Really, I didn't have you down as being quite so naive @Charles, if you don't mind me saying so.
The subject of the negotiations is absolutely critical.
Expertise in trade negotiations when Britain has not done any of this for 40 years is not something that can be acquired overnight or just bought in. Most experienced trade negotiators work for other governments. It will take a hell of a lot of time and money (Mrs Clegg, for instance, who knows a thing or two about trade negotiations will not come cheap) to replace what Britain doesn't have.
And Britain will be desperate to get something to show for it. Other countries will know we're desperate; see what Canada has said. And will see our relative inexperience and relative weakness as opportunities to be exploited for their benefit.
Mrs Clegg?? Do you mean Miriam González Durántez?
Yes. I have worked with her. I have a high regard for her. I didn't type her full name because I was being lazy.
But you're going to win the next GE aren't you so the problem you highlight is moot.
SURELY you are not suggesting that Lab aren't going to win the next GE??? Because that is crazy talk!
Not the point. We may win the next election, or the one after, but one day we'll lose, and then if we've cast off from EU social and environmental alignment, the pirate state becomes possible. We need to rule it out as part of the legally-agreed deal.
Hi Nick, can you at least appreciate how peculiar this line of argument sounds to those outside the political bubble? If the British electorate want to vote for a looser employment policy, then surely that is matter for them? And if that looser policy does not work out as intended by voters, then the policy will be recalibrated at a future election.
Isn’t that the whole point of people like you standing for election under differing policy platforms?
We usually end with majority governments based on minority votes. Admittedly this decade has been a bit of an outlier on that front, with only 2.5 years of the ten fitting that pattern, but until we have a proportional system I have no qualms in saying that the UK often does not have governments it really wants.
Vernon Bogdanor in a lecture on the party system on parliament tv, observed that majority government by one party is a post war phenomenon. So, one party failing to get a majority might be the norm.
This could prove deadly for Brexit. So far everyone's only heard of Theresa/Boris's deal and vaguely assumed that would be the end of the matter. Now 'FTA' is being bandied about, people will soon realize that these 'deals' were in fact some piffling period at the very embryonic stage of the process. There's more - much, much, much, much more - to plough through in the years to come. Exposed to this stark reality might the inclination be to sod it and call the whole thing off?
Not really, that's the exciting part. The people who want to call it off are those that struggle to get out of bed in the morning because life is 'too hard'.
Personally it's because any deal we negotiate is likely to be worse than the existing one that already exists between the EU and that country / region.
I think Ireland want this sorted out at this weeks summit.
All 27 have to be happy.
I must admit that I’m perplexed by the “scandis” comment. Sweden is ultra pro-deal, so he must be referring to Denmark or Finland (which isn’t actually “scandi”, but rather Nordic). I can’t imagine why either of them would be bothered, as long as Ireland is happy.
Unless, as is very possible, the Nordics were rather hoping Britain might stay in the end. Therefore any deal, as it gets close, is unwanted.
Certainly the Hanseatic and protestant European nations were the most dismayed by the original Brexit vote.
Fair point first paragraph Sean.
However, your second para contains classic bonkers Thomas. Hanseatic. Check. Protestant. Check.
Really, I didn't have you down as being quite so naive @Charles, if you don't mind me saying so.
The subject of the negotiations is absolutely critical.
Expertise in trade negotiations when Britain has not done any of this for 40 years is not something that can be acquired overnight or just bought in. Most experienced trade negotiators work for other governments. It will take a hell of a lot of time and money (Mrs Clegg, for instance, who knows a thing or two about trade negotiations will not come cheap) to replace what Britain doesn't have.
And Britain will be desperate to get something to show for it. Other countries will know we're desperate; see what Canada has said. And will see our relative inexperience and relative weakness as opportunities to be exploited for their benefit.
Your point is that we should never do anything different because we don't have any experience
We will negotiate deals. If they are not good enough we won't sign them.
(and at what point was the UK demos asked for their consent for the decisions that parliament made to hand away so much power)
No - that is not my point. My point is that our government and administration will be consumed by this for years to come after we have Brexited. It will take longer and be harder than we now imagine because of our inexperience. It will have an opportunity cost, a large one IMO. We will feel compelled to sign deals even if they are not good enough because so many on the Brexit side are invested in showing that something has resulted from it.
And as for your last point, this consent was given at every election when parties explicitly committed to the EU won those elections.
Except you last point is not true.
The Labour government promised a referendum before the EU Constitution. The Constitution was relabelled the Lisbon Treaty and rammed through without a referendum or an election. No consent.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
It is the social and environmental policies that might be adopted that worry people - the suggestions that these would be significantly weakened and that the weakest or minorities in our country would, in consequence, suffer. In short, not just that Britain might be more competitive than, say, Germany but that the fruits of that competitiveness will be taken only by the rich in this country at the expense of the poor, the workers etc.
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
Of course it can, subject to whatever international or other agreements it has already entered into. Whether weakening social or environmental protections will help more voters flock to the Tories is another matter. It is not a question they seem to be asking themselves. They are at risk of winning a battle and losing the war. Why would people who are worried about climate change and standards in farming, for instance, vote for a party which weakened such standards? Why would voters who are worried about how to make a living in a gig economy vote for a party which lessened protections for such workers?
You are (I believe) suggesting that we enter into a level playing field agreement - essentially tying ourselves to EU regulatory standards. I just don't understand why we would do that at this stage. If they offer us a fabulous trade deal we might consider that, but why as a gimme at this point?
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
I am not suggesting anything. I will wait and see what comes out of these negotiations, if anything. I do think that the Tories are failing to think through the implications of the different types of support they currently have for Brexit and why this poses some long-term dangers for them.
Also note Merkel's public intervention this morning. She's absolutely right in her implied analysis of Boris' new PD and where it will lead. The Kinnockites will have noticed.
So what has Merkel said this morning as nothing is being reported
And I expect the negotiation continues based on a deal and if approved by the HOC a short technical extension would be agreed
The operative word is if the deal is approved by the HOC
From the Guardian blog: --------------- Speaking at a summit for Germany’s mechanical engineers in Berlin, the chancellor reiterated this morning that her government would push for a solution until the last possible moment, but also said the negotiations had got “very complicated” since it had become clear that Britain wanted to leave the customs union.
For the third time in just over a month, Merkel repeated a line that has raised some eyebrows in the UK: in Britain, Merkel said, “the European Union will have a further competitor right on the European Union’s doorstep”. --------------
Essentially the issue is whether the deal allows the UK to be a sort of pirate state, undercutting social and environmental protection regulations that inhibit its Continental competitors. Some Conservative MPs think this is a good idea (though they wouldn't agree it makes us pirates, merely "vigorously competitive"), but it's as un-Labour as it's possible to be: this stuff REALLY matters to us. It's the opposite of the May idea of alignment with EU rules, which ran into the vassal-state argument.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
Canada and Japan have signed for level playing field provisions. It seems obvious that the Tories and EU should accept those precise same terms.
I have no qualms with us signing the precise same terms as Japan etc. Global standards as NPxMP put it.
However it sounds like Barnier wants us on stricter terms. Vassal state not global standards.
I must have missed Japan's land border with the EU. Somewhere in the Balkans, is it?
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
Of course it can, subject to whatever international or other agreements it has already entered into. Whether weakening social or environmental protections will help more voters flock to the Tories is another matter. It is not a question they seem to be asking themselves. They are at risk of winning a battle and losing the war. Why would people who are worried about climate change and standards in farming, for instance, vote for a party which weakened such standards? Why would voters who are worried about how to make a living in a gig economy vote for a party which lessened protections for such workers?
You are (I believe) suggesting that we enter into a level playing field agreement - essentially tying ourselves to EU regulatory standards. I just don't understand why we would do that at this stage. If they offer us a fabulous trade deal we might consider that, but why as a gimme at this point?
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
Isn't everybody a 7th cousin? We are all grand-children of Mitochondrial Eve
This was late 18th century
Not sure in the maths of mitochondrial eve
How many 7th cousins do you estimate that you have? Is it likely that someone in your social circle is a 7th or closer cousin?
I don’t know, but the family keeps in regular contact with about 1,700 descendants of X (who died early in the 18th century): one of my brother’s partners is his 9th cousin.
We also know the Irish and the Norfolk cadets who split off in the 16th century (but don’t regard them as close family)
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
I'm in favour of globally-agreed minimum standards. Do I think that an elected parliament should be able to introduce child labour if it felt it appropriate? Slavery? Abolition of minimum standards for factory safety? No, I don't. I expect you agree, so we are talking about how far international agreements should constrain us, rather than an absolute freedom to do whatever we like.
A secondary point is well-made by Cyclefree - if Britain was free to do horrible things and the Conservative Party were to propose them, we'd hope to defeat them. But we'd rather not envisage them in the first place, which is why Labour members will IMO deselect anyone who chooses to vote for that.
Against that the EU regulations are not a good fit for us. There are areas - such as animal welfare - where we are stricter than them and others - such as financial regulation - where we need a different approach
We should be able to optimise
More important this is an issue for an FTA not the current agreement
And that is precisely my point: this will take up a lot of time. Brexit is not over once we've exited. It has barely begun.
This could prove deadly for Brexit. So far everyone's only heard of Theresa/Boris's deal and vaguely assumed that would be the end of the matter. Now 'FTA' is being bandied about, people will soon realize that these 'deals' were in fact some piffling period at the very embryonic stage of the process. There's more - much, much, much, much more - to plough through in the years to come. Exposed to this stark reality might the inclination be to sod it and call the whole thing off?
Not really, that's the exciting part. The people who want to call it off are those that struggle to get out of bed in the morning because life is 'too hard'.
Personally it's because any deal we negotiate is likely to be worse than the existing one that already exists between the EU and that country / region.
why ?
any deal will be for the UK and will not have to make concessions for german machine tool builders or Spanish farmers.
Each deal will be different some better some worse, but to say they will all be worse is as daft as saying they will all be better.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
You are (I believe) suggesting that we enter into a level playing field agreement - essentially tying ourselves to EU regulatory standards. I just don't understand why we would do that at this stage. If they offer us a fabulous trade deal we might consider that, but why as a gimme at this point?
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
Isn't everybody a 7th cousin? We are all grand-children of Mitochondrial Eve
This was late 18th century
Not sure in the maths of mitochondrial eve
How many 7th cousins do you estimate that you have? Is it likely that someone in your social circle is a 7th or closer cousin?
I estimate he has between 6,000 and 60,000 7th cousins. Probably nearer 6,000 as many would be in the same social circles and would marry each other. Chance of meeting one, given the social circle, are very high. Chance of knowing you've met one - fairly high if you are in the habit of comparing pedigree.
EDIT: Chance of meeting a 1st cousin is much higher, even though the numbers are much fewer.
