***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 84 *****
IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ
Before discussions start in this thread, I would like to point out that any petty arguments, personal attacks, or any other infringement of house rules, etc. will be deleted where we feel fit from now on.
We will not give notice that we have deleted something. Nor will we enter into discussion why something was deleted. That will also be deleted.
It seems that discussion about Brexit brings out the worst in some people.
Be nice, Play nice, and control your temper. Your co-operation would be appreciated.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 2 Sep 19 at 10:09
|
|
I see that Jamie Oliver's restaurant chain has collapsed and he is blaming Brexit. Has anyone on here eaten in one of his establishments? I haven't.
|
|
Yes, ages ago in Oxford. Food was ok, service was rubbish. They simply couldn't cope at busy times.
|
|
Cannot even remember ever seeing one never mind trying it. Inability to cope at busy times is common. We saw it last November in Papas Fish and Chip Shop in Scarborough. It was a glorious Sunday, warm as summer and with all attractions going so pretty busy though not manic. Trouble was staff were all youngsters and nobody seemed to be in charge.
|
>>>Trouble was staff were all youngsters and nobody seemed to be in charge. <<<
Good experience for a future career in Government? :)
|
>> Cannot even remember ever seeing one never mind trying it. Inability to cope at busy
>> times is common. We saw it last November in Papas Fish and Chip Shop in
>> Scarborough. It was a glorious Sunday, warm as summer and with all attractions going so
>> pretty busy though not manic. Trouble was staff were all youngsters and nobody seemed to
>> be in charge.
Bring back National Service! That's the answer to all these problems.
|
>> Bring back National Service! That's the answer to all these problems.
It would be. Except that the military don't want them.
And can you imagine the demonstrations and protests.
Daughter #1 is going into the military. I think she might go off the idea if she thought the scroats were joining her.
|
Daughter #1 is going into the military. I think she might go off the idea
>> if she thought the scroats were joining her.
>>
Good for her, what branch is she looking to go into?
|
>> The Royal Navy.
Good for her, friends of ours daughter went into the Navy, became a navigating officer on a cruise ship, is now skipper of a minor floating gin palace in the med with her private chef boyfriend providing the food.
|
>> The Royal Navy.
>>
Good luck to her, decided on a role or still thinking, if you don't mind me asking.
|
I certainly don't mind you asking, I appreciate your interest.
Marine Commando.
Second choice is Mine disposal diver.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 21 Aug 19 at 19:43
|
>> I certainly don't mind you asking, I appreciate your interest.
>>
>> Marine Commando.
>>
>> Second choice is Mine disposal diver.
>>
I'd read the first couple of women have got through the commando course since it was opened. So it really is open to all.
Can't say I know much about divers, I understand it's a small niche trade but little else I'm afraid.
|
You and me both. I didn't even know it was a career. Apparently all ships have divers but over and above that diving is a standalone unit. I should know much more than I do, but I have always been determined to make sure she drives this process.
For the tougher training courses she needs to put on body mass. Her normal week is 3 x 2hours gym, 3 x 2hours muay thai, + 3 x 2 mile run per week and has been for the last couple of years.
Consequently she carries absolutely no fat at all. And that is not suitable for arduous training. She's managed to put on 4kg over the last 6 months, but she needs more yet.
She eats like a b***** horse, which is not irritating at all.
Though it is amusing to watch her at school sports. She is far fitter than any of her teachers and can run a very long way, albeit she is not particularly fast.
There is no doubt she will join the Navy, no doubt that it will not be a desk job. What it actually turns out to be is very much down to her & her choice, commitment and capabilities.
We shall see what we shall see.
Academically she is forecast to exceed their requirements by some measure, which helps. And is entirely due to the fact that she changed from being an idle little sod doing the bare minimum to suddenly getting all keen about 18months ago.
|
Join the Army: be a man
Join the Navy: feel a man
etc
|
|
She's a girl. I'm not sure the verse has the same impact.
|
As you say she seems to be on top of her training, I take it she's got info from the RM about what type of training to carry out in the lead up to joining?
