pot and kettle Roger old chap, Im sure there were many times youd have happily called La Soubry a Nazi yourself since she resides in the party that dare not speak its name
Everyone loves a repenting sinner and they don't come better than La Soubry.....
(But more important. You couldn't put in a good word for me at the Irish Embassy could you?)
Morning all and apologies for ignoring the thread which is a good one.
Firstly sorry I missed both Alistair's EU thread and Mike's GE threads yesterday. Not often I say it but I agreed with much of what both wrote and interesting others are seeing what I have suggested for several months, that Theresa may get her deal through on the back of Labour abstentions.
I was sorry to see Anna Soubry jostled yesterday in the way she was but Anna is a tough old bird and handled much worse. However MPs better get ready for a lot more of such behaviour if they think they can thwart the wishes of 17.4 million voters! As I said last week, the yellow vest protests in France would be a kiddies party in comparison to what might happen here.
What many of you will not realise is that outside the M25 just how much the rest of the country is increasingly loathing London, Londoners and the London-centric attitude. If you take London out of the 2016 result, England voted heavily for Brexit and London politicians and journalists should not forget that. Similarly in Scotland while the cities swung the vote heavily in favour of remaining, many rural communities are staunch supporters of Brexit and the fishing community, while small in absolute numbers is a powerful group never the less. The British love our fish and chips more than we love London bankers (and everything which rhymes with that)!
I don't like Theresa's May's deal but as she keeps repeating it is the only deal. I hope she succeeds because if she doesn't, I doubt the UK will survive. There could well be a growing call to get rid of Ulster and of course get rid of we Scots. English nationalism could be the big winner from the current chaos caused by MPs who cannot accept they are there to do what the voters tell them to do, not what they want to do!
Agree with the sentiment, although the last sentence is WRONG. We do NOT elect delegates, to vote as their constituents wish. We elect people to become informed and use their best judgement on the information presented to them. We might not agree with them, but we must then use persuasion to get them to accept our views.
And I write as a Lib/Lab/LD voter who has, IIRC voted for a winning Parliamentary candidate on two occasions out of the 16 GE's since I've been old enough to vote. And I've voted every time!
We elect them to take decisions - something they are notably failing to do right now.
Trump is unpopular now but unlike the UK there is no leader of the opposition, no-one to compare him against. If the Dems pick the wrong candidate to oppose him in 2020 things could change rapidly. Trump doesn't have to be popular, he just has to be less unpopular than his opponent.
Yes, good point. I’m still not sure the Democrats understand why they lost to Trump two years ago, and they show every sign of choosing another costal liberal who thinks the most important issues facing America are transgender and vegan rights. If they can’t find a candidate with at least some appeal in the swing states that Trump took (some on very small margins), then they’ll lose to him again in 2020.
We’ll see. It’s not my impression if the state of play.
‘Coastal liberal’ is a pretty tired Republican trope - and so broad in its application to be essentially meaningless. Could be applied to anyone from Biden to Sanders. Unless you’re suggesting they have to nominate a moderate Republican to win ?
I’m suggesting that they need to understand that the problem isn’t Trump himself, but rather millions of Americans who don’t live on the coasts, have a vote and believe that they no longer have a stake in society. That famous Republican strategist Michael Moore put it very well in the run-up to the election (can’t find the video on my phone but will post a link to it later).
The Democrats need to choose someone who will appeal to swing voters in swing states. Bernie would undoubtedly beaten Trump, as a fair few of the disenfranchised would have agreed with him rather than his opponent. Biden would also have won IMO, I understand his given reasons for not running, but it *looked* like a Dem stitch-up for Hillary as a result. Sadly JB is probably too old now, his chance was in 2016. He would have made a good president.
Joe Biden last time had been the sitting Vice President for eight years and hence the only candidate more vulnerable than Hillary to attacks as the ultimate Washington insider.
Maybe. Part of the revulsion though by 2016 was the intense dislike of political dynasties. "Oh Gawd, not another Bush/Clinton....." Wasn't it costing Jeb Bush some five-figure sum per voter at one point in his run?
Unless he’s talking about reopening the actual legally binding WA Treaty, then it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. Any WA with the backstop text is a dodo in Parliament.
Oh, and Leo is the proverbial cooked bread if it’s no-deal.
And they won't change the Withdrawal Agreement because the backstop is vital to avoid the danger of a hard border in several years' time - even if the presence of the backstop leads to the Agreement being rejected and to No Deal in March???
Brexit is a bit difficult to understand at times.
Precisely. Its nonsense.
Brexit may well be nonsense, Phil, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to unpick the arguments on both sides.
The backstop has sod all to do with Brexit. It is a dangerous and malicious attempt to exploit sectarianism.
Morning all and apologies for ignoring the thread which is a good one.
Firstly sorry I missed both Alistair's EU thread and Mike's GE threads yesterday. Not often I say it but I agreed with much of what both wrote and interesting others are seeing what I have suggested for several months, that Theresa may get her deal through on the back of Labour abstentions.
I was sorry to see Anna Soubry jostled yesterday in the way she was but Anna is a tough old bird and handled much worse. However MPs better get ready for a lot more of such behaviour if they think they can thwart the wishes of 17.4 million voters! As I said last week, the yellow vest protests in France would be a kiddies party in comparison to what might happen here.
What many of you will not realise is that outside the M25 just how much the rest of the country is increasingly loathing London, Londoners and the London-centric attitude. If you take London out of the 2016 result, England voted heavily for Brexit and London politicians and journalists should not forget that. Similarly in Scotland while the cities swung the vote heavily in favour of remaining, many rural communities are staunch supporters of Brexit and the fishing community, while small in absolute numbers is a powerful group never the less. The British love our fish and chips more than we love London bankers (and everything which rhymes with that)!
I don't like Theresa's May's deal but as she keeps repeating it is the only deal. I hope she succeeds because if she doesn't, I doubt the UK will survive. There could well be a growing call to get rid of Ulster and of course get rid of we Scots. English nationalism could be the big winner from the current chaos caused by MPs who cannot accept they are there to do what the voters tell them to do, not what they want to do!
Agree with the sentiment, although the last sentence is WRONG. We do NOT elect delegates, to vote as their constituents wish. We elect people to become informed and use their best judgement on the information presented to them. We might not agree with them, but we must then use persuasion to get them to accept our views.
And I write as a Lib/Lab/LD voter who has, IIRC voted for a winning Parliamentary candidate on two occasions out of the 16 GE's since I've been old enough to vote. And I've voted every time!
We elect them to take decisions - something they are notably failing to do right now.
Now there I agree with you! Agree or not, I would hate it if 'my' MP' abstained!
Unless he’s talking about reopening the actual legally binding WA Treaty, then it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. Any WA with the backstop text is a dodo in Parliament.
Oh, and Leo is the proverbial cooked bread if it’s no-deal.
And they won't change the Withdrawal Agreement because the backstop is vital to avoid the danger of a hard border in several years' time - even if the presence of the backstop leads to the Agreement being rejected and to No Deal in March???
Brexit is a bit difficult to understand at times.
That’s about the gist of it, yes.
I think we are going to go one of two ways from here, either we get a last-minute abstention from Labour that sees the deal pass, or we are going to no-deal and an amount of disruption at ports, before something gets hastily agreed to keep lorries moving.
Remember that there will be queues of lorries at Calais and especially Dublin as well as at Dover, it will become a major domestic issue for several other EU counties in short order too.
Unless he’s talking about reopening the actual legally binding WA Treaty, then it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. Any WA with the backstop text is a dodo in Parliament.
Oh, and Leo is the proverbial cooked bread if it’s no-deal.
And they won't change the Withdrawal Agreement because the backstop is vital to avoid the danger of a hard border in several years' time - even if the presence of the backstop leads to the Agreement being rejected and to No Deal in March???
Brexit is a bit difficult to understand at times.
Precisely. Its nonsense.
Brexit may well be nonsense, Phil, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to unpick the arguments on both sides.
The backstop has sod all to do with Brexit. It is a dangerous and malicious attempt to exploit sectarianism.
What do you think a few customs posts would to do sectarianism, Phil, me old China?
Certain sections of the media are genuinely losing their minds at the moment. I’m all for the freedom of the press, but contingency planning is going to start being marked secret and with D-notices attached if this is how exercises get reported.
They are talking up the chaos narrative so much that it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy, causing panic buying and shortages of essentials. But hey, it generates clicks.
If there is chaos, it won't be down to the narrative.
The local conclusion is that there simply won't be customs checks...
We can indeed simply drop all checks on imports but since the EU will still be checking our exports, it will make little difference after a couple of days: lost capacity and queues.
Be gentle with them. My reading is they all now know what they are going to have to swallow to get any Brexit at all. And it will scar them for the rest if their lives.
It should be simple for the democrats. They have two basic strategies, woo over the blue collar voters who went Obama then Trump, or increase turnout further amongst all their base groups (the young, minorities etc).
Much easier to win an election by taking votes from your opponent than by increasing turnout. Whoever the democrats pick, their base will stick with them in the same way that most GOP voters stuck with Trump rather than Hillary. On the other hand, increasing turnout further is a lost cause, there was still less than 60% turnout in the last one!
Sanders seems to me the best candidate at the moment, I don’t think his age will really matter. In Sanders vs Trump I would give the edge to Sanders, although by no means certain and I think Trump should never be written off, he’s a great campaigner for all his many many faults.
What many of you will not realise is that outside the M25 just how much the rest of the country is increasingly loathing London, Londoners and the London-centric attitude. If you take London out of the 2016 result, England voted heavily for Brexit and London politicians and journalists should not forget that. Similarly in Scotland while the cities swung the vote heavily in favour of remaining, many rural communities are staunch supporters of Brexit and the fishing community, while small in absolute numbers is a powerful group never the less. The British love our fish and chips more than we love London bankers (and everything which rhymes with that)!
Mmmm, up to a point.
Certainly it's a popular critique to say that Corbyn has attracted support from Islington at the expense of Barnsley.
But it's not that simple. Remember "Worcester Woman"? I spend a lot of time in Worcester - little provincial Worcester of the Three Choirs Festival and a truly nasty relief road - and it is, quite honestly, full of hipsters these days. Craft beer, craft burgers, Silicon Valley beards.
Britain is changing and I don't believe that it's as simple as London vs the rest. London's attitudes are increasingly shared elsewhere, whether that be Manchester, Worcester, Leicester or Godmanchester.
