Brexit deal

[BillyStubbsTears]

I think a more elegant climbdown BB would have been to accept that anyone can get a calculation wrong, and that only bores with no other point to make keep banging on about it.

[idler]

I’m surprised she let you borrow it B.B.😳

[Bentley Bullet]

I think a more elegant climbdown BB would have been to accept that anyone can get a calculation wrong, and that only bores with no other point to make keep banging on about it.

You read my mind, Billy lad. I thought you were one of those bores with no other point to make on this occasion.

[Boomstick]

It matters not, what is happening now is happening in 2019, not 1949 or 1919..

Agreed

[BillyStubbsTears]

If this is true, it is farcical in so many ways.

https://mobile.twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1115374648361926656

[MachoMadness]

Here's Snoop Mogg on Twitter explicitly saying that the UK can't be trusted in a deliberate attempt to undermine the ongoing negotiations. It's almost like he's trying to force a no deal. I wonder why he'd be doing that? Sure it's nothing to do with the millions he'd stand to personally make from it.

https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1115523749548363776

[BillyStubbsTears]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1114086264024727554

Just...beyond words.

"If we end up stuck in the EU for a long time because we haven't got a f**king clue what we are doing, we should throw a strop and f**k up a whole load of EU things that aren't happening."

And then we'll get really, really, REALLY touchy when someone in the EU has the temerity to suggest that we're not approaching this in a grown up fashion.

[BillyStubbsTears]

MM
He's playing to the gallery of idiots who lap up this sort of juvenile crap.

[Copps is Magic]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1114086264024727554

Just...beyond words.

"If we end up stuck in the EU for a long time because we haven't got a f**king clue what we are doing, we should throw a strop and f**k up a whole load of EU things that aren't happening."

And then we'll get really, really, REALLY touchy when someone in the EU has the temerity to suggest that we're not approaching this in a grown up fashion.

That's your normal democratic right within the institutions of the EU. He's making a case to stay in.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps
That can't be right. I thought we had no say in Europe and we were told what to do by a fascist (or is it socialist? I forget now) superstate?

[BillyStubbsTears]

God almighty.

Listen to this woman "debating" with Peter Oborne.

https://www.channel4.com/news/why-i-changed-my-mind-on-leaving-eu-peter-oborne-debates-with-melissa-kite-on-brexit

"Not a single one of the 17.4m have changed their minds."

She's stood next to one who has! When that's pointed out to her, she hints that she doesn't believe Oborne was ever in favour of Brexit. So she's clearly never seen or read him before because he was a fire-in-the-belly anti-EU tub-thumper previously.

Try 4:15 and 6:00 here.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DPK9BV4oG0ho&ved=2ahUKEwimpKjB2cLhAhWDr3EKHfYoBm0QwqsBMAJ6BAgHEBA&usg=AOvVaw27nN4KY7RH8r4tyrTUr80p

And then she repeats several times that the polls are moving towards Brexit and not a single one of the 17.4m have changed their minds.

Well, aside from the probability that something pushing a million of those who voted Leave in 2016 are already dead, here's what the polls say.

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/

Take your pick. Do you analyse facts and events and draw your conclusions from them?

Or do you choose what you want to believe and invent "facts" to support that belief?

[Copps is Magic]

The irony is its more of a democracy than we all appreciate.

I was mildly taken at one point by the argument that certain institutions within the EU aren't particularly democratic, mainly certain parts of the commission and council of ministers. But you have to square that with the fact that it was Farage's oratory within the Parliament that got us into this position. His speeches on Greece, Lisbon Treaty, the UK leaving were watched by millions online before the referendum.

Then you hear that these new right-wing nationalist movements in Italy and elsewhere are strategising to fight nationalist campaigns within in the EU. So it leaves some serious questions about the functioning of national democracies. I am staggered that at this time anyone in their right mind would actively want to give more control and power to our national parliament.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps

But the Rees-Mogg/Farage project is NOT to give more power to the Legislature. It's to give more power to the Executive, whilst simultaneously staging a coup in the Tory party to put someone at the extreme Right of British politics in charge of the Executive.

That is what it has always been about. Brexit is a step on the path, not the destination.

[Axholme Lion]

I cannot comprehend why anyone would want to give up being a free nation and be absorbed by a monster state where our voice would be ignored. I'm sorry but I just can't get my head around such a thing.
I would rather be cut off like North Korea than become part of a US of E. even if it meant living in a garden shed.