This could prove deadly for Brexit. So far everyone's only heard of Theresa/Boris's deal and vaguely assumed that would be the end of the matter. Now 'FTA' is being bandied about, people will soon realize that these 'deals' were in fact some piffling period at the very embryonic stage of the process. There's more - much, much, much, much more - to plough through in the years to come. Exposed to this stark reality might the inclination be to sod it and call the whole thing off?
Not really, that's the exciting part. The people who want to call it off are those that struggle to get out of bed in the morning because life is 'too hard'.
Personally it's because any deal we negotiate is likely to be worse than the existing one that already exists between the EU and that country / region.
One of the arguments for Trade Deals, which may or may not be relevant, was that a new deal would be focused on U.K. business needs as opposed to tailored to EU business needs, which is a bit different and may or may not make them better for us.
As the only sensible pro EU option for us is not on the table (fully in with Euro etc), we are settling for one of the lesser options anyway, so I doubt deal / no deal will make much difference in the long term.
Hmm, there's a lot of over-optimism, it seems to me. Remember the key point is that neither side wants to be blamed for the talks collapsing, but is it really plausible that there will be an agreed legal text by tonight, which the EU27 leaders will accept, and which differs sufficiently from the previous one to allow the ERGers and DUP to agree to it, and which gets past the EU parliament, and which also gets support from enough Labour MPs, ex-Tories and indies to pass in the UK parliament by Saturday?
Even in the most optimistic scenario, the best that can be hoped for is that the outline of a deal is looking possible, but more time will be needed to get it done.
What does Bory, to herd the cats in support of a deal no-one really likes.
Exactly Richard. That the talks are progressing seems clear. That the entire political leaderships of 28 states are going to hand Boris Johnson a triumph for the ages because he blackmailed them with an empty threat is less clear. The PB echo chamber is ignoring the EU's ulterior motives for sounding uber positive.
If we get to Thursday and the EU position is " We are making real progress on this plan you dumped on us 6 days ago. Lets keep working " what is Boris going to do ?
Hmm. I wonder if the EU have played a blinder here - act all cuddly and reasonable so that they seem blameless when Boris is humiliated by the forces of No Deal, his authority in tatters. Thereafter, they'll be hoping, a phoenix of Revoke or Ref 2 will arise from the ashes of Boris's premiership.
I should think they are indifferent about us staying. The only real benefit to the EU is the cash. They know we will still eventually roll over on everything else. We will not have taken back any control because we will be massively weak compared to what we were. We will be sucking up to the EU and the US for generations to come.
Amazingly, they are not indifferent to us staying or leaving, if you glance at their press. Many of them, especially the smaller countries, are still super keen for us to change our minds.
I'm not sure why. It's not the money. Perhaps it is a psychological fear of such a dramatic rupture.
I think there are three broad reasons.
1. They believe in the EU such that they think both the UK and the EU are better off together. The Union is greater than the sum of its parts.
2. They greatly respect the history and institutional traditions of the UK and believe that UK membership of the EU improves EU governance.
3. UK membership dilutes the strength of all other single members by increasing the overall size of the Union. With our departure Germany and France are made relatively stronger.
Seems to me that Boris is gaming this pretty well. He's coming across as positive, optimistic and proactive. End of Brexit in sight. Should be able to largely reunite Party. Labour's foxes (NHS spending etc) are shot. LibDems stuck with revoke policy which will look pretty stupid if a deal is in sight. Don't think the vast majority of public will be that bothered by a short extension if process is underway.
It is delusional to think that Brexit will be over any time soon. It will be quite entertaining, though, watching Brexiteers come to terms with their delusion.
You're wrong to ascribe this to Brexit though.
Government talk and negotiate all the time. It's what they do.
How many trade negotiations has the government been involved in in the last 25 years, say? Or data protection measures? Obviously exclude the ones done through the EU.
The subject of the negotiations isn't particularly relevant: trade negotiations are complex, but expertise can be learned and bought in if needed
For example, the negotiation with France over the treatment of migrants in Calais is one recent ish example
Really, I didn't have you down as being quite so naive @Charles, if you don't mind me saying so.
The subject of the negotiations is absolutely critical.
Expertise in trade negotiations when Britain has not done any of this for 40 years is not something that can be acquired overnight or just bought in. Most experienced trade negotiators work for other governments. It will take a hell of a lot of time and money (Mrs Clegg, for instance, who knows a thing or two about trade negotiations will not come cheap) to replace what Britain doesn't have.
And Britain will be desperate to get something to show for it. Other countries will know we're desperate; see what Canada has said. And will see our relative inexperience and relative weakness as opportunities to be exploited for their benefit.
Has he ever left his mobile number and email address on display on a public forum that he wished to remain anonymous upon?
I hope not! Although it isn't difficult to work out who I am if people really care.
Not sure why this point has arisen. I have not "outed" you or anyone else on this forum. Why did @isam raise the point then?
This isn't a party political issue, and all recent goverments deserve some credit. You wouldn't know if from reading the papers or watching the news, but the UK is doing a really good job of moving away from fossil fuels for electricity generation.
Unfortunately, though, the UK is not doing such a good job of moving away from fossil fuels for total energy production. One of the reasons that the electricity generation figures look so good is our tardiness in shifting in shifting from direct consumption of fossil fuels (such as petrol and domestic gas) to electricity. Our total fossil fuel consumption as a percentage of overall energy consumption was still well below the EU average on 2017 figures and presumably still is.
Also note Merkel's public intervention this morning. She's absolutely right in her implied analysis of Boris' new PD and where it will lead. The Kinnockites will have noticed.
So what has Merkel said this morning as nothing is being reported
And I expect the negotiation continues based on a deal and if approved by the HOC a short technical extension would be agreed
The operative word is if the deal is approved by the HOC
From the Guardian blog: --------------- Speaking at a summit for Germany’s mechanical engineers in Berlin, the chancellor reiterated this morning that her government would push for a solution until the last possible moment, but also said the negotiations had got “very complicated” since it had become clear that Britain wanted to leave the customs union.
For the third time in just over a month, Merkel repeated a line that has raised some eyebrows in the UK: in Britain, Merkel said, “the European Union will have a further competitor right on the European Union’s doorstep”. --------------
Essentially the issue is whether the deal allows the UK to be a sort of pirate state, undercutting social and environmental protection regulations that inhibit its Continental competitors. Some Conservative MPs think this is a good idea (though they wouldn't agree it makes us pirates, merely "vigorously competitive"), but it's as un-Labour as it's possible to be: this stuff REALLY matters to us. It's the opposite of the May idea of alignment with EU rules, which ran into the vassal-state argument.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
Canada and Japan have signed for level playing field provisions. It seems obvious that the Tories and EU should accept those precise same terms.
I have no qualms with us signing the precise same terms as Japan etc. Global standards as NPxMP put it.
However it sounds like Barnier wants us on stricter terms. Vassal state not global standards.
I must have missed Japan's land border with the EU. Somewhere in the Balkans, is it?
It doesn't matter whether Japan has a land border or not. Global standards are global standards. Key is the word global.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
You are (I believe) suggesting that we enter into a level playing field agreement - essentially tying ourselves to EU regulatory standards. I just don't understand why we would do that at this stage. If they offer us a fabulous trade deal we might consider that, but why as a gimme at this point?
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
Isn't everybody a 7th cousin? We are all grand-children of Mitochondrial Eve
This was late 18th century
Not sure in the maths of mitochondrial eve
How many 7th cousins do you estimate that you have? Is it likely that someone in your social circle is a 7th or closer cousin?
I estimate he has between 6,000 and 60,000 7th cousins. Probably nearer 6,000 as many would be in the same social circles and would marry each other. Chance of meeting one, given the social circle, are very high. Chance of knowing you've met one - fairly high if you are in the habit of comparing pedigree.
EDIT: Chance of meeting a 1st cousin is much higher, even though the numbers are much fewer.
According to this, the average person has about half a million 8th cousins. So probably millions of 9th cousins.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
I'm in favour of globally-agreed minimum standards. Do I think that an elected parliament should be able to introduce child labour if it felt it appropriate? Slavery? Abolition of minimum standards for factory safety? No, I don't. I expect you agree, so we are talking about how far international agreements should constrain us, rather than an absolute freedom to do whatever we like.
A secondary point is well-made by Cyclefree - if Britain was free to do horrible things and the Conservative Party were to propose them, we'd hope to defeat them. But we'd rather not envisage them in the first place, which is why Labour members will IMO deselect anyone who chooses to vote for that.
Against that the EU regulations are not a good fit for us. There are areas - such as animal welfare - where we are stricter than them and others - such as financial regulation - where we need a different approach
We should be able to optimise
More important this is an issue for an FTA not the current agreement
And that is precisely my point: this will take up a lot of time. Brexit is not over once we've exited. It has barely begun.
I think Ireland want this sorted out at this weeks summit.
All 27 have to be happy.
I must admit that I’m perplexed by the “scandis” comment. Sweden is ultra pro-deal, so he must be referring to Denmark or Finland (which isn’t actually “scandi”, but rather Nordic). I can’t imagine why either of them would be bothered, as long as Ireland is happy.
Unless, as is very possible, the Nordics were rather hoping Britain might stay in the end. Therefore any deal, as it gets close, is unwanted.
Certainly the Hanseatic and protestant European nations were the most dismayed by the original Brexit vote.
Unsurprising. They will have to pay more and will have less influence on how it is spent.
The Kinnockite grouping has been chuntering about backing MV4 if the social/environmental/level playing field provisions in the PD were *beefed up*.
Boris has ( so far ) entirely removed them. One of the more mystifying aspects of the PB Brexit echo chamber is why Kinnock is going to ride to the resuce just at the moment the Tories have moved even further from his position.
Read the Wales opinion poll this morning to understand Kinnock's position
Opinion polls only matter at an election.
They have to retain their Labour rosette first and that's going to be a lot harder.
The trend is away from labour and it is a real problem in the Valleys and for Kinnock
Is that why Labour made 3 gains in Wales in 2017 - and nearly took 3 more - including Aberconway?
Seems to me that Boris is gaming this pretty well. He's coming across as positive, optimistic and proactive. End of Brexit in sight. Should be able to largely reunite Party. Labour's foxes (NHS spending etc) are shot. LibDems stuck with revoke policy which will look pretty stupid if a deal is in sight. Don't think the vast majority of public will be that bothered by a short extension if process is underway.
It is delusional to think that Brexit will be over any time soon. It will be quite entertaining, though, watching Brexiteers come to terms with their delusion.
You're wrong to ascribe this to Brexit though.
Government talk and negotiate all the time. It's what they do.
How many trade negotiations has the government been involved in in the last 25 years, say? Or data protection measures? Obviously exclude the ones done through the EU.