That's ultimately why the phrase "the left-behind" has become popular: because these are "progressive" attitudes and the benefits of progress are not being felt everywhere. Yes, Barnsley still probably is the left-behind - though, of course, it's not that far from Leeds or the mill towns of West Yorkshire, which aren't. Barnsley will continue to vote for Brexit. But Barnsley is on the way down and it's the metropolitan attitude that's in the ascendant. In five years' time there won't be a Brexit majority in England-outside-London. There may not even be one now.
Unless he’s talking about reopening the actual legally binding WA Treaty, then it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. Any WA with the backstop text is a dodo in Parliament.
Oh, and Leo is the proverbial cooked bread if it’s no-deal.
And they won't change the Withdrawal Agreement because the backstop is vital to avoid the danger of a hard border in several years' time - even if the presence of the backstop leads to the Agreement being rejected and to No Deal in March???
Brexit is a bit difficult to understand at times.
Precisely. Its nonsense.
Brexit may well be nonsense, Phil, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to unpick the arguments on both sides.
The backstop has sod all to do with Brexit. It is a dangerous and malicious attempt to exploit sectarianism.
What do you think a few customs posts would to do sectarianism, Phil, me old China?
The only risk that causes customs posts is no deal. The thing that risks no deal is the backstop. If you want to avoid customs posts, drop the backstop.
A withdrawal agreement without a backstop guaranteeing no customs posts until at least end of 2020 and with both parties agreeing to avoid customs posts in any future relationship agreement (to be negotiated during transition) would avoid customs posts for the immediate future.
Ed Miliband is not supporting the deal because it “kicks the can down the road” and doesn’t address the customs union or an FTA.
Either he is incredibly stupid or he thinks Labour Party supporters are incredibly stupid.
He's correct on all three points. I'm not sure why he's stupid?
+1. It's a rubbish deal, and the threat of No Deal as the awful alternative is not credible.
"the awful alternative is not credible."
Harsh on Corbyn. But back to Brexit....
It is disappointing that it seems that it would be too much to ask NPXMP to acknowledge that, given where we are today*, the deal is the best we could hope for.
*with all caveats that we wouldn't be where we are today had May been a bit more intelligent to start with.
Be gentle with them. My reading is they all now know what they are going to have to swallow to get any Brexit at all. And it will scar them for the rest if their lives.
And/or it will scar democracy for the rest of our lives.
Unless he’s talking about reopening the actual legally binding WA Treaty, then it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. Any WA with the backstop text is a dodo in Parliament.
Oh, and Leo is the proverbial cooked bread if it’s no-deal.
And they won't change the Withdrawal Agreement because the backstop is vital to avoid the danger of a hard border in several years' time - even if the presence of the backstop leads to the Agreement being rejected and to No Deal in March???
Brexit is a bit difficult to understand at times.
Precisely. Its nonsense.
Brexit may well be nonsense, Phil, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to unpick the arguments on both sides.
The backstop has sod all to do with Brexit. It is a dangerous and malicious attempt to exploit sectarianism.
What do you think a few customs posts would to do sectarianism, Phil, me old China?
The only risk that causes customs posts is no deal. The thing that risks no deal is the backstop. If you want to avoid customs posts, drop the backstop.
A withdrawal agreement without a backstop guaranteeing no customs posts until at least end of 2020 and with both parties agreeing to avoid customs posts in any future relationship agreement (to be negotiated during transition) would avoid customs posts for the immediate future.
Fundamentally misunderstanding the situation and dynamic but you at least have company in that position.
O/t but there's a lovely story in the Guardian about a Brazilian mugger who 'tried it on' with a young woman who is an Ultimate Fighting Champion, admittedly at straw weight, and who came off very much the worse! Had to be patched up by the police before they could properly arrest him!
Unless he’s talking about reopening the actual legally binding WA Treaty, then it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. Any WA with the backstop text is a dodo in Parliament.
Oh, and Leo is the proverbial cooked bread if it’s no-deal.
And they won't change the Withdrawal Agreement because the backstop is vital to avoid the danger of a hard border in several years' time - even if the presence of the backstop leads to the Agreement being rejected and to No Deal in March???
Brexit is a bit difficult to understand at times.
Precisely. Its nonsense.
Brexit may well be nonsense, Phil, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to unpick the arguments on both sides.
The backstop has sod all to do with Brexit. It is a dangerous and malicious attempt to exploit sectarianism.
What do you think a few customs posts would to do sectarianism, Phil, me old China?
The only risk that causes customs posts is no deal. The thing that risks no deal is the backstop. If you want to avoid customs posts, drop the backstop.
A withdrawal agreement without a backstop guaranteeing no customs posts until at least end of 2020 and with both parties agreeing to avoid customs posts in any future relationship agreement (to be negotiated during transition) would avoid customs posts for the immediate future.
Fundamentally misunderstanding the situation and dynamic but you at least have company in that position.
1. If we agree a withdrawal agreement without a backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 2. If we agree a future relationship agreement without customs posts would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 3. If there is no deal due to the unacceptable backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no?
Unless he’s talking about reopening the actual legally binding WA Treaty, then it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. Any WA with the backstop text is a dodo in Parliament.
Oh, and Leo is the proverbial cooked bread if it’s no-deal.
And they won't change the Withdrawal Agreement because the backstop is vital to avoid the danger of a hard border in several years' time - even if the presence of the backstop leads to the Agreement being rejected and to No Deal in March???
Brexit is a bit difficult to understand at times.
That’s about the gist of it, yes.
I think we are going to go one of two ways from here, either we get a last-minute abstention from Labour that sees the deal pass, or we are going to no-deal and an amount of disruption at ports, before something gets hastily agreed to keep lorries moving.
Remember that there will be queues of lorries at Calais and especially Dublin as well as at Dover, it will become a major domestic issue for several other EU counties in short order too.
An abstention by Labour on the deal would be, frankly, disgusting. They should either stick to their guns, or have the guts to actually vote for it and accept the political consequences. Abstention on one of the biggest votes of our generation would be a massive abdication of responsibility.
I do think the no deal option is much more likely, there just doesn’t seem to be much wavering at all on the Labour side.
Wake me up when he's prepared to ditch the backstop. Then we can talk.....
The backstop could be changed or renamed but could it be ditched? Something has to happen if there is no deal.
Of course it can be ditched. There is no backstop today. There has never been a backstop.
May could tell the House that she is prepared to go to Brussels to sign the WA - but will use her signing pen to strike through all the provisions relating to the backstop. Then it will be up to the EU to sign that document - or not. No Deal Brexit belong the EU.
It would see a huge shift towards her in the voting numbers on the Meaningful Vote. And politically, she would have pulled off "and with one bound, she was free!" Would be compared to Maggie at her peak.
Pop Quiz: what do you do, Leo? Urge them to sign her amended deal? Or plough on regardless?
Certain sections of the media are genuinely losing their minds at the moment. I’m all for the freedom of the press, but contingency planning is going to start being marked secret and with D-notices attached if this is how exercises get reported.
They are talking up the chaos narrative so much that it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy, causing panic buying and shortages of essentials. But hey, it generates clicks.
If there is chaos, it won't be down to the narrative.
It'll be down to Brexit.
It’ll be down to silly sound bites like that glib reply. Sorry.
More seriously it will be down to a huge number of factors involving politicians on all sides, civil servants and yes, the media.
Too many people still think, even at this late stage, that they can somehow force a change of direction and remain in the EU, rather than coming together to make a success of the outcome the people voted for.
The gleeful predictions of chaos from certain sections of our press are really not being helpful for anything except generating clicks. They’re critising both the planning and lack of planning whenever either happen.
On topic, 29% looks about right. The Democrats would now need to find a candidate who resonated less with the USA than Hillary Clinton. They're quite capable of that.
They'd also need to find a candidate the New York Times has been waging a 25 year war against. So a less target rich environment there.
Certain sections of the media are genuinely losing their minds at the moment. I’m all for the freedom of the press, but contingency planning is going to start being marked secret and with D-notices attached if this is how exercises get reported.
They are talking up the chaos narrative so much that it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy, causing panic buying and shortages of essentials. But hey, it generates clicks.
If there is chaos, it won't be down to the narrative.
It'll be down to Brexit.
It’ll be down to silly sound bites like that glib reply. Sorry.
More seriously it will be down to a huge number of factors involving politicians on all sides, civil servants and yes, the media.
Too many people still think, even at this late stage, that they can somehow force a change of direction and remain in the EU, rather than coming together to make a success of the outcome the people voted for.
The gleeful predictions of chaos from certain sections of our press are really not being helpful for anything except generating clicks. They’re critising both the planning and lack of planning whenever either happen.
There is nothing glib or sill about my reply. The chaos will be due to Brexit. Obviously. Unless you are stupid enough to believe that someone, somehow, could have squared the circle.
We are in this position because of Brexit. People were warned that leavers were promising inconsistent and incompatible things to voters, and that that would lead to significant problems as people tried to work out what 'leave' meant.
In fact, it's what I warned before the referendum, and was a major factor in my voting remain.
Leavers should not go around trying to blame everyone else for chaos, if it occurs (and I hope to goodness that there is an unaccustomed rush of sanity amongst MPs and it does not). They should look at themselves.
Wake me up when he's prepared to ditch the backstop. Then we can talk.....
The backstop could be changed or renamed but could it be ditched? Something has to happen if there is no deal.
Of course it can be ditched. There is no backstop today. There has never been a backstop.
May could tell the House that she is prepared to go to Brussels to sign the WA - but will use her signing pen to strike through all the provisions relating to the backstop. Then it will be up to the EU to sign that document - or not. No Deal Brexit belong the EU.
It would see a huge shift towards her in the voting numbers on the Meaningful Vote. And politically, she would have pulled off "and with one bound, she was free!" Would be compared to Maggie at her peak.
Pop Quiz: what do you do, Leo? Urge them to sign her amended deal? Or plough on regardless?
A lot of your ideas involve May doing something totally idiotic which you seem to think sounds badass but would actually just make her look ridiculous.
Certain sections of the media are genuinely losing their minds at the moment. I’m all for the freedom of the press, but contingency planning is going to start being marked secret and with D-notices attached if this is how exercises get reported.
They are talking up the chaos narrative so much that it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy, causing panic buying and shortages of essentials. But hey, it generates clicks.
