Discussion:
Is Dominic Cummings the new Cromwell?
Add Reply
MM
2019-08-08 08:49:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.

Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?

MM
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-08-08 09:26:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
MM
2019-08-08 09:48:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
Sure, but this guy seems to be assuming powers that no previous
adviser had. Some journalists are branding him as "dangerous" and I
happen to agree.

MM
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-08-08 10:00:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
Sure, but this guy seems to be assuming powers that no previous
Okay, I'd be genuinely interested in hearing about those powers.
Alastair Campbell was, and remains, something of a legend. The
character of Malcolm Tucker is sublime (for those who do not have to
work with him). ISTM that Cummings' personality has yet to be
completely revealed.
Post by MM
adviser had. Some journalists are branding him as "dangerous" and I
happen to agree.
MM
Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's. Thanks for sharing.
Incubus
2019-08-08 10:08:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The Todal
2019-08-08 10:20:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.

It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.

It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
abelard
2019-08-08 10:34:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
your dishonesty amazes me...
the was out or in...
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
--
www.abelard.org
Incubus
2019-08-08 11:12:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
They didn't vote for a "deal" Brexit either. What they voted for was to leave
the EU.
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Post by The Todal
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
There is no waiting until we have a deal. Parliament rejected the bad deal
that May brokered with Merkel and the EU say they won't renegotiate. That only
leaves one option - to leave with no deal.
Keema's Nan
2019-08-08 11:25:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
They didn't vote for a "deal" Brexit either. What they voted for was to leave
the EU.
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
I don’t remember anything about deals either.

Just that A50 said there would be a period when both sides would negotiate an
agreement and if nothing could be agreed in 2 years we would just leave;
which is what we haven’t done.

There is nothing in A50 which says if we can’t reach a deal then we can’t
leave - and yet that is what our parliament seems to have imposed on us.

So, as far as I am concerned it is Westminster which has over-ridden what the
leavers voted for.Hopefully when it comes to the next GE, parliament will pay
the price for that.
Post by The Todal
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
There is no waiting until we have a deal. Parliament rejected the bad deal
that May brokered with Merkel and the EU say they won't renegotiate. That only
leaves one option - to leave with no deal.
The Todal
2019-08-08 11:25:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
They didn't vote for a "deal" Brexit either. What they voted for was to leave
the EU.
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
There is no waiting until we have a deal. Parliament rejected the bad deal
that May brokered with Merkel and the EU say they won't renegotiate. That only
leaves one option - to leave with no deal.
But you're wrong, surely.

Boris and Gove have promised us a wonderful new deal, to take the place
of Theresa's deal. Boris said it was a million to one possibility that
we'd leave with no deal and he was confident that he could make a new deal.

Oh fuck. Was he lying again? Who would ever have expected that?
Incubus
2019-08-08 11:33:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
They didn't vote for a "deal" Brexit either. What they voted for was to leave
the EU.
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
There is no waiting until we have a deal. Parliament rejected the bad deal
that May brokered with Merkel and the EU say they won't renegotiate. That only
leaves one option - to leave with no deal.
But you're wrong, surely.
Boris and Gove have promised us a wonderful new deal, to take the place
of Theresa's deal. Boris said it was a million to one possibility that
we'd leave with no deal and he was confident that he could make a new deal.
When and where did he say that?

Change of subject noted, by the way.
Post by The Todal
Oh fuck. Was he lying again? Who would ever have expected that?
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-08-08 11:44:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
They didn't vote for a "deal" Brexit either. What they voted for was to leave
the EU.
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a
successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party.
And in any case, can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated? The
sentence doesn't say 'we will /successfully/ negotiate'. And as for the
inclusion of the rather optimistic 'careful change'... :-) Well, I can
only suggest that there is little satisfaction to be had from giving
such things too much of one's attention.
Incubus
2019-08-08 12:01:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
They didn't vote for a "deal" Brexit either. What they voted for was to leave
the EU.
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a
successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party.
Indeed.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
And in any case, can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated? The
sentence doesn't say 'we will /successfully/ negotiate'. And as for the
inclusion of the rather optimistic 'careful change'... :-) Well, I can
only suggest that there is little satisfaction to be had from giving
such things too much of one's attention.
It helps Remainers to muddy the waters and accuse politicians and campaigns of
having lied. The fact that a Remainer PM performed the negotiations and put us
in the current situation doesn't factor into their analysis.
MM
2019-08-08 16:52:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 12:01:07 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
They didn't vote for a "deal" Brexit either. What they voted for was to leave
the EU.
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a
successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party.
Indeed.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
And in any case, can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated? The
sentence doesn't say 'we will /successfully/ negotiate'. And as for the
inclusion of the rather optimistic 'careful change'... :-) Well, I can
only suggest that there is little satisfaction to be had from giving
such things too much of one's attention.
It helps Remainers to muddy the waters and accuse politicians and campaigns of
having lied. The fact that a Remainer PM performed the negotiations and put us
in the current situation doesn't factor into their analysis.
Sorry, but you cannot erase the words on a printed page.

MM
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-08-09 09:16:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 12:01:07 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
They didn't vote for a "deal" Brexit either. What they voted for was to leave
the EU.
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a
successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party.
Indeed.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
And in any case, can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated? The
sentence doesn't say 'we will /successfully/ negotiate'. And as for the
inclusion of the rather optimistic 'careful change'... :-) Well, I can
only suggest that there is little satisfaction to be had from giving
such things too much of one's attention.
It helps Remainers to muddy the waters and accuse politicians and campaigns of
having lied. The fact that a Remainer PM performed the negotiations and put us
in the current situation doesn't factor into their analysis.
Sorry, but you cannot erase the words on a printed page.
MM
Sadly, political promises are not worth the paper they are printed on.
People can only vote with their gut feeling these days. Perhaps that's
all they've ever done, really? What do either of the traditional big
two parties stand for now?
abelard
2019-08-08 12:28:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
They didn't vote for a "deal" Brexit either. What they voted for was to leave
the EU.
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a
successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party.
And in any case, can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated? The
sentence doesn't say 'we will /successfully/ negotiate'. And as for the
inclusion of the rather optimistic 'careful change'... :-) Well, I can
only suggest that there is little satisfaction to be had from giving
such things too much of one's attention.
it is common for orgs like banks to try to impose the likes of
higher interest rates and call that 'renegotiating'

toad seem rather inexperienced in the real world

never the less the referendum was for in or out...to claim
otherwise is merely crude dishonesty..
--
www.abelard.org
Mike Scott
2019-08-08 13:06:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 08/08/2019 12:44, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
.....
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a
successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party.
And in any case, can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated?  The ....
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels
would not negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
--
Mike Scott
Harlow, England
Yellow
2019-08-08 15:04:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:06:37 +0100 Mike Scott <usenet.16
Post by Mike Scott
.....
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a
successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party.
And in any case, can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated?  The ....
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels
would not negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
You are of course correct.

https://tinyurl.com/y22ulgku

or

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/03/eu-commission-still-
refuses-uk-talks-before-article-50-triggered
The Todal
2019-08-08 15:27:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:06:37 +0100 Mike Scott <usenet.16
Post by Mike Scott
.....
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a
successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party.
And in any case, can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated?  The ....
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels
would not negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
You are of course correct.
https://tinyurl.com/y22ulgku
or
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/03/eu-commission-still-
refuses-uk-talks-before-article-50-triggered
Yes, I think most of us remember that.

However, the mistake we made was to serve Article 50 notice before
Parliament knew what sort of a deal would be acceptable to Parliament.

