lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Printable View
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
It doesn't mean we don't love you, we're just not sure if we should leave you the house keys over the weekend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The problem is not the chlorine, the problem is how they are kept before they are slaughtered. American producers are much more "cost sensitive" and that comes at the expense of animal welfare, often shockingly so.
Link
~:smoking:
Battery farming is banned in the EU. It's standard in the US. One of the demands by US lobbyists for any US-UK trade deal is opening up UK markets to US farm products, complete with changing labelling requirements so that customers won't be able to discriminate against US products even if they have doubts about its safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
We still import battery farmed eggs and the EU still allows for "Colony Cages" which are only marginally better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
UK animal welfare standards far outstrip those of the rest of the EU yet we still import Danish Bacon and eggs from the Eastern European countries in the EU which may not be compliant with the 1999 directive.
The poor EU welfare standards are why everything in British supermarkets is tagged with "British" and "free range" whenever possible - it's a selling point. The only way I can see us importing Chlorine washed-chicken is if we added a label that said "washed without chlorine".
Part of the US demands is changes in labelling rules so that produce from the US cannot be distinguished from produce from elsewhere. Our trade minister, who has got his way in nearly everything concerning tariffs, favours aligning with the US. If May remains, the evidence so far indicates this is what we will do. If May is replaced by another Tory PM, they will certainly be ERG, and this is certainly what we will do (as Furunculus has been arguing, this is part of the point of Brexit, to re-align the UK from Europe to the US). If the EU isn't up to our standards in animal welfare; well, they're still closer to us than the Americans are, and as you'd stated, the EU allows us to post higher standards and allow customers to discriminate based on this. The Americans won't, and logic and evidence suggests we will comply post-Brexit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
These are not unreasonable points on the face of it. However, I think it's much more likely we won't agree a food deal with the US - they're unlikely to reciprocate and allow our unpasteurised cheese and yogurt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The Tories are currently finding that they cannot agree a deal with the EU, despite again giving ground - no longer asking for an exit mechanism, now asking for arbitration on the exit. The EU says they need to come up with something else reasonable.
I.E., roll over and take the deal, the only thing the EU ever considers reasonable (ask the Greeks).
So, if May can't get her Brexit deal through Parliament do you really think she or another Tory can get a US Trade deal with a side of chlorinated chicken through Parliament?
They cannot - not only will rural Tories not vote for it, nor will Urban Tories who shop at Waitrose (rural Tories probably have a butcher on retainer).
May is not in control, the ERG is not in control (and may not even survive Brexit). This is not Tony Blair's Parliament, it is restive and anything but pliable.
The government is about to reduce or lift tariffs on most things, in an effort to at least stave off food shortage. This doesn't need to go through Parliament; it is a unilateral action derived from the Executive's authority. The side effect of this is shorting agriculture, as importers don't have to pay tariffs on things coming into the UK (even in areas where we produce our own), while exporters will have to pay tariffs on stuff going out (thus making our produce more expensive for the same thing). Gove specifically promised UK farmers that this would not happen for this reason, while Fox said that the government will do this. Reports are that the government will do as Fox has promised, not as Gove as promised. Parliament doesn't need to vote on this; the PM will just announce this will happen and that will be it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
With Brexit goes all the trade agreements that were made via the EU. We want to roll over current trading rules with the non-EU countries, but nearly everyone else disagrees; Japan backed out of talks because they reckoned they could get more concessions from us. As with Japan, so it will be with the US, who are bigger (we're the only idiots actively making ourselves smaller and weaker). The US government has invited lobbyists to nominate what they want from the UK in return for a US-UK trade agreement, and they have begun to push the UK government on some of these areas; a US diplomat this week got into a dispute over our concerns over food safety. Without any agreements, we will be trading on WTO base rates; no one trades on those terms, as virtually any agreement, which we will not have, is better. And if we want better trading terms than these, we will need to secure agreements with these other countries/blocs. And despite all your ire at the EU, they've been the most accommodating of our requirements, even after the referendum and all the nonsense during negotiations. Everyone else, including the Americans which our rulers are so fond of, won't budge an inch, and are looking to screw us over as much as they can (eg the US lobbyists' demands). Furunculus recently posted a link to an EU measure that allows our lorry drivers to continue under current conditions for the rest of the year. I think he took this to mean vindication of his belief that we won't starve as a result of Brexit. I take it as an illustration of just how tolerant the other Europeans are of us; they're going out of their way to allow us this, when the rules state that we are entitled to just 5% of that traffic.
