in democracy and think it an important social good.
But no, we're all fascists. Carry on lobbing grenades from your side of the trench. None so blind as those who will not see, etc.
Is anyone saying that all those who voted leave are fascists/racists/xenophobes etc? I think the point most critics make is that *some* leavers were one or all of these things, likely enough to push Brexit over the winning line. I understand that this may be an uncomfortable fact for those pure believers in democracy and sovereignty, but it's tedious to have that fact consistently deflected by outraged screeches about being tarred with the same brush.
If it is a bad apple, 1% spoiling it for everyone, argument, it would defuse the situation considerably if those advancing it, said that. But I read this from Roger downthread
"My prejudice and loathing of Leavers is almost complete and I struggle not to find their attitudes suspect on almost every level."
and I find it hard to read that as a one percenter kind of position.
I think one can loathe and be prejudiced against people for reasons other than 'just' racism etc, though being an amiable creature, I try not to be consumed by those feelings.
My general point is that it's probably more than one percent, and that's the burr under the saddle for upstanding leavers. I know I'd be discomfited if a proposition I supported was carried by the votes of racists.
Well, OK, but I see more evidence of remainers who hate the poor than of leavers who hate foreigners. Having voted remain, I'm beginning to wish I had spoiled my ballot to distance myself from both crowds.
Every time I advocate Soft Brexit on here I am accused of being a wrecker or trying to sabotage Brexit.
Soft Brexit means keeping things exactly the same despite leaving. By staying in the Single Market, the EU would continue to control our laws and borders, Freedom of movement would continue, nothing would have changed except the mere appearance of Brexit.
Those who advocate it are therefore trying to subvert the will of the People and sabotage Brexit in reality -for what is the point of leaving if we are still under EU control?
I think the single market has to be left as it implies freedom of movement which at its core the Brexit vote was about. A customs union is less invioble to the spirit of the vote I think, although noone seems to have seriously explored the '''Turkey' option.
I have not screamed fascist at every opportunity. I have used it in relation to one particular poster for precisely explained reasons. Candidly, I expected better of you.
It seems that Leavers prefer to keep the company of those engaging in fascist forms of debate to having those forms of debate accurately labelled.
I have asked Leave posters to dissociate themselves from fascist approaches. You and they prefer to complain about accurate labelling rather than seek to counter a particularly vile form of argument.
Lost count of the number of times most leave voters on here have argued vehemently against the tactics of leave.eu etc, but nothing we say will ever be enough to prevent you from tarring us with that brush.
I voted leave because I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws I live under, because I believe in democracy and think it an important social good.
But no, we're all fascists. Carry on lobbing grenades from your side of the trench. None so blind as those who will not see, etc.
If it is a bad apple, 1% spoiling it for everyone, argument, it would defuse the situation considerably if those advancing it, said that. But I read this from Roger downthread
"My prejudice and loathing of Leavers is almost complete and I struggle not to find their attitudes suspect on almost every level."
and I find it hard to read that as a one percenter kind of position.
I think one can loathe and be prejudiced against people for reasons other than 'just' racism etc, though being an amiable creature, I try not to be consumed by those feelings.
My general point is that it's probably more than one percent, and that's the burr under the saddle for upstanding leavers. I know I'd be discomfited if a proposition I supported was carried by the votes of racists.
Every time I vote in a general election, I'm voting in the company of racists, misogynists, various flavours of -phobe, idiots and the terminally uninformed. It's part and parcel of life. I pay it no mind.
I prefer to make my judgements based on each individual I encounter. For example, I don't consider the average Labour supporter an anti-Semite. Further, I have the good manners to assume the best in my interlocutors, particularly on PB, which is a cut above the common herd. However, if some of those interlocutors wish to consider me a racist, a xenophobe or whatever the epithet du jour is, they're very welcome to do so.
A thoroughly disreputable man. At least, once his successor was lined up. Prior to that he was an unfairly maligned man apparently. Funny how the world works.
On topic, it seems that there's at least a 30% chance that the Gods wish to destroy the Conservative party.