If i remember correctly there is some sort of pre assessment before going to basic training, a week long approx that gives those wishing to join an insight and help them learn what standards they have to aim for. It's certainly one of the hardest phase 1 courses you can undertake.
|
Various of my friends are senior in the Navy in general, the marines in particular and also other groups as well as other ranks.
I think she's under new illusions.
Yes, there are aptitude tests, online assessments, interviews, pre-assessment training and a couple of other steps to get through before the real thing.
They do a pretty mature and thorough job of recruitment these days.
I think that pretty much whatever happens it is a learning experience for her on many, many levels.
|
>>I think she's under new illusions.
I think she's under NO illusions.
Doh.
|
|
Sounds like she's all sorted. You'll have to let us know how she gets on, again if you don't mind.
|
Marine Commando.
Good for her.
Whilst physical fitness is of the utmost importance the right mental attitude is paramount. It takes a special person with the right attitude, resilience and grit.
I'm not a big fan of these 'SAS you think you're hard enough' type programmes (bit of an ego trip for the Directing Staff) BUT they do give an insight into the type of mind breaking and physical breaking scenarios they undertake. But I do watch them :S
Went to see talks by both Ant Middleton (Mind Over Muscle) and Billy Billingham recently.
Ant Middleton has also written a book entitled 'Mind over Muscle" which may be worth a read.
I liked his quote, "If your destination is failure that's where you will end up"
Last edited by: Fullchat on Wed 21 Aug 19 at 21:14
|
Looking forward to cosying up to this deluded cretinous bellend.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49416740
|
|
He is an amazing dick. Quite beyond belief.
|
>> He is an amazing dick. Quite beyond belief.
Genuinely unhinged?
|
>> >> He is an amazing dick. Quite beyond belief.
>>
>> Genuinely unhinged?
Certainly unbalanced.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 21 Aug 19 at 15:39
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49416740
Colonialism by other means? Britain had an example of a privately owned overseas territory in Sarawak and could have occupied it as a colony, had the offer made by owner James Brooke been accepted. Brooke did not buy his 743 square km back yard; it was given to him by the then Sultan of Borneo. Trump has proposed to buy but perhaps would eventually have made a similar offer to the US.
In fact, if there isn't an American presence in Greenland already that would be surprising, as it has some 800 overseas military bases around the globe, quite apart from those in the overseas territories it holds of Puerto Rico, Guam, Samoa (part of) and the Northern Marianna and US Virgin islands.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 24 Aug 19 at 21:16
|
|
There used to be a few bases, mainly radar stations and a couple of airbases. Thule was one of them.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49416740
>>
>> Colonialism by other means? Britain had an example of a privately owned overseas territory in
>> Sarawak and could have occupied it as a colony, had the offer made by owner
>> James Brooke been accepted. Brooke did not buy his 743 square km back yard; it
>> was given to him by the then Sultan of Borneo. Trump has proposed to buy
>> but perhaps would eventually have made a similar offer to the US.
>>
>> In fact, if there isn't an American presence in Greenland already that would be surprising,
>> as it has some 800 overseas military bases around the globe, quite apart from those
>> in the overseas territories it holds of Puerto Rico, Guam, Samoa (part of) and the
>> Northern Marianna and US Virgin islands.
Americans have a base at Thule.
And a former one at Narsarsuaq
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 21 Aug 19 at 16:27
|
Good post on another forum -
Donald Trump has just bought Poundland, he though the brochure said Poland.
|
"Donald Trump has just bought Poundland, he though the brochure said Poland."
Nah, but Iceland, I could believe.
|
God I would so like one of the prime ministers to say "you plonker Donald!", I bet he would have no idea what i meant.
|
>>Nah, but Iceland, I could believe.