The subject of the negotiations isn't particularly relevant: trade negotiations are complex, but expertise can be learned and bought in if needed
For example, the negotiation with France over the treatment of migrants in Calais is one recent ish example
Really, I didn't have you down as being quite so naive @Charles, if you don't mind me saying so.
And Britain will be desperate to get something to show for it. Other countries will know we're desperate; see what Canada has said. And will see our relative inexperience and relative weakness as opportunities to be exploited for their benefit.
Has he ever left his mobile number and email address on display on a public forum that he wished to remain anonymous upon?
I hope not! Although it isn't difficult to work out who I am if people really care.
Not sure why this point has arisen. I have not "outed" you or anyone else on this forum. Why did @isam raise the point then?
Because you are constantly calling people, or insinuating that they are, stupid, thoughtless and naive, in what has become the typical Remainer "Sigh, I am so tired of trying to educate these fools" manner, despite having "outed" yourself on here in the way I described. I know because I noticed it, and emailed someone so they could let you know and take care of it.
If a Leave politician did it, their critics on here would never let them live it down, and constantly use it as an example of why they were not fit to do the job.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
You are (I believe) suggesting that we enter into a level playing field agreement - essentially tying ourselves to EU regulatory standards. I just don't understand why we would do that at this stage. If they offer us a fabulous trade deal we might consider that, but why as a gimme at this point?
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
Isn't everybody a 7th cousin? We are all grand-children of Mitochondrial Eve
This was late 18th century
Not sure in the maths of mitochondrial eve
How many 7th cousins do you estimate that you have? Is it likely that someone in your social circle is a 7th or closer cousin?
I estimate he has between 6,000 and 60,000 7th cousins. Probably nearer 6,000 as many would be in the same social circles and would marry each other. Chance of meeting one, given the social circle, are very high. Chance of knowing you've met one - fairly high if you are in the habit of comparing pedigree.
EDIT: Chance of meeting a 1st cousin is much higher, even though the numbers are much fewer.
This sounds like the opposite of the 4 Yorkshiremen Sketch.
If it comes to 7th and 8th cousins, quite a few of mine are some of the crowned monarchs of European countries. So there! Do I get to win the competition with @Charles?
Each deal [with a non-EU partner] will be different some better some worse, but to say they will all be worse is as daft as saying they will all be better.
Bollocks.
EVERY deal we do with a non-EU partner will require the partner to make concessions in return for a far, far, smaller amount of trade with us than they had with the EU. By definition, EVERY deal we attempt to negotiate will be less important for the partner than the EU one we had.
Add to that Britain's continuing shortage of competent trade negotiators, the manifest inability of the people back in London - at least if ruled by the Tories (take Fox for example) - to run any negotiation, the fact we've already practically abandoned import duty as something we can concede and the Tories' determination to trash our national reputation for reliability and prudence.
We're snookered. Unless Corbyn's in charge. Which will make things at least twice as bad.
Conservative Party leaflets obtained by the BBC suggest the party is preparing for a delay to Brexit.
The leaked leaflets, made available to agents and activists last week, also reveal some of the arguments the party may use against their opponents in a general election.
One says voting for The Brexit Party would mean "more delay" because Nigel Farage's party "can't deliver Brexit".
Boris Johnson has insisted the UK will leave the EU at the end of October.
Seems to me that Boris is gaming this pretty well. He's coming across as positive, optimistic and proactive. End of Brexit in sight. Should be able to largely reunite Party. Labour's foxes (NHS spending etc) are shot. LibDems stuck with revoke policy which will look pretty stupid if a deal is in sight. Don't think the vast majority of public will be that bothered by a short extension if process is underway.
How many trade negotiations has the government been involved in in the last 25 years, say? Or data protection measures? Obviously exclude the ones done through the EU.
The subject of the negotiations isn't particularly relevant: trade negotiations are complex, but expertise can be learned and bought in if needed
For example, the negotiation with France over the treatment of migrants in Calais is one recent ish example
Really, I didn't have you down as being quite so naive @Charles, if you don't mind me saying so.
And Britain will be desperate to get something to show for it. Other countries will know we're desperate; see what Canada has said. And will see our relative inexperience and relative weakness as opportunities to be exploited for their benefit.
Has he ever left his mobile number and email address on display on a public forum that he wished to remain anonymous upon?
I hope not! Although it isn't difficult to work out who I am if people really care.
Not sure why this point has arisen. I have not "outed" you or anyone else on this forum. Why did @isam raise the point then?
Because you are constantly calling people, or insinuating that they are, stupid, thoughtless and naive, in what has become the typical Remainer "Sigh, I am so tired of trying to educate these fools" manner, despite having "outed" yourself on here in the way I described. I know because I noticed it, and emailed someone so they could let you know and take care of it.
If a Leave politician did it, their critics on here would never let them live it down, and constantly use it as an example of why they were not fit to do the job.
I'm sorry: I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about.
Edited: re the "outing" this was an error on my part and was corrected. I had not realised you had raised it. Thank you for doing so.
Seems to me that Boris is gaming this pretty well. He's coming across as positive, optimistic and proactive. End of Brexit in sight. Should be able to largely reunite Party. Labour's foxes (NHS spending etc) are shot. LibDems stuck with revoke policy which will look pretty stupid if a deal is in sight. Don't think the vast majority of public will be that bothered by a short extension if process is underway.
It is delusional to think that Brexit will be over any time soon. It will be quite entertaining, though, watching Brexiteers come to terms with their delusion.
You're wrong to ascribe this to Brexit though.
Government talk and negotiate all the time. It's what they do.
How many trade negotiations has the government been involved in in the last 25 years, say? Or data protection measures? Obviously exclude the ones done through the EU.
The subject of the negotiations isn't particularly relevant: trade negotiations are complex, but expertise can be learned and bought in if needed
For example, the negotiation with France over the treatment of migrants in Calais is one recent ish example
Really, I didn't have you down as being quite so naive @Charles, if you don't mind me saying so. rtunities to be exploited for their benefit.
Has he ever left his mobile number and email address on display on a public forum that he wished to remain anonymous upon?
I hope not! Although it isn't difficult to work out who I am if people really care.
Not sure why this point has arisen. I have not "outed" you or anyone else on this forum. Why did @isam raise the point then?
Because you are constantly calling people, or insinuating that they are, stupid, thoughtless and naive, in what has become the typical Remainer "Sigh, I am so tired of trying to educate these fools" manner, despite having "outed" yourself on here in the way I described. I know because I noticed it, and emailed someone so they could let you know and take care of it.
If a Leave politician did it, their critics on here would never let them live it down, and constantly use it as an example of why they were not fit to do the job.
I'm sorry: I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
You are (I believe) suggesting that we enter into a level playing field agreement - essentially tying ourselves to EU regulatory standards. I just don't understand why we would do that at this stage. If they offer us a fabulous trade deal we might consider that, but why as a gimme at this point?
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
Isn't everybody a 7th cousin? We are all grand-children of Mitochondrial Eve
This was late 18th century
Not sure in the maths of mitochondrial eve
How many 7th cousins do you estimate that you have? Is it likely that someone in your social circle is a 7th or closer cousin?
I estimate he has between 6,000 and 60,000 7th cousins. Probably nearer 6,000 as many would be in the same social circles and would marry each other. Chance of meeting one, given the social circle, are very high. Chance of knowing you've met one - fairly high if you are in the habit of comparing pedigree.
EDIT: Chance of meeting a 1st cousin is much higher, even though the numbers are much fewer.
According to this, the average person has about half a million 8th cousins. So probably millions of 9th cousins.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
You are (I believe) suggesting that we enter into a level playing field agreement - essentially tying ourselves to EU regulatory standards. I just don't understand why we would do that at this stage. If they offer us a fabulous trade deal we might consider that, but why as a gimme at this point?
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
Isn't everybody a 7th cousin? We are all grand-children of Mitochondrial Eve
This was late 18th century
Not sure in the maths of mitochondrial eve
How many 7th cousins do you estimate that you have? Is it likely that someone in your social circle is a 7th or closer cousin?
I estimate he has between 6,000 and 60,000 7th cousins. Probably nearer 6,000 as many would be in the same social circles and would marry each other. Chance of meeting one, given the social circle, are very high. Chance of knowing you've met one - fairly high if you are in the habit of comparing pedigree.
EDIT: Chance of meeting a 1st cousin is much higher, even though the numbers are much fewer.
According to this, the average person has about half a million 8th cousins. So probably millions of 9th cousins.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
You are (I believe) suggesting that we enter into a level playing field agreement - essentially tying ourselves to EU regulatory standards. I just don't understand why we would do that at this stage. If they offer us a fabulous trade deal we might consider that, but why as a gimme at this point?
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
Isn't everybody a 7th cousin? We are all grand-children of Mitochondrial Eve
This was late 18th century
Not sure in the maths of mitochondrial eve
How many 7th cousins do you estimate that you have? Is it likely that someone in your social circle is a 7th or closer cousin?
I estimate he has between 6,000 and 60,000 7th cousins. Probably nearer 6,000 as many would be in the same social circles and would marry each other. Chance of meeting one, given the social circle, are very high. Chance of knowing you've met one - fairly high if you are in the habit of comparing pedigree.
EDIT: Chance of meeting a 1st cousin is much higher, even though the numbers are much fewer.
This sounds like the opposite of the 4 Yorkshiremen Sketch.
If it comes to 7th and 8th cousins, quite a few of mine are some of the crowned monarchs of European countries. So there! Do I get to win the competition with @Charles?
Each deal [with a non-EU partner] will be different some better some worse, but to say they will all be worse is as daft as saying they will all be better.
Bollocks.
EVERY deal we do with a non-EU partner will require the partner to make concessions in return for a far, far, smaller amount of trade with us than they had with the EU. By definition, EVERY deal we attempt to negotiate will be less important for the partner than the EU one we had.
Add to that Britain's continuing shortage of competent trade negotiators, the manifest inability of the people back in London - at least if ruled by the Tories (take Fox for example) - to run any negotiation, the fact we've already practically abandoned import duty as something we can concede and the Tories' determination to trash our national reputation for reliability and prudence.
We're snookered. Unless Corbyn's in charge. Which will make things at least twice as bad.
This touches on something I've asked Brexit supporters on here a couple of times.
Brexit supporters often are the ones who are most contemptuous of British politicians. Which, on one level, is fair enough. But then I can't understand why they're still so enthusiastic for Brexit, when the main consequence of it is going to be British politicians taking even more decision-making powers over a ton of different things (trade deals, immigration, fishing policy, agriculture, you name it) than they have now. If people feel that politicians have been incompetent / indecisive / have "betrayed Britain" during the Brexit process itself, what makes people think they'll be any different when they're exercising the new powers they get post-Brexit??