This isn't contingent on any Parliamentary vote. It is the result of your vote to Leave, and the government's implementation of that result. Without any extension, it will start on 1st April, less than a month from now. Where I live and where I work may be less affected by this. Where you live will likely be strongly affected though. This was why I voted Remain, and what's transpired since has only confirmed my thoughts.
The EU has not budged an inch, not in practical terms, just warm words. Right now they aren't budging an inch, are they?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47487320
Let's remember, it wasn't just me who voted to leave.
Are we in a bad place right now? Yeah, kinda. Is it going to be worth it?
Maybe, maybe not.
They're allowing all our drivers to continue in the EU under current conditions until the end of the year. How is this not budging an inch? Around 30k trucks deal with our cross-channel trade. We're entitled to 1.5k passes after Brexit. They've effectively given us the other 28.5k for the rest of the year. But as Brexiters are wont to do, you don't give the EU credit for what they do, but blame them for what they don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
If the EU really doesn't want to budge an inch, our cross-channel trade, which is the route by which most of our food imports come, would be cut by 95%. And Brexit happens in that time of year that used to be known as the hunger gap, the period between exhausting winter stockpiles and before the summer harvest. The NFU warned about this. And the EU have acted to alleviate the problem, at least for this year. When they had no requirement to do so. Yet you say that they have not budged an inch.
You disclaim responsibility for the result by saying that it wasn't just you that voted to leave. Well it certainly isn't my responsibility. I voted to remain based on the arguments that have been proven to be absolutely accurate, both in the evidence backing these arguments in the first place, and how things have transpired since. Leave lied and broke rules every step of the way. Yet Leavers still accept no responsibility for what they've caused, and continue to blame the EU for everything.
"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way." - Nigel Farage, 17th May 2016
I never said it wasn't my responsibility, I merely pointed out that it was not solely my responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And are you going to admit that, far from not budging from inch as you'd said, the EU has gone beyond what they need to do in order to help us, unlike just about everyone else? I'd also like an explanation for why you don't want us to be "trapped inside the customs union". Given what the US among others demands from us, how does it benefit us to be outside the customs union? Or is it another of those arguments whereby theoretical sovereignty, in practice exercised by a few rich politicians for their even richer friends, is worth ruining the country for? NB. prominent Leavers, Rees Mogg and Farage among them, have already made provisions to move themselves and/or their money abroad, into the EU. Whatever they say, that's what they're doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
The cages aren't that better in the EU. I'm not going to defend industrial agriculture but I will say that the EU, while better, is not head an shoulders above the States. The product in the supermarket is nearly identical (relative to price). Its an animal welfare issue (that I care about) but not a health and safety one. It is being framed as one to move the proverbial needle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I will say that the food I have eaten in England has nearly always been good. I'm a sucker for a ploughmans lunch.
They've not budged an inch on the issue that's stalled negotiations, that's what matters at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You can see why May is running down the clock, because in the end the EU will send her back to Parliament with the same deal in the expectation MP's will pass it this time.
What's the definition of insanity again? And who here is actually insane?
As to the Backstop - the point is not to avoid being in a Customs Union with the EU, the point is to avoid being trapped in one before we've even begun negotiations on our future Trade Relationship. If the UK is legally trapped in the Backstop with no recourse then there's no point in the EU negotiating - it can just leave the UK trapped ad infinitum.