42.7% chance the next PM is one of Mogg, Corbyn or Johnson according to Betfair.. Jesus H.
It's not as though there's some wonderful choice out there among the also-rans. Britain might not be going to hell in a handcart, but purgatory on a pushbike beckons.
I put it to you that the Remoaner idea of Purgatory is that Brexit will succeed.
For the second time, I suggest the word Remoaner is not conducive to polite discourse. Your definition of the word (like your definition of many things) seems highly elastic and to suit your needs at any given moment.
Brexit has already succeeded in making the country poorer than it would have been, more divided and unhappier. That will only continue.
(1) poorer - who knows what the counter factual would have been. We do know that the Treasury didn’t have s scoobie
(2) more divided - disagree: it informed you of something that you didn’t understand: not everyone agrees with you
(3) unhappier - I doubt. Some very vocal people have been told that they are not in charge and they are scweaming and scweaming about it. But, as with toddlers, the great British public is shrugging their shoulders and waiting for you to get over yourself
On topic, it seems that there's at least a 30% chance that the Gods wish to destroy the Conservative party.
42.7% chance the next PM is one of Mogg, Corbyn or Johnson according to Betfair.. Jesus H.
It's not as though there's some wonderful choice out there among the also-rans. Britain might not be going to hell in a handcart, but purgatory on a pushbike beckons.
I put it to you that the Remoaner idea of Purgatory is that Brexit will succeed.
For the second time, I suggest the word Remoaner is not conducive to polite discourse. Your definition of the word (like your definition of many things) seems highly elastic and to suit your needs at any given moment.
Brexit has already succeeded in making the country poorer than it would have been, more divided and unhappier. That will only continue.
(1) poorer - who knows what the counter factual would have been. We do know that the Treasury didn’t have s scoobie
(2) more divided - disagree: it informed you of something that you didn’t understand: not everyone agrees with you
(3) unhappier - I doubt. Some very vocal people have been told that they are not in charge and they are scweaming and scweaming about it. But, as with toddlers, the great British public is shrugging their shoulders and waiting for you to get over yourself
On the evidence to date we will have to wait a long, long time for that
On topic, it seems that there's at least a 30% chance that the Gods wish to destroy the Conservative party.
42.7% chance the next PM is one of Mogg, Corbyn or Johnson according to Betfair.. Jesus H.
It's not as though there's some wonderful choice out there among the also-rans. Britain might not be going to hell in a handcart, but purgatory on a pushbike beckons.
I put it to you that the Remoaner idea of Purgatory is that Brexit will succeed.
For the second time, I suggest the word Remoaner is not conducive to polite discourse. Your definition of the word (like your definition of many things) seems highly elastic and to suit your needs at any given moment.
Brexit has already succeeded in making the country poorer than it would have been, more divided and unhappier. That will only continue.
(1) poorer - who knows what the counter factual would have been. We do know that the Treasury didn’t have s scoobie
(2) more divided - disagree: it informed you of something that you didn’t understand: not everyone agrees with you
(3) unhappier - I doubt. Some very vocal people have been told that they are not in charge and they are scweaming and scweaming about it. But, as with toddlers, the great British public is shrugging their shoulders and waiting for you to get over yourself
Disagree all you like. The one time the public was asked, they agreed with me:
Sir Robin Wales has dominated Newham politics for twenty years and in 2014 won his fourth successive term as Mayor but is now fighting for his political life.
It seems he will face an open selection process against at least one and possibly more than one opponent within Labour. The main rival seems to be Councillor Fiaz from Custom House but I believe there may be other runners.
It would be a sensational end for Wales if he failed to become Labour candidate - would he stand as an Independent - probably not. Will any new Labour candidate win on the first ballot ? You'd have to say with the other parties' candidates invisible, probably.
Every time I advocate Soft Brexit on here I am accused of being a wrecker or trying to sabotage Brexit.