The Kinnockite grouping has been chuntering about backing MV4 if the social/environmental/level playing field provisions in the PD were *beefed up*.
Boris has ( so far ) entirely removed them. One of the more mystifying aspects of the PB Brexit echo chamber is why Kinnock is going to ride to the resuce just at the moment the Tories have moved even further from his position.
Read the Wales opinion poll this morning to understand Kinnock's position
Opinion polls only matter at an election.
They have to retain their Labour rosette first and that's going to be a lot harder.
The trend is away from labour and it is a real problem in the Valleys and for Kinnock
Is that why Labour made 3 gains in Wales in 2017 - and nearly took 3 more - including Aberconway?
Oh Justin. That was then, this is now and believe me if you had to put up with Labour's collapsing NHS and Education in our Principality you may have a different view altogether
Rather than bland statements of protection for Social and Environmental issues, anyone got examples of the type of regressive legislation that they envisage and are afraid of?
Dominic Raab has written a book on the faults of the ECHR and the HRA. Whether any of this makes it into any future Tory manifesto is another matter of course.
Each deal [with a non-EU partner] will be different some better some worse, but to say they will all be worse is as daft as saying they will all be better.
Bollocks.
EVERY deal we do with a non-EU partner will require the partner to make concessions in return for a far, far, smaller amount of trade with us than they had with the EU. By definition, EVERY deal we attempt to negotiate will be less important for the partner than the EU one we had.
Add to that Britain's continuing shortage of competent trade negotiators, the manifest inability of the people back in London - at least if ruled by the Tories (take Fox for example) - to run any negotiation, the fact we've already practically abandoned import duty as something we can concede and the Tories' determination to trash our national reputation for reliability and prudence.
We're snookered. Unless Corbyn's in charge. Which will make things at least twice as bad.
This touches on something I've asked Brexit supporters on here a couple of times.
Brexit supporters often are the ones who are most contemptuous of British politicians. Which, on one level, is fair enough. But then I can't understand why they're still so enthusiastic for Brexit, when the main consequence of it is going to be British politicians taking even more decision-making powers over a ton of different things (trade deals, immigration, fishing policy, agriculture, you name it) than they have now. If people feel that politicians have been incompetent / indecisive / have "betrayed Britain" during the Brexit process itself, what makes people think they'll be any different when they're exercising the new powers they get post-Brexit??
They are crap because they are not held accountable
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
Of course it can, subject to whatever international or other agreements it has already entered into. Whether weakening social or environmental protections will help more voters flock to the Tories is another matter. It is not a question they seem to be asking themselves. They are at risk of winning a battle and losing the war. Why would people who are worried about climate change and standards in farming, for instance, vote for a party which weakened such standards? Why would voters who are worried about how to make a living in a gig economy vote for a party which lessened protections for such workers?
You are (I believe) suggesting that we enter into a level playing field agreement - essentially tying ourselves to EU regulatory standards. I just don't understand why we would do that at this stage. If they offer us a fabulous trade deal we might consider that, but why as a gimme at this point?
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
Isn't everybody a 7th cousin? We are all grand-children of Mitochondrial Eve
This was late 18th century
Not sure in the maths of mitochondrial eve
How many 7th cousins do you estimate that you have? Is it likely that someone in your social circle is a 7th or closer cousin?
I don’t know, but the family keeps in regular contact with about 1,700 descendants of X (who died early in the 18th century): one of my brother’s partners is his 9th cousin.
We also know the Irish and the Norfolk cadets who split off in the 16th century (but don’t regard them as close family)
HYUFD-esque levels of self parody! Well done, sirrah.
Last night caught up with some friends. Three intelligent people who voted Remain. All passionately kicking seven bells out of each other on what happens next. Brexit is currently like a metastasising tumour, sowing poison seeds on whatever it touches.
I think Ireland want this sorted out at this weeks summit.
All 27 have to be happy.
I must admit that I’m perplexed by the “scandis” comment. Sweden is ultra pro-deal, so he must be referring to Denmark or Finland (which isn’t actually “scandi”, but rather Nordic). I can’t imagine why either of them would be bothered, as long as Ireland is happy.
Unless, as is very possible, the Nordics were rather hoping Britain might stay in the end. Therefore any deal, as it gets close, is unwanted.
Certainly the Hanseatic and protestant European nations were the most dismayed by the original Brexit vote.
Does 'most dismayed' mean a bit less indifferent than the rest?
What ridiculous and chippy Scottish wank. You really think most of the EU was indifferent to Brexit?
Much of the EU, especially in Brussels, was dismayed by the Brexit vote. The Nordics, along with the Poles, were probably the most horrified. They don't want to be left alone, with Germany and France. in a fast-integrating EU.
They HATE Brexit.
"Swedish foreign minister: I ‘cannot forgive’ UK for Brexit Margot Wallström calls the exit ‘a historical mistake’ that’s ‘created a problem for all of us.’"
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
You are (I believe) suggesting that we enter into a level playing field agreement - essentially tying ourselves to EU regulatory standards. I just don't understand why we would do that at this stage. If they offer us a fabulous trade deal we might consider that, but why as a gimme at this point?
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
Isn't everybody a 7th cousin? We are all grand-children of Mitochondrial Eve
This was late 18th century
Not sure in the maths of mitochondrial eve
How many 7th cousins do you estimate that you have? Is it likely that someone in your social circle is a 7th or closer cousin?
I estimate he has between 6,000 and 60,000 7th cousins. Probably nearer 6,000 as many would be in the same social circles and would marry each other. Chance of meeting one, given the social circle, are very high. Chance of knowing you've met one - fairly high if you are in the habit of comparing pedigree.
EDIT: Chance of meeting a 1st cousin is much higher, even though the numbers are much fewer.
This sounds like the opposite of the 4 Yorkshiremen Sketch.
If it comes to 7th and 8th cousins, quite a few of mine are some of the crowned monarchs of European countries. So there! Do I get to win the competition with @Charles?
I’m a direct descendant of Mohammed...
😂
I'm a direct descendant of Lancashire/Irish itinerants. You meet all sorts on here.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
You are (I believe) suggesting that we enter into a level playing field agreement - essentially tying ourselves to EU regulatory standards. I just don't understand why we would do that at this stage. If they offer us a fabulous trade deal we might consider that, but why as a gimme at this point?
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
Isn't everybody a 7th cousin? We are all grand-children of Mitochondrial Eve
This was late 18th century
Not sure in the maths of mitochondrial eve
How many 7th cousins do you estimate that you have? Is it likely that someone in your social circle is a 7th or closer cousin?
I estimate he has between 6,000 and 60,000 7th cousins. Probably nearer 6,000 as many would be in the same social circles and would marry each other. Chance of meeting one, given the social circle, are very high. Chance of knowing you've met one - fairly high if you are in the habit of comparing pedigree.
EDIT: Chance of meeting a 1st cousin is much higher, even though the numbers are much fewer.
This sounds like the opposite of the 4 Yorkshiremen Sketch.
If it comes to 7th and 8th cousins, quite a few of mine are some of the crowned monarchs of European countries. So there! Do I get to win the competition with @Charles?
I’m a direct descendant of Mohammed...
😂
I'm a direct descendant of Lancashire/Irish itinerants. You meet all sorts on here.
I have the Irish itinerants too - and Welsh and Normans - from the 11th century when they invaded Ireland.
Beyond 3rd or 4th cousins, it is all meaningless - if entertaining - nonsense, really.
Last night caught up with some friends. Three intelligent people who voted Remain. All passionately kicking seven bells out of each other on what happens next. Brexit is currently like a metastasising tumour, sowing poison seeds on whatever it touches.
I take a pretty relaxed view on what should happen next. Nominally I'm for revoke, but any of the following will do: - cancel - abrogate - stop - rescind - retract - repeal - annul - reverse
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
You are (I believe) suggesting that we enter into a level playing field agreement - essentially tying ourselves to EU regulatory standards. I just don't understand why we would do that at this stage. If they offer us a fabulous trade deal we might consider that, but why as a gimme at this point?
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
Isn't everybody a 7th cousin? We are all grand-children of Mitochondrial Eve
This was late 18th century
Not sure in the maths of mitochondrial eve
How many 7th cousins do you estimate that you have? Is it likely that someone in your social circle is a 7th or closer cousin?
I estimate he has between 6,000 and 60,000 7th cousins. Probably nearer 6,000 as many would be in the same social circles and would marry each other. Chance of meeting one, given the social circle, are very high. Chance of knowing you've met one - fairly high if you are in the habit of comparing pedigree.
EDIT: Chance of meeting a 1st cousin is much higher, even though the numbers are much fewer.
This sounds like the opposite of the 4 Yorkshiremen Sketch.
If it comes to 7th and 8th cousins, quite a few of mine are some of the crowned monarchs of European countries. So there! Do I get to win the competition with @Charles?
No - his family is reputed to have put the stock in aristocracy...
You would have to be really uncool to think it was. It is like suggesting that one could be a cool nerd. It is an oxymoronic idea. Actually just remove the oxy bit
**
If it ever happens it will probably become cool, though, simply because of the pendulum swing. Right now Brexit is flared trousers, but the other day I saw some flared trousers worn by a very hip young thing.
Of course, it is a lot easier to look cool and groovy whilst stood next to someone who is very much not (scroll down). The old adage: if you want to look thin, hang around with fat people.
Each deal [with a non-EU partner] will be different some better some worse, but to say they will all be worse is as daft as saying they will all be better.
Bollocks.
EVERY deal we do with a non-EU partner will require the partner to make concessions in return for a far, far, smaller amount of trade with us than they had with the EU. By definition, EVERY deal we attempt to negotiate will be less important for the partner than the EU one we had.
Add to that Britain's continuing shortage of competent trade negotiators, the manifest inability of the people back in London - at least if ruled by the Tories (take Fox for example) - to run any negotiation, the fact we've already practically abandoned import duty as something we can concede and the Tories' determination to trash our national reputation for reliability and prudence.
We're snookered. Unless Corbyn's in charge. Which will make things at least twice as bad.
This touches on something I've asked Brexit supporters on here a couple of times.
Brexit supporters often are the ones who are most contemptuous of British politicians. Which, on one level, is fair enough. But then I can't understand why they're still so enthusiastic for Brexit, when the main consequence of it is going to be British politicians taking even more decision-making powers over a ton of different things (trade deals, immigration, fishing policy, agriculture, you name it) than they have now. If people feel that politicians have been incompetent / indecisive / have "betrayed Britain" during the Brexit process itself, what makes people think they'll be any different when they're exercising the new powers they get post-Brexit??
Democracy.
If we don't like our politicians we can kick them out and elect new ones.