Barnier has reiterated that the UK will be able to unilaterally exit any customs arrangement with the EU. Just leave NI within the customs union, as required by the GFA (a bilateral treaty between the UK and RoI). May can't go with that because she's beholden to the DUP. How is this the fault of the EU? She had a Commons majority when she invoked article 50, which started all this. Remember the UK is the active actor in all of this. The EU didn't push for all this; the UK did. And now the Leavers are blaming the EU because the EU aren't yielding on absolutely everything. Even though the EU have already gone out of their way to help the UK in a number of areas. Which they didn't have to, and which no one else is doing. Not even our supposed friends the Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I've accepted that we will leave with no deal, courtesy of the Brexiters who will continue with their dogma and continue to blame the EU for all the ills of the world. I just wish that Brexiters will take responsibility for what will transpire. I just wanted tomorrow to be reasonably like today. But Brexiters want revolution without any clue as to what will happen next, as long as they can blame someone.
Some more Brexit revelations. After the assassination of the Remain-campaigning MP Jo Cox, the Remain and Leave campaigns agreed on a truce for a few days, in which neither side campaigned. Except for some elements of the Leave camp, who saw this as an opportunity to push their message with no opposition. There are some real scum among the Brexit camp.
Apparently May threatened to stay in the EU if no deal is done.
She's also threatened to leave with no deal if no deal is done. She's trying to get votes from both camps.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
That is an, ahem... 'generous' interpretation of the GFA. The EU can play as hard as it like, as long as it doesn't mind no deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You mean the completely separate and totally unofficial Leave.eu campaign group run by Farage/Banks?
This is why this latest dispute matters:
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and...tony-connelly/
How America’s food giants swallowed the family farms
The future of post-Brexit British agriculture folks. Hope you're happy with what you've voted for.Quote:
It’s a story replicated across America’s midwest, with the rapid expansion of farming methods at the heart of the row over US attempts to erode Britain’s food standards and lever open access to the UK market as part of a post-Brexit trade deal. Last weekend, the US ambassador to Britain, Woody Johnson, appealed to the UK to embrace US farming, arguing that those who warned against practices such as washing chicken in chlorine had been “deployed” to cast it “in the worst possible light”.
His message was greeted with anger by campaigners. Nick Dearden of Global Justice Now warned: “It is really an animal welfare issue here. If UK farmers want to compete against American imports, they will have to lower their standards or go out of business.” His words would come as no surprise to Rosemary Partridge, who farms in Sac County, western Iowa. She grew up on an Iowa family farm and then moved with her husband in the late 1970s to raise pigs and grow crops.
“In the past 20 years, where I am, independent hog farming just silently disappeared as the corporates came in,” says Partridge.
So, instead of selling NI down the river with a hard border on land you propose a hard border in the Irish Sea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
In reality, either outcome betrays someone.
Meanwhile, we finally have some indications on the "Technical solution" to the problem:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47506139
Quote:
Lars Karlsson, a former director at the World Customs Organisation, said all the separate elements which made up the proposal had been tested "somewhere in the world, just not in one single border".
The border in Northern Ireland would be "the first and a leading example in the world of this kind," he added.
However, the committee urged the UK and EU negotiators to agree on a definition of a hard border by 12 March.
"Mistrust over the backstop protocol has been heightened by lack of clarity on what exactly constitutes a 'hard border'," said chairman Andrew Murrison.
"My committee is calling for clarification of the term in a legally explicit way to ensure both parties share the same understanding of how the backstop can be avoided."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
All IT solutions consist of elements that have been tested somewhere in the world, just not in a single solution in that particular context. And thus IT solutions fail and overrun their budgets on a grand scale. Does anyone have a list of these elements of the NI-RoI border tech solution that Brexiteers love to cite, complete with their contexts? NB. I have experience of implementing IT solutions, from design through to execution and maintenance. Even with the small scale projects I've worked on, that paragraph above rings alarm bells for its insouciance.Quote:
Lars Karlsson, a former director at the World Customs Organisation, said all the separate elements which made up the proposal had been tested "somewhere in the world, just not in one single border".
