Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why TMay’s Tories can’t afford to alienate Remain voters

2»

Comments

  • Airbus have confirmed their long term commitment to the UK irrespective of Brexit
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    stevef said:

    The fruitcakes continue to take over the Asylum that is the Labour Party.

    Most people in the country of course dont care about Brexit anywhere near as much as the chattering class on here think they do.

    Remoaners can take heart however. They have Tony Blair as their leader, going on TV even as we speak, to rally the Nation to overthrow Brexit and stay in the EU.

    Good luck with that.

    Good luck with your project of bringing sanity to the Labour Party.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited February 2018

    AndyJS said:

    It's surprising the Tories won any Remain seats. Most of them were probably in Scotland.

    The only exception being Southport I suspect.
    Yes although it must have been very close to 50/50.
  • AndyJS said:

    stevef said:

    The fruitcakes continue to take over the Asylum that is the Labour Party.

    Most people in the country of course dont care about Brexit anywhere near as much as the chattering class on here think they do.

    Remoaners can take heart however. They have Tony Blair as their leader, going on TV even as we speak, to rally the Nation to overthrow Brexit and stay in the EU.

    Good luck with that.

    Good luck with your project of bringing sanity to the Labour Party.
    Labour, Momentum and the Communist party to hold co-operation meeting next month. Adverts for the event show two red hands clasped together, one emblazoned with the Labour party red rose, the other with the communist party hammer and sickle

    How long are labour moderates going to put up with this slide to marxism
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    TGOHF said:
    I suppose that would make Mogg a Soubrette...
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    AndyJS said:

    stevef said:

    The fruitcakes continue to take over the Asylum that is the Labour Party.

    Most people in the country of course dont care about Brexit anywhere near as much as the chattering class on here think they do.

    Remoaners can take heart however. They have Tony Blair as their leader, going on TV even as we speak, to rally the Nation to overthrow Brexit and stay in the EU.

    Good luck with that.

    Good luck with your project of bringing sanity to the Labour Party.
    Labour, Momentum and the Communist party to hold co-operation meeting next month. Adverts for the event show two red hands clasped together, one emblazoned with the Labour party red rose, the other with the communist party hammer and sickle

    How long are labour moderates going to put up with this slide to marxism
    Most of them are hypocrites because before the election they said Corbyn was unacceptable and then when he did better than expected they suddenly thought he was wonderful. So power is the only thing that counts, it seems.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    stevef said:

    Sandpit said:

    stevef said:

    Most Labour MPs represent Leave constituencies.

    It is Labour who has to be very careful not to upset or upset Leavers.

    Anna Soubrey's constituency voted leave and she has alienated so many of her constituents by attempting to thwart Brexit that she will lose her seat next time- and she knows it, so she probably doesnt care who she upsets in the time she has left as an MP.

    The idea that it is only or even mainly Theresa May's Tories who have to be careful on Brexit is absurd.

    Not convinced about Anna Soubry losing her seat for voting on her conscience. It will be upto her constituency party to decide if she is nominated and unless she brings the government down I expect her to stand for the party next time
    Yes, she’s every right to her opinion, and unless she votes against an actual confidence motion there’s no reason she won’t continue as a Conservative MP.
    The reality is that Anna and her supporters in the party have more power to influence the decisions even though there are not much more than 12 of them than JRM and his group and 65 plus supporters as the rest of the HOC ex the DUP will back Anna S and the rebels.

    Of course JRM could seek to take down TM but she would have to lose a confidence vote of her MP's and then a subsequent leadership race becomes entirely unpredictable with no certainty that a leaver would win.
    She will cease to be a Conservative MP, if her constituents (most of whom voted leave) vote her out next time -which I believe they will. She already has a tiny majority. She is entitled to her opinion, but if she acts on it, she will lose her seat at the next election.

    Soubry is almost the archetypal broken record.




  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    1. We are not able to discuss tariffs until we leave the EU as there is no clarity on what our position will be

    2. No other multinational body is able to make new laws under existing treaties to govern us without our express consent. This has always been the great lie in comparing the EU to any other multinational body. We signed up to a specific set of agreements when we joined those other bodies and without our clear consent they cannot alter or adjust those agreements. That is the whole basis of treaty law.

    3. I would have thought firing Liam Fox was something you should do without needing a reason.

    4. The issue with Trade Talks is that we are not allowed to start formal negotiations with anyone else as long as we are still in the EU. Oh and Liam Fox.

    5. We will never be able to negotiate as an equal as long as our needs are subsumed to the needs of another 27 or more members and we have no direct control over negotiations. Whether China wants to take 1 day or 100 years matters not if the people negotiating with them on our behalf do not have our best interests as their first and foremost necessity.

    1. That's not true. We could announce that - when the transition period is over - that our initial tariff schedule will match the EU's, with the following exceptions, say lower tariffs on automobiles (2.7%) and agricultural products. There's nothing to stop us announcing now what our plans for 2020 are.

    2. Agreed. The EU does denude us of more sovereignty than other treaties. But I think we need our discourse to be more nuanced: pretty much every treaty we sign and multinational body we join restricts the laws our parliament can pass.

    3. Agreed.

    4. We have started informal negotiations with - among others - the US. But the DfIT is being poorly led, and we're doing a very poor job of being ready for 2020.