Last night caught up with some friends. Three intelligent people who voted Remain. All passionately kicking seven bells out of each other on what happens next. Brexit is currently like a metastasising tumour, sowing poison seeds on whatever it touches.
When I meet up with intelligent people who voted Leave, we just have a good laugh......
Conservative Party leaflets obtained by the BBC suggest the party is preparing for a delay to Brexit.
The leaked leaflets, made available to agents and activists last week, also reveal some of the arguments the party may use against their opponents in a general election.
One says voting for The Brexit Party would mean "more delay" because Nigel Farage's party "can't deliver Brexit".
Boris Johnson has insisted the UK will leave the EU at the end of October.
Each deal [with a non-EU partner] will be different some better some worse, but to say they will all be worse is as daft as saying they will all be better.
Bollocks.
EVERY deal we do with a non-EU partner will require the partner to make concessions in return for a far, far, smaller amount of trade with us than they had with the EU. By definition, EVERY deal we attempt to negotiate will be less important for the partner than the EU one we had.
Add to that Britain's continuing shortage of competent trade negotiators, the manifest inability of the people back in London - at least if ruled by the Tories (take Fox for example) - to run any negotiation, the fact we've already practically abandoned import duty as something we can concede and the Tories' determination to trash our national reputation for reliability and prudence.
We're snookered. Unless Corbyn's in charge. Which will make things at least twice as bad.
This touches on something I've asked Brexit supporters on here a couple of times.
Brexit supporters often are the ones who are most contemptuous of British politicians. Which, on one level, is fair enough. But then I can't understand why they're still so enthusiastic for Brexit, when the main consequence of it is going to be British politicians taking even more decision-making powers over a ton of different things (trade deals, immigration, fishing policy, agriculture, you name it) than they have now. If people feel that politicians have been incompetent / indecisive / have "betrayed Britain" during the Brexit process itself, what makes people think they'll be any different when they're exercising the new powers they get post-Brexit??
Democracy.
If we don't like our politicians we can kick them out and elect new ones.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
You are (I believe) suggesting that we enter into a level playing field agreement - essentially tying ourselves to EU regulatory standards. I just don't understand why we would do that at this stage. If they offer us a fabulous trade deal we might consider that, but why as a gimme at this point?
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
Isn't everybody a 7th cousin? We are all grand-children of Mitochondrial Eve
This was late 18th century
Not sure in the maths of mitochondrial eve
How many 7th cousins do you estimate that you have? Is it likely that someone in your social circle is a 7th or closer cousin?
I estimate he has between 6,000 and 60,000 7th cousins. Probably nearer 6,000 as many would be in the same social circles and would marry each other. Chance of meeting one, given the social circle, are very high. Chance of knowing you've met one - fairly high if you are in the habit of comparing pedigree.
EDIT: Chance of meeting a 1st cousin is much higher, even though the numbers are much fewer.
This sounds like the opposite of the 4 Yorkshiremen Sketch.
If it comes to 7th and 8th cousins, quite a few of mine are some of the crowned monarchs of European countries. So there! Do I get to win the competition with @Charles?
No - his family is reputed to have put the stock in aristocracy...
I think Ireland want this sorted out at this weeks summit.
All 27 have to be happy.
Yes but Ireland have been built up to the point that if/when they say "we're happy with this" all the other EU states will have to say "OK we're happy too" - otherwise it will look like they are throwing Ireland under the bus.
ROI will probably never be this powerful/significant in the EU again.
... and Brussels will restrict ROI's corporate tax rates/deals with multinationals in revenge
Each deal [with a non-EU partner] will be different some better some worse, but to say they will all be worse is as daft as saying they will all be better.
Bollocks.
EVERY deal we do with a non-EU partner will require the partner to make concessions in return for a far, far, smaller amount of trade with us than they had with the EU. By definition, EVERY deal we attempt to negotiate will be less important for the partner than the EU one we had.
Add to that Britain's continuing shortage of competent trade negotiators, the manifest inability of the people back in London - at least if ruled by the Tories (take Fox for example) - to run any negotiation, the fact we've already practically abandoned import duty as something we can concede and the Tories' determination to trash our national reputation for reliability and prudence.
We're snookered. Unless Corbyn's in charge. Which will make things at least twice as bad.
This touches on something I've asked Brexit supporters on here a couple of times.
Brexit supporters often are the ones who are most contemptuous of British politicians. Which, on one level, is fair enough. But then I can't understand why they're still so enthusiastic for Brexit, when the main consequence of it is going to be British politicians taking even more decision-making powers over a ton of different things (trade deals, immigration, fishing policy, agriculture, you name it) than they have now. If people feel that politicians have been incompetent / indecisive / have "betrayed Britain" during the Brexit process itself, what makes people think they'll be any different when they're exercising the new powers they get post-Brexit??
They are crap because they are not held accountable
OK, but how does Brexit change that? How do they ensure people don't vote for what they consider the "wrong politicians", as they did in 2017?
It just seems to me that this nihilistic "all politicians are crap / Westminster corrupts everyone who gets elected" attitude that Brexiteers have is completely at odds with supporting a project that gives those same politicians even more power and responsibility.
Last night caught up with some friends. Three intelligent people who voted Remain. All passionately kicking seven bells out of each other on what happens next. Brexit is currently like a metastasising tumour, sowing poison seeds on whatever it touches.
When I meet up with intelligent people who voted Leave, we just have a good laugh......
Last night caught up with some friends. Three intelligent people who voted Remain. All passionately kicking seven bells out of each other on what happens next. Brexit is currently like a metastasising tumour, sowing poison seeds on whatever it touches.
When I meet up with intelligent people who voted Leave, we just have a good laugh......
Conservative Party leaflets obtained by the BBC suggest the party is preparing for a delay to Brexit.
The leaked leaflets, made available to agents and activists last week, also reveal some of the arguments the party may use against their opponents in a general election.
One says voting for The Brexit Party would mean "more delay" because Nigel Farage's party "can't deliver Brexit".
Boris Johnson has insisted the UK will leave the EU at the end of October.
I reckon it's possible theyve got different leaflets ready in case of Brexit happening. Call me mad and all but I have this crazy theory about planning for multiple outcomes!!
Each deal [with a non-EU partner] will be different some better some worse, but to say they will all be worse is as daft as saying they will all be better.
Bollocks.
EVERY deal we do with a non-EU partner will require the partner to make concessions in return for a far, far, smaller amount of trade with us than they had with the EU. By definition, EVERY deal we attempt to negotiate will be less important for the partner than the EU one we had.
Add to that Britain's continuing shortage of competent trade negotiators, the manifest inability of the people back in London - at least if ruled by the Tories (take Fox for example) - to run any negotiation, the fact we've already practically abandoned import duty as something we can concede and the Tories' determination to trash our national reputation for reliability and prudence.
We're snookered. Unless Corbyn's in charge. Which will make things at least twice as bad.
This touches on something I've asked Brexit supporters on here a couple of times.
Brexit supporters often are the ones who are most contemptuous of British politicians. Which, on one level, is fair enough. But then I can't understand why they're still so enthusiastic for Brexit, when the main consequence of it is going to be British politicians taking even more decision-making powers over a ton of different things (trade deals, immigration, fishing policy, agriculture, you name it) than they have now. If people feel that politicians have been incompetent / indecisive / have "betrayed Britain" during the Brexit process itself, what makes people think they'll be any different when they're exercising the new powers they get post-Brexit??
Democracy.
If we don't like our politicians we can kick them out and elect new ones.
Democracy happened in 2017, after the Brexit vote, yet that led to politicians who you apparently consider to have arsed things up. Why would the same not happen again??
Each deal [with a non-EU partner] will be different some better some worse, but to say they will all be worse is as daft as saying they will all be better.
Bollocks.
EVERY deal we do with a non-EU partner will require the partner to make concessions in return for a far, far, smaller amount of trade with us than they had with the EU. By definition, EVERY deal we attempt to negotiate will be less important for the partner than the EU one we had.
Add to that Britain's continuing shortage of competent trade negotiators, the manifest inability of the people back in London - at least if ruled by the Tories (take Fox for example) - to run any negotiation, the fact we've already practically abandoned import duty as something we can concede and the Tories' determination to trash our national reputation for reliability and prudence.
We're snookered. Unless Corbyn's in charge. Which will make things at least twice as bad.
This touches on something I've asked Brexit supporters on here a couple of times.
Brexit supporters often are the ones who are most contemptuous of British politicians. Which, on one level, is fair enough. But then I can't understand why they're still so enthusiastic for Brexit, when the main consequence of it is going to be British politicians taking even more decision-making powers over a ton of different things (trade deals, immigration, fishing policy, agriculture, you name it) than they have now. If people feel that politicians have been incompetent / indecisive / have "betrayed Britain" during the Brexit process itself, what makes people think they'll be any different when they're exercising the new powers they get post-Brexit??
Democracy.
If we don't like our politicians we can kick them out and elect new ones.
Well, some of them.
That we can shift any of them is an advance on the EU....
Hmm, there's a lot of over-optimism, it seems to me. Remember the key point is that neither side wants to be blamed for the talks collapsing, but is it really plausible that there will be an agreed legal text by tonight, which the EU27 leaders will accept, and which differs sufficiently from the previous one to allow the ERGers and DUP to agree to it, and which gets past the EU parliament, and which also gets support from enough Labour MPs, ex-Tories and indies to pass in the UK parliament by Saturday?
Even in the most optimistic scenario, the best that can be hoped for is that the outline of a deal is looking possible, but more time will be needed to get it done.
What does Boris then do? He has done precisely zero to ease the naive expectations that he could deliver a deal by do-or-die date - in fact quite the opposite, he keeps doubling down on it. He'll be trapped by the Benn Act. He'll know that a No Deal crash out in a fortnight's time would be an utter disaster. He'll lose enormous credibility if we don't leave on that arbitrary date. He'll have Rees Mogg and the heavies breathing down his neck. He'll have Farage gleefully chucking rocks from the sidelines. He'll have the opposition parties trying to impale him on his stupid pledge.
All this suggests to me a messy extension which pleases no-one and which leaves Boris still striving, like Theresa May, to herd the cats in support of a deal no-one really likes.
Correct, Boris has painted himself and the country into a corner. Whatever happens we'll be worse off, only Revoke can get us out of the mess quickly or a 2nd ref more slowly.
Each deal [with a non-EU partner] will be different some better some worse, but to say they will all be worse is as daft as saying they will all be better.
Bollocks.
EVERY deal we do with a non-EU partner will require the partner to make concessions in return for a far, far, smaller amount of trade with us than they had with the EU. By definition, EVERY deal we attempt to negotiate will be less important for the partner than the EU one we had.
Add to that Britain's continuing shortage of competent trade negotiators, the manifest inability of the people back in London - at least if ruled by the Tories (take Fox for example) - to run any negotiation, the fact we've already practically abandoned import duty as something we can concede and the Tories' determination to trash our national reputation for reliability and prudence.