And BTW, when you talk of betrayal, remember that Brexiteers initiated this. The EU didn't push the UK into this problem. Remainers didn't push the UK into this problem. Leavers like yourself did. And if you don't like taking responsibility, then blame the leaders whose BS you continue to push like above. Under 3 weeks until no deal.
More on Lars Karlsson, the expert quoted in PFH's article, on this subject.
Ouch. My prediction: take the estimated time and cost of the solution, at least triple the cost and time, and you might have something that might be able to limp along with numerous holes and patches. A more realistic estimate is at least 5x both. An equally realistic estimate is 5x both and it still doesn't work. Based on previous government experience with tech solutions.Quote:
Former Swedish customs official Lars Karlsson presented a 46-page report to the European Parliament last year showing how technological solutions could maintain as open an Irish Border as possible and remove the need for a backstop.
Mr Karlsson appeared before the Northern Ireland Public Affairs Committee in Westminster today, initially saying he had visited and "studied the border".
But after questioning by Lady Sylvia Hermon, Mr Karlsson admitted:
- That he had only visited the Irish border once, two years ago,
- That he had not been along the entire border, and
- That he was there in a different capacity not related to the report anyway.
Lady Hermon asked: "So when you said you'd been there and studied it, you've not been along the entire border?"
To which Mr Karlsson replied: "No.
"I have not been there in relation to this specific issue, no."
Well that ended nicely... I'm being sarcastic of course. Another defeat.
the sausage machine grinds exceeding slow of late.
16 days until no deal. Are you happy with this Brexit?
Apparently the IT solution dealing with EU residents can't cope with multiple names, eg. maiden names and married names. This is a problem that just needs translation from paper to code, without any complications with geography, real time interactions with people, people intentionally evading or sabotaging it, etc. It's also a problem that has been solved all over the web wherever IDs are involved. Yet Brexiteers expect people to believe that a solution that has never been implemented as a whole or on that scale will suddenly work satisfactorily. And in case people have missed it, the IRA are sending bombs around again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I have faith in the process, even if the result isn't precisely what I want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The salient point is:that continued membership is no longer tenable.
In other words, you would be happy with no deal when it comes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I am always impressed about your ability to know what everyone else is thinking that disagrees with you thinks, and view future predictions are accurate when they are negative and always wrong when positive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The IRA are sending bombs. So... we should stop Brexit because of the IRA? Sort of capitulating to Terrorism.
~:smoking:
I'd like to know how the planned tech solution for the border will work, given that they can't even get an IT solution to deal with multiple names. The latter is entirely a paper to code problem, without any other obstacles, easily scaleable, yet they can't even do that. The expert cited in PFH's article says that the planned solution will work, even though he's never visited the area to scout the issues, nor have the individual components ever been put together or on such a scale. And on top of that, despite your attempt to paint it as a giving in to terrorists issue, you have people actively evading, subverting or sabotaging it. Even if there aren't bombs, you'll still have smugglers. Are you going to depict that as giving in to terrorists too? BTW, I'm not making this up. I'm just stating what used to happen, just as with the IRA, and as the IRA are showing, what will happen again.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The current position on customs in the event of no deal is no tariffs to be imposed. I've described elsewhere what effect this will have on UK agriculture. And no tariffs to be enforced means no leverage for trade deals either. Enlighten me if I'm wrong on this.
You said they had no idea of a solution.
They at least have a plan - so you were wrong about that.
Further, you keep blaming Leavers for this but it was a Remain-voting Prime Minister who decided the vote was all about immigration (what Cameron told the other EU leaders) and it was a Remain-voting Prime Minister who decided that "Brexit means Brexit".
Further, it is the EU that wasted time by refusing to engage in any negotiations on our future trade relationship until the Backstop, the Money, and Citizen's Rights were settled.