I remember the Norman opinion in this group - that we should keep all
our options secret both from the public and from Parliament. Which is
like going into a garage to buy a car without knowing whether your
spouse wants to pay 10k or 50k, or have a big car or a small car, or an
old car or a new car, etc etc. After all, if the salesman had a clue
what you wanted to buy, he might actually swindle you.
Yellow
2019-08-08 19:31:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:06:37 +0100 Mike Scott <usenet.16
Post by Mike Scott
.....
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a
successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party.
And in any case, can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated?  The ....
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels
would not negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
You are of course correct.
https://tinyurl.com/y22ulgku
or
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/03/eu-commission-still-
refuses-uk-talks-before-article-50-triggered
Yes, I think most of us remember that.
However, the mistake we made was to serve Article 50 notice before
Parliament knew what sort of a deal would be acceptable to Parliament.
You may well be right, in hindsight, but it seems to me that it is only
the EU who were really pointing this out. Here, no one (in Parliament)
seemed that bothered.

But given it is now clear that we had a government that didn't really
have their heart in it I am not sure it could ever have gone another way
with that particular crowd in charge.

And of course the opposition were more interested in trying to gain
power, with a view to nationalising everything that was not nailed down,
than doing their job properly in this area either.
Post by The Todal
I remember the Norman opinion in this group - that we should keep all
our options secret both from the public and from Parliament. Which is
like going into a garage to buy a car without knowing whether your
spouse wants to pay 10k or 50k, or have a big car or a small car, or an
old car or a new car, etc etc. After all, if the salesman had a clue
what you wanted to buy, he might actually swindle you.
That is not quite how I remember Norman's position and instead recall
him arguing that strategies should not be made public.

But given Norman does not have influence out in the real world, I am not
sure that knowing his opinion really helped us very much.
MM
2019-08-09 09:43:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:06:37 +0100 Mike Scott <usenet.16
Post by Mike Scott
.....
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a
successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party.
And in any case, can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated?  The ....
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels
would not negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
You are of course correct.
https://tinyurl.com/y22ulgku
or
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/03/eu-commission-still-
refuses-uk-talks-before-article-50-triggered
Yes, I think most of us remember that.
However, the mistake we made was to serve Article 50 notice before
Parliament knew what sort of a deal would be acceptable to Parliament.
You may well be right, in hindsight, but it seems to me that it is only
the EU who were really pointing this out. Here, no one (in Parliament)
seemed that bothered.
But given it is now clear that we had a government that didn't really
have their heart in it I am not sure it could ever have gone another way
with that particular crowd in charge.
That crowd hasn't changed. A few henchmen new in cabinet, sure, but
the vast majority of Tory MPs are just as they were the day before
Boris became PM.

MM
MM
2019-08-08 16:54:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:06:37 +0100, Mike Scott
Post by Mike Scott
.....
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a
successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party.
And in any case, can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated?  The ....
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels
would not negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
That's why most MPs voted for Article 50. It was just a an academic
move to help things along. Their voting for Article 50 in no way
confirmed each and every MP's wish to leave, far from it.

MM
Norman Wells
2019-08-08 17:34:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:06:37 +0100, Mike Scott
Post by Mike Scott
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels
would not negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
That's why most MPs voted for Article 50. It was just a an academic
move to help things along. Their voting for Article 50 in no way
confirmed each and every MP's wish to leave, far from it.
No, of course it didn't, dear.

Now, care to tell us why, if they didn't want to leave, MPs voted in
such huge numbers to trigger the process of leaving? What possessed
them to 'help things along'? Doesn't seem quite rational to me.
MM
2019-08-09 09:44:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:06:37 +0100, Mike Scott
Post by Mike Scott
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels
would not negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
That's why most MPs voted for Article 50. It was just a an academic
move to help things along. Their voting for Article 50 in no way
confirmed each and every MP's wish to leave, far from it.
No, of course it didn't, dear.
Now, care to tell us why, if they didn't want to leave, MPs voted in
such huge numbers to trigger the process of leaving? What possessed
them to 'help things along'? Doesn't seem quite rational to me.
Because, as has been previously stated, no negotiation with the EU
could start until we had triggered Article 50.

MM
Ian Jackson
2019-08-09 10:32:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:06:37 +0100, Mike Scott
Post by Mike Scott
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels
would not negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
That's why most MPs voted for Article 50. It was just a an academic
move to help things along. Their voting for Article 50 in no way
confirmed each and every MP's wish to leave, far from it.
No, of course it didn't, dear.
Now, care to tell us why, if they didn't want to leave, MPs voted in
such huge numbers to trigger the process of leaving? What possessed
them to 'help things along'? Doesn't seem quite rational to me.
Because, as has been previously stated, no negotiation with the EU
could start until we had triggered Article 50.
I guess they weren't prepared to waste their time until they knew we
really were serious. Can you blame them?
--
Ian
The Todal
2019-08-09 12:28:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:06:37 +0100, Mike Scott
Post by Mike Scott
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels
would not negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
That's why most MPs voted for Article 50. It was just a an academic
move to help things along. Their voting for Article 50 in no way
confirmed each and every MP's wish to leave, far from it.
No, of course it didn't, dear.
Now, care to tell us why, if they didn't want to leave, MPs voted in
such huge numbers to trigger the process of leaving? What possessed
them to 'help things along'? Doesn't seem quite rational to me.
Because, as has been previously stated, no negotiation with the EU
could start until we had triggered Article 50.
But the more important question is why MPs didn't hold debates about
such basic questions as whether we wanted a deal that gave us access to
the single market by a temporary or permanent customs union. And whether
we should accept a backstop as a temporary but legally binding measure
until the problem of the Irish border had been solved. Did MPs not
foresee the Irish Border as a problem? If not, shouldn't they have given
it more thought? Maybe asked for a Green Paper?

All of this could and should have been done before Article 50 notice was
served, but I think we must assume that MPs naively thought that the
huge army of civil servants could be trusted to take care of all the
details, all the small print, all the hurdles.

So we served Article 50 notice and (as I understand it) our stance was:
we don't know what we want, so what are you (the EU) willing to offer?
Norman Wells
2019-08-09 14:03:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Now, care to tell us why, if they didn't want to leave, MPs voted in
such huge numbers to trigger the process of leaving?  What possessed
them to 'help things along'?  Doesn't seem quite rational to me.
Because, as has been previously stated, no negotiation with the EU
could start until we had triggered Article 50.
But the more important question is why MPs didn't hold debates about
such basic questions as whether we wanted a deal that gave us access to
the single market by a temporary or permanent customs union. And whether
we should accept a backstop as a temporary but legally binding measure
until the problem of the Irish border had been solved.
They didn't because it would have given away our bottom lines where the
EU could see them. And that's not terribly sensible when it comes to
negotiation.
Post by The Todal
Did MPs not
foresee the Irish Border as a problem? If not, shouldn't they have given
it more thought? Maybe asked for a Green Paper?
They should just have asked me. I'd have told them a hard border is the
only solution. Had they adopted that, it wouldn't have been a problem
at all.
Post by The Todal
All of this could and should have been done before Article 50 notice was
served, but I think we must assume that MPs naively thought that the
huge army of civil servants could be trusted to take care of all the
details, all the small print, all the hurdles.
You can't discuss your negotiating strategy and bottom lines in public
where the other side can see.
Post by The Todal
we don't know what we want, so what are you (the EU) willing to offer?
If the negotiators did know what they wanted, they weren't going to tell
you or the EU, were they? Not straight off anyway. Not revealing your
hand is a necessary part of negotiation if you want to get a reasonable
deal.

But I agree, there seemed to be little sense of overall direction, and
it wasn't helped by that nice Mrs May losing her overall majority which
tied her hands even more.

kat
2019-08-08 22:04:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
.....
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a successful
outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party. And in any case,
can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated?  The ....
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels would not
negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
That's what I recall.