If there is chaos, it won't be down to the narrative.
It'll be down to Brexit.
It’ll be down to silly sound bites like that glib reply. Sorry.
More seriously it will be down to a huge number of factors involving politicians on all sides, civil servants and yes, the media.
Too many people still think, even at this late stage, that they can somehow force a change of direction and remain in the EU, rather than coming together to make a success of the outcome the people voted for.
The gleeful predictions of chaos from certain sections of our press are really not being helpful for anything except generating clicks. They’re critising both the planning and lack of planning whenever either happen.
I think what the criticism of the recent contingency panning is that it is highlighting that it is too little too late. If we had been undertaking the recent contingency planning two years ago, it would perhaps have been reported as a sensible first step in planning for a no deal Brexit. Coming weeks before a potential crash-out, it comes across as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
Unless he’s talking about reopening the actual legally binding WA Treaty, then it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. Any WA with the backstop text is a dodo in Parliament.
Oh, and Leo is the proverbial cooked bread if it’s no-deal.
And they won't change the Withdrawal Agreement because the backstop is vital to avoid the danger of a hard border in several years' time - even if the presence of the backstop leads to the Agreement being rejected and to No Deal in March???
Brexit is a bit difficult to understand at times.
Precisely. Its nonsense.
Brexit may well be nonsense, Phil, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to unpick the arguments on both sides.
The backstop has sod all to do with Brexit. It is a dangerous and malicious attempt to exploit sectarianism.
What do you think a few customs posts would to do sectarianism, Phil, me old China?
The only risk that causes customs posts is no deal. The thing that risks no deal is the backstop. If you want to avoid customs posts, drop the backstop.
A withdrawal agreement without a backstop guaranteeing no customs posts until at least end of 2020 and with both parties agreeing to avoid customs posts in any future relationship agreement (to be negotiated during transition) would avoid customs posts for the immediate future.
Fundamentally misunderstanding the situation and dynamic but you at least have company in that position.
1. If we agree a withdrawal agreement without a backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 2. If we agree a future relationship agreement without customs posts would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 3. If there is no deal due to the unacceptable backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no?
Fucking hell what am I your personal wiki service? Get off your arse and look it up yourself.
Certain sections of the media are genuinely losing their minds at the moment. I’m all for the freedom of the press, but contingency planning is going to start being marked secret and with D-notices attached if this is how exercises get reported.
They are talking up the chaos narrative so much that it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy, causing panic buying and shortages of essentials. But hey, it generates clicks.
If there is chaos, it won't be down to the narrative.
It'll be down to Brexit.
It’ll be down to silly sound bites like that glib reply. Sorry.
More seriously it will be down to a huge number of factors involving politicians on all sides, civil servants and yes, the media.
Too many people still think, even at this late stage, that they can somehow force a change of direction and remain in the EU, rather than coming together to make a success of the outcome the people voted for.
The gleeful predictions of chaos from certain sections of our press are really not being helpful for anything except generating clicks. They’re critising both the planning and lack of planning whenever either happen.
There is nothing glib or sill about my reply. The chaos will be due to Brexit. Obviously. Unless you are stupid enough to believe that someone, somehow, could have squared the circle.
We are in this position because of Brexit. People were warned that leavers were promising inconsistent and incompatible things to voters, and that that would lead to significant problems as people tried to work out what 'leave' meant.
In fact, it's what I warned before the referendum, and was a major factor in my voting remain.
Leavers should not go around trying to blame everyone else for chaos, if it occurs (and I hope to goodness that there is an unaccustomed rush of sanity amongst MPs and it does not). They should look at themselves.
Calling the voters stupid enough to have voted the way they did, is generally not a successful strategy.
Too many people *want* to see chaos, because either they think it will vindicate their earlier position or because they think it will sell newspapers. That’s a big problem.
Too many people still think, even at this late stage, that they can somehow force a change of direction and remain in the EU, rather than coming together to make a success of the outcome the people voted for.
There also seem to be too many people who think that the UK's clusterfuck of shilly shallying, hot and cold, incompetent 'negotiating' is going to force a last minute change of direction from the EU. See Dave 'double D' Davis this am.
Certain sections of the media are genuinely losing their minds at the moment. I’m all for the freedom of the press, but contingency planning is going to start being marked secret and with D-notices attached if this is how exercises get reported.
They are talking up the chaos narrative so much that it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy, causing panic buying and shortages of essentials. But hey, it generates clicks.
If there is chaos, it won't be down to the narrative.
It'll be down to Brexit.
It’ll be down to silly sound bites like that glib reply. Sorry.
More seriously it will be down to a huge number of factors involving politicians on all sides, civil servants and yes, the media.
Too many people still think, even at this late stage, that they can somehow force a change of direction and remain in the EU, rather than coming together to make a success of the outcome the people voted for.
The gleeful predictions of chaos from certain sections of our press are really not being helpful for anything except generating clicks. They’re critising both the planning and lack of planning whenever either happen.
I thought gleeful predictions of chaos were now May's strategy
On topic, 29% looks about right. The Democrats would now need to find a candidate who resonated less with the USA than Hillary Clinton. They're quite capable of that.
They'd also need to find a candidate the New York Times has been waging a 25 year war against. So a less target rich environment there.
Not sure which candidates they will be able to shout 'Lock him/her up !" about, unless it's their own...
Unless he’s talking about reopening the actual legally binding WA Treaty, then it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. Any WA with the backstop text is a dodo in Parliament.
Oh, and Leo is the proverbial cooked bread if it’s no-deal.
And they won't change the Withdrawal Agreement because the backstop is vital to avoid the danger of a hard border in several years' time - even if the presence of the backstop leads to the Agreement being rejected and to No Deal in March???
Brexit is a bit difficult to understand at times.
Precisely. Its nonsense.
Brexit may well be nonsense, Phil, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to unpick the arguments on both sides.
The backstop has sod all to do with Brexit. It is a dangerous and malicious attempt to exploit sectarianism.
What do you think a few customs posts would to do sectarianism, Phil, me old China?
The only risk that causes customs posts is no deal. The thing that risks no deal is the backstop. If you want to avoid customs posts, drop the backstop.
A withdrawal agreement without a backstop guaranteeing no customs posts until at least end of 2020 and with both parties agreeing to avoid customs posts in any future relationship agreement (to be negotiated during transition) would avoid customs posts for the immediate future.
Fundamentally misunderstanding the situation and dynamic but you at least have company in that position.
1. If we agree a withdrawal agreement without a backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 2. If we agree a future relationship agreement without customs posts would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 3. If there is no deal due to the unacceptable backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no?
Fucking hell what am I your personal wiki service? Get off your arse and look it up yourself.
But in short:
1) perhaps 2) no 3) perhaps
No. There will not be any customs posts if we sign a withdrawal agreement without a backstop, not during transition at least. The transition means that customs posts aren't required. If there's no deal there will be.
The thing that risks customs posts being necessary is the insistence of the backstop.
Certain sections of the media are genuinely losing their minds at the moment. I’m all for the freedom of the press, but contingency planning is going to start being marked secret and with D-notices attached if this is how exercises get reported.
They are talking up the chaos narrative so much that it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy, causing panic buying and shortages of essentials. But hey, it generates clicks.
If there is chaos, it won't be down to the narrative.
It'll be down to Brexit.
It’ll be down to silly sound bites like that glib reply. Sorry.
More seriously it will be down to a huge number of factors involving politicians on all sides, civil servants and yes, the media.
Too many people still think, even at this late stage, that they can somehow force a change of direction and remain in the EU, rather than coming together to make a success of the outcome the people voted for.
The gleeful predictions of chaos from certain sections of our press are really not being helpful for anything except generating clicks. They’re critising both the planning and lack of planning whenever either happen.
I think what the criticism of the recent contingency panning is that it is highlighting that it is too little too late. If we had been undertaking the recent contingency planning two years ago, it would perhaps have been reported as a sensible first step in planning for a no deal Brexit. Coming weeks before a potential crash-out, it comes across as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
That’s a fair point, it is too little too late.
Reporting of pretty much all and any contingency planning has been the same since the referendum though. Three months ago it was “Why are we spending money on this, are we planning on the talks failing?” and before that it was standard maintaining of risk registers across government departments and local authorities reported as if it were something exceptional.
What many of you will not realise is that outside the M25 just how much the rest of the country is increasingly loathing London, Londoners and the London-centric attitude.
The rest of the country doesn't hate London enough to give it back the money it gets from London.
Unless he’s talking about reopening the actual legally binding WA Treaty, then it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. Any WA with the backstop text is a dodo in Parliament.
Oh, and Leo is the proverbial cooked bread if it’s no-deal.
And they won't change the Withdrawal Agreement because the backstop is vital to avoid the danger of a hard border in several years' time - even if the presence of the backstop leads to the Agreement being rejected and to No Deal in March???
Brexit is a bit difficult to understand at times.
Precisely. Its nonsense.
Brexit may well be nonsense, Phil, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to unpick the arguments on both sides.
The backstop has sod all to do with Brexit. It is a dangerous and malicious attempt to exploit sectarianism.
What do you think a few customs posts would to do sectarianism, Phil, me old China?
The only risk that causes customs posts is no deal. The thing that risks no deal is the backstop. If you want to avoid customs posts, drop the backstop.
A withdrawal agreement without a backstop guaranteeing no customs posts until at least end of 2020 and with both parties agreeing to avoid customs posts in any future relationship agreement (to be negotiated during transition) would avoid customs posts for the immediate future.
Fundamentally misunderstanding the situation and dynamic but you at least have company in that position.
1. If we agree a withdrawal agreement without a backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 2. If we agree a future relationship agreement without customs posts would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 3. If there is no deal due to the unacceptable backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no?
Fucking hell what am I your personal wiki service? Get off your arse and look it up yourself.
But in short:
1) perhaps 2) no 3) perhaps
I think it was you opinion being asked for - albeit in a rather peremptory manner.
Unless he’s talking about reopening the actual legally binding WA Treaty, then it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. Any WA with the backstop text is a dodo in Parliament.
Oh, and Leo is the proverbial cooked bread if it’s no-deal.
And they won't change the Withdrawal Agreement because the backstop is vital to avoid the danger of a hard border in several years' time - even if the presence of the backstop leads to the Agreement being rejected and to No Deal in March???
Brexit is a bit difficult to understand at times.
Precisely. Its nonsense.