On that final topic, it was the UK (under pressure from the British people) that offered unilateral guarantees for EU citizen's rights that were rejected by the EU.
Most people who voted Leave would probably be happy with "Norway Plus" but May won't ask for it, the EU won't offer it and so we're left with a bad Withdrawal Agreement.
Once we're trapped in the Backstop we only have three ways out.
1. Break it and accept having to pay billions in compensation.
2 Rejoin the EU.
3. Accept whatever Trade Deal the EU offers.
Macron has already said that if Britain wants access to EU Markets it must give EU trawlers access to British Waters, something Norway doesn't have to put up with.
How is it a plan when it is completely unrealistic? I can propose to solve the border problem by stationing 300,000 troops and electrified fences on the border to prevent unauthorised access. That's just as much a plan as the one you cite, and just as realistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
And in the next few paragraphs you continue to lay responsibility for no deal on everyone but people who voted to Leave. Anyway, there will be no danger of being trapped in the back stop, or having to accept whatever trade deal the EU offers. The government is planning to enforce no tariff regime. That means, by WTO rules (I await the Brexiteers' next tantrum to call for Leaving the WTO), there will be no tariffs enforced on anyone, whether EU or non-EU. That means there won't be any trade deals full stop, as other countries already have all they want without having to offer us anything in return. Anything they want to export to us will be free from tariffs, while anything we want to export to them can have anything they want added on top (the US added 292% in the Bombardier case). How do you think UK farmers will fare?
"Trapped in the customs union", you complain. How does it compare with government plans for no tariffs come no deal on 29th March? What are the minuses of the former? What are the minuses of the latter? And no unicornery about the virtues of fantasy agreements, as the EU has already stated, negotiations are over; they've done all they can to back the UK government, but the latter has no mandate to keep its end of the bargain.
I voted to exit the EU - that's it. The current debacle has been engineered by a two Remain-backing Prime Ministers and a Remain-Backing Opposition, and the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Have people from the Leave camp had an influence? Yes. Has it been a good influence? Not especially.
Even so, it remains the fact that there is a Remain-Backing majority AND a soft-Brexit Majority in both Houses.
To Engineer a No-Deal Brexit out of that is an exercise is utter incompetence.
That sounds like the Dolchstoßlegende.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
"We could have won the war if it hadn't been for traitors and these constant attempts of our enemies to win. I find it morally wrong that the enemy fights back! Why can't they roll over like the peasant barbarians our Empire slaughtered for the Colonies?! It's our birth right to rule over them while claiming that we stand for sovereignty! Everything but the acceptance of all our demands is soooo unfair! ~:mecry:"
:laugh4:
But the EU isn't even the European Economic Area, which nobody voted to leave - ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
So if we don't leave that, and we have a Customs Union...
The EU is not at fault for May's "Red Lines" but in bears a certain amount of the responsibility for souring negotiations, particularly in making the money a key point.
Blaming everyone except Brexiteers again. The EU has been consistent throughout all this. The deal that May has as of now was on the table from the start, as per the graph of ready solutions the EU set out. It's been the UK, including Leavers like Davis (surely you're not claiming he was a Remainer) who said to the UK press that promises made to the EU were not binding. It is this two facedness from the UK government that has soured negotiations. Although, in the end, it was Leave's lack of a manifesto that has ultimately made the EU tire of negotiations. Remain had a manifesto: the EU as it is. Leave promised all sorts without being held to any one of these scenarios, and thus far no single Leave solution has a Parliamentary mandate. Except no deal, which will still be the default as of 29th March.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Now Farage is lobbying foreign governments to interfere in the UK's government. Hope you're happy with your sovereignty loving bedfellows.
4th Feb 2018Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Quote:
“[Civil servants] look at the evidence and we go where it is,” he said. “Of course if you are selling snake oil, you don’t like the idea of experts testing your products.
“And I think that’s what we’ve got, this backlash against evidence and experts is because they know where the experts will go.”