Don't think I ever read the Vote leave leaflet referred to.
--
kat
^..^<
Norman Wells
2019-08-08 22:10:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by kat
Post by Mike Scott
.....
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say
'we will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless
when a successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of
another party. And in any case, can it not be claimed that they
/have/ negotiated?  The ....
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels
would not negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
That's what I recall.
Until we triggered Article 50 there was nothing to negotiate. The
necessary negotiations are those that Article provides.
MM
2019-08-09 09:45:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by kat
Post by Mike Scott
.....
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say
'we will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless
when a successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of
another party. And in any case, can it not be claimed that they
/have/ negotiated?  The ....
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels
would not negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
That's what I recall.
Until we triggered Article 50 there was nothing to negotiate. The
necessary negotiations are those that Article provides.
Exactly, and that is why MPs voted to trigger Article 50, just as I
said in a previous reply.

MM
Norman Wells
2019-08-09 13:28:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by kat
Post by Mike Scott
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels
would not negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
That's what I recall.
Until we triggered Article 50 there was nothing to negotiate. The
necessary negotiations are those that Article provides.
Exactly, and that is why MPs voted to trigger Article 50, just as I
said in a previous reply.
Had they not done so, though, we wouldn't be leaving, and no
negotiations would be necessary at all.

However you spin it, the MPs voted overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50
*to leave the EU*.

If they didn't want to do that, they shouldn't have done it. But they did.
The Todal
2019-08-08 13:38:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?

Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
Incubus
2019-08-08 14:11:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?
Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
It doesn't say that we wouldn't leave without a deal. That's your
interpretation of it, which is not backed up the Vote Leave campaign elsewhere
or, indeed, other campaigns such as Leave.eu.
The Todal
2019-08-08 15:41:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?
Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
It doesn't say that we wouldn't leave without a deal. That's your
interpretation of it, which is not backed up the Vote Leave campaign elsewhere
or, indeed, other campaigns such as Leave.eu.
Did any voters think that we'd leave without a deal? They probably
didn't give it much thought, most of them. Obviously the plasterer and
the electrician and the factory worker didn't think of such matters but
most people who run their own businesses and have to import from Europe
or export to Europe would have had it very much in mind. They would have
been reassured that we would negotiate a new deal before starting any
legal process to leave.

But most people may well have voted because they wanted all those
millions of pounds for the NHS ("enough to build a brand new fully
staffed NHS hospital EVERY WEEK") and they may have been worried about
terrorists ("the EU court also stops us from deporting dangerous terror
suspects") and I know a few people who were worried about where we could
possibly put 76 million Turkish people when they start to come over.

And the leaflet mentions a quarter of a million European migrants every
year, without pointing out that many of them come to work here but don't
plan to stay permanently, that even more migrants come from non EU
countries but our Home Office can't be bothered to reduce that number,
and that our own people are able to move freely to EU countries to take
up jobs and settle down in those countries. Is it possible that most
Leave voters don't speak any foreign languages and have no intention of
working or living in a country where they don't speak English? That
doesn't make them stoopid, of course. Just a bit selfish and short-sighted.
JNugent
2019-08-08 15:49:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?
Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
It doesn't say that we wouldn't leave without a deal.  That's your
interpretation of it, which is not backed up the Vote Leave campaign elsewhere
or, indeed, other campaigns such as Leave.eu.
Did any voters think that we'd leave without a deal? They probably
didn't give it much thought, most of them. Obviously the plasterer and
the electrician and the factory worker didn't think of such matters...
Why do you think so little of skilled workers?

Are you just cleverer than they all are?
The Todal
2019-08-08 15:54:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?
Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
It doesn't say that we wouldn't leave without a deal.  That's your
interpretation of it, which is not backed up the Vote Leave campaign elsewhere
or, indeed, other campaigns such as Leave.eu.
Did any voters think that we'd leave without a deal? They probably
didn't give it much thought, most of them. Obviously the plasterer and
the electrician and the factory worker didn't think of such matters...
Why do you think so little of skilled workers?
Are you just cleverer than they all are?
I thought I had made it clear, but perhaps you aren't as clever as I am.

Those were examples of people who have no reason to give any thought to
export and import tariffs because it doesn't affect their jobs on a
daily basis.

If it makes you any happier, I'd add "solicitors specialising in
domestic conveyancing".
pensive hamster
2019-08-08 16:08:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[...]
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Did any voters think that we'd leave without a deal? They probably
didn't give it much thought, most of them. Obviously the plasterer and
the electrician and the factory worker didn't think of such matters...
Why do you think so little of skilled workers?
Are you just cleverer than they all are?
I thought I had made it clear, but perhaps you aren't as clever as I am.
Those were examples of people who have no reason to give any thought to
export and import tariffs because it doesn't affect their jobs on a
daily basis.
If it makes you any happier, I'd add "solicitors specialising in
domestic conveyancing".
Plasterers (Loadsamoney!") and electricians possibly earn more
than conveyancing solicitors:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/930079/UK-jobs-construction-salary-bricklayers-electrician-plumbers-career-university
Mar 11, 2018
'Construction jobs BOOM: Bricklayers and plasterers earn
MORE than architects

'THE AVERAGE bricklayer earns 10 per cent more than the typical
architect, according to research. A poll by the Federation of Master
Builders (FMB) found that brickies earned £42,034 on average
compared to £38,228 for architects across the UK.

'... Floorers, scaffolders and plasterers also earn more and one firm
was paying London bricklayers £90,000 a year.

'... “The average university graduate in England earns £32,000 a year,
whereas your average brickie or roofer is earning £42,000 a year
across the UK.'
JNugent
2019-08-08 16:19:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to
leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?
Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
It doesn't say that we wouldn't leave without a deal.  That's your
interpretation of it, which is not backed up the Vote Leave campaign elsewhere
or, indeed, other campaigns such as Leave.eu.
Did any voters think that we'd leave without a deal? They probably
didn't give it much thought, most of them. Obviously the plasterer
and the electrician and the factory worker didn't think of such
matters...
Why do you think so little of skilled workers?
Are you just cleverer than they all are?
I thought I had made it clear, but perhaps you aren't as clever as I am.
Those were examples of people who have no reason to give any thought to
export and import tariffs because it doesn't affect their jobs on a
daily basis.
So you think that people in manual - even skilled manual - jobs have no
business voting.

Thanks for the clarification.
Post by The Todal
If it makes you any happier, I'd add "solicitors specialising in
domestic conveyancing".
It seems you think that only people rather similar to yourself (in
background, upbringing, education, occupational group and political
beliefs) should have a right to vote.

Thanks for the further clarification.
MM
2019-08-08 17:01:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to
leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?
Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
It doesn't say that we wouldn't leave without a deal.  That's your
interpretation of it, which is not backed up the Vote Leave campaign elsewhere
or, indeed, other campaigns such as Leave.eu.
Did any voters think that we'd leave without a deal? They probably
didn't give it much thought, most of them. Obviously the plasterer
and the electrician and the factory worker didn't think of such
matters...
Why do you think so little of skilled workers?
Are you just cleverer than they all are?
I thought I had made it clear, but perhaps you aren't as clever as I am.
Those were examples of people who have no reason to give any thought to
export and import tariffs because it doesn't affect their jobs on a
daily basis.
So you think that people in manual - even skilled manual - jobs have no
business voting.
Of course they should. But they should first *consider* the pros and
cons. Many leavers just reacted to their gut feelings, which is NOT
the right way to come to a conclusion.

MM
Norman Wells
2019-08-08 17:39:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
So you think that people in manual - even skilled manual - jobs have no
business voting.
Of course they should. But they should first *consider* the pros and
cons. Many leavers just reacted to their gut feelings, which is NOT
the right way to come to a conclusion.
Should they be examined on their understanding of the issues then,
perhaps only being allowed to vote if they exhibit rightthink?