    5. I don't disagree with you. My point is simply that, while the UK can negotiate as an equal with India, Canada, Australia, and South Korea, it cannot with the EU, China or the US. (And that goes for other mid-sized economies.)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    A good piece on the consequences of arming teachers: https://www.charlottefive.com/arming-teachers
  • Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:
    I suppose that would make Mogg a Soubrette...
    Or Annette.
  • While I don't have a particularly high opinion of Liam Fox that predates his current role. What especially has Fox done wrong in his current role? Or not done right?

    The reality is that whoever was in his position would struggle while we're still tied to the EU and thus not formally allowed to enter into negotiations (which I think personally is absurd but that's another topic).
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    rcs1000 said:

    A good piece on the consequences of arming teachers: https://www.charlottefive.com/arming-teachers

    Is it that good? It says that an armed teacher-on-nutter firefight would be a horrible thing, but then so is a nutter-on-unarmed-children firefight. If armed teachers deterred, say, one in two potential school shooters, the deterrent effect on its own would justify arming teachers.

    I'd like to see a cost-benefit analysis of why airport-type security is justified at American airports, but not American schools.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    edited February 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    1. That's not true. We could announce that - when the transition period is over - that our initial tariff schedule will match the EU's, with the following exceptions, say lower tariffs on automobiles (2.7%) and agricultural products. There's nothing to stop us announcing now what our plans for 2020 are.

    Haven't we already announced that we plan to replicate the EU's schedule?

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/651033/Letter_from_EU_and_UK_Permanent_Representatives.pdf
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    A good piece on the consequences of arming teachers: https://www.charlottefive.com/arming-teachers

    Is it that good? It says that an armed teacher-on-nutter firefight would be a horrible thing, but then so is a nutter-on-unarmed-children firefight. If armed teachers deterred, say, one in two potential school shooters, the deterrent effect on its own would justify arming teachers.

    I'd like to see a cost-benefit analysis of why airport-type security is justified at American airports, but not American schools.
    Many American schools already have metal detectors. Pretty much every High School in Los Angeles does.

    The thing is, airports typically have 10s of armed, highly trained, police. If someone comes up to the school metal detector with a semi-automatic assault rifle, then in all likelihood we simply have a dead rent-a-cop before the students get shot.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    stevef said:

    Most Labour MPs represent Leave constituencies.

    It is Labour who has to be very careful not to upset or upset Leavers.

    Anna Soubrey's constituency voted leave and she has alienated so many of her constituents by attempting to thwart Brexit that she will lose her seat next time- and she knows it, so she probably doesnt care who she upsets in the time she has left as an MP.

    The idea that it is only or even mainly Theresa May's Tories who have to be careful on Brexit is absurd.

    OK, say you're a Conservative voter in Broxtowe and you really like Brexit. Your choice is:

    * the most prominent, aggressively pro-Remain Conservative
    * a mildly pro-Remain member of Momentum
    * an extremely pro-EU LibDem
    * a keen pro-EU Green
    * a no-hope UKIP candidate.

    What do you do? Last year, with exactly this position, UKIP's vote dropped by three quarters to 2%, saving Soubry's seat, although Labour gained strongly. I suggest that this shows that there are lots of Leave voters who decide their election votes on other grounds than the EU.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    While I don't have a particularly high opinion of Liam Fox that predates his current role. What especially has Fox done wrong in his current role? Or not done right?

    The reality is that whoever was in his position would struggle while we're still tied to the EU and thus not formally allowed to enter into negotiations (which I think personally is absurd but that's another topic).

    Three things:

    1. He's spent a lot of time and political energy on his "Tariffs for a 21st Century Britain" position paper.
    2. He seems obsessed with getting a trade deal with the US. Given the two concessions the US will require (US based ISDS courts with majority membership of US judges, and tariff free access for US agricultural produce to the UK) will be difficult sells in the UK, this is a waste of time.
    3. He's upset the Swiss and the South Koreans, which should be two of the easiest FTAs to replicate post Brexit.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    1. That's not true. We could announce that - when the transition period is over - that our initial tariff schedule will match the EU's, with the following exceptions, say lower tariffs on automobiles (2.7%) and agricultural products. There's nothing to stop us announcing now what our plans for 2020 are.

    Haven't we already announced that we plan to replicate the EU's schedule?

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/651033/Letter_from_EU_and_UK_Permanent_Representatives.pdf
    I think that's what JRM is upset about.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    O/T

    This is for all the plonkers who think drugs should be legalised:

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/967045820372733952
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    It's incidentally an irony that Leave-voting Broxtowe hasn't had a critic of the EU representing them for the last 40 years - indeed, I'm probably the most critical one they've had (my predecessor Jim Lester was a super-Europhile, to the point that the Times endorsed me to get rid of him), and you really would not call me a Brexiteer. People who really are anti-EU in Broxtowe must be getting a bit frustrated.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    A good piece on the consequences of arming teachers: https://www.charlottefive.com/arming-teachers

    Is it that good? It says that an armed teacher-on-nutter firefight would be a horrible thing, but then so is a nutter-on-unarmed-children firefight. If armed teachers deterred, say, one in two potential school shooters, the deterrent effect on its own would justify arming teachers.

    I'd like to see a cost-benefit analysis of why airport-type security is justified at American airports, but not American schools.
    I don't think you need a CBA for that. There are relatively few airports (even in the US), and many more (several orders of magnitude, probably) schools. Airports also get vastly greater numbers of people passing through, the vast majority of which are 'strangers'.