Soft Brexit means keeping things exactly the same despite leaving. By staying in the Single Market, the EU would continue to control our laws and borders, Freedom of movement would continue, nothing would have changed except the mere appearance of Brexit.
Those who advocate it are therefore trying to subvert the will of the People and sabotage Brexit in reality -for what is the point of leaving if we are still under EU control?
Most Remainers know the best way to sabotage Brexit is to try to implement the hardest possible version, ideally with no deal, and then wait for it to fail. I think you're being paid by Soros.
Most people who voted remain that I know just shrugged their shoulders and expect the government to get on with it.
Unlike our remain "ultras" who seem to insist that Democracy only stands if they get the result they wanted.
Why trolling? Calves are a by-product of milk production. We can either eat them or export them. Veal makes wonderful dishes. We could I suppose kill them and throw them away but that seems a shame.
I am a European. I like European cuisine. The British prejudice against veal - provided it is humanely farmed - is nonsensical. Oh and I like offal too. And calves' brains - which is a great delicacy in Italy - and utterly delicious.
It is not just a case of eat them or throw them away, a lot of Holstein Male calves go into dog food at just over a week old. As to high welfare veal it is usually rose veal (although rose can also be poor welfare veal. Yes I am looking at you the Netherlands) and is not selling as well as many had hoped.
I think that sooner or later Remoaners will have to come to terms with the fact that the UK is leaving the EU and that we are leaving not only in name but in reality. All those devious little ways that the Mafia in Brussels tries to exert control over non EU countries will be swept away.
At some point Remoaners will have to make the crossover from attempting to stop Brexit (which would be undemocratic) to campaigning to re-enter one day (which would not).
The first step on the campaign to re-enter would be to capture the main opposition party for re-entry. It will never be of any use to those who wish to re-enter the EU so long as it is led by a Leaver who voted against EVERY EU treaty for 30 years, and who facilitated Leave by failing to campaign for Remain.
Sound strategy but tactically difficult given the size of the Labour Party. The Conservative Party is an easier target, although being less democratically organised it would take longer to get your hands on the right levers.
It's certainly true that the Conservative party has most of the right Leavers I would like to get my hands on.
Didn’t think that Penny or Charlotte would be your type
My ideal situation is for the People to vote in a democratic referendum and for everyone to accept the result -as I would have done if Remain has won.
I dont know about Cooper, but I think if Burnham had been Labour leader -or Chuka Umunna in 2016 and as Leader of the Opposition he had campaigned vigorously for Remain, my side would have lost. There would have been no Brexit. And I would have accepted the result.
On referendum night leavers of all political persuasions toasted Jeremy Corbyn. He had proved a useful idiot to the Leave cause.
I'm happy to believe that you would have accepted a Remain result Steve but neither Farage and his Kippers nor the Tory europhobes would have accepted it; they would have gone campaiging.
Regarding the actual result, as a devout Remainer I accept it and recognise we sadly have to leave... but there's no reason why we cannot do that with the softest of soft Brexits. We didn't vote to leave the single market or the customs union. Norway are not in the EU but in the single market - a Norwegian solution would have been very sensible but the tory europhobes have pushed the government into a corner that satisfies only the extremists imo.
Hm, let me just grab that clip of both side saying a vote to leave would be to leave the single market.
Isn't this the point though? You can find a clip of a leaver saying anything you like, frequently contradictory. (sometimes even with what the same person said to a different audience.) Cameron needs to take all the blame for allowing us to get the referendum with so little pinned down about what leave would mean - if he'd been savvier he'd have got them to write a white paper and have the arguments before the vote.
So that's why I've no time for people talking about the Will Of THe PeoPle, or that Leave means Leave. Leave meant various contradictory things before the vote, the cabinet still are too split to come up with any vision now. When you only have 52% to start with, the idea that anyone can claim they know what the vote really meant or was really about is for the birds - and normally indicates someone who can't argue for their favoured outcome on its merits.
It’s very simple: the People said “Leave”.
It’s up to the government to determine what that means
And we get to sling them out if we don’t like their choices
I'm happy to believe that you would have accepted a Remain result Steve but neither Farage and his Kippers nor the Tory europhobes would have accepted it; they would have gone campaiging.