But I suspect a lot of Remainers voted with their gut feelings too. Do
you have any evidence that they didn't?
Yellow
2019-08-08 21:22:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
So you think that people in manual - even skilled manual - jobs have no
business voting.
Of course they should. But they should first *consider* the pros and
cons. Many leavers just reacted to their gut feelings, which is NOT
the right way to come to a conclusion.
Should they be examined on their understanding of the issues then,
perhaps only being allowed to vote if they exhibit rightthink?
But I suspect a lot of Remainers voted with their gut feelings too. Do
you have any evidence that they didn't?
Indeed - some people who voted remain surely did so because they
believed it to be the status-quo" option, which required no thought or
opinion except the feeling it was safe.

Nothing wrong with that and it is why usually the status-quo wins where
referendum are concerned but it also suggests that many of those who
voted against the status-quo were unlikely have done so on a whim.

But everyone had their own reasons so it is always going to be a mine-
field to generalise.
Norman Wells
2019-08-08 22:04:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
So you think that people in manual - even skilled manual - jobs have no
business voting.
Of course they should. But they should first *consider* the pros and
cons. Many leavers just reacted to their gut feelings, which is NOT
the right way to come to a conclusion.
Should they be examined on their understanding of the issues then,
perhaps only being allowed to vote if they exhibit rightthink?
But I suspect a lot of Remainers voted with their gut feelings too. Do
you have any evidence that they didn't?
Indeed - some people who voted remain surely did so because they
believed it to be the status-quo" option, which required no thought or
opinion except the feeling it was safe.
There were also the understandings of various Remainers here that all
trade would cease as soon as we left if we had no free-trade deals in
place, that UK citizens abroad would have their rights removed and would
have to be repatriated, as would all EU citizens living here, that no
migrant workers would be allowed in, that we would all need visas if we
wanted to visit Europe, that all flights between us and the EU would
stop, that all cruise liners would be held in foreign ports imprisoning
our citizens, and that there might well be civil war if we had the
temerity to leave.

No wonder they voted Remain, poor deluded souls. I might have done too
had any been true.
Ian Jackson
2019-08-09 08:32:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
So you think that people in manual - even skilled manual - jobs have no
business voting.
Of course they should. But they should first *consider* the pros and
cons. Many leavers just reacted to their gut feelings, which is NOT
the right way to come to a conclusion.
Should they be examined on their understanding of the issues then,
perhaps only being allowed to vote if they exhibit rightthink?
But I suspect a lot of Remainers voted with their gut feelings too. Do
you have any evidence that they didn't?
Indeed - some people who voted remain surely did so because they
believed it to be the status-quo" option, which required no thought or
opinion except the feeling it was safe.
There were also the understandings of various Remainers here that all
trade would cease as soon as we left if we had no free-trade deals in
place, that UK citizens abroad would have their rights removed and
would have to be repatriated, as would all EU citizens living here,
that no migrant workers would be allowed in, that we would all need
visas if we wanted to visit Europe, that all flights between us and the
EU would stop, that all cruise liners would be held in foreign ports
imprisoning our citizens, and that there might well be civil war if we
had the temerity to leave.
Like most of the piffle you spout, there is an element of truth in some
of these claims.

The cessation of trade is, of course, sheer nonsense. Haven't the
Leavers have been telling us ad nauseam that we could trade perfectly
well (or even better!) under WTO rules?

Unfortunately. most of our trade deals pertain to the UK being an EU
member, and as such they will officially cease when our membership
ceases - and for any countries or trade blocks with which we want a
trade deal, we will need replace them with our own, new, individual
agreements.

UK citizens could well have their existing rights to live and work in
the EU revoked. I'm pretty sure that the EU has not yet made any firm
promise that they won't do this - and the situation wasn't helped by our
own PM initially apparently being quite prepared to use EU citizens in
the UK as 'bargaining chips' before eventually giving a half-hearted
assurance that their status and residency could be regularised. [Despite
this, dozens of them were told that they will have to apply in the
normal way for citizenship - and a few were actually told that they were
going to be deported.]

No one ever really said that "no migrant workers would be allowed in".
What was pointed out was that they (and their employers) would have to
go through the same procedures regardless of their country of origin,
and the decision to allow them to come to the UK, and their length of
stay, would depend on type of work they were being employed for. These
additional complications could well lead to a shortage of workers.

As for air travel, this only takes place by various worldwide
international agreements - and if the UK was only a party to these
agreements by virtue of being an EU member, there could well have been a
problem when our membership ceased. [I believe that an agreement was
soon reached to maintain the status quo, as far as the UK was
concerned.]

As for cruise liners being impounded, and their UK passengers being
effectively held hostage - I never heard even the most deranged Remainer
(and yes - there are some!!) suggest that.

And as for civil war, the only people who have predicted civil war (and
rioting, civil disobedience etc) have been diehard Brexiteers. Wasn't it
Nigel Farage who threatened to "don khaki, pick up a rifle and head for
the front lines" if Theresa May failed to deliver a hard Brexit? I've
certainly heard some of his phone-in acolytes advocating various similar
forms of insurrection (admittedly usually to be quickly cut off by Nigel
with a "Now, now - we don't want that sort of talk").
<https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-party-rally-corbyn-video-lynched-
nigel-farage-blackpool-8930841>
Post by Norman Wells
No wonder they voted Remain, poor deluded souls
Not 'deluded' - but 'realistic' and 'rather sad'.
Post by Norman Wells
. I might have done too had any been true.
But the few that aren't total lies are partially true.
--
Ian
Norman Wells
2019-08-09 09:09:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
But I suspect a lot of Remainers voted with their gut feelings too.  Do
you have any evidence that they didn't?
 Indeed - some people who voted remain surely did so because they
believed it to be the status-quo" option, which required no thought or
opinion except the feeling it was safe.
There were also the understandings of various Remainers here that all
trade would cease as soon as we left if we had no free-trade deals in
place, that UK citizens abroad would have their rights removed and
would have to be repatriated, as would all EU citizens living here,
that no migrant workers would be allowed in, that we would all need
visas if we wanted to visit Europe, that all flights between us and
the EU would stop, that all cruise liners would be held in foreign
ports imprisoning our citizens, and that there might well be civil war
if we had the temerity to leave.
Like most of the piffle you spout, there is an element of truth in some
of these claims.
There is absolute truth in all of them.
Post by Ian Jackson
The cessation of trade is, of course, sheer nonsense. Haven't the
Leavers have been telling us ad nauseam that we could trade perfectly
well (or even better!) under WTO rules?
Oh, Leavers know that very well. The problem is people like 'Fruitiest
of Fruitcakes' but who now styles himself 'Keema's Nan', who said in a
post in 'The Prime Minister's Letter to the Nation. Happy?' thread here
on 26 November 2018:

"No trade deal with the EU means no trade with the EU."

<snip>
Post by Ian Jackson
As for air travel, this only takes place by various worldwide
international agreements - and if the UK was only a party to these
agreements by virtue of being an EU member, there could well have been a
problem when our membership ceased. [I believe that an agreement was
soon reached to maintain the status quo, as far as the UK was concerned.]
As for cruise liners being impounded, and their UK passengers being
effectively held hostage - I never heard even the most deranged Remainer
(and yes - there are some!!) suggest that.
On 26 November 2018, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes (now Keema's Nan) said
this, again in 'The Prime Minister's Letter to the Nation. Happy?' thread:

"Although your rose-tinted reply has singularly failed to address what
might happen to thousands of holidaymakers who were denied a flight home
for weeks as the EU customs arrangements were re-negotiated, or those
thousands on a Med cruise whose ships were not allowed to dock in any EU
port for weeks for the same reasons."
Post by Ian Jackson
And as for civil war, the only people who have predicted civil war (and
rioting, civil disobedience etc) have been diehard Brexiteers.
Er, no. You must have missed MM's post in this thread yesterday where
he said:

"People have been saying that Brexit is the worst crisis since WWII,
but it might be the worst for 500 years. We might yet see civil war.
It's happened before."