    Arming teachers is a ridiculous notion on many levels. Just training them (yet alone general firearms competence) would be a massive issue.

    People should remember this case:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215766/Thames-Valley-police-fined-40-000-gun-expert-shot-man-safety-demo.html
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    A good piece on the consequences of arming teachers: https://www.charlottefive.com/arming-teachers

    Is it that good? It says that an armed teacher-on-nutter firefight would be a horrible thing, but then so is a nutter-on-unarmed-children firefight. If armed teachers deterred, say, one in two potential school shooters, the deterrent effect on its own would justify arming teachers.

    I'd like to see a cost-benefit analysis of why airport-type security is justified at American airports, but not American schools.
    Many American schools already have metal detectors. Pretty much every High School in Los Angeles does.

    The thing is, airports typically have 10s of armed, highly trained, police. If someone comes up to the school metal detector with a semi-automatic assault rifle, then in all likelihood we simply have a dead rent-a-cop before the students get shot.
    Depends on whether the armed rent-a-cop is a well-trained one or not.

    There is a reason for example that customs officers in the UK greeting international travelers don’t stand there with AKs but with the Mk1 eyeball.
  • rcs1000 said:

    While I don't have a particularly high opinion of Liam Fox that predates his current role. What especially has Fox done wrong in his current role? Or not done right?

    The reality is that whoever was in his position would struggle while we're still tied to the EU and thus not formally allowed to enter into negotiations (which I think personally is absurd but that's another topic).

    Three things:

    1. He's spent a lot of time and political energy on his "Tariffs for a 21st Century Britain" position paper.
    2. He seems obsessed with getting a trade deal with the US. Given the two concessions the US will require (US based ISDS courts with majority membership of US judges, and tariff free access for US agricultural produce to the UK) will be difficult sells in the UK, this is a waste of time.
    3. He's upset the Swiss and the South Koreans, which should be two of the easiest FTAs to replicate post Brexit.
    1: While it does sound a tad redundant if we're going to replicate EU tariffs. We ought to consider diverging on tariffs to ones that suit us ultimately once we're 100% members of the WTO in our own right (I know we are technically but we don't have our own schedule etc).
    2: The USA is the ultimate prize FTA. The EU's failure to get one is a key reason why I after much consideration voted Leave. A better angle does seem to me to be looking into joining the TPP which I expect the USA will eventually rejoin and I believe Fox has already done exploratory work on this which seems appropriate.
    3: Fully agreed.
  • AndyJS said:

    O/T

    This is for all the plonkers who think drugs should be legalised:

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/967045820372733952

    Clearly the authors have never smoked dope with friends.
  • Theresa May went into the last general election on a platform of hard Brexit and with the avowed intention to use the election to crush dissent from Remainer MPs and yet she still managed to make twice as many gains in Remain seats than Leave seats?

    On the face of it that would make her an electoral titan. How did she manage to fail to win a landslide majority of epic proportions?
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223

    It's incidentally an irony that Leave-voting Broxtowe hasn't had a critic of the EU representing them for the last 40 years - indeed, I'm probably the most critical one they've had (my predecessor Jim Lester was a super-Europhile, to the point that the Times endorsed me to get rid of him), and you really would not call me a Brexiteer. People who really are anti-EU in Broxtowe must be getting a bit frustrated.

    You sound really upset about that.
  • Theresa May went into the last general election on a platform of hard Brexit and with the avowed intention to use the election to crush dissent from Remainer MPs and yet she still managed to make twice as many gains in Remain seats than Leave seats?

    On the face of it that would make her an electoral titan. How did she manage to fail to win a landslide majority of epic proportions?

    Because Ruth Davidson won seats in Scotland.

    Look at England-only figures and it tells a very different story.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    This is for all the plonkers who think drugs should be legalised:

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/967045820372733952

    Clearly the authors have never smoked dope with friends.
    Cannabis is now legal in California. The fabric of society doesn't seem to be negatively affected, except that I keep being offered "medicinal" chocolate blueberries at dinner parties.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    This is for all the plonkers who think drugs should be legalised:

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/967045820372733952

    Clearly the authors have never smoked dope with friends.
    Cannabis is now legal in California. The fabric of society doesn't seem to be negatively affected, except that I keep being offered "medicinal" chocolate blueberries at dinner parties.
    If you're offered Brexit, just say no.
    https://twitter.com/damocrat/status/958025778163314689
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    This is for all the plonkers who think drugs should be legalised:

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/967045820372733952

    It is Friday evening. Could you please pop down to your local A&E and stay there for the next 6 hours or so, and then let us know whether you have seen any evidence that alcohol has other side effects than "social bonding, and Duchenne (enjoyment) smiling?"
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    This is for all the plonkers who think drugs should be legalised:

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/967045820372733952

    Clearly the authors have never smoked dope with friends.
    Cannabis is now legal in California. The fabric of society doesn't seem to be negatively affected, except that I keep being offered "medicinal" chocolate blueberries at dinner parties.
    Indeed. 'Legalising' does not mean the same as 'making freely available without controls'.

    Decriminalising drugs would surely remove a major pillar of organised crime, with the added benefit that tax revenues from licensed drug sales could help meet the health and addict support costs which arise from drug abuse.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Ishmael_Z said:

    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    This is for all the plonkers who think drugs should be legalised:

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/967045820372733952

    It is Friday evening. Could you please pop down to your local A&E and stay there for the next 6 hours or so, and then let us know whether you have seen any evidence that alcohol has other side effects than "social bonding, and Duchenne (enjoyment) smiling?"
    I had a colleague at company X who was a nice, pleasant young chap. Yet when we'd go out of an evening, he'd have a couple of drinks and start a fight with anyone.