The second attempt by a US President. Ike tried to buy it during Cold WarI for strategic reasons. They now pertain in Cold WarII. Other Presidents have been involved in half a dozen large territory deals, starting with the Louisiana Purchase.
|
>> Ike tried to buy it during Cold WarI for strategic reasons.
Actually, it was Truman. Andrew Jackson had also made an offer.
|
Let's hope he's accepted.
Clay Henry and his offspring did a superb job in Lajitas.
|
|
Difficult to see what the Government has achieved in the last three years that the cat could not have improved upon.
|
"the Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association said the pies were not exported to Iceland.
I'm sure I saw them in the chiller the other day while shopping there ;)
|
You are right - from said article
"Matthew O'Callaghan - who chairs the Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association, which represents the pies' makers - told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that, as far as he knew, the claim was wrong.
Asked if Mr Johnson was right, Mr O'Callaghan replied: "Not really. With all of these things there is a little bit of give and take. We don't actually export to Thailand or Iceland."
When pressed again, Mr O'Callaghan said: "Not that I know of I'm afraid.
"It is certainly available in Iceland the shop."
|
|
Err, I didn't read that far down - obviously.
|
> Asked if Mr Johnson was right, Mr O'Callaghan replied: "Not really. With all of these
>> things there is a little bit of give and take. We don't actually export to
>> Thailand or Iceland.
Slightly odd way to answer that question.
|
>>Slightly odd way to answer that question.
I guess no point antagonising the PM - MM pies are pretty much only sold domestically so they probably aren't overly bothered about the effect of Brexit.
|
|
Surely the whole point of the PMs observation was that pork pies and other gooods can be sold in many places throughout th world but not the USA. The fact tha Melbron Mowbray pork pies aren’t actually sold in Iceland kind of misses the point.
|
>> Surely the whole point of the PMs observation was that pork pies and other gooods
>> can be sold in many places throughout th world but not the USA.
But they cant, many countries have the same restrictions as the USA.
>>The fact
>> tha Melbron Mowbray pork pies aren’t actually sold in Iceland kind of misses the point.
Not really, it merely shows that Boris misses the point that food trade outside the EU is fraught with regulatory issues.
|
|
We’ll yes but his comments were aimed at the USA and intended to point out tha a Trade Deal would need to be broad in its scope and not the rather narrow agreement that Trump would undoubtedly like to deliver. The point he was making was valid but like so often his jokey approach and silly analogies get in the way of clarity.
|
....and if this is the best example he can think of about the advantages of free trade once outside the EU, then he really is scratching around (pun intended); heaven help us.
We're all going to be working in MM on the pork pie production lines, desperately trying to keep UK PLC's head above water, producing millions of pies for export to countries where there is no demand.
Of course, various members of his cabinet have "promised" in the past that we won't relax our food standards to let in such things as chlorinated chicken; if that's the case, do we seriously think the FDA are going to relax their pork pie laws?
Not one of his "populist" statements withstands even a second's critical scrutiny, but he and his backers know that, and such critical scrutiny is slow in coming from the fourth estate, and blatantly evaded (C4 News anyone) when it does.
I'd be more encouraged if there were pronouncements on a bright future for our financial services, car industry, technology firms, etc. in any potential new trading opportunities. ......I wouldn't believe them, but at least I might think someone had got a grasp of the reality of the problems.
|
>> Not one of his "populist" statements withstands even a second's critical scrutiny, but he and
>> his backers know that, and such critical scrutiny is slow in coming from the fourth
>> estate, and blatantly evaded (C4 News anyone) when it does.
>>
>> I'd be more encouraged if there were pronouncements on a bright future for our financial
>> services, car industry, technology firms, etc. in any potential new trading opportunities. ......I wouldn't believe
>> them, but at least I might think someone had got a grasp of the reality
>> of the problems.
I agree.
The sectors you list, together with the services sector in general are the ones that employ most of the people, and pay most of the bills in this country, and they are going to be left high and dry by a no deal scenario. The Financial Services sector simply cannot continue in anything like its present form if it loses passporting rights, and it's going to be hard to build cars when the components are subject to customs delays and tariffs, and the finished products going for export will be too.