Unless he's done a spectacular about-face, I don't think he's a diehard
Brexiteer.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
No wonder they voted Remain, poor deluded souls
Not 'deluded' - but 'realistic' and 'rather sad'.
Post by Norman Wells
.  I might have done too had any been true.
But the few that aren't total lies are partially true.
None are lies. I've been very careful. They're all supported by posts
in this newsgroup over the last year or so, of which the above are just
examples.

I think 'deluded' is exactly the right term.
Incubus
2019-08-09 13:11:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
And as for civil war, the only people who have predicted civil war (and
rioting, civil disobedience etc) have been diehard Brexiteers. Wasn't it
Nigel Farage who threatened to "don khaki, pick up a rifle and head for
the front lines" if Theresa May failed to deliver a hard Brexit?
I wish we had been warned that voting to leave the EU would result in large
numbers of people being unable to understand metaphor.
MM
2019-08-09 09:52:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
So you think that people in manual - even skilled manual - jobs have no
business voting.
Of course they should. But they should first *consider* the pros and
cons. Many leavers just reacted to their gut feelings, which is NOT
the right way to come to a conclusion.
Should they be examined on their understanding of the issues then,
perhaps only being allowed to vote if they exhibit rightthink?
But I suspect a lot of Remainers voted with their gut feelings too. Do
you have any evidence that they didn't?
Yes, the fact that they voted remain (obviously) indicates how much
more sensible they are.

Sensible: "done or chosen in accordance with wisdom or prudence;
likely to be of benefit."

Brexit, given the past 3+ years, is unlikely to be of benefit, when
now all the planning is going ahead for stockpiling medicines, food
and so on. The pound sterling today is at €1.08.

Stop Press: "UK GDP statistics out on Friday have come in worse than
markets had expected after it was revealed the economy shrank 0.2% in
the second quarter of 2019.

Markets had been looking for the ONS to report the economy flatlined
at 0%. The disappointing surprise was immediately registered in
Sterling exchange rate markets:

The Pound-to-Euro exchange rate dipped 0.34% to trade at 1.0817, the
Pound-to-Dollar exchange rate fell by a similar margin to be quoted at
1.2103 in the minutes following the release."
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/gbp-live-today/11848-pound-sterling-drops-vs-euro-and-dollar-on-news-uk-economy-shrank-in-the-second-quarter

MM
Norman Wells
2019-08-09 13:38:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Of course they should. But they should first *consider* the pros and
cons. Many leavers just reacted to their gut feelings, which is NOT
the right way to come to a conclusion.
Should they be examined on their understanding of the issues then,
perhaps only being allowed to vote if they exhibit rightthink?
But I suspect a lot of Remainers voted with their gut feelings too. Do
you have any evidence that they didn't?
Yes, the fact that they voted remain (obviously) indicates how much
more sensible they are.
Sensible: "done or chosen in accordance with wisdom or prudence;
likely to be of benefit."
Hardly, given the fundamental misconceptions displayed openly by many
Remainers here that I've highlighted elsewhere in this thread. And all
the Project Fear propaganda they've lapped up and regurgitate totally
uncritically. Why, someone here just yesterday said in relation to
Brexit "We might yet see civil war". Let me look up who that was ...

Oh, there's a surprise! It was *you*.
MM
2019-08-08 16:59:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?
Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
It doesn't say that we wouldn't leave without a deal.  That's your
interpretation of it, which is not backed up the Vote Leave campaign elsewhere
or, indeed, other campaigns such as Leave.eu.
Did any voters think that we'd leave without a deal? They probably
didn't give it much thought, most of them. Obviously the plasterer and
the electrician and the factory worker didn't think of such matters...
Why do you think so little of skilled workers?
Are you just cleverer than they all are?
I think he probably is.

MM
Incubus
2019-08-08 16:05:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?
Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
It doesn't say that we wouldn't leave without a deal. That's your
interpretation of it, which is not backed up the Vote Leave campaign elsewhere
or, indeed, other campaigns such as Leave.eu.
Did any voters think that we'd leave without a deal?
I'm sure they were aware that it was a possibility.
Post by The Todal
They probably
didn't give it much thought, most of them.
If you believe that they are all stupid and racist then perhaps you might look
at it that way.
Post by The Todal
Obviously the plasterer and
the electrician and the factory worker didn't think of such matters but
most people who run their own businesses and have to import from Europe
or export to Europe would have had it very much in mind.
Since we're doing other people's thinking for them, I imagine they will have
had the thought of not getting cheap labour due to the market being flooded as
a paramount concern.
Post by The Todal
They would have
been reassured that we would negotiate a new deal before starting any
legal process to leave.
Things didn't turn out that way. So what?
Post by The Todal
But most people may well have voted because they wanted all those
millions of pounds for the NHS ("enough to build a brand new fully
staffed NHS hospital EVERY WEEK") and they may have been worried about
terrorists ("the EU court also stops us from deporting dangerous terror
suspects") and I know a few people who were worried about where we could
possibly put 76 million Turkish people when they start to come over.
And the leaflet mentions a quarter of a million European migrants every
year, without pointing out that many of them come to work here but don't
plan to stay permanently, that even more migrants come from non EU
countries but our Home Office can't be bothered to reduce that number,
and that our own people are able to move freely to EU countries to take
up jobs and settle down in those countries. Is it possible that most
Leave voters don't speak any foreign languages and have no intention of
working or living in a country where they don't speak English? That
doesn't make them stoopid, of course. Just a bit selfish and short-sighted.
People are selfish and short-sighted. The business owners who want cheap
labour aren't thinking about the impact on jobs and housing for people already
here. The Millennials who might want to work abroad one day aren't thinking
about the effect on jobs and housing for people on the continent. The Guardian
readers who like to claim the moral high ground aren't thinking about
conditions for the working classes to whom they smugly preach. People like me
who don't want a four-week waiting list every time I need a doctor's
appointment and who don't want to pay the ridiculous housing costs in London
and the South East and would rather have stronger wages quite frankly don't
give a damn about helping people from Poland and other European countries come
here and have a "better" life.

We all vote out of self-interest, even if we like to tell ourselves it's
actually because we "care". The self-interest of 17 million people who voted
to leave trumps the self-interest of those who wanted to stay in the EU.
That's how democracy works. Tell yourself you're a bit more altruistic and
far-sighted if you prefer; it's no less self-seeking, egocentric and selfish.
MM
2019-08-08 17:03:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 16:05:26 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?
Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
It doesn't say that we wouldn't leave without a deal. That's your
interpretation of it, which is not backed up the Vote Leave campaign elsewhere
or, indeed, other campaigns such as Leave.eu.
Did any voters think that we'd leave without a deal?
I'm sure they were aware that it was a possibility.
Post by The Todal
They probably
didn't give it much thought, most of them.
If you believe that they are all stupid and racist then perhaps you might look
at it that way.
Post by The Todal
Obviously the plasterer and
the electrician and the factory worker didn't think of such matters but
most people who run their own businesses and have to import from Europe
or export to Europe would have had it very much in mind.
Since we're doing other people's thinking for them, I imagine they will have
had the thought of not getting cheap labour due to the market being flooded as
a paramount concern.
Post by The Todal
They would have
been reassured that we would negotiate a new deal before starting any
legal process to leave.
Things didn't turn out that way. So what?
Post by The Todal
But most people may well have voted because they wanted all those
millions of pounds for the NHS ("enough to build a brand new fully
staffed NHS hospital EVERY WEEK") and they may have been worried about
terrorists ("the EU court also stops us from deporting dangerous terror
suspects") and I know a few people who were worried about where we could
possibly put 76 million Turkish people when they start to come over.
And the leaflet mentions a quarter of a million European migrants every
year, without pointing out that many of them come to work here but don't
plan to stay permanently, that even more migrants come from non EU
countries but our Home Office can't be bothered to reduce that number,
and that our own people are able to move freely to EU countries to take
up jobs and settle down in those countries. Is it possible that most
Leave voters don't speak any foreign languages and have no intention of
working or living in a country where they don't speak English? That
doesn't make them stoopid, of course. Just a bit selfish and short-sighted.
People are selfish and short-sighted. The business owners who want cheap
labour aren't thinking about the impact on jobs and housing for people already
here. The Millennials who might want to work abroad one day aren't thinking
about the effect on jobs and housing for people on the continent.
So you don't mind rich Londoners moving North and buying up all the
properties?