Responding to claims officials distorted their analysis, the former civil servant told ITV’s Peston On Sunday show: “I think that’s completely crazy. The truth is civil servants operate by the civil service code. The values are honesty, objectivity, integrity, impartiality.
“Their job is to look at the evidence and present it as best they can, analyse the uncertainties ... but that’s what they do, they’re objective and impartial.
“And I think what you find is that tends to get accepted very nicely when it agrees with someone’s prior beliefs, but actually, when someone doesn’t like the answer, quite often they decide to shoot the messenger.”
PFH has come up with another iteration of this, blaming Remainers for Brexit not proceeding well. The fact is, as the civil servant pointed out, Leave won by promising stuff that wasn't achievable. The main Leavers steered clear of the problem when the time came to replace Cameron. And now they're at it again, arguing that it's the Remainers who are sabotaging Brexit. It's never their fault or responsibility. It's always someone else's fault, even when we voted for the opposite.Quote:
“‘Dolchstoss’ means ‘stab in the back’,” Lord Turnbull told the Observer. “After the first world war there was an armistice, but the German army was then treated as the losers. Then, at the start of the Nazi era, the ‘stab-in-the back’ theme developed.
“It argued that ‘our great army was never defeated, but it was stabbed in the back by the civilians, liberals, communists, socialists and Jews’. This is what I think these critics are trying to do. They are losing the argument in the sense that they are unable to make their extravagant promises stack up, and so they turn and say: ‘Things would be OK if the civil service weren’t obstructing us.’”
Again there's this "except Brexiteers" rhetoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
No, not "except" simply "not only."
Remain defined what the Leave voted meant and Remain defined what holding to that vote meant - not Leave.
Further, not every Leave voter is a "Brexiteer" in much the same way that not every Remain voter is a "Remainiac".
You keep referencing this thing David Davis said but you haven't specified when and you apparently just expect me to be able to find the quote? If this is a major plank of your argument can I have an actual quote to analyse and comment on, please?
I chose to support May's deal, despite having the same reservations expressed in Cox's advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I still supported May's deal when May improved the offer, despite my continuing reservations.
I will support it again, when it comes back again for the third time.
I support it recognising the compact that it will be a shallow-end social democracy, despite my own preferences to aim for a mid-atlantic Oz/Ca market economy.
But will I cry if blind idiocy in refusing to allow Cox to overturn his Dec advice leads to no deal? No. Oz/Ca may well be the consequence.
Here's Davis "clarifying" what he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
This was May's first deadline to allow talks to move on. She managed to get concessions with assurances on her side, which the EU negotiators took on trust. Davis then undermined them with the above. After this, the EU 27 no longer took anything from the UK on trust, requiring everything to be legally actionable.
Quote:
Michael Roth, Germany’s minister for Europe, told German media he was “taken aback” that the language May had used in Brussels “differed somewhat” to what the prime minister had said in London since her return, referring in particular to the suggestion that Britain would only pay the final bill to the EU once a trade agreement had been reached. “She needs to be taking the same line in Brussels as in London,” he said.
An EU official said the guidelines for talks on future relations that had been drafted were already “Davis-proofed”, and it was clear what the consequences were if commitments were not respected.
The circulated draft includes the demand that “negotiations in the second phase can only progress as long as all commitments undertaken during the first phase are respected in full and translated faithfully in legal terms as quickly as possible”.
Also, does your assertion that Remain defined what Leave meant mean that Leave's concrete promises, such as the 350m per week for the NHS, will be kept? Or can you clarify how Remain defined what Leave meant by this?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/...g?imwidth=1240
THAT is your smoking gun - David Davis saying that as the "Interim Agreement" was not a treaty there might still be some wiggle room?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Not exactly a storm in a Teacup but it's not the great "betrayal" you're making it out to be, either.
I believe they meant that the Rebate was calculated in Brussels and we were obliged to pay what the EU asked even if money wasn't going to Brussels and then actually being rebated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Really, though, it was a hyperbolic slogan which, even if the figure had been accurate, never should have been made.