Leavers of course dismiss this as "project fear", but it's actually project reality, and it's 2 months away. Real people's jobs and real, wealth generating companies entire business models under real threat, and no apparent plan beyond jingoistic nonsense. All the while, our leader sucks up to a mentally unstable narcissist with a history of emotional overreaction and completely unexpected u-turns, and bumbles on about pork effin' pies. You couldn't make it up.
|
>> loses passporting rights
This is a worry for me. Some of our biggest clients are in Europe and I was being asked about rights to do business in Dublin last week, without a cogent reply - simply because we just don't know with two months to go!
|
I was recently asked if I had a non-British EU passport for a particularly well paid Brexit oriented job.
So a bunch of people who probably voted remain are about to make money out of those who voted leave. Whereas many of those who voted leave.....
Every cloud.
|
There was an interesting read in a recent Private Eye about how much some MPs have made, simply through their job changes. Apparently
- Boris was paid a "compensation sum" of £16876 when he resigned after Chequers last year
- his SPADs David Frost and Ben Gascoigne "picked up cheques of £30000 and £18000 respectively because of their "contracts being terminated with the departure from Government of the Rt Hon Boris Johnson". Both have now joined Johnson in Downing Street, with Frost serving as his EU adviser... and Gascoigne Chief of Staff at No 10".
- "Johnson's successor but one at the Foreign Office, Dominic Raab, who resigned as BREXIT Secretary in November 2018 saying he could not "in good conscience support the terms proposed for out deal with the EU", also pocketed £16876".
- a payout of £7920 went to Boris's brother Jo who also left on Nov 2018 because he couldn't support the prospect of no deal and supported the call for a second referendum, but he's now back in as university minister in a govt which, as the Eye points out, "very much entertains a no-deal BREXIT and certainly no second referendum".
Lastly "ex-fisheries minister George Eustice received the same amount as Jo Johnson over his principled resignation five months ago, before walking straight back into the job under the new regime".
Troughs and snouts spring to mind.
|
>> Surely the whole point of the PMs observation was that pork pies and other gooods
>> can be sold in many places throughout th world but not the USA. The fact
>> tha Melbron Mowbray pork pies aren’t actually sold in Iceland kind of misses the point.
>>
That's what I took his roundabout point to mean.
|
>> >>Slightly odd way to answer that question.
>>
>> I guess no point antagonising the PM - MM pies are pretty much only sold
>> domestically so they probably aren't overly bothered about the effect of Brexit.
>>
I don't know where they are exported to, still an odd way to phrase an answer.
Btw anyone know why MM pies can't be sold in the US?
|
>>
>> Btw anyone know why MM pies can't be sold in the US?
>>
...they fail the FDA's import rules, probably because they're chlorine washed in the factory before shipping.
(Actually, I strongly suspect it is because MM pies use uncured pork, which nominally at least, could lead to importation of all manner of "stuff")
|
>> (Actually, I strongly suspect it is because MM pies use uncured pork, which nominally at
>> least, could lead to importation of all manner of "stuff")
That would likely prevent them being imported uncooked.
But the main reason is possibly that we won't let their muck in here.
|
>> >>
>> >> Btw anyone know why MM pies can't be sold in the US?
>> >>
>>
>> ...they fail the FDA's import rules, probably because they're chlorine washed in the factory before
>> shipping.
>>
>> (Actually, I strongly suspect it is because MM pies use uncured pork, which nominally at
>> least, could lead to importation of all manner of "stuff")
>>
Don't want our dodgy unhygienic meat eh?
I don't mind a mini MM every now and again.
|
I'm heading to a German trade show at the weekend to attempt to drum up some business for the British fashion brand I work for. Then on to Paris the following week for the same reasons.
Taking the car because of all the kit I'll need, but the journey should fun enough.