MM
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2019-08-08 20:30:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
People are selfish and short-sighted. The business owners who want cheap
labour aren't thinking about the impact on jobs and housing for people already
here. The Millennials who might want to work abroad one day aren't thinking
about the effect on jobs and housing for people on the continent. The Guardian
readers who like to claim the moral high ground aren't thinking about
conditions for the working classes to whom they smugly preach. People like me
who don't want a four-week waiting list every time I need a doctor's
appointment and who don't want to pay the ridiculous housing costs in London
and the South East and would rather have stronger wages quite frankly don't
give a damn about helping people from Poland and other European countries come
here and have a "better" life.
I wish I'd written that.
--
Evremonde
The Todal
2019-08-08 22:16:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
People are selfish and short-sighted.  The business owners who want cheap
labour aren't thinking about the impact on jobs and housing for people already
here.  The Millennials who might want to work abroad one day aren't
thinking
about the effect on jobs and housing for people on the continent.  The
Guardian
readers who like to claim the moral high ground aren't thinking about
conditions for the working classes to whom they smugly preach.  People
like me
who don't want a four-week waiting list every time I need a doctor's
appointment and who don't want to pay the ridiculous housing costs in London
and the South East and would rather have stronger wages quite frankly don't
give a damn about helping people from Poland and other European countries come
here and have a "better" life.
I wish I'd written that.
You will, Oscar. You will.
Norman Wells
2019-08-08 16:49:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
And the leaflet mentions a quarter of a million European migrants every
year, without pointing out that many of them come to work here but don't
plan to stay permanently, that even more migrants come from non EU
countries but our Home Office can't be bothered to reduce that number,
and that our own people are able to move freely to EU countries to take
up jobs and settle down in those countries. Is it possible that most
Leave voters don't speak any foreign languages and have no intention of
working or living in a country where they don't speak English?  That
doesn't make them stoopid, of course. Just a bit selfish and short-sighted.
Leaving the EU does not mean no Brits will live and work in the EU, nor
that no EU citizens will live and work here. It just means that it will
no longer be a *right* to do so. If we want EU citizens here, we can
let them in. If the EU wants Brits there, it will let them in.

The formalities may be a little more complicated, but it's Project Fear
to imply that the interchange of necessary workers will cease, or that
students won't be able to study abroad if they wish It's only one in
two hundred students that does, incidentally.
Keema's Nan
2019-08-08 16:53:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would
only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try
and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave
without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?
Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
It doesn't say that we wouldn't leave without a deal. That's your
interpretation of it, which is not backed up the Vote Leave campaign elsewhere
or, indeed, other campaigns such as Leave.eu.
Did any voters think that we'd leave without a deal?
I don’t know.

But what I do know is that most people expected parliament to vote in
accordance with the wishes expressed in the referendum.

Of course, their perceived self importance was far too dominant for that.
They wanted total control over a decision which had already been made; and
that is why we are in this situation now.

It was not the government who were weak, at least not at first - but their
negotiating position was steadily undermined by the self serving wasters in
parliament who made sure the EU knew that they could stick to their side of
the deal because the self-servers would vote it down and make May’s
position untenable.

So our wonderful ‘servants’ in parliament have put paid to any kind of
deal, put paid to a Prime Minister and most of the cabinet; and yet they
appear to have got off scot-free.
Post by The Todal
They probably
didn't give it much thought, most of them. Obviously the plasterer and
the electrician and the factory worker didn't think of such matters but
most people who run their own businesses and have to import from Europe
or export to Europe would have had it very much in mind. They would have
been reassured that we would negotiate a new deal before starting any
legal process to leave.
But most people may well have voted because they wanted all those
millions of pounds for the NHS ("enough to build a brand new fully
staffed NHS hospital EVERY WEEK") and they may have been worried about
terrorists ("the EU court also stops us from deporting dangerous terror
suspects") and I know a few people who were worried about where we could
possibly put 76 million Turkish people when they start to come over.
And the leaflet mentions a quarter of a million European migrants every
year, without pointing out that many of them come to work here but don't
plan to stay permanently, that even more migrants come from non EU
countries but our Home Office can't be bothered to reduce that number,
and that our own people are able to move freely to EU countries to take
up jobs and settle down in those countries. Is it possible that most
Leave voters don't speak any foreign languages and have no intention of
working or living in a country where they don't speak English? That
doesn't make them stoopid, of course. Just a bit selfish and short-sighted.
MM
2019-08-09 10:08:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 17:53:52 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would
only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try
and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave
without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?
Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
It doesn't say that we wouldn't leave without a deal. That's your
interpretation of it, which is not backed up the Vote Leave campaign elsewhere
or, indeed, other campaigns such as Leave.eu.
Did any voters think that we'd leave without a deal?
I don’t know.
But what I do know is that most people expected parliament to vote in
accordance with the wishes expressed in the referendum.
What makes you think that "most people" expected Parliament to vote in
a particular way? Parliament is the overriding sovereign body of the
British constitution, and the referendum result was advisory only. It
was therefore *never* a done deal that Parliament would simply
rubberstamp the 52%. Advisory means, sure, we're listening to a body
of opinion, but we will form a different decision if we think it best
for the nation.
Of course, their perceived self importance was far too dominant for that.
Perceived? Parliament is sovereign. You can't get much more important
than that!
They wanted total control over a decision which had already been made; and
that is why we are in this situation now.
An *advisory" **result** had been made. The decision was pending
negotiations with the EU in accordance with Artcle 50, which is why
MPs triggered it. Otherwise there would be absolutely no point in any
negotiation after it had been triggered, because, according to you and
other misinformed Brexiters, Parliament would be absolved from any
decision. Very many Brexiters said we should simply "walk away", like
chucking the keys to the house through the building society's
letterbox. Thankfully, most MPs do not behave like excitable children.
It was not the government who were weak, at least not at first - but their
negotiating position was steadily undermined by the self serving wasters in
parliament who made sure the EU knew that they could stick to their side of
the deal because the self-servers would vote it down and make May’s
position untenable.
Don't you believe they had the democratic right to vote it down, then?
So our wonderful ‘servants’ in parliament have put paid to any kind of
deal, put paid to a Prime Minister and most of the cabinet; and yet they
appear to have got off scot-free.
Only one thing may provide you with redress, namely a general
election, but Boris Johnson even there seems intent on undermining
democracy.

MM
Mike Scott
2019-08-08 11:37:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 08/08/2019 12:25, The Todal wrote:
....
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
Actually, I don't find that on the web page you quote., although I'll
grant it may appear in their leaflet.

Nevertheless implicit anyway is the assumption that an acceptable-to-us
"deal" is possible in the first place. Otherwise you simply hand to
Brussels the choice of whether we leave or not.
--
Mike Scott
Harlow, England
The Todal
2019-08-08 13:52:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike Scott
....
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
Actually, I don't find that on the web page you quote., although I'll
grant it may appear in their leaflet.
Nevertheless implicit anyway is the assumption that an acceptable-to-us
"deal" is possible in the first place. Otherwise you simply hand to
Brussels the choice of whether we leave or not.
I hope you've found it now - the big red rectangle with arrows that
enable you to scroll through the leaflet.