The idea we would suddenly spend all the money we send to the EU on the NHS is absurd and the people who championed it were absurd and I said so at the time.
No, the Remainers said that the vote WASN'T about money, but about immigration.
Like I said, the other day I saw a poster giving government advice on what to do if you're planning on driving in the EU after 29th March. On it someone put a sticker saying "Ban Islam".Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Are you still disclaiming responsibility for what happens after we leave the EU? After all, you voted for it. I voted against it. You keep arguing for it, even after seeing how it's been implemented. I've been arguing against it throughout.
Just waiting for May to revoke article 50, dissolve government and step down then watch the Union burn as she says in parliament "You do it" as it erupts into riots in the street.
Parliament votes to extend exit deadline, May's cabinet rebels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
One funny tweet (from March 12):
Quote on May's Deal from Cornwall Tory MP:Quote:
What should happen next:
• Quietly revoke Article 50
• Tell Brexiters we left with no deal
• Send them blue passport covers
• Give them special long queues at airports/ports
• Charge them for roaming calls/data
• Give them food and medicine ration books
• Get on with life
Quote:
This is a turd of a deal, which has now been taken away and polished, and is now a polished turd. But it might be the best turd that we’ve got.
So... guys... like, make up your minds please? Leave, stay, do a backstop, do a air flip, jump up and down, do another Royal Wedding... just do something!
*Does the Hockey Cokey*
I can do you a bacon buttie if you like, too?
If I saw those phrases on someone's search engine history, I would be scandalized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
So the Speaker said "No" to a third attempt at Theresa May's deal and sources suggest another extension would only be approved in event of a Second Referendum.
Up for Marshmallows at Westminister?
Well, according to Erskine May he didn't really have much choice. It would have been partial of him not to.
So, either the deal gets dropped or a rider on a Referendum gets added.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cp...e19mar2019.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cp...17_express.jpg
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cp...ge19.03.19.jpg
Another "enemy of the people"?
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/wp-co...ail_judges.jpg
Just want to put this out here: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/0...exchange_vuln/
He sounds like a remainer.Quote:
Lead maintainer and "benevolent dictator" of all things PuTTY Simon Tatham told El Reg that "of all the things found by the EU bug bounty programme, the most serious was vuln-dss-verify. That really is a 'game over' level vulnerability for a secure network protocol: a MITM attacker could bypass the SSH host key system completely."
"Luckily," he continued, "it never appeared in a released version of PuTTY: it was introduced during work to rewrite the crypto for side-channel safety, and spotted only a few weeks later by a bug-bounty participant, well before the release came out. So the EU protected almost everybody from that one."
Ja, och?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Seriously though, the Speaker is supposed to be impartial and above reproach - Bercow has been neither. The reaction to his justified intervention at this point shows why he is, in general, not the right man for the job.
We haven't had a decent Speaker since Betty.
Quite true, but Bercow is right in this case. Theresa May is the one trying to trample Parliament, bad enough she tried to ram her deal through a second time with only minor changes, to then engage in what amounts to threats and bribery and attempt a third vote on the same issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Disgraceful.
Had she attempted it I'm sure Labour would have tabled a vote of no confidence.
I can't wait until the EU elections this May. The bunch of traitors in Parliament are in for a shock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN7r0Rr1Qyc
And the judges? The original headline was in response to the court decision that Parliament has deciding power. They were called "Enemies of the people". Do you not think that the right wing press may just be a tad irresponsible? Especially as one MP has already been killed for opposing Brexit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Don't forget that the original MV was supposed to have been before Christmas. Except that May called it off at the last moment and postponed it for after the recess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Pan, nobody on this site who supports Brexit supports or reads the Daily Mail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You're constructing a Strawman out of your own outrage.
I love the right wing press trope, when to a man, the press are remainers.