We're snookered. Unless Corbyn's in charge. Which will make things at least twice as bad.
This touches on something I've asked Brexit supporters on here a couple of times.
Brexit supporters often are the ones who are most contemptuous of British politicians. Which, on one level, is fair enough. But then I can't understand why they're still so enthusiastic for Brexit, when the main consequence of it is going to be British politicians taking even more decision-making powers over a ton of different things (trade deals, immigration, fishing policy, agriculture, you name it) than they have now. If people feel that politicians have been incompetent / indecisive / have "betrayed Britain" during the Brexit process itself, what makes people think they'll be any different when they're exercising the new powers they get post-Brexit??
Democracy.
If we don't like our politicians we can kick them out and elect new ones.
Well, some of them.
That we can shift any of them is an advance on the EU....
Each deal [with a non-EU partner] will be different some better some worse, but to say they will all be worse is as daft as saying they will all be better.
Bollocks.
EVERY deal we do with a non-EU partner will require the partner to make concessions in return for a far, far, smaller amount of trade with us than they had with the EU. By definition, EVERY deal we attempt to negotiate will be less important for the partner than the EU one we had.
Add to that Britain's continuing shortage of competent trade negotiators, the manifest inability of the people back in London - at least if ruled by the Tories (take Fox for example) - to run any negotiation, the fact we've already practically abandoned import duty as something we can concede and the Tories' determination to trash our national reputation for reliability and prudence.
We're snookered. Unless Corbyn's in charge. Which will make things at least twice as bad.
This touches on something I've asked Brexit supporters on here a couple of times.
Brexit supporters often are the ones who are most contemptuous of British politicians. Which, on one level, is fair enough. But then I can't understand why they're still so enthusiastic for Brexit, when the main consequence of it is going to be British politicians taking even more decision-making powers over a ton of different things (trade deals, immigration, fishing policy, agriculture, you name it) than they have now. If people feel that politicians have been incompetent / indecisive / have "betrayed Britain" during the Brexit process itself, what makes people think they'll be any different when they're exercising the new powers they get post-Brexit??
They are crap because they are not held accountable
OK, but how does Brexit change that? How do they ensure people don't vote for what they consider the "wrong politicians", as they did in 2017?
It just seems to me that this nihilistic "all politicians are crap / Westminster corrupts everyone who gets elected" attitude that Brexiteers have is completely at odds with supporting a project that gives those same politicians even more power and responsibility.
It stops them blaming Brussels for laws that are unpopular and gives them no place to hide when the voters come calling.
This touches on something I've asked Brexit supporters on here a couple of times.
Brexit supporters often are the ones who are most contemptuous of British politicians. Which, on one level, is fair enough. But then I can't understand why they're still so enthusiastic for Brexit, when the main consequence of it is going to be British politicians taking even more decision-making powers over a ton of different things (trade deals, immigration, fishing policy, agriculture, you name it) than they have now. If people feel that politicians have been incompetent / indecisive / have "betrayed Britain" during the Brexit process itself, what makes people think they'll be any different when they're exercising the new powers they get post-Brexit??
Democracy.
If we don't like our politicians we can kick them out and elect new ones.
Democracy happened in 2017, after the Brexit vote, yet that led to politicians who you apparently consider to have arsed things up. Why would the same not happen again??
It can happen. In which case we kick them out again.
Its like evolution via mutations, mutations can be good or bad but over time evolution ensures the good ones are more likely to be passed down than bad ones. Every new government will generally have some good and some bad ideas: We kick them out when they tire and then a fresh government keeps what worked from the last one and deals with what didn't. We never will nor never should be at a point where we have an ideal government that will last us forever, the bastards will always need to be kicked out eventually and that is what democracy is there for. Democracy never ends.
Conservative Party leaflets obtained by the BBC suggest the party is preparing for a delay to Brexit.
The leaked leaflets, made available to agents and activists last week, also reveal some of the arguments the party may use against their opponents in a general election.
One says voting for The Brexit Party would mean "more delay" because Nigel Farage's party "can't deliver Brexit".
Boris Johnson has insisted the UK will leave the EU at the end of October.
I reckon it's possible theyve got different leaflets ready in case of Brexit happening. Call me mad and all but I have this crazy theory about planning for multiple outcomes!!
Conservative Party leaflets obtained by the BBC suggest the party is preparing for a delay to Brexit.
The leaked leaflets, made available to agents and activists last week, also reveal some of the arguments the party may use against their opponents in a general election.
One says voting for The Brexit Party would mean "more delay" because Nigel Farage's party "can't deliver Brexit".
Boris Johnson has insisted the UK will leave the EU at the end of October.
I reckon it's possible theyve got different leaflets ready in case of Brexit happening. Call me mad and all but I have this crazy theory about planning for multiple outcomes!!
This could prove deadly for Brexit. So far everyone's only heard of Theresa/Boris's deal and vaguely assumed that would be the end of the matter. Now 'FTA' is being bandied about, people will soon realize that these 'deals' were in fact some piffling period at the very embryonic stage of the process. There's more - much, much, much, much more - to plough through in the years to come. Exposed to this stark reality might the inclination be to sod it and call the whole thing off?
Not really, that's the exciting part. The people who want to call it off are those that struggle to get out of bed in the morning because life is 'too hard'.
Personally it's because any deal we negotiate is likely to be worse than the existing one that already exists between the EU and that country / region.
why ?
any deal will be for the UK and will not have to make concessions for german machine tool builders or Spanish farmers.
Each deal will be different some better some worse, but to say they will all be worse is as daft as saying they will all be better.
Some third country agreements will be less good than EU equivalents, from a UK perspective; some will be the same. It depends on the sophistication of the counterparty and the amount of trade. Madagascar won't hold out for a better deal. Canada, Korea and Japan have made it clear they will. There will be few, if any, deals that are improvements on what the EU has already agreed.
All these deals will take ages to ratify
The deal that matters, with the EU itself, will certainly be a significant downgrade.
This touches on something I've asked Brexit supporters on here a couple of times.
Brexit supporters often are the ones who are most contemptuous of British politicians. Which, on one level, is fair enough. But then I can't understand why they're still so enthusiastic for Brexit, when the main consequence of it is going to be British politicians taking even more decision-making powers over a ton of different things (trade deals, immigration, fishing policy, agriculture, you name it) than they have now. If people feel that politicians have been incompetent / indecisive / have "betrayed Britain" during the Brexit process itself, what makes people think they'll be any different when they're exercising the new powers they get post-Brexit??
Democracy.
If we don't like our politicians we can kick them out and elect new ones.
Democracy happened in 2017, after the Brexit vote, yet that led to politicians who you apparently consider to have arsed things up. Why would the same not happen again??
It can happen. In which case we kick them out again.
Its like evolution via mutations, mutations can be good or bad but over time evolution ensures the good ones are more likely to be passed down than bad ones. Every new government will generally have some good and some bad ideas: We kick them out when they tire and then a fresh government keeps what worked from the last one and deals with what didn't. We never will nor never should be at a point where we have an ideal government that will last us forever, the bastards will always need to be kicked out eventually and that is what democracy is there for. Democracy never ends.
This touches on something I've asked Brexit supporters on here a couple of times.
Brexit supporters often are the ones who are most contemptuous of British politicians. Which, on one level, is fair enough. But then I can't understand why they're still so enthusiastic for Brexit, when the main consequence of it is going to be British politicians taking even more decision-making powers over a ton of different things (trade deals, immigration, fishing policy, agriculture, you name it) than they have now. If people feel that politicians have been incompetent / indecisive / have "betrayed Britain" during the Brexit process itself, what makes people think they'll be any different when they're exercising the new powers they get post-Brexit??
Democracy.
If we don't like our politicians we can kick them out and elect new ones.
Democracy happened in 2017, after the Brexit vote, yet that led to politicians who you apparently consider to have arsed things up. Why would the same not happen again??
It can happen. In which case we kick them out again.
Its like evolution via mutations, mutations can be good or bad but over time evolution ensures the good ones are more likely to be passed down than bad ones. Every new government will generally have some good and some bad ideas: We kick them out when they tire and then a fresh government keeps what worked from the last one and deals with what didn't. We never will nor never should be at a point where we have an ideal government that will last us forever, the bastards will always need to be kicked out eventually and that is what democracy is there for. Democracy never ends.
This isn't a party political issue, and all recent goverments deserve some credit. You wouldn't know if from reading the papers or watching the news, but the UK is doing a really good job of moving away from fossil fuels for electricity generation.
Our total fossil fuel consumption as a percentage of overall energy consumption was still well below the EU average on 2017 figures and presumably still is.
I think we want to be below the EU average for total fossil fuel consumption, so that is good - unless I am lost in a maze of negatives.
Do you have numbers? The last time I looked we were well on the way to decarbonising our entire energy supply.
Pity Ireland, where they still get nearly 10% of their lecky from burning peat (last time I looked).
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
You are (I believe) suggesting that we enter into a level playing field agreement - essentially tying ourselves to EU regulatory standards. I just don't understand why we would do that at this stage. If they offer us a fabulous trade deal we might consider that, but why as a gimme at this point?
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
Isn't everybody a 7th cousin? We are all grand-children of Mitochondrial Eve
This was late 18th century
Not sure in the maths of mitochondrial eve
How many 7th cousins do you estimate that you have? Is it likely that someone in your social circle is a 7th or closer cousin?
I estimate he has between 6,000 and 60,000 7th cousins. Probably nearer 6,000 as many would be in the same social circles and would marry each other. Chance of meeting one, given the social circle, are very high. Chance of knowing you've met one - fairly high if you are in the habit of comparing pedigree.
EDIT: Chance of meeting a 1st cousin is much higher, even though the numbers are much fewer.
This sounds like the opposite of the 4 Yorkshiremen Sketch.
If it comes to 7th and 8th cousins, quite a few of mine are some of the crowned monarchs of European countries. So there! Do I get to win the competition with @Charles?
No - his family is reputed to have put the stock in aristocracy...
Last night caught up with some friends. Three intelligent people who voted Remain. All passionately kicking seven bells out of each other on what happens next. Brexit is currently like a metastasising tumour, sowing poison seeds on whatever it touches.
When I meet up with intelligent people who voted Leave, we just have a good laugh......
This isn't a party political issue, and all recent goverments deserve some credit. You wouldn't know if from reading the papers or watching the news, but the UK is doing a really good job of moving away from fossil fuels for electricity generation.
Our total fossil fuel consumption as a percentage of overall energy consumption was still well below the EU average on 2017 figures and presumably still is.
I think we want to be below the EU average for total fossil fuel consumption, so that is good - unless I am lost in a maze of negatives.