[Boomstick]

Copps
That can't be right. I thought we had no say in Europe and we were told what to do by a fascist (or is it socialist? I forget now) superstate?

I'd read up on what socialism and fascism mean. They are inextricably linked.

[Copps is Magic]

I know you think you're 'trolling' Axholme Lion, but a serious question for you to ponder when you're lying in bed at night is whether the elite - those like Jacob Rees Mogg and his global hedge fund - really want that scenario to happen. And if not, what does that mean for you?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BS. You advising me to read up is the best laugh I've had in what's looking like a very depressing week.

As it happens, I'm currently reading "The Origins of Totalitarianism" by Hannah Arendt. Fascinating central theme that democracy becomes endangered when there is an alliance between what she calls "The Elite and the Mob". Jacob Ress-Mogg and Tommy Robinson for example. (It was ever thus of course. The Roman Republic was undermined and eventually destroyed by elites who used the plebs as their muscle. And over the pond, billionaires are telling rednecks that they, together, can MAGA.)

Anyway, back to Hannah Arendt. This quote, based on her experience of living through the horrors of the 1930s is as vitally important today as it was back then.

"The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist."

In other words, if you want to subvert democracy, the first thing you do is destroy the concept of objective truth in people's heads. Then you can fill it with your own "truth".

Trump is the poster boy for that of course. He's ideal, not because he's an ideologue deliberately pursuing a strategic plan, but because he lies as easily (and more regularly) than he shits. But there are a lot of politicians around tese days who are systematically undermining the concept of objective truth. They lie and lie and lie, then say "well EVERYONE lies. Believe what you want."

The biggest battle today is not about Leave or Remain. It's not even about Right and Left. It's about the concept of objective truth. It's about the ability to determine who is being truthful and who is leading you by the nose for their own ends. Lose that battle, as Hannah Arendt well knew, and you are heading into a very dark place.

That's one reason why I respect Peter Oborne and despise Nigel Farage, even though they are not that far apart in their political views. One prizes truth and honesty above everything. The other would lie to you about the time of day if it helped him achieve what he wants.

[Bentley Bullet]

So Billy, is the answer to everything simply believing everything that you believe?

[Axholme Lion]

I know you think you're 'trolling' Axholme Lion, but a serious question for you to ponder when you're lying in bed at night is whether the elite - those like Jacob Rees Mogg and his global hedge fund - really want that scenario to happen. And if not, what does that mean for you?

What scenario to happen?

[Copps is Magic]

You remember, the one where you said you'd rather be cut off like North Korea and/or living in a garden shed.

[BillyStubbsTears]

No BB. Why on earth would you read that into what I said?

The answer is to look at the track records of people telling you things. To look around and see whether there is independent evidence to support what they say.

Simple example.

Back in 2016, Trump said he'd love to release his tax returns but he couldn't as they were under audit. He said he'd release them when the audit had finished.

The tax office said that there was no reason whatsoever why they couldn't be released while under audit.

Trump's lawyer said this weekend that Trump will never release his tax returns.

With that information at your disposal, do you think Trump was being honest and truthful when he gave his reason for not releasing his returns and said he would love to do so in 2016?

Or, if that one's too rich for your taste, how about Trump claiming that Mueller's report "totally exonerated" him, when a direct line from the report specifically said he was not exonerated?

Or, back at home, what about Farage insisting in very aggressive terms in 2012 that he had nothing to do with the batshit 2010 UKIP manifesto (which demanded among other things, that taxi drivers wear uniforms and trains be painted in traditional livery colours) when he had written and signed off the Executive Summary and launched the document at a press conference.

In general terms, if someone insists A is true, but there is documentary evidence to say that A is false, would you, as an intelligent person, trust that person the next time they told you something? Or would you work on the assumption that if they have a track record of lying, you'd be better served not believing them in future without good evidence?

If you were stood at a window with someone and it was clearly raining outside but they insisted it wasn't, would you trust them the next time they told you what the weather was?

[Bentley Bullet]

BST, a lot depends on believing what you want to believe in the first place. People's track records can be portrayed differently depending on who's publishing them. Some publishers with an agenda will exploit any negativity they can against a person in order to support their own views, and people who share those views will read it and believe it.