Are you posting a tragic depiction of fascist delusion, in reference to the upcoming EU elections, ironically or un-ironically?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
It's hard to tell at this point. If Brexit drags on we me end up with a Eurosceptic EU Parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I know you're, like, a Chestertonian, but what do you think of Varoufakis et al.?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
btw i less worried about IA's post now, turns out this song is more of a meme in the UK.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
A what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I have a lot of time for Varoufakis: he is honest, committed, and capable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
He just arrives at his politics from a moral matrix entirely different to mine, so as much as I find him insightful and interesting he would never get my vote.
So A50 is extended to 30th June. The EU elections are on 30th May. If we are not to participate in said elections then by the treaties governing the EU we will be thrown out by the EU.
It's like Alice in Wonderland stuff.
So on a very technical point we might have to unilaterally withdrawal the Article 50. Of course to redo it again once all our ducks are in a line.
And oh so quietly it dies a death. And Democracies all over the world learn an important lesson in never asking the populace what they want.
~:smoking:
Brexiteers should be happy. Yellowhammer kicks in next week.
It's possible Macron will veto May's request for an extension (because it's pointless) leading to a vote in the House to the effect that we should ask for a long extension to hold a referendum/public consultation, leading to her resigning and being replaced ad hoc with another Tory who can deliver said request, after which there will be an election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
It's worth reflecting that if anyone other than Corbyn was Leader of the Opposition right now that the Opposition would already have been asked to form a government.
Don't blame me for that. I voted not for Brexit, nor Corbyn, nor May. By far the crappest decision in my lifetime, headed by by far the crappest PM in my lifetime, opposed by by far the crappest leader of the opposition in my lifetime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
British should have realized the error in trying out direct democracy when it put you in the same category with US states such as Florida and California. Failed states all of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
So you cheerfully state nothing is your fault whilst declaiming anyone that voted leave responsible for the current situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
How is it my fault when I said the stuff that's happening now would happen, and voted against it happening? If I tell you that sticking your hand in a fire is a bad idea because it'll burn you, and you decide to stick your hand in a fire and it burns you, how is it my fault for warning you against it? Meanwhile, Brexiteers complain that it's burned their hand, and say it's not their fault because they didn't expect it to burn like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
A better analogy is one side decides to cross a road when those in charge of the activity wait until it is rush hour. Leaving aside the issue that the government never raised these issues when deeper integration was being undertaken without a vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
He really means freedom is slavery.
It's just over a week until Brexit, and as things go, we will leave without a deal. Are you still in favour of Leaving, as things are now?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
It is possible to be in favour pf Leaving without being in favour of Leaving now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I presume you still voted Labour at the last election? Labour ran on a Brexit ticket and got the biggest vote since Tony Blair (May got the biggest vote since Thatcher, 1982).
Unless you voted Lib Dem or Green at the last election you voted for Brexit, or at least didn't vote against it.
Similarly, bearing in mind I voted Lib Dem I can't complain if we don't leave.
I voted Labour for most of my life. Because of Brexit and Corbyn's position on it I voted Lib Dem in the last election. And saying that May or Corbyn got the biggest vote since whenever convinces me not a jot. Do you know which party leader got the most votes ever in any UK general election?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Carry on, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Here's that petition - currently going up by a few hundred every few seconds.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584
Referendums are most useful when they are judged or expected beforehand to produce a decisive result.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
This cartoon carries over with shocking aptness (I especially like "repudiates her bonds" and "secession humbug"). Pann, feel free to adjust the characters to modern context.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Attachment 22344
Ah, freedom, that old shibboleth. The World Happiness Survey just released its 2019 edition. There is an item asking about the "freedom to make life choices":
Uzbekistan respondents appear to have a high enough self-perception of "freedom" to earn them the #1 spot on this measure among all countries.Quote:
Freedom to make life choices is the
national average of binary responses to
the GWP question “Are you satisfied or
dissatisfied with your freedom to choose
what you do with your life?”
I do declare, Brexit brings "freedom" to the UK in the same way that Uzbekistan is the freest country on Earth.