Brexit may well be nonsense, Phil, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to unpick the arguments on both sides.
The backstop has sod all to do with Brexit. It is a dangerous and malicious attempt to exploit sectarianism.
What do you think a few customs posts would to do sectarianism, Phil, me old China?
The only risk that causes customs posts is no deal. The thing that risks no deal is the backstop. If you want to avoid customs posts, drop the backstop.
A withdrawal an any future relationship agreement (to be negotiated during transition) would avoid customs posts for the immediate future.
Fundamentally misunderstanding the situation and dynamic but you at least have company in that position.
1. If we agree a withdrawal agreement without a backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 2. If we agree a future relationship agreement without customs posts would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 3. If there is no deal due to the unacceptable backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no?
Fucking hell what am I your personal wiki service? Get off your arse and look it up yourself.
But in short:
1) perhaps 2) no 3) perhaps
No. There will not be any customs posts if we sign a withdrawal agreement without a backstop, not during transition at least. The transition means that customs posts aren't required. If there's no deal there will be.
The thing that risks customs posts being necessary is the insistence of the backstop.
If she lets time run out, by law we fall into no deal. From all we know of her, I do not think she will lead her country into that hell. A higher sense of duty would stop her. She is no David Cameron, nor has she anything more to gain by listening to her extremists. Johnson likes to ape Churchill, but the wartime leader defied his party to stand alone for his beliefs. May will prove the real Churchillian, ignoring party to put her country first.
Unless he’s talking about reopening the actual legally binding WA Treaty, then it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. Any WA with the backstop text is a dodo in Parliament.
Oh, and Leo is the proverbial cooked bread if it’s no-deal.
And they won't change the Withdrawal Agreement because the backstop is vital to avoid the danger of a hard border in several years' time - even if the presence of the backstop leads to the Agreement being rejected and to No Deal in March???
Brexit is a bit difficult to understand at times.
Precisely. Its nonsense.
Brexit may well be nonsense, Phil, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to unpick the arguments on both sides.
The backstop has sod all to do with Brexit. It is a dangerous and malicious attempt to exploit sectarianism.
What do you think a few customs posts would to do sectarianism, Phil, me old China?
The only risk that causes customs posts is no deal. The thing that risks no deal is the backstop. If you want to avoid customs posts, drop the backstop.
A withdrawal an any future relationship agreement (to be negotiated during transition) would avoid customs posts for the immediate future.
Fundamentally misunderstanding the situation and dynamic but you at least have company in that position.
1. If we agree a withdrawal agreement without a backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 2. If we agree a future relationship agreement without customs posts would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 3. If there is no deal due to the unacceptable backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no?
Fucking hell what am I your personal wiki service? Get off your arse and look it up yourself.
But in short:
1) perhaps 2) no 3) perhaps
No. There will not be any customs posts if we sign a withdrawal agreement without a backstop, not during transition at least. The transition means that customs posts aren't required. If there's no deal there will be.
The thing that risks customs posts being necessary is the insistence of the backstop.
And after the transition?
Is an issue for the future relationship agreement.
Certain sections of the media are genuinely losing their minds at the moment. I’m all for the freedom of the press, but contingency planning is going to start being marked secret and with D-notices attached if this is how exercises get reported.
They are talking up the chaos narrative so much that it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy, causing panic buying and shortages of essentials. But hey, it generates clicks.
If there is chaos, it won't be down to the narrative.
It'll be down to Brexit.
It’ll be down to silly sound bites like that glib reply. Sorry.
More seriously it will be down to a huge number of factors involving politicians on all sides, civil servants and yes, the media.
Too many people still think, even at this late stage, that they can somehow force a change of direction and remain in the EU, rather than coming together to make a success of the outcome the people voted for.
The gleeful predictions of chaos from certain sections of our press are really not being helpful for anything except generating clicks. They’re critising both the planning and lack of planning whenever either happen.
I think what the criticism of the recent contingency panning is that it is highlighting that it is too little too late...
Certain sections of the media are genuinely losing their minds at the moment. I’m all for the freedom of the press, but contingency planning is going to start being marked secret and with D-notices attached if this is how exercises get reported.
They are talking up the chaos narrative so much that it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy, causing panic buying and shortages of essentials. But hey, it generates clicks.
If there is chaos, it won't be down to the narrative.
It'll be down to Brexit.
It’ll be down to silly sound bites like that glib reply. Sorry.
More seriously it will be down to a huge number of factors involving politicians on all sides, civil servants and yes, the media.
Too many people still think, even at this late stage, that they can somehow force a change of direction and remain in the EU, rather than coming together to make a success of the outcome the people voted for.
The gleeful predictions of chaos from certain sections of our press are really not being helpful for anything except generating clicks. They’re critising both the planning and lack of planning whenever either happen.
I thought gleeful predictions of chaos were now May's strategy
Indeed, and I say that as someone who supported her until very recently. Doubling down on the Remain capaign’s Project Fear isn’t going to change many minds, certainly not among the MPs who are now in charge of the process.
Thats what they get for concentrating all their eggs in one south east basket. If the cretins running the country ever got outside London and had an original thought they may have seen putting all their business through a funnel as not being ideal.
If she lets time run out, by law we fall into no deal. From all we know of her, I do not think she will lead her country into that hell. A higher sense of duty would stop her. She is no David Cameron, nor has she anything more to gain by listening to her extremists. Johnson likes to ape Churchill, but the wartime leader defied his party to stand alone for his beliefs. May will prove the real Churchillian, ignoring party to put her country first.
The usual Polly projection. May's one guiding principle, the only part of Brexit she believes in, is ending freedom of movement for UK and EU citizens. When her Deal fails, that's what will guide her next moves. And that means No Deal.
Certain sections of the media are genuinely losing their minds at the moment. I’m all for the freedom of the press, but contingency planning is going to start being marked secret and with D-notices attached if this is how exercises get reported.
They are talking up the chaos narrative so much that it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy, causing panic buying and shortages of essentials. But hey, it generates clicks.
If there is chaos, it won't be down to the narrative.
It'll be down to Brexit.
It’ll be down to silly sound bites like that glib reply. Sorry.
More seriously it will be down to a huge number of factors involving politicians on all sides, civil servants and yes, the media.
Too many people still think, even at this late stage, that they can somehow force a change of direction and remain in the EU, rather than coming together to make a success of the outcome the people voted for.
The gleeful predictions of chaos from certain sections of our press are really not being helpful for anything except generating clicks. They’re critising both the planning and lack of planning whenever either happen.
I think what the criticism of the recent contingency panning is that it is highlighting that it is too little too late...
No problem with antisemitism in the labour party....
Nick Hewer has today relinquished his support for Labour after his Countdown co-host Rachel Riley was abused for speaking out about antisemitism in the party.
Certain sections of the media are genuinely losing their minds at the moment. I’m all for the freedom of the press, but contingency planning is going to start being marked secret and with D-notices attached if this is how exercises get reported.
They are talking up the chaos narrative so much that it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy, causing panic buying and shortages of essentials. But hey, it generates clicks.
If there is chaos, it won't be down to the narrative.
It'll be down to Brexit.
It’ll be down to silly sound bites like that glib reply. Sorry.
More seriously it will be down to a huge number of factors involving politicians on all sides, civil servants and yes, the media.
Too many people still think, even at this late stage, that they can somehow force a change of direction and remain in the EU, rather than coming together to make a success of the outcome the people voted for.
The gleeful predictions of chaos from certain sections of our press are really not being helpful for anything except generating clicks. They’re critising both the planning and lack of planning whenever either happen.
There is nothing glib or sill about my reply. The chaos will be due to Brexit. Obviously. Unless you are stupid enough to believe that someone, somehow, could have squared the circle.
We are in this position because of Brexit. People were warned that leavers were promising inconsistent and incompatible things to voters, and that that would lead to significant problems as people tried to work out what 'leave' meant.
In fact, it's what I warned before the referendum, and was a major factor in my voting remain.
Leavers should not go around trying to blame everyone else for chaos, if it occurs (and I hope to goodness that there is an unaccustomed rush of sanity amongst MPs and it does not). They should look at themselves.
Calling the voters stupid enough to have voted the way they did, is generally not a successful strategy.
Too many people *want* to see chaos, because either they think it will vindicate their earlier position or because they think it will sell newspapers. That’s a big problem.
You are missing J's point with which I agree. Namely that chaos stems from leavers promising incompatible and inconsistent things in order to win. He is not blaming voters for falling for it he is blaming the leave campaigns for doing it.
* Traitor * Nazi * Enemy of the people There is no difference. Each is violent, intimidatory and designed to trigger the same emotion: hate. The response of some haters will be violent, even murderous. Anyone who uses or condones such terms owns what happens next.
It is also a fact that far left mobs have been gobbing at people they do not like, and shouting in their faces, for years. They behave in exactly the same ways as the right wing scum we saw yesterday. If you do not condemn it all, you are a hypocrite. No ifs, no buts.
If she lets time run out, by law we fall into no deal. From all we know of her, I do not think she will lead her country into that hell. A higher sense of duty would stop her. She is no David Cameron, nor has she anything more to gain by listening to her extremists. Johnson likes to ape Churchill, but the wartime leader defied his party to stand alone for his beliefs. May will prove the real Churchillian, ignoring party to put her country first.
Thats what they get for concentrating all their eggs in one south east basket. If the cretins running the country ever got outside London and had an original thought they may have seen putting all their business through a funnel as not being ideal.
I seem to recall that back in Victorian and indeed Williamite times elections could be very rowdy indeed, in spite the fact that the fisticuffs were generally between those who could vote.
Isn't the top left picture from the 2015 general election?
Good spot. The hashtags on the posters are #votelabour so it’s unlikely to have been from the Scotland referendum.
The general sentiment still applies.
All you ultra right wing nationalists trying to shout "look squirrel", here are some made up bollox and it is all Scotland's fault that English Nationalist nutjobs are threatening to rape MP's. Aided and abetted by absolute ars**ipes who are bitter and twisted about being useless and getting chucked out of their jobs in Scotland.
No. There will not be any customs posts if we sign a withdrawal agreement without a backstop, not during transition at least. The transition means that customs posts aren't required. If there's no deal there will be.
The thing that risks customs posts being necessary is the insistence of the backstop.
Jeezus.
There is no WA without a backstop or are we in the if my auntie was a man he would be my uncle territory?