It seems to me that people find it easier to incriminate the opposition instead of explaining the merits of their own beliefs. It's not that much different to juvenile football fans singing about how shit the opposition is instead of actually praising their own team.

It's no different on this forum than in the real world. If I believed everything you Billy, for instance, posted, all the people who you support would be squeaky clean and all who you oppose would be f**king liars, or not grown up, or racist or whatever.

[Boomstick]

No BB. Why on earth would you read that into what I said?

The answer is to look at the track records of people telling you things. To look around and see whether there is independent evidence to support what they say.

Simple example.

Back in 2016, Trump said he'd love to release his tax returns but he couldn't as they were under audit. He said he'd release them when the audit had finished.

The tax office said that there was no reason whatsoever why they couldn't be released while under audit.

Trump's lawyer said this weekend that Trump will never release his tax returns.

With that information at your disposal, do you think Trump was being honest and truthful when he gave his reason for not releasing his returns and said he would love to do so in 2016?

Or, if that one's too rich for your taste, how about Trump claiming that Mueller's report "totally exonerated" him, when a direct line from the report specifically said he was not exonerated?

Or, back at home, what about Farage insisting in very aggressive terms in 2012 that he had nothing to do with the batshit 2010 UKIP manifesto (which demanded among other things, that taxi drivers wear uniforms and trains be painted in traditional livery colours) when he had written and signed off the Executive Summary and launched the document at a press conference.

In general terms, if someone insists A is true, but there is documentary evidence to say that A is false, would you, as an intelligent person, trust that person the next time they told you something? Or would you work on the assumption that if they have a track record of lying, you'd be better served not believing them in future without good evidence?

If you were stood at a window with someone and it was clearly raining outside but they insisted it wasn't, would you trust them the next time they told you what the weather was?

BS. You advising me to read up is the best laugh I've had in what's looking like a very depressing week.

As it happens, I'm currently reading "The Origins of Totalitarianism" by Hannah Arendt. Fascinating central theme that democracy becomes endangered when there is an alliance between what she calls "The Elite and the Mob". Jacob Ress-Mogg and Tommy Robinson for example. (It was ever thus of course. The Roman Republic was undermined and eventually destroyed by elites who used the plebs as their muscle. And over the pond, billionaires are telling rednecks that they, together, can MAGA.)

Anyway, back to Hannah Arendt. This quote, based on her experience of living through the horrors of the 1930s is as vitally important today as it was back then.

"The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist."

In other words, if you want to subvert democracy, the first thing you do is destroy the concept of objective truth in people's heads. Then you can fill it with your own "truth".

Trump is the poster boy for that of course. He's ideal, not because he's an ideologue deliberately pursuing a strategic plan, but because he lies as easily (and more regularly) than he shits. But there are a lot of politicians around tese days who are systematically undermining the concept of objective truth. They lie and lie and lie, then say "well EVERYONE lies. Believe what you want."

The biggest battle today is not about Leave or Remain. It's not even about Right and Left. It's about the concept of objective truth. It's about the ability to determine who is being truthful and who is leading you by the nose for their own ends. Lose that battle, as Hannah Arendt well knew, and you are heading into a very dark place.

That's one reason why I respect Peter Oborne and despise Nigel Farage, even though they are not that far apart in their political views. One prizes truth and honesty above everything. The other would lie to you about the time of day if it helped him achieve what he wants.

Why did you insinuate there was a black and white difference between fascism and socialism?

[RedJ]

No BB. Why on earth would you read that into what I said?

The answer is to look at the track records of people telling you things. To look around and see whether there is independent evidence to support what they say.

Simple example.

Back in 2016, Trump said he'd love to release his tax returns but he couldn't as they were under audit. He said he'd release them when the audit had finished.

The tax office said that there was no reason whatsoever why they couldn't be released while under audit.

Trump's lawyer said this weekend that Trump will never release his tax returns.

With that information at your disposal, do you think Trump was being honest and truthful when he gave his reason for not releasing his returns and said he would love to do so in 2016?

Or, if that one's too rich for your taste, how about Trump claiming that Mueller's report "totally exonerated" him, when a direct line from the report specifically said he was not exonerated?

Or, back at home, what about Farage insisting in very aggressive terms in 2012 that he had nothing to do with the batshit 2010 UKIP manifesto (which demanded among other things, that taxi drivers wear uniforms and trains be painted in traditional livery colours) when he had written and signed off the Executive Summary and launched the document at a press conference.