Regarding the actual result, as a devout Remainer I accept it and recognise we sadly have to leave... but there's no reason why we cannot do that with the softest of soft Brexits. We didn't vote to leave the single market or the customs union. Norway are not in the EU but in the single market - a Norwegian solution would have been very sensible but the tory europhobes have pushed the government into a corner that satisfies only the extremists imo.
Hm, let me just grab that clip of both side saying a vote to leave would be to leave the single market.
Isn't this the point though? You can find a clip of a leaver saying anything you like, frequently contradictory. (sometimes even with what the same person said to a different audience.) Cameron needs to take all the blame for allowing us to get the referendum with so little pinned down about what leave would mean - if he'd been savvier he'd have got them to write a white paper and have the arguments before the vote.
So that's why I've no time for people talking about the Will Of THe PeoPle, or that Leave means Leave. Leave meant various contradictory things before the vote, the cabinet still are too split to come up with any vision now. When you only have 52% to start with, the idea that anyone can claim they know what the vote really meant or was really about is for the birds - and normally indicates someone who can't argue for their favoured outcome on its merits.
It’s very simple: the People said “Leave”.
It’s up to the government to determine what that means
And we get to sling them out if we don’t like their choices
Having been rude to you earlier, can I now say that I agree with this 100%?
- Enforcing the Hunting Act is mostly about allowing access to land to investigate and making it a reportable offence, the two snags inhibiting effective enforcement at present.
If the police fancied enforcing the hunting act they could drive around some local roads and watch hare coursing in action from the highway. Yet I can not remember ever seeing a police car around here, as they do not bother putting in an appearance for anything locally such as diesel or farm theft. Which often occur after hare coursers have been poaching in the area. Lucky farmers can rely on their own guard dogs - or at least they could until dogs biting thieving trespassers on private land was made criminal.
Catching up wiuth earlier queries on the Labour animal welfare strategy that I helped with, which came out today:
- Yes, it proposes that all meat should be labelled stun/non-stun so consumers can choose (and in practice I expect drive out most of the non-stun). This is more relevant than halal/non-halal since 80% of halal meat is in fact stunned.
- Enforcing the Hunting Act is mostly about allowing access to land to investigate and making it a reportable offence, the two snags inhibiting effective enforcement at present.
But these are very far from the main focus of the proposals, which include such proposals as using post-Brexit subsidies to phase out the use of cages and factory farming and phasing out the "severe" experiments category (only 8% of the total but seriously unpleasant - e.g. "learned helplessness", training an animal by repeated shocks to learn that it's helpless and trigger depression).
A question: how do you propose "allowing access to land" to work?
If you don’t agree, men in balaclavas will hit you with baseball bats until you do
I think leavers are worrying slightly unnecessarily about Brexit initially leaving us a little more aligned with the EU than they would have preferred.
The ratchet will only turn one way and with each passing GE there will be a move away rather than towards, especially if economically we are outperforming the EU.
It may take the annihilation of the first party to offer re-joining in a GE manifesto to prove the point.
This is a truism because if you are 100% aligned you can only become less aligned. Nevertheless I think the UK will be aligned with the EU in many ways where it doesn't merely shadow EU regulation because it thinks the specific regulation is a good idea or it doesn't care. The UK will need to commit to every part of the EU regulation, as it exists now and as it is brought in and changed in the future. The whole point of that alignment is to get national treatment in the EU and other countries that have signed up to the EU system. You won't get national treatment without committing to full alignment now and as the regulation changes.
Effectively we commit to doing what we are told, which is very different from collective decision-making as we have as members of the European Union.
In the same way Canada does what they are told?
What's Canada got to do with it? We are not Canada, Timbuktoo or North Korea.
Indeed not. We're far better customers of the EU than any of them.
More seriously, 'close alignment' is the latest in a LONG list of things Remainers are stating must be retained. So far we've had SM and CU; I suspect the latest ditch will go the way of The last two.