The thing that risks customs posts being necessary is us to not have a WA. Which is how I read your first (asinine) question - but yes looking at it, that first question is non-sensical. Apols for treating it as a serious enquiry.
Does anyone with any on owledge of the details of the WA know if there is any truth to the stories of TM selling out on our defence and intelligence services being subservient to the EU. If so this seems to have slipped the attention of the main stream media
Unless he’s talking about reopening the actual legally binding WA Treaty, then it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. Any WA with the backstop text is a dodo in Parliament.
Oh, and Leo is the proverbial cooked bread if it’s no-deal.
And they won't change the Withdrawal Agreement because the backstop is vital to avoid the danger of a hard border in several years' time - even if the presence of the backstop leads to the Agreement being rejected and to No Deal in March???
Brexit is a bit difficult to understand at times.
Precisely. Its nonsense.
Brexit may well be nonsense, Phil, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to unpick the arguments on both sides.
The backstop has sod all to do with Brexit. It is a dangerous and malicious attempt to exploit sectarianism.
What do you think a few customs posts would to do sectarianism, Phil, me old China?
The only risk that causes customs posts is no deal. The thing that risks no deal is the backstop. If you want to avoid customs posts, drop the backstop.
A withdrawal agreement without a backstop guaranteeing no customs posts until at least end of 2020 and with both parties agreeing to avoid customs posts in any future relationship agreement (to be negotiated during transition) would avoid customs posts for the immediate future.
Fundamentally misunderstanding the situation and dynamic but you at least have company in that position.
1. If we agree a withdrawal agreement without a backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 2. If we agree a future relationship agreement without customs posts would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 3. If there is no deal due to the unacceptable backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no?
Fucking hell what am I your personal wiki service? Get off your arse and look it up yourself.
But in short:
1) perhaps 2) no 3) perhaps
I think it was you opinion being asked for - albeit in a rather peremptory manner.
Unless he’s talking about reopening the actual legally binding WA Treaty, then it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. Any WA with the backstop text is a dodo in Parliament.
Oh, and Leo is the proverbial cooked bread if it’s no-deal.
And they won't change the Withdrawal Agreement because the backstop is vital to avoid the danger of a hard border in several years' time - even if the presence of the backstop leads to the Agreement being rejected and to No Deal in March???
Brexit is a bit difficult to understand at times.
Precisely. Its nonsense.
Brexit may well be nonsense, Phil, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to unpick the arguments on both sides.
The backstop has sod all to do with Brexit. It is a dangerous and malicious attempt to exploit sectarianism.
What do you think a few customs posts would to do sectarianism, Phil, me old China?
The only risk that causes customs posts is no deal. The thing that risks no deal is the backstop. If you want to avoid customs posts, drop the backstop.
A withdrawal agreement without a backstop guaranteeing no customs posts until at least end of 2020 and with both parties agreeing to avoid customs posts in any future relationship agreement (to be negotiated during transition) would avoid customs posts for the immediate future.
Fundamentally misunderstanding the situation and dynamic but you at least have company in that position.
1. If we agree a withdrawal agreement without a backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 2. If we agree a future relationship agreement without customs posts would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 3. If there is no deal due to the unacceptable backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no?
Fucking hell what am I your personal wiki service? Get off your arse and look it up yourself.
But in short:
1) perhaps 2) no 3) perhaps
Have you thought of changing your name to Alexa ? :-)
Calling the voters stupid enough to have voted the way they did, is generally not a successful strategy.
Too many people *want* to see chaos, because either they think it will vindicate their earlier position or because they think it will sell newspapers. That’s a big problem.
I did not call the voters stupid. I said the chaos will be due to Brexit, unless you are stupid enough to believe that anyone could have met the promises of both leave campaigns. And IMO you have to be genuinely stupid to believe that.
In fact, May's deal is a reasonable attempt at doing exactly that: but not enough for the hardcore Brexiteers, because they are unreasonable. Which is why it's failing.
No-one else - not even the Brexiteer geniuses - could have done better. And that's often because they don't want a deal. They want chaos; or at least are willing to see the country suffer chaos to get what they want.
They're shits who should be nowhere near politics.
No. There will not be any customs posts if we sign a withdrawal agreement without a backstop, not during transition at least. The transition means that customs posts aren't required. If there's no deal there will be.
The thing that risks customs posts being necessary is the insistence of the backstop.
Jeezus.
There is no WA without a backstop or are we in the if my auntie was a man he would be my uncle territory?
The thing that risks customs posts being necessary is us to not have a WA. Which is how I read your first (asinine) question - but yes looking at it, that first question is non-sensical. Apols for treating it as a serious enquiry.
There is a WA without a backstop if the WA gets changed.
Ah but the EU has said they won't change it. So what? MPs have said they won't ratify it as it is.
Unless he’s talking about reopening the actual legally binding WA Treaty, then it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. Any WA with the backstop text is a dodo in Parliament.
Oh, and Leo is the proverbial cooked bread if it’s no-deal.
And they won't change the Withdrawal Agreement because the backstop is vital to avoid the danger of a hard border in several years' time - even if the presence of the backstop leads to the Agreement being rejected and to No Deal in March???
Brexit is a bit difficult to understand at times.
Precisely. Its nonsense.
Brexit may well be nonsense, Phil, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to unpick the arguments on both sides.
The backstop has sod all to do with Brexit. It is a dangerous and malicious attempt to exploit sectarianism.
What do you think a few customs posts would to do sectarianism, Phil, me old China?
The only risk that causes customs posts is no deal. The thing that risks no deal is the backstop. If you want to avoid customs posts, drop the backstop.
A withdrawal agreement without a backstop guaranteeing no customs posts until at least end of 2020 and with both parties agreeing to avoid customs posts in any future relationship agreement (to be negotiated during transition) would avoid customs posts for the immediate future.
Fundamentally misunderstanding the situation and dynamic but you at least have company in that position.
1. If we agree a withdrawal agreement without a backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 2. If we agree a future relationship agreement without customs posts would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 3. If there is no deal due to the unacceptable backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no?
Fucking hell what am I your personal wiki service? Get off your arse and look it up yourself.
But in short:
1) perhaps 2) no 3) perhaps
Have you thought of changing your name to Alexa ? :-)
Calling the voters stupid enough to have voted the way they did, is generally not a successful strategy.
Too many people *want* to see chaos, because either they think it will vindicate their earlier position or because they think it will sell newspapers. That’s a big problem.
I did not call the voters stupid. I said the chaos will be due to Brexit, unless you are stupid enough to believe that anyone could have met the promises of both leave campaigns. And IMO you have to be genuinely stupid to believe that.
In fact, May's deal is a reasonable attempt at doing exactly that: but not enough for the hardcore Brexiteers, because they are unreasonable. Which is why it's failing.
No-one else - not even the Brexiteer geniuses - could have done better. And that's often because they don't want a deal. They want chaos; or at least are willing to see the country suffer chaos to get what they want.
They're shits who should be nowhere near politics.
It's unreasonable due to the backstop. Drop the backstop and it would be reasonable.
Unless he’s talking about reopening the actual legally binding WA Treaty, then it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. Any WA with the backstop text is a dodo in Parliament.
Oh, and Leo is the proverbial cooked bread if it’s no-deal.
And they won't change the Withdrawal Agreement because the backstop is vital to avoid the danger of a hard border in several years' time - even if the presence of the backstop leads to the Agreement being rejected and to No Deal in March???
Brexit is a bit difficult to understand at times.
Precisely. Its nonsense.
Brexit may well be nonsense, Phil, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to unpick the arguments on both sides.
The backstop has sod all to do with Brexit. It is a dangerous and malicious attempt to exploit sectarianism.
What do you think a few customs posts would to do sectarianism, Phil, me old China?
The only risk that causes customs posts is ns for the immediate future.
Fundamentally misunderstanding the situation and dynamic but you at least have company in that position.
1. If we agree a withdrawal agreement without a backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 2. If we agree a future relationship agreement without customs posts would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 3. If there is no deal due to the unacceptable backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no?
Fucking hell what am I your personal wiki service? Get off your arse and look it up yourself.
But in short:
1) perhaps 2) no 3) perhaps
Have you thought of changing your name to Alexa ? :-)
Playing Stairway to Heaven by Led Zeppelin.
there are songs I simply cant order, due to accent problems
anything with the word mirror* is a no no
* pronounced mirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr in all the best locations
No. There will not be any customs posts if we sign a withdrawal agreement without a backstop, not during transition at least. The transition means that customs posts aren't required. If there's no deal there will be.
The thing that risks customs posts being necessary is the insistence of the backstop.
Jeezus.
There is no WA without a backstop or are we in the if my auntie was a man he would be my uncle territory?
The thing that risks customs posts being necessary is us to not have a WA. Which is how I read your first (asinine) question - but yes looking at it, that first question is non-sensical. Apols for treating it as a serious enquiry.
There is a WA without a backstop if the WA gets changed.
Ah but the EU has said they won't change it. So what? MPs have said they won't ratify it as it is.
Something has to give.
OK sorry about my snittiness earier, I seem to have misread your posts - so let's discuss.
Yes. In theory there is a WA without a backstop, but listening to the EU I think it a very low probability that they would agree to remove it from the WA given that it is one of the three central planks of the whole thing.
And yes - you have put your finger on the very epicentre of the issue - the deal won't pass with the WA + backstop, while it doesn't look as though the EU will change its stance either for the reasons I mentioned above.
My position has always been that it is the UK that will cave because to embark upon a path, one of the destinations of which is a hard border is an impossibility. I think there will be some "assurances" about the backstop and how everyone will "endeavour" to render it moot.
David Davis thinks that the EU will cave. Nick Palmer says the EU has a history of fudging it at the last minute. So we shall see.
Isn't the top left picture from the 2015 general election?
Any old propaganda will do to have a shot at Scotland for Carlotta.
2015 is pre Brexit.
does not make a blind bit of difference to fact that morons on here are trying to say that Scottish Independence supporters are responsible for nutjob English Nationalists threatening to rape MP's. Can they go any lower, is it any wonder the troubles there are in England at present.
Unless he’s talking about reopening the actual legally binding WA Treaty, then it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. Any WA with the backstop text is a dodo in Parliament.
Oh, and Leo is the proverbial cooked bread if it’s no-deal.
And they won't change the Withdrawal Agreement because the backstop is vital to avoid the danger of a hard border in several years' time - even if the presence of the backstop leads to the Agreement being rejected and to No Deal in March???