You can ponder which parts of the leaflet may have influenced voters.

How about "The EU is letting in more and more countries" with the
prediction that Turkey would soon join, with a population of 76 million.
The implication being that many of them will come and live in the UK.

How about "A vote to leave takes back control.... we have better
relations with our European friends (yeah, right!) and we regain our
influence in the wider world and become a truly global nation once again".

Can anyone see any signs of our influence growing as a result of Brexit?
What would it mean, anyway? A new British Empire? A Royal Navy feared
throughout the world? Does America value us more because we're leaving
the EU bloc, or does America see us as a tasty mid-morning snack for
trade deals?
pensive hamster
2019-08-08 14:03:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Mike Scott
....
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
Actually, I don't find that on the web page you quote., although I'll
grant it may appear in their leaflet.
You can also find it here:

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55fd82d8ebad646cec000001/attachments/original/1463496002/Why_Vote_Leave.pdf?1463496002

https://tinyurl.com/hkm6kzs

See page 11 in that pdf:

"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden stop
- we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start
any legal process to leave"
Post by The Todal
Post by Mike Scott
Nevertheless implicit anyway is the assumption that an acceptable-to-us
"deal" is possible in the first place. Otherwise you simply hand to
Brussels the choice of whether we leave or not.
Where does it say that in the leaflet?
Post by The Todal
I hope you've found it now - the big red rectangle with arrows that
enable you to scroll through the leaflet.
You can ponder which parts of the leaflet may have influenced voters.
How about "The EU is letting in more and more countries" with the
prediction that Turkey would soon join, with a population of 76 million.
The implication being that many of them will come and live in the UK.
How about "A vote to leave takes back control.... we have better
relations with our European friends (yeah, right!) and we regain our
influence in the wider world and become a truly global nation once again".
Can anyone see any signs of our influence growing as a result of Brexit?
What would it mean, anyway? A new British Empire? A Royal Navy feared
throughout the world? Does America value us more because we're leaving
the EU bloc, or does America see us as a tasty mid-morning snack for
trade deals?
Mike Scott
2019-08-08 19:53:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Mike Scott
....
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
Actually, I don't find that on the web page you quote., although I'll
grant it may appear in their leaflet.
http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55fd82d8ebad646cec000001/attachments/original/1463496002/Why_Vote_Leave.pdf?1463496002
https://tinyurl.com/hkm6kzs
I did. But as it's not a primary source, I decided not to refer to it. I
did say "although I'll grant it may appear in their leaflet." I regard
it as an irrelevance.
Post by pensive hamster
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden stop
- we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start
any legal process to leave"
Post by Mike Scott
Nevertheless implicit anyway is the assumption that an acceptable-to-us
"deal" is possible in the first place. Otherwise you simply hand to
Brussels the choice of whether we leave or not.
Where does it say that in the leaflet?
Ummm - did I not write "implicit"?
--
Mike Scott
Harlow, England
JNugent
2019-08-08 15:47:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Mike Scott
....
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process
to leave".
Actually, I don't find that on the web page you quote., although I'll
grant it may appear in their leaflet.
Nevertheless implicit anyway is the assumption that an
acceptable-to-us "deal" is possible in the first place. Otherwise you
simply hand to Brussels the choice of whether we leave or not.
I hope you've found it now - the big red rectangle with arrows that
enable you to scroll through the leaflet.
You can ponder which parts of the leaflet may have influenced voters.
Why does it matter?
The Todal
2019-08-08 15:58:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by Mike Scott
....
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal
process to leave".
Actually, I don't find that on the web page you quote., although I'll
grant it may appear in their leaflet.
Nevertheless implicit anyway is the assumption that an
acceptable-to-us "deal" is possible in the first place. Otherwise you
simply hand to Brussels the choice of whether we leave or not.
I hope you've found it now - the big red rectangle with arrows that
enable you to scroll through the leaflet.
You can ponder which parts of the leaflet may have influenced voters.
Why does it matter?
Well, it's this "false prospectus" notion that some of us keep banging
on about, while Leave supporters say "I knew exactly what I was voting
for, thanks very much. Don't fucking tell me I'm fucking stupid".

The assertion that "the EU court" stops us from deporting dangerous
terror suspects is, of course, utter baloney. Was it one of Dominic
Cummings's ingenious ideas? Did it help anyone make up their mind on
referendum day?

Why does it matter? Leave won!!! It was the best victory since
Agincourt, or Waterloo!!
JNugent
2019-08-08 16:20:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by Mike Scott
....
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal
process to leave".
Actually, I don't find that on the web page you quote., although
I'll grant it may appear in their leaflet.
Nevertheless implicit anyway is the assumption that an
acceptable-to-us "deal" is possible in the first place. Otherwise
you simply hand to Brussels the choice of whether we leave or not.
I hope you've found it now - the big red rectangle with arrows that
enable you to scroll through the leaflet.
You can ponder which parts of the leaflet may have influenced voters.
Why does it matter?
Well, it's this "false prospectus" notion that some of us keep banging
on about, while Leave supporters say "I knew exactly what I was voting
for, thanks very much. Don't fucking tell me I'm fucking stupid".
Why does THAT matter?
Post by The Todal
The assertion that "the EU court" stops us from deporting dangerous
terror suspects is, of course, utter baloney. Was it one of Dominic
Cummings's ingenious ideas? Did it help anyone make up their mind on
referendum day?
Why does it matter? Leave won!!! It was the best victory since
Agincourt, or Waterloo!!
Why do these things matter? The same arguments could easily be made in
respect of general elections - particularly in respect of the one (1997)
which led to the start of the breaking up of the United Kingdom.
MM
2019-08-08 17:05:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Mike Scott
....
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
Actually, I don't find that on the web page you quote., although I'll
grant it may appear in their leaflet.
Nevertheless implicit anyway is the assumption that an acceptable-to-us
"deal" is possible in the first place. Otherwise you simply hand to
Brussels the choice of whether we leave or not.
I hope you've found it now - the big red rectangle with arrows that
enable you to scroll through the leaflet.
You can ponder which parts of the leaflet may have influenced voters.
How about "The EU is letting in more and more countries" with the
prediction that Turkey would soon join, with a population of 76 million.
The implication being that many of them will come and live in the UK.
How about "A vote to leave takes back control.... we have better
relations with our European friends (yeah, right!) and we regain our
influence in the wider world and become a truly global nation once again".
You can almost hear the fanfare across the world welcoming us back to
the empire!
Post by The Todal
Can anyone see any signs of our influence growing as a result of Brexit?
What would it mean, anyway? A new British Empire? A Royal Navy feared
throughout the world? Does America value us more because we're leaving
the EU bloc, or does America see us as a tasty mid-morning snack for
trade deals?
People have been saying that Brexit is the worst crisis since WWII,
but it might be the worst for 500 years. We might yet see civil war.
It's happened before.

MM
Norman Wells
2019-08-08 17:22:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
People have been saying that Brexit is the worst crisis since WWII,
but it might be the worst for 500 years. We might yet see civil war.
It's happened before.
Crikey! Was that in the government leaflet too? Must have missed it.
MM
2019-08-08 16:47:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 11:12:48 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
They didn't vote for a "deal" Brexit either. What they voted for was to leave
the EU.
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Yeah, well, we are still arranging a suitable deal that Parliament
will support. Patience, dear boy, patience!
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
There is no waiting until we have a deal.
Who says?
Post by Incubus
Parliament rejected the bad deal
that May brokered with Merkel and the EU say they won't renegotiate. That only
leaves one option - to leave with no deal.
But Boris himself said there's a million to one chance against not
getting a deal. So obviously he's prepared to try 999,999 attempts
before the *one* could be considered.