    And then run away. Leaving the rest of us in the firing line. We very quickly learnt not to go out drinking with him.

    Alcohol (and IME from observation, any drug) has radically different effects on different people. Alcohol makes me sill(ier) and maudlin. It made an ex do dangerous things. It makes other people violent. The same drug, different effects.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    SeanT said:

    I occasionally have bouts of Bremorse, but then something happens, like the devious, Byzantine elevation of Selmayr to eurocrat in chief, a man with immense power over all Europeans, yet never elected by anyone but his backslapping euocrat chums, and I remember why Brexit was is and always will be the only morally correct course.

    The EU is a disgusting dungheap of antidemocratic careerists. Even this Remainer journalist agrees.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/22/stealthy-rise-martin-selmayr-monster-brussels-shows-must-go/

    Yep, let's take back control and make sure the only antidemocratic careerists are our own UK SPADs. :wink:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/10/nick-timothy-and-fiona-hill-unelected-advisers-who-acted-more-like-dpms
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    Ishmael_Z said:

    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    This is for all the plonkers who think drugs should be legalised:

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/967045820372733952

    It is Friday evening. Could you please pop down to your local A&E and stay there for the next 6 hours or so, and then let us know whether you have seen any evidence that alcohol has other side effects than "social bonding, and Duchenne (enjoyment) smiling?"
    I had a colleague at company X who was a nice, pleasant young chap. Yet when we'd go out of an evening, he'd have a couple of drinks and start a fight with anyone.

    And then run away. Leaving the rest of us in the firing line. We very quickly learnt not to go out drinking with him.

    Alcohol (and IME from observation, any drug) has radically different effects on different people. Alcohol makes me sill(ier) and maudlin. It made an ex do dangerous things. It makes other people violent. The same drug, different effects.
    Very true! And rather bizarre.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    SeanT said:

    I occasionally have bouts of Bremorse, but then something happens, like the devious, Byzantine elevation of Selmayr to eurocrat in chief, a man with immense power over all Europeans, yet never elected by anyone but his backslapping euocrat chums, and I remember why Brexit was is and always will be the only morally correct course.

    The EU is a disgusting dungheap of antidemocratic careerists. Even this Remainer journalist agrees.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/22/stealthy-rise-martin-selmayr-monster-brussels-shows-must-go/

    He's been given a job previously held by these people, names that don't generally strike terror into the hearts of Europeans.

    Alexander Italianer 2015–2018
    Catherine Day 2005–2015
    David O'Sullivan 2000–2005
    Carlo Trojan 1997–2000
    David Williamson 1987–1997
    Émile Noël 1957–1987

    Fraser Nelson is a Brexiteer in any case.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited February 2018
    Ishmael_Z said:

    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    This is for all the plonkers who think drugs should be legalised:

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/967045820372733952

    It is Friday evening. Could you please pop down to your local A&E and stay there for the next 6 hours or so, and then let us know whether you have seen any evidence that alcohol has other side effects than "social bonding, and Duchenne (enjoyment) smiling?"
    Those are irresponsible people. Most people are responsible with alcohol who shouldn't be punished for the behaviour of a small minority. Drugs, on the other hand, are bad for the majority of people who take them.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    SeanT said:

    I occasionally have bouts of Bremorse, but then something happens, like the devious, Byzantine elevation of Selmayr to eurocrat in chief, a man with immense power over all Europeans, yet never elected by anyone but his backslapping euocrat chums, and I remember why Brexit was is and always will be the only morally correct course.

    The EU is a disgusting dungheap of antidemocratic careerists. Even this Remainer journalist agrees.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/22/stealthy-rise-martin-selmayr-monster-brussels-shows-must-go/

    Yep, let's take back control and make sure the only antidemocratic careerists are our own UK SPADs. :wink:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/10/nick-timothy-and-fiona-hill-unelected-advisers-who-acted-more-like-dpms
    It really is Milne vs Timothy, isn't it, via a massively unattractive couple of proxies.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    I occasionally have bouts of Bremorse, but then something happens, like the devious, Byzantine elevation of Selmayr to eurocrat in chief, a man with immense power over all Europeans, yet never elected by anyone but his backslapping euocrat chums, and I remember why Brexit was is and always will be the only morally correct course.

    The EU is a disgusting dungheap of antidemocratic careerists. Even this Remainer journalist agrees.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/22/stealthy-rise-martin-selmayr-monster-brussels-shows-must-go/

    He's been given a job previously held by these people, names that don't generally strike terror into the hearts of Europeans.

    Alexander Italianer 2015–2018
    Catherine Day 2005–2015
    David O'Sullivan 2000–2005
    Carlo Trojan 1997–2000
    David Williamson 1987–1997
    Émile Noël 1957–1987

    Fraser Nelson is a Brexiteer in any case.
    Wrong. Nelson is a Remainer. Go google.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/with-some-sadness-ill-vote-to-leave-an-undemocratic-and-decaying/

    And that’s why, with some sadness, I’ll vote to Leave an undemocratic and decaying institution that stopped helping Europe some time ago.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Sort of on topic...