In general terms, if someone insists A is true, but there is documentary evidence to say that A is false, would you, as an intelligent person, trust that person the next time they told you something? Or would you work on the assumption that if they have a track record of lying, you'd be better served not believing them in future without good evidence?

If you were stood at a window with someone and it was clearly raining outside but they insisted it wasn't, would you trust them the next time they told you what the weather was?

BS. You advising me to read up is the best laugh I've had in what's looking like a very depressing week.

As it happens, I'm currently reading "The Origins of Totalitarianism" by Hannah Arendt. Fascinating central theme that democracy becomes endangered when there is an alliance between what she calls "The Elite and the Mob". Jacob Ress-Mogg and Tommy Robinson for example. (It was ever thus of course. The Roman Republic was undermined and eventually destroyed by elites who used the plebs as their muscle. And over the pond, billionaires are telling rednecks that they, together, can MAGA.)

Anyway, back to Hannah Arendt. This quote, based on her experience of living through the horrors of the 1930s is as vitally important today as it was back then.

"The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist."

In other words, if you want to subvert democracy, the first thing you do is destroy the concept of objective truth in people's heads. Then you can fill it with your own "truth".

Trump is the poster boy for that of course. He's ideal, not because he's an ideologue deliberately pursuing a strategic plan, but because he lies as easily (and more regularly) than he shits. But there are a lot of politicians around tese days who are systematically undermining the concept of objective truth. They lie and lie and lie, then say "well EVERYONE lies. Believe what you want."

The biggest battle today is not about Leave or Remain. It's not even about Right and Left. It's about the concept of objective truth. It's about the ability to determine who is being truthful and who is leading you by the nose for their own ends. Lose that battle, as Hannah Arendt well knew, and you are heading into a very dark place.

That's one reason why I respect Peter Oborne and despise Nigel Farage, even though they are not that far apart in their political views. One prizes truth and honesty above everything. The other would lie to you about the time of day if it helped him achieve what he wants.

Why did you insinuate there was a black and white difference between fascism and socialism?

Out of that entire post, THAT is what you choose to respond to?

[SydneyRover]

    Theresa May has been holding talks with Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, in Berlin, ahead of tomorrow’s emergency EU summit on Brexit. Later she will be flying to Paris for talks with the French president, Emmanuel Macron. May will be asking the leaders of the two most powerful countries in the UK to back her request for another article 50 extension, ending on 30 June. If they are not amenable to that, she will be seeking an extension on the least-onerous terms available to the UK.

    Britain is likely to be offered a final long extension ending on 31 December after the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, failed to convince the the bloc’s capitals that Theresa May has a plan to break the Brexit impasse.

    Barnier has sought to intensify pressure on May to agree to the UK staying in the customs union, saying a new approach of this kind would be the sort of plan needed to justify the UK getting a long article 50 extension. (See 11.17am.)

    The German government has rejected a claim from Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, that Merkel might be wiling to reopen the withdrawal agreement. (See 10.32am.) Barnier also rejected the idea. (See 11.17am.)

    Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, has said that staying in the customs union would be “the worst of both worlds” for the UK. (See 11.49am.)

    Mark Francois, the vice chair of the European Research Group, which represents hardline Tory Brexiters, has said the EU will regret allowing the UK to stay if it grants an article 50 extension. In a speech to the Bruges Group at lunchtime, Francois said:

    My message to the European council tomorrow night would be as follows:

    “This is the 21st century and you cannot hold a nation captive against their will. There is no point granting a temporary extension to kick the can down the road in the hope that we will finally ratify the withdrawal agreement, as we never will.

    “If, however, you attempt to hold us in the European Union against the democratically expressed will of the British people then, in return, we will become a “Trojan horse” within the EU, which would utterly derail all your attempts to pursue a more federal project.

    “A new Conservative government, led by someone like Boris Johnson or Dominic Raab, might vote down your budget, veto your attempts at greater military integration, and generally make it impossible for you to bring about the more federal project in which you so desperately believe” ...

    So my earnest message to the European council is simple. Brexit has already gone on long enough.

    If you now try to hold on to us against our will, you will be facing Perfidious Albion on speed. It would therefore be much better for all our sakes if we were to pursue our separate destinies, in a spirit of mutual respect.