Brexit is a bit difficult to understand at times.
Precisely. Its nonsense.
Brexit may well be nonsense, Phil, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to unpick the arguments on both sides.
The backstop has sod all to do with Brexit. It is a dangerous and malicious attempt to exploit sectarianism.
What do you think a few customs posts would to do sectarianism, Phil, me old China?
The only risk that causes customs posts is ns for the immediate future.
Fundamentally misunderstanding the situation and dynamic but you at least have company in that position.
1. If we agree a withdrawal agreement without a backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 2. If we agree a future relationship agreement without customs posts would there be customs posts? Yes or no? 3. If there is no deal due to the unacceptable backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no?
Fucking hell what am I your personal wiki service? Get off your arse and look it up yourself.
But in short:
1) perhaps 2) no 3) perhaps
Have you thought of changing your name to Alexa ? :-)
Playing Stairway to Heaven by Led Zeppelin.
there are songs I simply cant order, due to accent problems
anything with the word mirror* is a no no
* pronounced mirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr in all the best locations
Thats what they get for concentrating all their eggs in one south east basket. If the cretins running the country ever got outside London and had an original thought they may have seen putting all their business through a funnel as not being ideal.
Nature created the funnel, not governments
Plenty of ports in the UK, may take a little more time but it was done purely by choice and stupidity. Governments chose to put all their eggs in one single basket.
Isn't the top left picture from the 2015 general election?
Any old propaganda will do to have a shot at Scotland for Carlotta.
2015 is pre Brexit.
does not make a blind bit of difference to fact that morons on here are trying to say that Scottish Independence supporters are responsible for nutjob English Nationalists threatening to rape MP's. Can they go any lower, is it any wonder the troubles there are in England at present.
Pretty sure no one is saying that, Mr Straw man....
Unless he’s talking about reopening the actual legally binding WA Treaty, then it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. Any WA with the backstop text is a dodo in Parliament.
Oh, and Leo is the proverbial cooked bread if it’s no-deal.
And they won't change the Withdrawal Agreement because the backstop is vital to avoid the danger of a hard border in several years' time - even if the presence of the backstop leads to the Agreement being rejected and to No Deal in March???
Brexit is a bit difficult to understand at times.
Precisely. Its nonsense.
Brexit may well be nonsense, Phil, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to unpick the arguments on both sides.
The backstop has sod all to do with Brexit. It is a dangerous and malicious attempt to exploit sectarianism.
What do you think a few customs posts would to do sectarianism, Phil, me old China?
The only risk that causes customs posts is ns for the immediate future.
Fundamentally misunderstanding the situation and dynamic but you at least have company in that position.
1. If we agree a withdrawals? Yes or no?
Fucking hell what am I your personal wiki service? Get off your arse and look it up yourself.
But in short:
1) perhaps 2) no 3) perhaps
Have you thoug ht of changing your name to Alexa ? :-)
Playing Stairway to Heaven by Led Zeppelin.
there are songs I simply cant order, due to accent problems
anything with the word mirror* is a no no
* pronounced mirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr in all the best locations
Is 8:30 a problematic time for you?
no but my daughters boyfriend who is from Waterford doesnt recognise theres an "h" in third can get interesting at times
Isn't the top left picture from the 2015 general election?
Any old propaganda will do to have a shot at Scotland for Carlotta.
2015 is pre Brexit.
does not make a blind bit of difference to fact that morons on here are trying to say that Scottish Independence supporters are responsible for nutjob English Nationalists threatening to rape MP's. Can they go any lower, is it any wonder the troubles there are in England at present.
Pretty sure no one is saying that, Mr Straw man....
Of course not.
'Mob behaviour was tolerated during the Scottish referendum and others learned from the example.'
No. There will not be any customs posts if we sign a withdrawal agreement without a backstop, not during transition at least. The transition means that customs posts aren't required. If there's no deal there will be.
The thing that risks customs posts being necessary is the insistence of the backstop.
Jeezus.
There is no WA without a backstop or are we in the if my auntie was a man he would be my uncle territory?
The thing that risks customs posts being necessary is us to not have a WA. Which is how I read your first (asinine) question - but yes looking at it, that first question is non-sensical. Apols for treating it as a serious enquiry.
There is a WA without a backstop if the WA gets changed.
Ah but the EU has said they won't change it. So what? MPs have said they won't ratify it as it is.
Something has to give.
OK sorry about my snittiness earier, I seem to have misread your posts - so let's discuss.
Yes. In theory there is a WA without a backstop, but listening to the EU I think it a very low probability that they would agree to remove it from the WA given that it is one of the three central planks of the whole thing.
And yes - you have put your finger on the very epicentre of the issue - the deal won't pass with the WA + backstop, while it doesn't look as though the EU will change its stance either for the reasons I mentioned above.
My position has always been that it is the UK that will cave because to embark upon a path, one of the destinations of which is a hard border is an impossibility. I think there will be some "assurances" about the backstop and how everyone will "endeavour" to render it moot.
David Davis thinks that the EU will cave. Nick Palmer says the EU has a history of fudging it at the last minute. So we shall see.
I don't often agree with either of them but think in this instance both DD and NPxMP are both right. The Irish border issue is already dealt with in the transition, the issue is for the future after that but that is the preserve of the future relationship agreement.
Sign the WA today minus backstop and kick the Irish border issue where it belongs into the future relationship agreement. Make it clear that there is no future relationship unless the border is resolved.
Who loses there? The border is dealt with for now and the WA can be ratified.
Enjoyed 'Brexit' last night. A useful companion to the Shipman book which I ploughed through last year. The big picture conclusion I took from both is that Leave won by giving a voice to the erstwhile voiceless. More specifically, by tracking down a couple of million apolitical people on their uppers in depressed parts of England and convincing them that their poor quality of life was attributable to us being a member of the European Union. Fair enough. All's fair in love, war and an EU referendum. Did little, however, to convince me of the merits of having another one.
Slightly more on topic and the focus of our debate has seemed to be on the Democrats needing to find the right candidate for 2020.
True but unlike 2016 Trump will have a record to defend in 2020 and I suspect any "confusion" between his interpretation and the facts will quickly be uncovered in debates and in the campaign itself. Trump will also be unable to portray himself as the "outsider" and won't have the USP of not being a political figure next time.
Given the frighteningly small wins Trump eked out in places like Wisconsin, it wouldn't take a huge shift to see the Democrat candidate home.
Nonetheless you do need the "right" candidate - forensic rather than rhetoric would be my approach. Someone who will acknowledge Trump's successes but question the record especially on promises not delivered - Trump will of course try to blame the Democrat-controlled Congress for frustrating him but a candidate strong on bipartisanship can overcome that - in other words, a traditional centrist Democrat in the mould of a Clinton.
It's curious but some seem to think a Blair-like figure could never win over here - I profoundly disagree, the first sensible centrist (and that means acknowledging the causes of populism while criticising the remedies of the populists themselves) is going to sweep the board whatever Party they are in.
Isn't the top left picture from the 2015 general election?
Any old propaganda will do to have a shot at Scotland for Carlotta.
2015 is pre Brexit.
does not make a blind bit of difference to fact that morons on here are trying to say that Scottish Independence supporters are responsible for nutjob English Nationalists threatening to rape MP's. Can they go any lower, is it any wonder the troubles there are in England at present.
Pretty sure no one is saying that, Mr Straw man....
It's that good old Scottish "Civic Nationalism" (sic)
Calling the voters stupid enough to have voted the way they did, is generally not a successful strategy.
Too many people *want* to see chaos, because either they think it will vindicate their earlier position or because they think it will sell newspapers. That’s a big problem.
I did not call the voters stupid. I said the chaos will be due to Brexit, unless you are stupid enough to believe that anyone could have met the promises of both leave campaigns. And IMO you have to be genuinely stupid to believe that.
In fact, May's deal is a reasonable attempt at doing exactly that: but not enough for the hardcore Brexiteers, because they are unreasonable. Which is why it's failing.
No-one else - not even the Brexiteer geniuses - could have done better. And that's often because they don't want a deal. They want chaos; or at least are willing to see the country suffer chaos to get what they want.
They're shits who should be nowhere near politics.
It's unreasonable due to the backstop. Drop the backstop and it would be reasonable.
Firstly, the backstop exists for a reason, and wishing it away is rather silly. It's a shame that Brexiteers did not address the Irish border issue before the referendum, but I guess they just wanted to win, whatever the cost.
Secondly, I get the impression that many of the people who wail about the backstop would just complain about something else if it did not exist.
Thats what they get for concentrating all their eggs in one south east basket. If the cretins running the country ever got outside London and had an original thought they may have seen putting all their business through a funnel as not being ideal.
Nature created the funnel, not governments
Plenty of ports in the UK, may take a little more time but it was done purely by choice and stupidity. Governments chose to put all their eggs in one single basket.
Few ports are designed for roll on roll off ferries - most are designed for container ships with cranes lifting the container from ship to storage to lorry..
Even if other ports existed Dover Calais won on the logistics alone - Driver knocks off for a break / lunch as he gets on the ferry and the second half of his day begins when he drives off..
Alex Salmond's legal challenge over how the Scottish government handled sexual harassment allegations against him is to be called for an unexpected hearing.
The former first minister has sought a judicial review of how the government investigated two misconduct complaints against him, which he denies.
A four-day hearing had been due to start on 15 January, but the Court of Session will now also sit on Tuesday.
As an example, I don't know how local Government is funded by central Government - is it an annual or a monthly or even weekly grant or allowance? If the supply of central funding to local Government were removed, a lot of Councils would be in immediate financial trouble.
Presumably the same would be true of Academies and the NHS so I can't quite see what the Morgan-Cooper measure is supposed to do. In the US, public servants aren't paid in the event of a shutdown - are we suggesting civil servants shouldn't be paid if they continue to work?
[...] More specifically, by tracking down a couple of million apolitical people on their uppers in depressed parts of England and convincing them that their poor quality of life was attributable to us being a member of the European Union. [...]
Did it suggest that the campaigners actually believed this, or were they just feeding any old crap to witless dupes to get themselves over the line?
[...] More specifically, by tracking down a couple of million apolitical people on their uppers in depressed parts of England and convincing them that their poor quality of life was attributable to us being a member of the European Union. [...]