    I heard Tony Blair on The World at One today, and whilst I am no fan of his, he did argue his case (for a further referendum on the eventual deal) with a level of clarity and conviction that contrasts utterly with our poor old "I have been clear..." current PM, bless her.

    We are truly living through an age of political minnows - at precisely the time when we need giants.

    :disappointed:
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    AndyJS said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    This is for all the plonkers who think drugs should be legalised:

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/967045820372733952

    It is Friday evening. Could you please pop down to your local A&E and stay there for the next 6 hours or so, and then let us know whether you have seen any evidence that alcohol has other side effects than "social bonding, and Duchenne (enjoyment) smiling?"
    Those are irresponsible people. Most people are responsible with alcohol who shouldn't be punished for the behaviour of a small minority. Drugs, on the other hand, are bad for the majority of people who take them.
    Isn't it a bit of a sweeping statement to include all drugs in one category?

    There aren't many people who steal to sustain an MDMA habit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited February 2018
    I must admit to being somewhat confused at the reporting of Tusk's comments to the admittedly also confusing UK position. If there is no possibility of cherry picking any aspects of the future relationship, then what exactly is there for the sides to negotiate anyway? If indeed there is nothing to gain then shouldn't the 'negotiations' simply cease now?

    I'm not even saying that is a good option, since I've been operating on the assumption that both sides do want a deal and are just playing hardball with one another, but he seemed pretty clear on the no cherry picking point, in which case there is nothing to talk about unless he's a liar, since the whole point of a negotiation is that both sides think they will be able to cherry pick something, in that they can get something they couldn't get without negotiating.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    I occasionally have bouts of Bremorse, but then something happens, like the devious, Byzantine elevation of Selmayr to eurocrat in chief, a man with immense power over all Europeans, yet never elected by anyone but his backslapping euocrat chums, and I remember why Brexit was is and always will be the only morally correct course.

    The EU is a disgusting dungheap of antidemocratic careerists. Even this Remainer journalist agrees.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/22/stealthy-rise-martin-selmayr-monster-brussels-shows-must-go/

    Yep, let's take back control and make sure the only antidemocratic careerists are our own UK SPADs. :wink:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/10/nick-timothy-and-fiona-hill-unelected-advisers-who-acted-more-like-dpms
    I don't even recognise your premise, but for the sake of argument, I will.

    Vote against the Tories and TMay and you get rid of Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, if you really want. There. Done. Voted. Over.

    There is literally no way for European citizens to directly get rid of eurocrats, especially top ones like Selmayr. Apparently he could be there for decades.

    And recall it is the Commission that makes European law. Not the parliament. The Commission, after receiving some mystical command from God, sorry Poseidon, sorry, the Council of Ministers acting on secret advice from the Holy Penis of the Inuit Spirit People, sorry, the Council of Nations, oh fuck it, who cares.

    The EU is an utterly ridiculous non-democratic mess, which might be fine if it didn't entirely dominate our lives in ways we do not even realise, they are so subtle yet so pernicious and ubiquitous.

    We are OUT OUT OUT thank Fuck. It will cost us 5% of GDP but we can regain that in a few years, and then some, if we manfully address ourselves, as a nation, to the task of independence and self reliance.
    As it happens I don't disagree with you about the EU Commission, I just think we have similar undemocratice issues here too. Hence my :wink:
  • Sort of on topic...

    I heard Tony Blair on The World at One today, and whilst I am no fan of his, he did argue his case (for a further referendum on the eventual deal) with a level of clarity and conviction that contrasts utterly with our poor old "I have been clear..." current PM, bless her.

    We are truly living through an age of political minnows - at precisely the time when we need giants.

    :disappointed:

    He is not the best person to be extolling the virtues of ignoring a democratic vote notwithstanding I voted for him twice, but that was before he became a lost cause.

  • kle4 said:

    I must admit to being somewhat confused at the reporting of Tusk's comments to the admittedly also confusing UK position. If there is no possibility of cherry picking any aspects of the future relationship, then what exactly is there for the sides to negotiate anyway? If indeed there is nothing to gain then shouldn't the 'negotiations' simply cease now?

    I'm not even saying that is a good option, since I've been operating on the assumption that both sides do want a deal and are just playing hardball with one another, but he seemed pretty clear on the no cherry picking point, in which case there is nothing to talk about unless he's a liar, since the whole point of a negotiation is that both sides think they will be able to cherry pick something, in that they can get something they couldn't get without negotiating.

    50 billion euros to talk about
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    I must admit to being somewhat confused at the reporting of Tusk's comments to the admittedly also confusing UK position. If there is no possibility of cherry picking any aspects of the future relationship, then what exactly is there for the sides to negotiate anyway? If indeed there is nothing to gain then shouldn't the 'negotiations' simply cease now?

    I'm not even saying that is a good option, since I've been operating on the assumption that both sides do want a deal and are just playing hardball with one another, but he seemed pretty clear on the no cherry picking point, in which case there is nothing to talk about unless he's a liar, since the whole point of a negotiation is that both sides think they will be able to cherry pick something, in that they can get something they couldn't get without negotiating.

    50 billion euros to talk about
    What for? He's saying we cannot gain anything by talking, because that is cherry picking the relationship, and if that is so then there's no point talking about the money either.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    Sort of on topic...

    I heard Tony Blair on The World at One today, and whilst I am no fan of his, he did argue his case (for a further referendum on the eventual deal) with a level of clarity and conviction that contrasts utterly with our poor old "I have been clear..." current PM, bless her.