Less amusing will be trying to secure contracts for 2020 deliveries without being able to say what the clients will have to pay for the goods.
Any suggestions welcome, because I haven't got a scooby what to say.
|
....just emulate Boris.
Keep it dull, keep it vague and get the hell out of the room as fast as possible.
""Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit ..."
....that should do it.
;-)
|
Yeah, that'll work. No one will think I'm dicking them about will they?
;-)
|
...hey, man up old chap.
It could be worse, it's only shoes.
You could be attempting to sell them iffy pork pies.
;-)
|
|
Yeah, it's only shoes, and a few hundred people's jobs...
|
....now, you see, you'll never get anything out of the French and Germans if you get dragged into that level of detailed thinking.......
(You know that, despite any jocularity, you have my sympathy. Wohin gehen sie in Deutschland?)
|
|
Düsseldorf, relatively easy run from Calais.
|
You have my total sympathy Runfer. When I worked in retail, I found it stressful enough placing orders in March so goods could be manufactured and delivered in late September early October ready for the Christmas trade. And I knew exactly what I was paying. The only worries were running out of stock and losing sales, or being left with seasonal goods which sat in the warehouse for ten months.
Glad I’m out of it !
|
....if you're at the Messe, it'll be busy.
It's the Caravan Salon next week, just about the biggest caravan/motorhome show in the world.
I will not be attending, but I should be wafting past Dusseldorf on Friday some time.
|
|
Not at the Messe, but it may well get messy.
|
Government to ask Queen to suspend Parliament www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49493632
Fair means or foul?
|
Absolutely disgusting IMO.
Leavers have wittered on about the need to honour the referendum and be democratic but they seem happy to close down democracy to get their way.
|
It's simply a continuation of the shambles which parliament has become over the last couple of years. Another negative step in a process marked by negatives, everyone seemed to know what they didn't want nobody could convince enough people to choose something they did want.
I voted remain, I still think voting to leave the EU was a stupid decision, but is suspect we have come too far and leaving is inevitable now as UK business will suffer at least as much from another yearn or more of uncertainty as it will from a "no deal" exit, whatever that would actually mean in practice.
I don't like BJ's approach but I do think it will cause the jump to happen, for better or for worse, it is a sad day for democracy that it has to be this way, but then it was a sad day for democracy when the referendum was called and taken anyway.
|
>>I don't like BJ's approach but I do think it will cause the jump to happen, for better or for worse
Thinking about this, if parliament is suspended and we exit with no deal, everything that every happens will be Johnson's fault. He will lose the PM role and the Government will hit the brickwall of an election.
Bozo must think that this approach will bring a demonstrable and better result that the country will be happy with or at least prepared to live with.
The only way this can make much difference is to stop Parliament taking any formal action, or (and perhaps more importantly) issue any confusing, fragmenting statements.
So right now we're betting on Bozo's wish to be seen in history as a hero who began a new age for the UK and his ability to achieve that dream.
I'm not sure that's a bad bet.
I certainly can't see a better one right now.
|
|
I don't agree with that but he'll probably justify it in using every tatic to get his objective just as those that oppose him would do the same.
|
|
The two camps are poles apart but neither side wishes to compromise.
|
The vast majority of MPs do not want a no deal exit. Yet they voted against Mrs May's negotiated deal on three occasions, knowing full well that there was nothing better on offer and that those defeats were almost certain to bring her down and propel "Out at any cost" Boris into Downing Street.
They can hardly complain now that what was painfully obvious is probably going to happen.
|
Our whole parliamentary party system is to blame, only too eager to blame "the other side" every time.
The Labour Party and the Conservative party should be banned.
|
>> By whom?
>>
The electorate.
|
>> >> By whom?
>> >>
>> The electorate.
The electorate would be the only group of people less capable than our politicians I think.
|
Assuming you would wish to achieve this objective constitutionally how is the electorate going to get Parliament, comprised overwhelmingly by members of the Tory and Labour parties to pass a law making their party membership illegal?