Do you have numbers? The last time I looked we were well on the way to decarbonising our entire energy supply.
Pity Ireland, where they still get nearly 10% of their lecky from burning peat (last time I looked).
Hold on, why are we talking about total energy consumption all of a sudden? The above graph is for electricity generation. I had the idea -- though I have no figures -- that we were quite a high gas using country?
This isn't a party political issue, and all recent goverments deserve some credit. You wouldn't know if from reading the papers or watching the news, but the UK is doing a really good job of moving away from fossil fuels for electricity generation.
Our total fossil fuel consumption as a percentage of overall energy consumption was still well below the EU average on 2017 figures and presumably still is.
I think we want to be below the EU average for total fossil fuel consumption, so that is good - unless I am lost in a maze of negatives.
Do you have numbers? The last time I looked we were well on the way to decarbonising our entire energy supply.
Pity Ireland, where they still get nearly 10% of their lecky from burning peat (last time I looked).
I think they have just about banned harvesting peat in Ireland - except for power plants.
Boles quite clearly wouldnt vote for any deal no matter what was presented.
WTF should he? If 52% of the population voted to reintroduce the death penalty or worse I hope there would be people who would vote against it under all circumstances. He has the right to continue to believe Brexit is madness, which by most rational measure it is. Any "deal" is just lipstick on a pig, though I would happily support it just to move on. Mr Boles has a slightly different position and good luck to him.
The problem with that argument is that he has always said in the past he would vote for a deal. And that includes after he left the Tory party. So clearly he had been lying.
You would have to be really uncool to think it was. It is like suggesting that one could be a cool nerd. It is an oxymoronic idea. Actually just remove the oxy bit
**
If it ever happens it will probably become cool, though, simply because of the pendulum swing. Right now Brexit is flared trousers, but the other day I saw some flared trousers worn by a very hip young thing.
The coolness resides in the very hip young thing, not the flared trousers. When very hip young things (rather than Darren Grimes or Tommy Robinson) take up Brexit, then it might become cool.
There was a bloke who used to post here (you wouldn't know him), a rummy pervo writer that fancied himself as something of an aging hipster, but who would also rant about bien pensant, ghastly lefties. You could see it was just eating him up that the whole Spectator, Tobes Young, Brexit rancidness was irretrievably and desperately uncool.
Last night caught up with some friends. Three intelligent people who voted Remain. All passionately kicking seven bells out of each other on what happens next. Brexit is currently like a metastasising tumour, sowing poison seeds on whatever it touches.
When I meet up with intelligent people who voted Leave, we just have a good laugh......
This was an interesting perspective on the voter ID issue. It's not that they were worried about previous personation, but the risk of future personation.
However, the fraud – while impressive – involved postal votes, the process for which had been liberalised by the Blair government, and some proxy voting, and some good old-fashioned ballot-stuffing. Personation was not a factor, and voter ID wouldn’t have helped with that at all. There have been crackdowns on postal voting fraud since then, but Wilks-Heeg says that, if he were to try to rig an election in the UK – for the record, I don’t think he’s going to – he’d still start with postal votes.
Nonetheless, post-Rahman and so on, the Electoral Commission got unnerved by the idea that these “voting factories” could turn to personation, as they did in Northern Ireland. The numbers never got very high – according to the FOI release I mentioned earlier, the highest total of convictions was 11 in 1995 – but Wilks-Heeg says they thought that the British electoral system was vulnerable to personation fraud, because of the lack of any ID requirement. So in 2014 they recommended that the rest of the UK follow Northern Ireland and start mandating some form of ID.
You would have to be really uncool to think it was. It is like suggesting that one could be a cool nerd. It is an oxymoronic idea. Actually just remove the oxy bit
**
If it ever happens it will probably become cool, though, simply because of the pendulum swing. Right now Brexit is flared trousers, but the other day I saw some flared trousers worn by a very hip young thing.
The coolness resides in the very hip young thing, not the flared trousers. When very hip young things (rather than Darren Grimes or Tommy Robinson) take up Brexit, then it might become cool.
There was a bloke who used to post here (you wouldn't know him), a rummy pervo writer that fancied himself as something of an aging hipster, but who would also rant about bien pensant, ghastly lefties. You could see it was just eating him up that the whole Spectator, Tobes Young, Brexit rancidness was irretrievably and desperately uncool.
You constantly and obsessively refer to this now-departed PB great. Your adolescent hero worship of him is badly disguised.
You would have to be really uncool to think it was. It is like suggesting that one could be a cool nerd. It is an oxymoronic idea. Actually just remove the oxy bit
**
If it ever happens it will probably become cool, though, simply because of the pendulum swing. Right now Brexit is flared trousers, but the other day I saw some flared trousers worn by a very hip young thing.
The coolness resides in the very hip young thing, not the flared trousers. When very hip young things (rather than Darren Grimes or Tommy Robinson) take up Brexit, then it might become cool.
There was a bloke who used to post here (you wouldn't know him), a rummy pervo writer that fancied himself as something of an aging hipster, but who would also rant about bien pensant, ghastly lefties. You could see it was just eating him up that the whole Spectator, Tobes Young, Brexit rancidness was irretrievably and desperately uncool.
You would have to be really uncool to think it was. It is like suggesting that one could be a cool nerd. It is an oxymoronic idea. Actually just remove the oxy bit
**
If it ever happens it will probably become cool, though, simply because of the pendulum swing. Right now Brexit is flared trousers, but the other day I saw some flared trousers worn by a very hip young thing.
The coolness resides in the very hip young thing, not the flared trousers. When very hip young things (rather than Darren Grimes or Tommy Robinson) take up Brexit, then it might become cool.
There was a bloke who used to post here (you wouldn't know him), a rummy pervo writer that fancied himself as something of an aging hipster, but who would also rant about bien pensant, ghastly lefties. You could see it was just eating him up that the whole Spectator, Tobes Young, Brexit rancidness was irretrievably and desperately uncool.
You constantly and obsessively refer to this now-departed PB great. Your adolescent hero worship of him is badly disguised.
Yeah, there was a poster called Gildas who came out with this old cack as well, in an almost identical form. Weird, eh!
This isn't a party political issue, and all recent goverments deserve some credit. You wouldn't know if from reading the papers or watching the news, but the UK is doing a really good job of moving away from fossil fuels for electricity generation.
That seems to show 10 years ago 90% was from either fossil or renewable Now its 60%?
Hunter Biden, the son of the former vice-president who is at the centre of the impeachment inquiry engulfing the White House, has admitted to “poor judgment” in taking a paid position in a Ukrainian gas company – but denied doing anything wrong.
Breaking his silence over his business dealings in Ukraine and China that have become core to the investigation into whether Donald Trump tried to enlist the help of Ukraine in his re-election campaign, Biden told ABC News on Tuesday he had allowed himself to become involved in what he described as “a swamp”.
Hunter Biden, the son of the former vice-president who is at the centre of the impeachment inquiry engulfing the White House, has admitted to “poor judgment” in taking a paid position in a Ukrainian gas company – but denied doing anything wrong.
Breaking his silence over his business dealings in Ukraine and China that have become core to the investigation into whether Donald Trump tried to enlist the help of Ukraine in his re-election campaign, Biden told ABC News on Tuesday he had allowed himself to become involved in what he described as “a swamp”.
The second referendum before an election hits the charts and goes straight in at number one , the unicorn global trade guff has lost the top spot after record sales .
Can someone explain how you get a second vote before an election.
Each deal [with a non-EU partner] will be different some better some worse, but to say they will all be worse is as daft as saying they will all be better.
Bollocks.
EVERY deal we do with a non-EU partner will require the partner to make concessions in return for a far, far, smaller amount of trade with us than they had with the EU. By definition, EVERY deal we attempt to negotiate will be less important for the partner than the EU one we had.
Add to that Britain's continuing shortage of competent trade negotiators, the manifest inability of the people back in London - at least if ruled by the Tories (take Fox for example) - to run any negotiation, the fact we've already practically abandoned import duty as something we can concede and the Tories' determination to trash our national reputation for reliability and prudence.
We're snookered. Unless Corbyn's in charge. Which will make things at least twice as bad.
This touches on something I've asked Brexit supporters on here a couple of times.
Brexit supporters often are the ones who are most contemptuous of British politicians. Which, on one level, is fair enough. But then I can't understand why they're still so enthusiastic for Brexit, when the main consequence of it is going to be British politicians taking even more decision-making powers over a ton of different things (trade deals, immigration, fishing policy, agriculture, you name it) than they have now. If people feel that politicians have been incompetent / indecisive / have "betrayed Britain" during the Brexit process itself, what makes people think they'll be any different when they're exercising the new powers they get post-Brexit??
Democracy.
If we don't like our politicians we can kick them out and elect new ones.
Well, some of them.
That we can shift any of them is an advance on the EU....
Hunter Biden, the son of the former vice-president who is at the centre of the impeachment inquiry engulfing the White House, has admitted to “poor judgment” in taking a paid position in a Ukrainian gas company – but denied doing anything wrong.
Breaking his silence over his business dealings in Ukraine and China that have become core to the investigation into whether Donald Trump tried to enlist the help of Ukraine in his re-election campaign, Biden told ABC News on Tuesday he had allowed himself to become involved in what he described as “a swamp”.
And, btw, thanks Nick... ”Say the Trump campaign started running an ad that said Cory ran over a dog and started calling him 'Dog Killer,'” she said, adding that Booker has not, in fact, ever killed a dog. “It’s not true. We all know it’s not true. But Facebook would promote that. Then you might be forcing groups like PETA to weigh in, because they would say, ‘Oh this is obviously terrible even though it’s untrue.’ Eventually you’re building it up into this whirlwind that actually shouldn’t exist anyway because Facebook should do the responsible thing and not run that ad.”
Facebook has repeatedly responded that they won’t police the speech of politicians. “We don’t believe,” Nick Clegg, the top communications exec at the company, said recently, “that it’s an appropriate role for us to referee political debates and prevent a politician’s speech from reaching its audience and being subject to public debate and scrutiny. That’s why Facebook exempts politicians from our third-party fact-checking program.”...
Warren really wasn’t joking when she called Zuckerberg a Trump supporter....
Hunter Biden, the son of the former vice-president who is at the centre of the impeachment inquiry engulfing the White House, has admitted to “poor judgment” in taking a paid position in a Ukrainian gas company – but denied doing anything wrong.
Breaking his silence over his business dealings in Ukraine and China that have become core to the investigation into whether Donald Trump tried to enlist the help of Ukraine in his re-election campaign, Biden told ABC News on Tuesday he had allowed himself to become involved in what he described as “a swamp”.
Last night caught up with some friends. Three intelligent people who voted Remain. All passionately kicking seven bells out of each other on what happens next. Brexit is currently like a metastasising tumour, sowing poison seeds on whatever it touches.