Did it suggest that the campaigners actually believed this, or were they just feeding any old crap to witless dupes to get themselves over the line?
The campaigners believed in their cause, but were not fussy about how they got over the line.
I don't often agree with either of them but think in this instance both DD and NPxMP are both right. The Irish border issue is already dealt with in the transition, the issue is for the future after that but that is the preserve of the future relationship agreement.
Sign the WA today minus backstop and kick the Irish border issue where it belongs into the future relationship agreement. Make it clear that there is no future relationship unless the border is resolved.
Who loses there? The border is dealt with for now and the WA can be ratified.
The backstop is an insurance policy in case there is no future relationship. Hence it can't be kicked into the future relationship because it is designed to come into effect if there is no future relationship.
Both DD and NP (if that is the latter's position) fundamentally misunderstand its nature. Or, they seem to value the exclusion of the UK remaining in a customs arrangement while the future relationship is agreed, over the potential for a resumption of the troubles in NI. Not a good look IMO, but of course if you think that the latter is trivial and no reason for all this fuss then we have different priorities for the UK.
As an example, I don't know how local Government is funded by central Government - is it an annual or a monthly or even weekly grant or allowance? If the supply of central funding to local Government were removed, a lot of Councils would be in immediate financial trouble.
Presumably the same would be true of Academies and the NHS so I can't quite see what the Morgan-Cooper measure is supposed to do. In the US, public servants aren't paid in the event of a shutdown - are we suggesting civil servants shouldn't be paid if they continue to work?
It seems like complete and utter madness to me.
Everyone in Westminster (MP's and protesters) seems to be losing their marbles.
Calling the voters stupid enough to have voted the way they did, is generally not a successful strategy.
Too many people *want* to see chaos, because either they think it will vindicate their earlier position or because they think it will sell newspapers. That’s a big problem.
I did not call the voters stupid. I said the chaos will be due to Brexit, unless you are stupid enough to believe that anyone could have met the promises of both leave campaigns. And IMO you have to be genuinely stupid to believe that.
In fact, May's deal is a reasonable attempt at doing exactly that: but not enough for the hardcore Brexiteers, because they are unreasonable. Which is why it's failing.
No-one else - not even the Brexiteer geniuses - could have done better. And that's often because they don't want a deal. They want chaos; or at least are willing to see the country suffer chaos to get what they want.
They're shits who should be nowhere near politics.
It's unreasonable due to the backstop. Drop the backstop and it would be reasonable.
Firstly, the backstop exists for a reason, and wishing it away is rather silly. It's a shame that Brexiteers did not address the Irish border issue before the referendum, but I guess they just wanted to win, whatever the cost.
Secondly, I get the impression that many of the people who wail about the backstop would just complain about something else if it did not exist.
No there is no reason for the backstop to exist. For over a decade there has been a 2 year unilateral exit clause from our EU membership with no backstop.
The transition renders the backstop not necessary for now. A future relationship agreement could mean it is not necessary in the future.
Worst case is that no future relationship agreement is reachable which wrt to the Irish Border leaves us in the same position we are now where no withdrawal agreement is reachable.
I don't often agree with either of them but think in this instance both DD and NPxMP are both right. The Irish border issue is already dealt with in the transition, the issue is for the future after that but that is the preserve of the future relationship agreement.
Sign the WA today minus backstop and kick the Irish border issue where it belongs into the future relationship agreement. Make it clear that there is no future relationship unless the border is resolved.
Who loses there? The border is dealt with for now and the WA can be ratified.
The backstop is an insurance policy in case there is no future relationship. Hence it can't be kicked into the future relationship because it is designed to come into effect if there is no future relationship.
Both DD and NP (if that is the latter's position) fundamentally misunderstand its nature. Or, they seem to value the exclusion of the UK remaining in a customs arrangement while the future relationship is agreed, over the potential for a resumption of the troubles in NI. Not a good look IMO, but of course if you think that the latter is trivial and no reason for all this fuss then we have different priorities for the UK.
An insurance policy only makes sense if the cost of insuring is less than the cost of the risk happening.
If the backstop means no deal then it hasn't insured against no future relationship, it has caused there to be no future relationship.
Insisting upon the backstop at the risk of no deal is like saying to the insurance company "insure my house or I will burn it down myself".
I don't often agree with either of them but think in this instance both DD and NPxMP are both right. The Irish border issue is already dealt with in the transition, the issue is for the future after that but that is the preserve of the future relationship agreement.
Sign the WA today minus backstop and kick the Irish border issue where it belongs into the future relationship agreement. Make it clear that there is no future relationship unless the border is resolved.
Who loses there? The border is dealt with for now and the WA can be ratified.
The backstop is an insurance policy in case there is no future relationship. Hence it can't be kicked into the future relationship because it is designed to come into effect if there is no future relationship.
Both DD and NP (if that is the latter's position) fundamentally misunderstand its nature. Or, they seem to value the exclusion of the UK remaining in a customs arrangement while the future relationship is agreed, over the potential for a resumption of the troubles in NI. Not a good look IMO, but of course if you think that the latter is trivial and no reason for all this fuss then we have different priorities for the UK.
An insurance policy only makes sense if the cost of insuring is less than the cost of the risk happening.
If the backstop means no deal then it hasn't insured against no future relationship, it has caused there to be no future relationship.
Insisting upon the backstop at the risk of no deal is like saying to the insurance company "insure my house or I will burn it down myself".
It is actually saying: "Insure my house or I will burn it down myself and stay inside while I do it."
Isn't the top left picture from the 2015 general election?
Any old propaganda will do to have a shot at Scotland for Carlotta.
2015 is pre Brexit.
does not make a blind bit of difference to fact that morons on here are trying to say that Scottish Independence supporters are responsible for nutjob English Nationalists threatening to rape MP's. Can they go any lower, is it any wonder the troubles there are in England at present.
Pretty sure no one is saying that, Mr Straw man....
Of course not.
'Mob behaviour was tolerated during the Scottish referendum and others learned from the example.'
Yes and pushed by right wing , Scottish grudge holding PB Tory, taken up by others. Fact that it is a total lie is neither here nor there either.
I don't often agree with either of them but think in this instance both DD and NPxMP are both right. The Irish border issue is already dealt with in the transition, the issue is for the future after that but that is the preserve of the future relationship agreement.
Sign the WA today minus backstop and kick the Irish border issue where it belongs into the future relationship agreement. Make it clear that there is no future relationship unless the border is resolved.
Who loses there? The border is dealt with for now and the WA can be ratified.
The backstop is an insurance policy in case there is no future relationship. Hence it can't be kicked into the future relationship because it is designed to come into effect if there is no future relationship.
Both DD and NP (if that is the latter's position) fundamentally misunderstand its nature. Or, they seem to value the exclusion of the UK remaining in a customs arrangement while the future relationship is agreed, over the potential for a resumption of the troubles in NI. Not a good look IMO, but of course if you think that the latter is trivial and no reason for all this fuss then we have different priorities for the UK.
An insurance policy only makes sense if the cost of insuring is less than the cost of the risk happening.
If the backstop means no deal then it hasn't insured against no future relationship, it has caused there to be no future relationship.
Insisting upon the backstop at the risk of no deal is like saying to the insurance company "insure my house or I will burn it down myself".
It is actually saying: "Insure my house or I will burn it down myself and stay inside while I do it."
This is extraordinary - and from a Trump appointee... https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/07/mueller-probe-concord-management-1085285 A stern-faced Friedrich, the newest of President Donald Trump’s three appointees to the district court in Washington, made clear Monday that she was not amused by what she called the “clever quotes.” She also chastised Dubelier for ad hominem attacks on Mueller’s attorneys and other prosecutors in the case.
“I found your recent filings, in particular your reply brief filed Friday, unprofessional, inappropriate and ineffective,” the judge said. She suggested the submissions were an effort to bully her into granting pending defense motions to give the owners and officers of Concord greater access to materials Mueller’s office has turned over to permit the defense to prepare for trial.
When Friedrich beckoned Dubelier to the courtroom lectern to address some more technical issues about the exchange of information, he declined to say anything of substance, declaring instead that the judge’s rebuke was so severe that he might need to withdraw from the case. He also accused Friedrich of bias...
Thats what they get for concentrating all their eggs in one south east basket. If the cretins running the country ever got outside London and had an original thought they may have seen putting all their business through a funnel as not being ideal.
Nature created the funnel, not governments
Plenty of ports in the UK, may take a little more time but it was done purely by choice and stupidity. Governments chose to put all their eggs in one single basket.
Few ports are designed for roll on roll off ferries - most are designed for container ships with cranes lifting the container from ship to storage to lorry..
Even if other ports existed Dover Calais won on the logistics alone - Driver knocks off for a break / lunch as he gets on the ferry and the second half of his day begins when he drives off..
They will have good lunch breaks now as they sit for six hours at Manston Airport or hard shoulder.
Isn't the top left picture from the 2015 general election?
Any old propaganda will do to have a shot at Scotland for Carlotta.
2015 is pre Brexit.
does not make a blind bit of difference to fact that morons on here are trying to say that Scottish Independence supporters are responsible for nutjob English Nationalists threatening to rape MP's. Can they go any lower, is it any wonder the troubles there are in England at present.
Pretty sure no one is saying that, Mr Straw man....
Of course not.
'Mob behaviour was tolerated during the Scottish referendum and others learned from the example.'
Yes and pushed by right wing , Scottish grudge holding PB Tory, taken up by others. Fact that it is a total lie is neither here nor there either.
Comments
I think we are going to go one of two ways from here, either we get a last-minute abstention from Labour that sees the deal pass, or we are going to no-deal and an amount of disruption at ports, before something gets hastily agreed to keep lorries moving.
Remember that there will be queues of lorries at Calais and especially Dublin as well as at Dover, it will become a major domestic issue for several other EU counties in short order too.
It'll be down to Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2019/jan/08/german-slowdown-industrial-output-recession-fears-uk-house-prices-stock-markets-business-live
I blame Brexit.
Much easier to win an election by taking votes from your opponent than by increasing turnout. Whoever the democrats pick, their base will stick with them in the same way that most GOP voters stuck with Trump rather than Hillary. On the other hand, increasing turnout further is a lost cause, there was still less than 60% turnout in the last one!
Sanders seems to me the best candidate at the moment, I don’t think his age will really matter. In Sanders vs Trump I would give the edge to Sanders, although by no means certain and I think Trump should never be written off, he’s a great campaigner for all his many many faults.