    We are truly living through an age of political minnows - at precisely the time when we need giants.

    :disappointed:

    He is not the best person to be extolling the virtues of ignoring a democratic vote notwithstanding I voted for him twice, but that was before he became a lost cause.

    He wasn't 'extolling the virtues of ignoring a democratic vote' - he was arguing the case for putting the final Brexit agreement (which by definition is bound not to be to everyone's taste) to a vote. I think it TMay did that, she'd almost certainly win and it would truly put the issue behind us.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    edited February 2018
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I must admit to being somewhat confused at the reporting of Tusk's comments to the admittedly also confusing UK position. If there is no possibility of cherry picking any aspects of the future relationship, then what exactly is there for the sides to negotiate anyway? If indeed there is nothing to gain then shouldn't the 'negotiations' simply cease now?

    I'm not even saying that is a good option, since I've been operating on the assumption that both sides do want a deal and are just playing hardball with one another, but he seemed pretty clear on the no cherry picking point, in which case there is nothing to talk about unless he's a liar, since the whole point of a negotiation is that both sides think they will be able to cherry pick something, in that they can get something they couldn't get without negotiating.

    50 billion euros to talk about
    What for? He's saying we cannot gain anything by talking, because that is cherry picking the relationship, and if that is so then there's no point talking about the money either.
    They have had two meetings in the last 24 hours fighting over how they fill the 10 billion shortfall once we leave and it is getting bitter.And neither Junckers or Tusk were invited to one of the meetings

    Imagine 50 billion immediate loss and the chaos in the EU and here if we walk away.
  • Sort of on topic...

    I heard Tony Blair on The World at One today, and whilst I am no fan of his, he did argue his case (for a further referendum on the eventual deal) with a level of clarity and conviction that contrasts utterly with our poor old "I have been clear..." current PM, bless her.

    We are truly living through an age of political minnows - at precisely the time when we need giants.

    :disappointed:

    He is not the best person to be extolling the virtues of ignoring a democratic vote notwithstanding I voted for him twice, but that was before he became a lost cause.

    He wasn't 'extolling the virtues of ignoring a democratic vote' - he was arguing the case for putting the final Brexit agreement (which by definition is bound not to be to everyone's taste) to a vote. I think it TMay did that, she'd almost certainly win and it would truly put the issue behind us.
    The issue is not going away for years Ben no matter how much we both would like it to
  • AndyJS said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    This is for all the plonkers who think drugs should be legalised:

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/967045820372733952

    It is Friday evening. Could you please pop down to your local A&E and stay there for the next 6 hours or so, and then let us know whether you have seen any evidence that alcohol has other side effects than "social bonding, and Duchenne (enjoyment) smiling?"
    Those are irresponsible people. Most people are responsible with alcohol who shouldn't be punished for the behaviour of a small minority. Drugs, on the other hand, are bad for the majority of people who take them.
    An increasing number of countries seem to disagree with you. Not least Canada which is legalising cannabis for recreational use in June. It is now legal in one form or another in 29 US states and yet it is alcohol which kills 88,000 Americans each year due to overconsumption. By comparison there has never been a recorded death due to cannabis overdose in the US.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    Sort of on topic...

    I heard Tony Blair on The World at One today, and whilst I am no fan of his, he did argue his case (for a further referendum on the eventual deal) with a level of clarity and conviction that contrasts utterly with our poor old "I have been clear..." current PM, bless her.

    We are truly living through an age of political minnows - at precisely the time when we need giants.

    :disappointed:

    He is not the best person to be extolling the virtues of ignoring a democratic vote notwithstanding I voted for him twice, but that was before he became a lost cause.

    He wasn't 'extolling the virtues of ignoring a democratic vote' - he was arguing the case for putting the final Brexit agreement (which by definition is bound not to be to everyone's taste) to a vote. I think it TMay did that, she'd almost certainly win and it would truly put the issue behind us.
    The issue is not going away for years Ben no matter how much we both would like it to
    Haha - you are probably right there pal!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I must admit to being somewhat confused at the reporting of Tusk's comments to the admittedly also confusing UK position. If there is no possibility of cherry picking any aspects of the future relationship, then what exactly is there for the sides to negotiate anyway? If indeed there is nothing to gain then shouldn't the 'negotiations' simply cease now?

    I'm not even saying that is a good option, since I've been operating on the assumption that both sides do want a deal and are just playing hardball with one another, but he seemed pretty clear on the no cherry picking point, in which case there is nothing to talk about unless he's a liar, since the whole point of a negotiation is that both sides think they will be able to cherry pick something, in that they can get something they couldn't get without negotiating.

    50 billion euros to talk about
    What for? He's saying we cannot gain anything by talking, because that is cherry picking the relationship, and if that is so then there's no point talking about the money either.
    They have had two meetings in the last 24 hours fighting over how they fill the 10 billion shortfall once we leave and it is getting bitter. Imagine 50 billion immediate loss and the chaos in the EU and here if we walk away.
    Except they are daring us to do so by telling us there's no point negotiating (which is what cherry picking is). Maybe we will, maybe we wont, and it'll hurt us both (us more) if we do, but it is a baffling reaction - for many who did vote Leave it was a risk (though of course hardliners saw it as being no risk), and for many remainers (particularly the harder ones) it was self evidently a stupid thing no one should ever contemplate...and yet a majority did. Therefore it is such a stupid strategy to rely on your opponent not doing something stupid and so giving in when the whole argument has only arisen because that opponent did something they believe was very stupid
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I must admit to being somewhat confused at the reporting of Tusk's comments to the admittedly also confusing UK position. If there is no possibility of cherry picking any aspects of the future relationship, then what exactly is there for the sides to negotiate anyway? If indeed there is nothing to gain then shouldn't the 'negotiations' simply cease now?