If you were to make only the Tory and Labour Party illegal what would stop the reforming under another name?
Perhaps you would want to make all parties illegal but is hard to see how a parliamentary democracy could work without parties. Nothing would ever get done although you might see that as desirable. It would in any case difficult to define what a political party is. Is an informal group with shared interests in achieving their objectives in Parliament a political party? That after all is how political parties came about.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Wed 28 Aug 19 at 17:52
|
>> Assuming you would wish to achieve this objective constitutionally how is the electorate going to
>> get Parliament, comprised overwhelmingly by members of the Tory and Labour parties to pass a
>> law making their party membership illegal?
I assumed, rightly or wrongly, that Zero wasn't being totally serious.
I thought it was what might be called "a tongue in cheek" remark.i
|
|
No doubt but it is interesting to sometimes look at these sorts of thing. The party system is often criticised but it is difficult to envisage a parliamentary democracy without it. One is an inevitable consequence of the other.
|
>
>> party system is often criticised but it is difficult to envisage a parliamentary democracy without
>> it. One is an inevitable consequence of the other.
Of course its not. Its inevitable that coalitions would develop in Parliament, but these could often be transient current issue or sub policy based. The "party system" is too based in class history, and two party "blame it on each other" mean we achieve not much socially or economically. Worse this is the case in local elections.
What is wrong with the panacea of voting for an individual with whom you share some values, rather than party "because thats the way its always been for my father and his father" or the cult of leader.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 28 Aug 19 at 22:14
|
I do agree with Zero, party politics has had its day and the way forward should be issue/policy based alliances. Even compromises and deals.
For example; One cannot assume that because I agree with Labour on the NHS that I will agree with them on economic policy. etc. etc. etc.
I don't quite know how we get rid of it, but we should try.
|
|
It's one of those ideas that initially sounds good but the more you think about it the less attractive and possible it becomes. I think I am right in saying that no democracy in the world functions without them.
|
|
I think the chances of modernising or changing parliament are remote considering they still haven't thought of a quicker, more efficient way of voting other than walking through archways and being physically counted.........
|
>>The vast majority of MPs do not want a no deal exit.
Either in the possibly 3 days available to them before or the two weeks available after the MPs could get together as a group and stop Bozo in his tracks.
But they won't.
Which tells you all you need to know about their motivation and commitment.
|
>> >>The vast majority of MPs do not want a no deal exit.
>>
They know what they do not want but there is no cohesive plan for an alternative to the BJ approach, all that parliamentary democracy has achieved in the last few years is a shambles where there is, I suspect, a large section of the public, and indeed the business community, who want to get on with it one way or another and end the uncertainty.
|
FWIW there is now a petition with over 1m signatures - heading is
"Do not prorogue Parliament"
and detail is
"Parliament must not be prorogued or dissolved unless and until the Article 50 period has been sufficiently extended or the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU has been cancelled."
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157
The front page of the petitions website says "if a petition gets 10,000 signatures, the Government will respond". Probably with two fingers, or maybe just the one, when it's back from recess of course!)
I see the earlier one to "Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU" eventually reached 6.103.040 signatures
|
|
Its interesting to look at the map view. Pretty much reflects the referendum results as you might expect. We are a divided nation and whatever happens this divide,with its resulting hostility and recriminations is going to persist for a very long time. The future looks pretty bleak to me.
|
>>FWIW there is now a petition with over 1m signatures - heading is
>>
>>"Do not prorogue Parliament"
I can't see how that is ever going to do any good, whatever number of signatories it gets to.
|
>> Absolutely disgusting IMO.
>>
>> Leavers have wittered on about the need to honour the referendum and be democratic but
>> they seem happy to close down democracy to get their way.
Normally prorogation happens as part of a regular cycle. Excepting when Commons/Lords brinkmanship over 'ping pong' goes wrong meaningful legislation gets sorted.