When I meet up with intelligent people who voted Leave, we just have a good laugh......
Hunter Biden, the son of the former vice-president who is at the centre of the impeachment inquiry engulfing the White House, has admitted to “poor judgment” in taking a paid position in a Ukrainian gas company – but denied doing anything wrong.
Breaking his silence over his business dealings in Ukraine and China that have become core to the investigation into whether Donald Trump tried to enlist the help of Ukraine in his re-election campaign, Biden told ABC News on Tuesday he had allowed himself to become involved in what he described as “a swamp”.
Each deal [with a non-EU partner] will be different some better some worse, but to say they will all be worse is as daft as saying they will all be better.
Bollocks.
EVERY deal we do with a non-EU partner will require the partner to make concessions in return for a far, far, smaller amount of trade with us than they had with the EU. By definition, EVERY deal we attempt to negotiate will be less important for the partner than the EU one we had.
Add to that Britain's continuing shortage of competent trade negotiators, the manifest inability of the people back in London - at least if ruled by the Tories (take Fox for example) - to run any negotiation, the fact we've already practically abandoned import duty as something we can concede and the Tories' determination to trash our national reputation for reliability and prudence.
We're snookered. Unless Corbyn's in charge. Which will make things at least twice as bad.
This touches on something I've asked Brexit supporters on here a couple of times.
Brexit supporters often are the ones who are most contemptuous of British politicians. Which, on one level, is fair enough. But then I can't understand why they're still so enthusiastic for Brexit, when the main consequence of it is going to be British politicians taking even more decision-making powers over a ton of different things (trade deals, immigration, fishing policy, agriculture, you name it) than they have now. If people feel that politicians have been incompetent / indecisive / have "betrayed Britain" during the Brexit process itself, what makes people think they'll be any different when they're exercising the new powers they get post-Brexit??
Democracy.
If we don't like our politicians we can kick them out and elect new ones.
Well, some of them.
That we can shift any of them is an advance on the EU....
The second referendum before an election hits the charts and goes straight in at number one , the unicorn global trade guff has lost the top spot after record sales .
Can someone explain how you get a second vote before an election.
Not saying it's the most likely outcome likely but:
1) Boris wants a deal but can't pass it, cuts a deal with opposition parties to back it subject to a referendum, which he can cheerfully sell by being positive and optimistic about winning it
2) VONC, GNU to deliver Brexit. Passes TMay or BJ WA + Softer PD + confirmatory referendum
Comments
Yes. I have worked with her. I have a high regard for her. I didn't type her full name because I was being lazy.
However, your second para contains classic bonkers Thomas.
Hanseatic. Check.
Protestant. Check.
The Labour government promised a referendum before the EU Constitution. The Constitution was relabelled the Lisbon Treaty and rammed through without a referendum or an election. No consent.
We also know the Irish and the Norfolk cadets who split off in the 16th century (but don’t regard them as close family)
And that is precisely my point: this will take up a lot of time. Brexit is not over once we've exited. It has barely begun.
any deal will be for the UK and will not have to make concessions for german machine tool builders or Spanish farmers.
Each deal will be different some better some worse, but to say they will all be worse is as daft as saying they will all be better.
EDIT: Chance of meeting a 1st cousin is much higher, even though the numbers are much fewer.
As the only sensible pro EU option for us is not on the table (fully in with Euro etc), we are settling for one of the lesser options anyway, so I doubt deal / no deal will make much difference in the long term.
1. They believe in the EU such that they think both the UK and the EU are better off together. The Union is greater than the sum of its parts.
2. They greatly respect the history and institutional traditions of the UK and believe that UK membership of the EU improves EU governance.
3. UK membership dilutes the strength of all other single members by increasing the overall size of the Union. With our departure Germany and France are made relatively stronger.
So many as to render the term meaningless.
https://blog.23andme.com/23andme-research/how-many-relatives-do-you-have/
The level playing field provisions help to get some Labour MPs onside but then the more hardline Brexiters don’t like that .
It’s the government operating as a government
If a Leave politician did it, their critics on here would never let them live it down, and constantly use it as an example of why they were not fit to do the job.
If it comes to 7th and 8th cousins, quite a few of mine are some of the crowned monarchs of European countries. So there! Do I get to win the competition with @Charles?
EVERY deal we do with a non-EU partner will require the partner to make concessions in return for a far, far, smaller amount of trade with us than they had with the EU. By definition, EVERY deal we attempt to negotiate will be less important for the partner than the EU one we had.
Add to that Britain's continuing shortage of competent trade negotiators, the manifest inability of the people back in London - at least if ruled by the Tories (take Fox for example) - to run any negotiation, the fact we've already practically abandoned import duty as something we can concede and the Tories' determination to trash our national reputation for reliability and prudence.
We're snookered. Unless Corbyn's in charge. Which will make things at least twice as bad.
Time appears to slow down the closer you get to the singularity of Actual Brexit. Likewise, the PB threads get longer, and more florid.
On the upside, you feel dramatically older, but in reality you have only aged about a week.
The leaked leaflets, made available to agents and activists last week, also reveal some of the arguments the party may use against their opponents in a general election.
One says voting for The Brexit Party would mean "more delay" because Nigel Farage's party "can't deliver Brexit".
Boris Johnson has insisted the UK will leave the EU at the end of October.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50029635
Edited: re the "outing" this was an error on my part and was corrected. I had not realised you had raised it. Thank you for doing so.
2 to the power 8 is only 256
3 to the power 8 is 6,561
I don't know where they get half a million from!
I assumed 3-4 children which gives a range of 6,561 to 65,536.
😂
Brexit supporters often are the ones who are most contemptuous of British politicians. Which, on one level, is fair enough. But then I can't understand why they're still so enthusiastic for Brexit, when the main consequence of it is going to be British politicians taking even more decision-making powers over a ton of different things (trade deals, immigration, fishing policy, agriculture, you name it) than they have now. If people feel that politicians have been incompetent / indecisive / have "betrayed Britain" during the Brexit process itself, what makes people think they'll be any different when they're exercising the new powers they get post-Brexit??
It almost makes me want to buy the Daily Mail.
The people of Wales are tired of labour
Ever considered writing?
And this article is also interesting - https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/after-brexit-they-will-come-for-human-rights-and-this-time-the-public-debate-must-be-won
Dominic Raab has written a book on the faults of the ECHR and the HRA. Whether any of this makes it into any future Tory manifesto is another matter of course.
Edit: oops. Sorry
Beyond 3rd or 4th cousins, it is all meaningless - if entertaining - nonsense, really.
- cancel
- abrogate
- stop
- rescind
- retract
- repeal
- annul
- reverse
Don't say I'm not open minded
If we don't like our politicians we can kick them out and elect new ones.
It just seems to me that this nihilistic "all politicians are crap / Westminster corrupts everyone who gets elected" attitude that Brexiteers have is completely at odds with supporting a project that gives those same politicians even more power and responsibility.
https://twitter.com/oflynnsocial/status/1071782905251287040
Its like evolution via mutations, mutations can be good or bad but over time evolution ensures the good ones are more likely to be passed down than bad ones. Every new government will generally have some good and some bad ideas: We kick them out when they tire and then a fresh government keeps what worked from the last one and deals with what didn't. We never will nor never should be at a point where we have an ideal government that will last us forever, the bastards will always need to be kicked out eventually and that is what democracy is there for. Democracy never ends.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/15/dnc-election-strategy-disinformation-046839
Though no doubt Dom will already have made his own arrangements.
All these deals will take ages to ratify
The deal that matters, with the EU itself, will certainly be a significant downgrade.
Do you have numbers? The last time I looked we were well on the way to decarbonising our entire energy supply.
Pity Ireland, where they still get nearly 10% of their lecky from burning peat (last time I looked).
There was a bloke who used to post here (you wouldn't know him), a rummy pervo writer that fancied himself as something of an aging hipster, but who would also rant about bien pensant, ghastly lefties. You could see it was just eating him up that the whole Spectator, Tobes Young, Brexit rancidness was irretrievably and desperately uncool.
However, the fraud – while impressive – involved postal votes, the process for which had been liberalised by the Blair government, and some proxy voting, and some good old-fashioned ballot-stuffing. Personation was not a factor, and voter ID wouldn’t have helped with that at all. There have been crackdowns on postal voting fraud since then, but Wilks-Heeg says that, if he were to try to rig an election in the UK – for the record, I don’t think he’s going to – he’d still start with postal votes.
Nonetheless, post-Rahman and so on, the Electoral Commission got unnerved by the idea that these “voting factories” could turn to personation, as they did in Northern Ireland. The numbers never got very high – according to the FOI release I mentioned earlier, the highest total of convictions was 11 in 1995 – but Wilks-Heeg says they thought that the British electoral system was vulnerable to personation fraud, because of the lack of any ID requirement. So in 2014 they recommended that the rest of the UK follow Northern Ireland and start mandating some form of ID.
https://unherd.com/2019/10/are-the-tories-trying-to-rig-the-election/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3
Pretty sure red wine was more his thing.
Breaking his silence over his business dealings in Ukraine and China that have become core to the investigation into whether Donald Trump tried to enlist the help of Ukraine in his re-election campaign, Biden told ABC News on Tuesday he had allowed himself to become involved in what he described as “a swamp”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/15/hunter-biden-denies-wrongdoing-ukraine-swamp
Not ideal for Biden.
The second referendum before an election hits the charts and goes straight in at number one , the unicorn global trade guff has lost the top spot after record sales .
Can someone explain how you get a second vote before an election.
”Say the Trump campaign started running an ad that said Cory ran over a dog and started calling him 'Dog Killer,'” she said, adding that Booker has not, in fact, ever killed a dog. “It’s not true. We all know it’s not true. But Facebook would promote that. Then you might be forcing groups like PETA to weigh in, because they would say, ‘Oh this is obviously terrible even though it’s untrue.’ Eventually you’re building it up into this whirlwind that actually shouldn’t exist anyway because Facebook should do the responsible thing and not run that ad.”
Facebook has repeatedly responded that they won’t police the speech of politicians. “We don’t believe,” Nick Clegg, the top communications exec at the company, said recently, “that it’s an appropriate role for us to referee political debates and prevent a politician’s speech from reaching its audience and being subject to public debate and scrutiny. That’s why Facebook exempts politicians from our third-party fact-checking program.”...
Warren really wasn’t joking when she called Zuckerberg a Trump supporter....
1) Boris wants a deal but can't pass it, cuts a deal with opposition parties to back it subject to a referendum, which he can cheerfully sell by being positive and optimistic about winning it
2) VONC, GNU to deliver Brexit. Passes TMay or BJ WA + Softer PD + confirmatory referendum