    I'm not even saying that is a good option, since I've been operating on the assumption that both sides do want a deal and are just playing hardball with one another, but he seemed pretty clear on the no cherry picking point, in which case there is nothing to talk about unless he's a liar, since the whole point of a negotiation is that both sides think they will be able to cherry pick something, in that they can get something they couldn't get without negotiating.

    50 billion euros to talk about
    What for? He's saying we cannot gain anything by talking, because that is cherry picking the relationship, and if that is so then there's no point talking about the money either.
    They have had two meetings in the last 24 hours fighting over how they fill the 10 billion shortfall once we leave and it is getting bitter. Imagine 50 billion immediate loss and the chaos in the EU and here if we walk away.
    Wouldn't the 50bn simply be the 10bn problem coming 5 years early? Tricky for them, admittedly, but still pales into insignificance compared to the impact a 'walk-away' would have on us - and they know it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    This is for all the plonkers who think drugs should be legalised:

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/967045820372733952

    Clearly the authors have never smoked dope with friends.
    Cannabis is now legal in California. The fabric of society doesn't seem to be negatively affected, except that I keep being offered "medicinal" chocolate blueberries at dinner parties.
    I get offered suspicious jelly babies in Colorado..,
  • Sort of on topic...

    I heard Tony Blair on The World at One today, and whilst I am no fan of his, he did argue his case (for a further referendum on the eventual deal) with a level of clarity and conviction that contrasts utterly with our poor old "I have been clear..." current PM, bless her.

    We are truly living through an age of political minnows - at precisely the time when we need giants.

    :disappointed:

    I must have missed the referendums we had on the Treaties of Amsterdam and Nice.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    AndyJS said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    This is for all the plonkers who think drugs should be legalised:

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/967045820372733952

    It is Friday evening. Could you please pop down to your local A&E and stay there for the next 6 hours or so, and then let us know whether you have seen any evidence that alcohol has other side effects than "social bonding, and Duchenne (enjoyment) smiling?"
    Those are irresponsible people. Most people are responsible with alcohol who shouldn't be punished for the behaviour of a small minority. Drugs, on the other hand, are bad for the majority of people who take them.
    An increasing number of countries seem to disagree with you. Not least Canada which is legalising cannabis for recreational use in June. It is now legal in one form or another in 29 US states and yet it is alcohol which kills 88,000 Americans each year due to overconsumption. By comparison there has never been a recorded death due to cannabis overdose in the US.
    I'd be happier to see Cannabis legalised if drug-driving was taken as seriously as drink-driving. Reliable roadside checks are an absolute must. And it should be seen just as seriously by society.
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I must admit to being somewhat confused at the reporting of Tusk's comments to the admittedly also confusing UK position. If there is no possibility of cherry picking any aspects of the future relationship, then what exactly is there for the sides to negotiate anyway? If indeed there is nothing to gain then shouldn't the 'negotiations' simply cease now?

    I'm not even saying that is a good option, since I've been operating on the assumption that both sides do want a deal and are just playing hardball with one another, but he seemed pretty clear on the no cherry picking point, in which case there is nothing to talk about unless he's a liar, since the whole point of a negotiation is that both sides think they will be able to cherry pick something, in that they can get something they couldn't get without negotiating.

    50 billion euros to talk about
    What for? He's saying we cannot gain anything by talking, because that is cherry picking the relationship, and if that is so then there's no point talking about the money either.
    They have had two meetings in the last 24 hours fighting over how they fill the 10 billion shortfall once we leave and it is getting bitter. Imagine 50 billion immediate loss and the chaos in the EU and here if we walk away.
    Wouldn't the 50bn simply be the 10bn problem coming 5 years early? Tricky for them, admittedly, but still pales into insignificance compared to the impact a 'walk-away' would have on us - and they know it.
    The 50 billion exit bill would not be paid and the EU budgets would be sunk without trace. Of course it would damage us but also they would take a big hit as well. It is madness and the saner heads in the EU will resolve it with a deal

    Significant that Airbus have today announced their long term commitment to the UK irrespective of Brexit
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    RoyalBlue said:

    It's incidentally an irony that Leave-voting Broxtowe hasn't had a critic of the EU representing them for the last 40 years - indeed, I'm probably the most critical one they've had (my predecessor Jim Lester was a super-Europhile, to the point that the Times endorsed me to get rid of him), and you really would not call me a Brexiteer. People who really are anti-EU in Broxtowe must be getting a bit frustrated.

    You sound really upset about that.
    :) I do enjoy your posts.

    That said, I've always supported PR, which would solve the problem of people always having to vote for the lesser evil instead of who they really want.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I must admit to being somewhat confused at the reporting of Tusk's comments to the admittedly also confusing UK position. If there is no possibility of cherry picking any aspects of the future relationship, then what exactly is there for the sides to negotiate anyway? If indeed there is nothing to gain then shouldn't the 'negotiations' simply cease now?