Harsh on Corbyn. But back to Brexit....
Certainly it's a popular critique to say that Corbyn has attracted support from Islington at the expense of Barnsley.
But it's not that simple. Remember "Worcester Woman"? I spend a lot of time in Worcester - little provincial Worcester of the Three Choirs Festival and a truly nasty relief road - and it is, quite honestly, full of hipsters these days. Craft beer, craft burgers, Silicon Valley beards.
Britain is changing and I don't believe that it's as simple as London vs the rest. London's attitudes are increasingly shared elsewhere, whether that be Manchester, Worcester, Leicester or Godmanchester.
That's ultimately why the phrase "the left-behind" has become popular: because these are "progressive" attitudes and the benefits of progress are not being felt everywhere. Yes, Barnsley still probably is the left-behind - though, of course, it's not that far from Leeds or the mill towns of West Yorkshire, which aren't. Barnsley will continue to vote for Brexit. But Barnsley is on the way down and it's the metropolitan attitude that's in the ascendant. In five years' time there won't be a Brexit majority in England-outside-London. There may not even be one now.
(FWIW, I live in a rural area.)
The thing that risks no deal is the backstop.
If you want to avoid customs posts, drop the backstop.
A withdrawal agreement without a backstop guaranteeing no customs posts until at least end of 2020 and with both parties agreeing to avoid customs posts in any future relationship agreement (to be negotiated during transition) would avoid customs posts for the immediate future.
*with all caveats that we wouldn't be where we are today had May been a bit more intelligent to start with.
2. If we agree a future relationship agreement without customs posts would there be customs posts? Yes or no?
3. If there is no deal due to the unacceptable backstop would there be customs posts? Yes or no?
I do think the no deal option is much more likely, there just doesn’t seem to be much wavering at all on the Labour side.
It would see a huge shift towards her in the voting numbers on the Meaningful Vote. And politically, she would have pulled off "and with one bound, she was free!" Would be compared to Maggie at her peak.
Pop Quiz: what do you do, Leo? Urge them to sign her amended deal? Or plough on regardless?
More seriously it will be down to a huge number of factors involving politicians on all sides, civil servants and yes, the media.
Too many people still think, even at this late stage, that they can somehow force a change of direction and remain in the EU, rather than coming together to make a success of the outcome the people voted for.
The gleeful predictions of chaos from certain sections of our press are really not being helpful for anything except generating clicks. They’re critising both the planning and lack of planning whenever either happen.
The backstop will never happen if it isn't ratified. Customs posts from 30 March are what backstop enthusiasts are really seeking.
His & Humphrys' chummy septuagenarian chortling was a marvellous start to the day.
We are in this position because of Brexit. People were warned that leavers were promising inconsistent and incompatible things to voters, and that that would lead to significant problems as people tried to work out what 'leave' meant.
In fact, it's what I warned before the referendum, and was a major factor in my voting remain.
Leavers should not go around trying to blame everyone else for chaos, if it occurs (and I hope to goodness that there is an unaccustomed rush of sanity amongst MPs and it does not). They should look at themselves.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jan/07/brexit-the-uncivil-war-review-superficial-irresponsible-tv-cumberbatch
But in short:
1) perhaps
2) no
3) perhaps
Too many people *want* to see chaos, because either they think it will vindicate their earlier position or because they think it will sell newspapers. That’s a big problem.
The thing that risks customs posts being necessary is the insistence of the backstop.
Reporting of pretty much all and any contingency planning has been the same since the referendum though. Three months ago it was “Why are we spending money on this, are we planning on the talks failing?” and before that it was standard maintaining of risk registers across government departments and local authorities reported as if it were something exceptional.
If she lets time run out, by law we fall into no deal. From all we know of her, I do not think she will lead her country into that hell. A higher sense of duty would stop her. She is no David Cameron, nor has she anything more to gain by listening to her extremists. Johnson likes to ape Churchill, but the wartime leader defied his party to stand alone for his beliefs. May will prove the real Churchillian, ignoring party to put her country first.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/08/theresa-may-brexit-no-deal-eu
Nick Hewer has today relinquished his support for Labour after his Countdown co-host Rachel Riley was abused for speaking out about antisemitism in the party.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6568265/Life-long-Labour-supporter-Nick-Hewer-ditches-party.html
* Nazi
* Enemy of the people
There is no difference. Each is violent, intimidatory and designed to trigger the same emotion: hate. The response of some haters will be violent, even murderous. Anyone who uses or condones such terms owns what happens next.
It is also a fact that far left mobs have been gobbing at people they do not like, and shouting in their faces, for years. They behave in exactly the same ways as the right wing scum we saw yesterday. If you do not condemn it all, you are a hypocrite. No ifs, no buts.
May puts self-preservation first and her insular, Home Office-forged notion of Little England second. Every time.
There is no WA without a backstop or are we in the if my auntie was a man he would be my uncle territory?
The thing that risks customs posts being necessary is us to not have a WA. Which is how I read your first (asinine) question - but yes looking at it, that first question is non-sensical. Apols for treating it as a serious enquiry.
In fact, May's deal is a reasonable attempt at doing exactly that: but not enough for the hardcore Brexiteers, because they are unreasonable. Which is why it's failing.
No-one else - not even the Brexiteer geniuses - could have done better. And that's often because they don't want a deal. They want chaos; or at least are willing to see the country suffer chaos to get what they want.
They're shits who should be nowhere near politics.
Ah but the EU has said they won't change it. So what?
MPs have said they won't ratify it as it is.
Something has to give.
anything with the word mirror* is a no no
* pronounced mirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr in all the best locations
Yes. In theory there is a WA without a backstop, but listening to the EU I think it a very low probability that they would agree to remove it from the WA given that it is one of the three central planks of the whole thing.
And yes - you have put your finger on the very epicentre of the issue - the deal won't pass with the WA + backstop, while it doesn't look as though the EU will change its stance either for the reasons I mentioned above.
My position has always been that it is the UK that will cave because to embark upon a path, one of the destinations of which is a hard border is an impossibility. I think there will be some "assurances" about the backstop and how everyone will "endeavour" to render it moot.
David Davis thinks that the EU will cave. Nick Palmer says the EU has a history of fudging it at the last minute. So we shall see.
can get interesting at times
'Mob behaviour was tolerated during the Scottish referendum and others learned from the example.'
Sign the WA today minus backstop and kick the Irish border issue where it belongs into the future relationship agreement. Make it clear that there is no future relationship unless the border is resolved.
Who loses there? The border is dealt with for now and the WA can be ratified.
Slightly more on topic and the focus of our debate has seemed to be on the Democrats needing to find the right candidate for 2020.
True but unlike 2016 Trump will have a record to defend in 2020 and I suspect any "confusion" between his interpretation and the facts will quickly be uncovered in debates and in the campaign itself. Trump will also be unable to portray himself as the "outsider" and won't have the USP of not being a political figure next time.
Given the frighteningly small wins Trump eked out in places like Wisconsin, it wouldn't take a huge shift to see the Democrat candidate home.
Nonetheless you do need the "right" candidate - forensic rather than rhetoric would be my approach. Someone who will acknowledge Trump's successes but question the record especially on promises not delivered - Trump will of course try to blame the Democrat-controlled Congress for frustrating him but a candidate strong on bipartisanship can overcome that - in other words, a traditional centrist Democrat in the mould of a Clinton.
It's curious but some seem to think a Blair-like figure could never win over here - I profoundly disagree, the first sensible centrist (and that means acknowledging the causes of populism while criticising the remedies of the populists themselves) is going to sweep the board whatever Party they are in.
Secondly, I get the impression that many of the people who wail about the backstop would just complain about something else if it did not exist.
Even if other ports existed Dover Calais won on the logistics alone - Driver knocks off for a break / lunch as he gets on the ferry and the second half of his day begins when he drives off..
Alex Salmond's legal challenge over how the Scottish government handled sexual harassment allegations against him is to be called for an unexpected hearing.
The former first minister has sought a judicial review of how the government investigated two misconduct complaints against him, which he denies.
A four-day hearing had been due to start on 15 January, but the Court of Session will now also sit on Tuesday.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46428570
https://news.sky.com/story/pm-faces-commons-defeat-which-could-shut-down-her-government-11601611
As an example, I don't know how local Government is funded by central Government - is it an annual or a monthly or even weekly grant or allowance? If the supply of central funding to local Government were removed, a lot of Councils would be in immediate financial trouble.
Presumably the same would be true of Academies and the NHS so I can't quite see what the Morgan-Cooper measure is supposed to do. In the US, public servants aren't paid in the event of a shutdown - are we suggesting civil servants shouldn't be paid if they continue to work?
Both DD and NP (if that is the latter's position) fundamentally misunderstand its nature. Or, they seem to value the exclusion of the UK remaining in a customs arrangement while the future relationship is agreed, over the potential for a resumption of the troubles in NI. Not a good look IMO, but of course if you think that the latter is trivial and no reason for all this fuss then we have different priorities for the UK.
Everyone in Westminster (MP's and protesters) seems to be losing their marbles.
The transition renders the backstop not necessary for now. A future relationship agreement could mean it is not necessary in the future.
Worst case is that no future relationship agreement is reachable which wrt to the Irish Border leaves us in the same position we are now where no withdrawal agreement is reachable.
If the backstop means no deal then it hasn't insured against no future relationship, it has caused there to be no future relationship.
Insisting upon the backstop at the risk of no deal is like saying to the insurance company "insure my house or I will burn it down myself".
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/07/mueller-probe-concord-management-1085285
A stern-faced Friedrich, the newest of President Donald Trump’s three appointees to the district court in Washington, made clear Monday that she was not amused by what she called the “clever quotes.” She also chastised Dubelier for ad hominem attacks on Mueller’s attorneys and other prosecutors in the case.
“I found your recent filings, in particular your reply brief filed Friday, unprofessional, inappropriate and ineffective,” the judge said. She suggested the submissions were an effort to bully her into granting pending defense motions to give the owners and officers of Concord greater access to materials Mueller’s office has turned over to permit the defense to prepare for trial.
When Friedrich beckoned Dubelier to the courtroom lectern to address some more technical issues about the exchange of information, he declined to say anything of substance, declaring instead that the judge’s rebuke was so severe that he might need to withdraw from the case. He also accused Friedrich of bias...