I think one of the things that isn't helping us is this idea that we MUST do this or that. There's no moral imperative here. Why can't people just tell us what their own preference is and argue the case for it - clean break/close alignment/second referendum.
That is a tremendously astute point - and actually one that too many establishment Remainers haven't realised they're doing...
Catching up wiuth earlier queries on the Labour animal welfare strategy that I helped with, which came out today:
- Yes, it proposes that all meat should be labelled stun/non-stun so consumers can choose (and in practice I expect drive out most of the non-stun). This is more relevant than halal/non-halal since 80% of halal meat is in fact stunned.
- Enforcing the Hunting Act is mostly about allowing access to land to investigate and making it a reportable offence, the two snags inhibiting effective enforcement at present.
But these are very far from the main focus of the proposals, which include such proposals as using post-Brexit subsidies to phase out the use of cages and factory farming and phasing out the "severe" experiments category (only 8% of the total but seriously unpleasant - e.g. "learned helplessness", training an animal by repeated shocks to learn that it's helpless and trigger depression).
In general they seem sensible proposals. In my very first job as a government lawyer I was involved in moves to protect badgers (and, indeed, was for a time an expert on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, especially as it related to raptors).
But two things:-
1. I like foie gras, I admit. Don't often eat it. But I do like it. I'm not sure how you can ban it, given current rules.
2. On banning the export of live animals, this will I hope mean that there is much more veal for sale in the UK. It is because we don't - traditionally - eat veal that so many young calves are exported to the Continent where they do.
I hope with all my heart that Anna Soubrey, whose own constituents voted to leave, loses her seat at the next election.
You do, I hope, realise that Anna Soubry voted to trigger article 50 in the Commons vote? You might not like her opinions but you can't really fault her on respecting the result of the referendum. She strongly dislikes Brexit, of course, but she believes that if it is to be reversed it has to be the voters who reverse it and not the politicians. That seems an entirely honourable position to me... but I'm an upset but accepting remainer myself so I would think that.
Comments
If Brexit were not implemented, I believe there would be unprecedented violence arising from the anger that would cause.
The speech was weak not because the Prime Minister's position is weak per se - it is a reflection of internal divisions - but also because it is a political and negotiating ploy not to reveal the cards in your hand. That may be perceived as weakness and it may be so but in a negotiation it may not be.
May's LEAVE coalition is held together currently by two things - fear of a second referendum and the notion everyone has that May wants what they want. The internal contradictions across the LEAVE spectrum mean some will inevitably be disappointed when the Prime Minister's view becomes clearer. Whether that disappointment transforms into opposition remains to be seen but may be enough to deny May a majority in the Commons.
I thought we banned live exports years ago. LOL at your "Oh goody, more veal for us" response, which I think many would regard as verging on trolling.
I am a European. I like European cuisine. The British prejudice against veal - provided it is humanely farmed - is nonsensical. Oh and I like offal too. And calves' brains - which is a great delicacy in Italy - and utterly delicious.
He thought he was playing a blinder by aligning himself with Leave at the last moment in 2016. His support of Leave was a case of a useful idiot joining a campaign he historically had little in common with. I won't be the last to mock him but his attempt to reach out to Remain voters will be as effective as Ed Miliband claiming he was one nation in 2015. Labour lost and the Tories got a majority for the fist time in over two decades!
Johnson is just building on the foundations of his nefarious campaign to try and seize NO.10. I do actually wonder if he has become deluded and thinks he is some sort of Churchill type figure fighting for British prestige. The problem with that analogy is Churchill was the anti- fascist bulwark of last resort against a genuine national threat unlike the imagined threat of the EU. Instead of revealing how Immigration was going to be rolled back or how the £350 million of additional spending was going to be delivered he just talked platitudes, many of which are a total contradiction of the platform he joined in 2016.
Is an MP mandated to follow the opinions of her constituents ? Not to my knowledge.
Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 1774
Potential controversial issues where it could but doesn't (Or moves very slowly)
Ireland Abortion, UK Hunting, Spain Bull fighting, France Food Gras, Denmark/Holland sow stalls, Hungary - OK Orban annoys them but Hungary will stay in the EU.. there'll be other issues too.
My general point is that it's probably more than one percent, and that's the burr under the saddle for upstanding leavers. I know I'd be discomfited if a proposition I supported was carried by the votes of racists.
The real centre ground are those who accept the referendum result as a mandate to leave the EU in reality.
https://www.twitter.com/martindvassolo/status/963874523899625474
And they appear not to have caught the shooter yet.
They already have that. I have dealt with a number of cases where the French regulator has asked for interviews of UK bankers and does them but it has to go via the FCA or other UK authority. So they have to comply with the relevant Memorandum of Understanding and it takes time etc and there are various rules re what they can and can't do with any evidence collected etc.
This would be something more - it would appear to give the European authorities direct enforcement jurisdiction over UK-based firm. It is not at all clear whether the domestic authorities would need to be involved. And it raises all sorts of issues - what about legal privilege, for instance? This is not recognised for in-house lawyers in Continental Europe, which would create a big problem for in-house legal departments in UK companies. What about client confidentiality? How would any information seized by shared and with whom? What about the rules against self-incrimination? What rules would apply to interviews or things said during such a raid? Etc etc.
Plus if the Europeans get such powers, expect the US authorities to demand the same PDQ. And anyone who's dealt with them will go white at the idea of the US authorities being able to raid firms in the UK without having to take account of UK criminal and civil law requirements.
Now, there's a lot of detail in such proposals and they may not turn out to be as bad as all that but remember that we won't be consulted. And the bulk of the EU knows the square root of damn all about the common law or about English criminal law. They don't even have habeas corpus, for God's sake, let alone the right to silence or innocent until proven guilty etc.
The combination of something like this and the continuation of the EAW can cause all sorts of issues for such firms. And don't assume this will only affect big bad investment banks either. The financial sector is very much more than that.
I prefer to make my judgements based on each individual I encounter. For example, I don't consider the average Labour supporter an anti-Semite. Further, I have the good manners to assume the best in my interlocutors, particularly on PB, which is a cut above the common herd. However, if some of those interlocutors wish to consider me a racist, a xenophobe or whatever the epithet du jour is, they're very welcome to do so.
Those who advocate it are therefore trying to subvert the will of the People and sabotage Brexit in reality -for what is the point of leaving if we are still under EU control?
Everything they report is always from the EU stance and there are many on here who would agree. My wife is not political but even she notices it
(2) more divided - disagree: it informed you of something that you didn’t understand: not everyone agrees with you
(3) unhappier - I doubt. Some very vocal people have been told that they are not in charge and they are scweaming and scweaming about it. But, as with toddlers, the great British public is shrugging their shoulders and waiting for you to get over yourself
Moon howling Monday
Tangled web Tuesday
Wild eyed Wednesday
Thicky Thursday
Facist Friday
Saddo saturday
https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-britain-sky-data-poll-reveals-a-nation-divided-10716599
Perhaps you should get to know the country better.
http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/seasonal/election/next-mayor-of-newham-will-be-chosen-by-an-open-selection-1-5392036
Sir Robin Wales has dominated Newham politics for twenty years and in 2014 won his fourth successive term as Mayor but is now fighting for his political life.
It seems he will face an open selection process against at least one and possibly more than one opponent within Labour. The main rival seems to be Councillor Fiaz from Custom House but I believe there may be other runners.
It would be a sensational end for Wales if he failed to become Labour candidate - would he stand as an Independent - probably not. Will any new Labour candidate win on the first ballot ? You'd have to say with the other parties' candidates invisible, probably.
Unlike our remain "ultras" who seem to insist that Democracy only stands if they get the result they wanted.
It’s up to the government to determine what that means
And we get to sling them out if we don’t like their choices
Lucky farmers can rely on their own guard dogs - or at least they could until dogs biting thieving trespassers on private land was made criminal.