    I'm not even saying that is a good option, since I've been operating on the assumption that both sides do want a deal and are just playing hardball with one another, but he seemed pretty clear on the no cherry picking point, in which case there is nothing to talk about unless he's a liar, since the whole point of a negotiation is that both sides think they will be able to cherry pick something, in that they can get something they couldn't get without negotiating.

    50 billion euros to talk about
    What for? He's saying we cannot gain anything by talking, because that is cherry picking the relationship, and if that is so then there's no point talking about the money either.
    They have had two meetings in the last 24 hours fighting over how they fill the 10 billion shortfall once we leave and it is getting bitter. Imagine 50 billion immediate loss and the chaos in the EU and here if we walk away.
    Wouldn't the 50bn simply be the 10bn problem coming 5 years early? Tricky for them, admittedly, but still pales into insignificance compared to the impact a 'walk-away' would have on us - and they know it.
    Except as I've pointed out that is unnecessarily risky for them, to assume because it is 'obvious' their arrogant demands are better that it must happen. The vote to leave was something they 'knew' would have a huge negative impact for us and that we were told that, and yet it was done. Why take a risk that politically it is too hard for us to turn back, or that the public will be stubborn and insist on walking away even at a higher negative cost? We told the scots that independence would be a terrible, stupid event, and fortunately we won but almost half of them either didn't believe those statements or accepted that as better than the alternative anyway.

    I don't really see how how telling people they are fools and that they are lucky to get any shit that is given to them is a good strategy for the side that wants the other side to eat that shit, and be happy about it. Playing hardball and saying leaving was stupid, sure, play from a position of strength, but I don't really see the genius of the EU position in actively undermining the UK side that wants to negotiate by saying there's no point.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    We seem to be heading towards either (a) take this crap deal, or (b) hard Brexit.

    The Remainers and the EU seem to hope this means we will choose (c) oh well let's not leave then.

    But (c) is not going happen, as A50 is already engaged and we are on our way out, and (a) was effectively already rejected (Cameron's deal), so hard Brexit it is.

    Leave will blame Remain; Remain will blame Leave.

    So much to look forward to...

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited February 2018


    We seem to be heading towards either (a) take this crap deal, or (b) hard Brexit.

    The Remainers and the EU seem to hope this means we will choose (c) oh well let's not leave then.

    But (c) is not going happen, as A50 is already engaged and we are on our way out, and (a) was effectively already rejected (Cameron's deal), so hard Brexit it is.

    Leave will blame Remain; Remain will blame Leave.

    So much to look forward to...

    Nothing's impossible and hope springs eternal (both for those who want to remain after all and those who want to see, you know, a deal which is actually decent for all involved), but it has been clear for a long time that there are people on both sides who want the hardest of hard brexits, and since most everyone else is confused and divided, what those hardliners want will win the day. It's enough to make one regret one's vote, if only because the EU and our politicians have turned out even more infantile than predicted.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    new thread

  • AndyJS said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    This is for all the plonkers who think drugs should be legalised:

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/967045820372733952

    It is Friday evening. Could you please pop down to your local A&E and stay there for the next 6 hours or so, and then let us know whether you have seen any evidence that alcohol has other side effects than "social bonding, and Duchenne (enjoyment) smiling?"
    Those are irresponsible people. Most people are responsible with alcohol who shouldn't be punished for the behaviour of a small minority. Drugs, on the other hand, are bad for the majority of people who take them.
    An increasing number of countries seem to disagree with you. Not least Canada which is legalising cannabis for recreational use in June. It is now legal in one form or another in 29 US states and yet it is alcohol which kills 88,000 Americans each year due to overconsumption. By comparison there has never been a recorded death due to cannabis overdose in the US.
    I'd be happier to see Cannabis legalised if drug-driving was taken as seriously as drink-driving. Reliable roadside checks are an absolute must. And it should be seen just as seriously by society.
    Agree entirely
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I must admit to being somewhat confused at the reporting of Tusk's comments to the admittedly also confusing UK position. If there is no possibility of cherry picking any aspects of the future relationship, then what exactly is there for the sides to negotiate anyway? If indeed there is nothing to gain then shouldn't the 'negotiations' simply cease now?

    I'm not even saying that is a good option, since I've been operating on the assumption that both sides do want a deal and are just playing hardball with one another, but he seemed pretty clear on the no cherry picking point, in which case there is nothing to talk about unless he's a liar, since the whole point of a negotiation is that both sides think they will be able to cherry pick something, in that they can get something they couldn't get without negotiating.

    50 billion euros to talk about
    What for? He's saying we cannot gain anything by talking, because that is cherry picking the relationship, and if that is so then there's no point talking about the money either.
    They have had two meetings in the last 24 hours fighting over how they fill the 10 billion shortfall once we leave and it is getting bitter. Imagine 50 billion immediate loss and the chaos in the EU and here if we walk away.
    Wouldn't the 50bn simply be the 10bn problem coming 5 years early? Tricky for them, admittedly, but still pales into insignificance compared to the impact a 'walk-away' would have on us - and they know it.
    The 50 billion exit bill would not be paid and the EU budgets would be sunk without trace. Of course it would damage us but also they would take a big hit as well. It is madness and the saner heads in the EU will resolve it with a deal

    Significant that Airbus have today announced their long term commitment to the UK irrespective of Brexit
    Less than a week after the French bloke got sidelined..,
  • The blues won twice as many Remain seats as Leave ones

    OR RATHER

    The blues gained twice as many Remain seats as Leave ones
This discussion has been closed.