Maybe not so this time:
www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/parliament-shut-down-puts-justice-bills-under-threat/5101246.article
The Domestic Abuse Bill and the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill deal with practical stuff that's been neglected for years. The latter, removing 'fault' from Divorce, is a reform that's half a century overdue.
The former is more mundane but no less needed; women (and it's overwhelmingly women) in domestic proceedings shouldn't be questioned about intimate matters, via in person cross examination by their alleged abuser.
God knows if there's the will/time to bring them back in next session or if the backwoodsmen who've stymied this stuff in past will keep quiet next time.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 30 Aug 19 at 00:11
|
I know I said this yesterday, but I keep coming back to this;
This move can only mean that Bozo is fighting for a deal and believes that this will help him get it. It makes no sense, especially considering he ambition, to do this and then go for no-deal.
Perhaps it is a negotiating ploy to try to remove any tendency towards brinkmanship from the EU.
Can anybody else see another reason?
|
>> >>
>> Can anybody else see another reason?
>>
Unless he genuinely believe no deal is a workable outcome I can't either. Whether it's too late in the day to make a battle hardened EU blink is another matter. May's biggest error was taking no deal off the table almost at the start of negotiations, it left her very short of ammo for the rest of the fight.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Thu 29 Aug 19 at 12:20
|
|
I don't doubt he genuinely wants a deal. The question is can he get one and will MPs agree to it. They have turned down a deal three times.
|
|
They turned the deal down because they thought they could get a better one, although what type was better depended on which of the various factions they subscribed to. Now they can see over the edge of the cliff they might turn out to be less fussy.
|
>> They turned the deal down because they thought they could get a better one, although
>> what type was better depended on which of the various factions they subscribed to. Now
>> they can see over the edge of the cliff they might turn out to be
>> less fussy.
>>
I am not convinced that "parliament" is/was ever going to be able to agree on any deal. Whatever May came to them with it was never going to be accepted
|
>> >> >>
>> I am not convinced that "parliament" is/was ever going to be able to agree on
>> any deal. Whatever May came to them with it was never going to be accepted
>>
That was when they thought they had time to either negotiate an alternative or to scupper the whole process, depending which faction they subscribed to. That time is rapidly disappearing and they have a real heavyweight running the show now.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Thu 29 Aug 19 at 14:04
|
>> I know I said this yesterday, but I keep coming back to this;
>>
>> This move can only mean that Bozo is fighting for a deal
>>
>> Perhaps it is a negotiating ploy to try to remove any tendency towards brinkmanship from
>> the EU.
>>
>> Can anybody else see another reason?
No.Much as I don't want to give him credit for anything, as long as parliament looks likely to block no-deal the EU need do nothing but wait. Unless parliament agrees something else then we default to leaving with no deal at the end of October. If he has burnt his own lifeboats by preventing parliament interfering, then in theory at least the EU might take the threat of no-deal more seriously.
Perhaps he thinks he can climb down the week after if needs be. Maybe the EU is thinking the same thing.
This prorogation is actually the first substantive thing he has done since becoming PM, ignoring all the waffle and glad-handing.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 29 Aug 19 at 14:06
|
Vote of no confidence might not be far off.
It's the outgoing Prime Minister who is charge until the election result + it is he who sets the date - Thursday 7th November?
|
>> Can anybody else see another reason?
I think he's concluded that in order to secure himself politically with the Tory party he has to achieve Brexit at pretty much any cost. If the cost is 'no deal' and the various consequences predicted ensue he'll blame that on EU intransigence.
If parliament has blocked option of no deal tighter than a mouse's backside AND the EU say no change to divorce terms to which his predecessor committed AND he's then left with no choice but to ask for A50 extension then he's maybe shortest lived leader in Tory history....
|
>> I think he's concluded that in order to secure himself politically with the Tory party
>> he has to achieve Brexit at pretty much any cost.
Which seems to be pretty much what Laura K is saying here:
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07lx9tm
|
Brexit Discussion - Volume 82 - Haywain