    As Boris Johnson recently quoted Moses’ warning to Pharaoh – “Let my people go!”

Looks like it's going to be a festive brexitcon with a customs union in everyone's stocking.

[Boomstick]

No BB. Why on earth would you read that into what I said?

The answer is to look at the track records of people telling you things. To look around and see whether there is independent evidence to support what they say.

Simple example.

Back in 2016, Trump said he'd love to release his tax returns but he couldn't as they were under audit. He said he'd release them when the audit had finished.

The tax office said that there was no reason whatsoever why they couldn't be released while under audit.

Trump's lawyer said this weekend that Trump will never release his tax returns.

With that information at your disposal, do you think Trump was being honest and truthful when he gave his reason for not releasing his returns and said he would love to do so in 2016?

Or, if that one's too rich for your taste, how about Trump claiming that Mueller's report "totally exonerated" him, when a direct line from the report specifically said he was not exonerated?

Or, back at home, what about Farage insisting in very aggressive terms in 2012 that he had nothing to do with the batshit 2010 UKIP manifesto (which demanded among other things, that taxi drivers wear uniforms and trains be painted in traditional livery colours) when he had written and signed off the Executive Summary and launched the document at a press conference.

In general terms, if someone insists A is true, but there is documentary evidence to say that A is false, would you, as an intelligent person, trust that person the next time they told you something? Or would you work on the assumption that if they have a track record of lying, you'd be better served not believing them in future without good evidence?

If you were stood at a window with someone and it was clearly raining outside but they insisted it wasn't, would you trust them the next time they told you what the weather was?

BS. You advising me to read up is the best laugh I've had in what's looking like a very depressing week.

As it happens, I'm currently reading "The Origins of Totalitarianism" by Hannah Arendt. Fascinating central theme that democracy becomes endangered when there is an alliance between what she calls "The Elite and the Mob". Jacob Ress-Mogg and Tommy Robinson for example. (It was ever thus of course. The Roman Republic was undermined and eventually destroyed by elites who used the plebs as their muscle. And over the pond, billionaires are telling rednecks that they, together, can MAGA.)

Anyway, back to Hannah Arendt. This quote, based on her experience of living through the horrors of the 1930s is as vitally important today as it was back then.

"The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist."

In other words, if you want to subvert democracy, the first thing you do is destroy the concept of objective truth in people's heads. Then you can fill it with your own "truth".

Trump is the poster boy for that of course. He's ideal, not because he's an ideologue deliberately pursuing a strategic plan, but because he lies as easily (and more regularly) than he shits. But there are a lot of politicians around tese days who are systematically undermining the concept of objective truth. They lie and lie and lie, then say "well EVERYONE lies. Believe what you want."

The biggest battle today is not about Leave or Remain. It's not even about Right and Left. It's about the concept of objective truth. It's about the ability to determine who is being truthful and who is leading you by the nose for their own ends. Lose that battle, as Hannah Arendt well knew, and you are heading into a very dark place.

That's one reason why I respect Peter Oborne and despise Nigel Farage, even though they are not that far apart in their political views. One prizes truth and honesty above everything. The other would lie to you about the time of day if it helped him achieve what he wants.

Why did you insinuate there was a black and white difference between fascism and socialism?

Out of that entire post, THAT is what you choose to respond to?

🤦‍♂️

Because that was my original point

[SydneyRover]

Oh dear, a report bears out what most of us already knew.

Matt Hancock says Tories are 'finished' if they become 'only Brexit party'

''The report, by Onward, is actually quite alarming stuff for Tories, revealing that the “tipping point” age at which more people support the Conservatives rather than Labour has advanced four years – from 47 to 51 – in just the last two years, since the 2017 election''

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/apr/09/brexit-latest-developments-news-theresa-may-visits-berlin-and-paris-as-gauke-plays-down-prospect-of-early-breakthrough-in-talks-with-labour-live-news#comments

[MachoMadness]

"If you try to hold us against our will, you will be faced with Perfidious Albion on speed" - a direct quote from Mark Francois just now. This really happened.

[Axholme Lion]

You remember, the one where you said you'd rather be cut off like North Korea and/or living in a garden shed.

If it was that or a United States of Europe then yes I would take to the shed.
In a few years when we are all back in horse and carts we will all be back in sheds like when it was Uncles Silas's time.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BS. I didn't.