MM
Norman Wells
2019-08-08 12:03:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected?  Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
Actually, this is what we were told in the government leaflet pushed
through all our letterboxes before the referendum:

"What happens if we leave?

"Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential
economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs.

"The government judges it could result in 10 years or more of
uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and
renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries
around the world.

"Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because
they want to keep access to our market.

"But the government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that"

https://tinyurl.com/jyouurq

It's absolutely clear from the leaflet that the government anticipated
leaving the EU would be with no deal. The above would just not be true
or necessary if we had a deal.

Despite all the dire warnings from the government, the people still
voted to leave. It follows that they voted to leave if necessary with
no deal.
The Todal
2019-08-08 13:45:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected?  Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would
only leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
Actually, this is what we were told in the government leaflet pushed
"What happens if we leave?
"Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential
economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs.
"The government judges it could result in 10 years or more of
uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and
renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries
around the world.
"Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because
they want to keep access to our market.
"But the government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that"
https://tinyurl.com/jyouurq
It's absolutely clear from the leaflet that the government anticipated
leaving the EU would be with no deal.  The above would just not be true
or necessary if we had a deal.
No it isn't.

It can equally be interpreted in a more sensible way - that we wouldn't
be leaving either the day after the referendum or even a few years after
that, but only when all the "relationships" had been unpicked and a good
deal had been struck.

The decision to authorise service of Article 50 notice was rash, hasty
and an attempt to look strong and stable. As most sensible people would
now say, it was daft to serve Article 50 notice until the Commons had
decided what sort of deal it should be trying to achieve with the EU,
irrespective of whether the EU would be willing to grant that deal. Mrs
May and her huge team of civil servants made important assumptions about
what sort of deal would please the Commons. It was a great surprise to
Mrs May when the Commons refused to pass her deal.
Post by Norman Wells
Despite all the dire warnings from the government, the people still
voted to leave.  It follows that they voted to leave if necessary with
no deal.
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper. Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
abelard
2019-08-08 13:49:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected?  Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would
only leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
Actually, this is what we were told in the government leaflet pushed
"What happens if we leave?
"Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential
economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs.
"The government judges it could result in 10 years or more of
uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and
renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries
around the world.
"Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because
they want to keep access to our market.
"But the government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that"
https://tinyurl.com/jyouurq
It's absolutely clear from the leaflet that the government anticipated
leaving the EU would be with no deal.  The above would just not be true
or necessary if we had a deal.
No it isn't.
It can equally be interpreted in a more sensible way - that we wouldn't
be leaving either the day after the referendum or even a few years after
that, but only when all the "relationships" had been unpicked and a good
deal had been struck.
The decision to authorise service of Article 50 notice was rash, hasty
and an attempt to look strong and stable. As most sensible people would
now say, it was daft to serve Article 50 notice until the Commons had
decided what sort of deal it should be trying to achieve with the EU,
irrespective of whether the EU would be willing to grant that deal. Mrs
May and her huge team of civil servants made important assumptions about
what sort of deal would please the Commons. It was a great surprise to
Mrs May when the Commons refused to pass her deal.
Post by Norman Wells
Despite all the dire warnings from the government, the people still
voted to leave.  It follows that they voted to leave if necessary with
no deal.
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper. Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
more of your inevitable dishonesty...
the vote was not for or against a deal
--
www.abelard.org
Incubus
2019-08-08 14:14:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected?  Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would
only leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
Actually, this is what we were told in the government leaflet pushed
"What happens if we leave?
"Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential
economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs.
"The government judges it could result in 10 years or more of
uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and
renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries
around the world.
"Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because
they want to keep access to our market.
"But the government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that"
https://tinyurl.com/jyouurq
It's absolutely clear from the leaflet that the government anticipated
leaving the EU would be with no deal.  The above would just not be true
or necessary if we had a deal.
No it isn't.
It can equally be interpreted in a more sensible way - that we wouldn't
be leaving either the day after the referendum or even a few years after
that, but only when all the "relationships" had been unpicked and a good
deal had been struck.
The decision to authorise service of Article 50 notice was rash, hasty
and an attempt to look strong and stable. As most sensible people would
now say, it was daft to serve Article 50 notice until the Commons had
decided what sort of deal it should be trying to achieve with the EU,
irrespective of whether the EU would be willing to grant that deal. Mrs
May and her huge team of civil servants made important assumptions about
what sort of deal would please the Commons. It was a great surprise to
Mrs May when the Commons refused to pass her deal.
Post by Norman Wells
Despite all the dire warnings from the government, the people still
voted to leave.  It follows that they voted to leave if necessary with
no deal.
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper.
Nobody voted to leave with a deal either. It also wasn't on the ballot paper.
Post by The Todal
Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
The Leave side maintained that a deal is desirable but by no means necessary
and better to have no deal than a bad one and that leaving without a deal is
better than remaining. Might I remind you that Leave won.
pensive hamster
2019-08-08 14:33:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[...]
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper.
Nobody voted to leave with a deal either. It also wasn't on the ballot paper.
Post by The Todal
Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
The Leave side maintained that a deal is desirable but by no means necessary
and better to have no deal than a bad one and that leaving without a deal is
better than remaining.
Did they maintain that before the referendum? Evidence? Cite?
Post by Incubus
Might I remind you that Leave won.
Using a false prospectus.
Yellow
2019-08-08 15:08:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 07:33:09 -0700 (PDT) pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper.
Nobody voted to leave with a deal either. It also wasn't on the ballot paper.
Post by The Todal
Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
The Leave side maintained that a deal is desirable but by no means necessary
and better to have no deal than a bad one and that leaving without a deal is
better than remaining.
Did they maintain that before the referendum? Evidence? Cite?
Just to interject....

What do you actual mean by "no-deal"?
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Incubus
Might I remind you that Leave won.
Using a false prospectus.
Evidence? Cite?
pensive hamster
2019-08-08 15:39:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper.
Nobody voted to leave with a deal either. It also wasn't on the ballot paper.
Post by The Todal
Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
The Leave side maintained that a deal is desirable but by no means necessary
and better to have no deal than a bad one and that leaving without a deal is
better than remaining.
Did they maintain that before the referendum? Evidence? Cite?
Just to interject....
What do you actual mean by "no-deal"?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/46607260

'... What is a no deal Brexit?

'A no-deal Brexit means the UK would leave the EU immediately on
31 October 2019, and there would be no agreements in place about
what the relationship between the UK and the EU will be like in future.

'This includes special agreements about how UK and EU companies
could work and do trade with each other.

'... What will happen in a no-deal Brexit?

'A no-deal Brexit could lead to a number of things happening. For
example: ... '
Post by Yellow
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Incubus
Might I remind you that Leave won.
Using a false prospectus.
Evidence? Cite?
I already provided that a few posts upthread, but here it is again:

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55fd82d8ebad646cec000001/attachments/original/1463496002/Why_Vote_Leave.pdf?1463496002

https://tinyurl.com/hkm6kzs

See page 11 in that pdf:

"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden stop
- we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start
any legal process to leave"

That's one falsehood, there are others, eg.:

"The European Court will be in charge of our borders, immigration,
asylum and even our intelligence services" (page 2)

"The EU costs us over £350 million a week" (page 3)

"The EU is letting in more and more countries (page 7)
"... The next countries set to join are:
"... Turkey: 76.0 million
[Syria and Iraq are also coloured-in as joiners in the
accompanying map]

"Over half our laws are made by unelected EU bureaucrats in
Brussels who we never voted for
• The Eurozone has a permanent majority in the EU voting system
– this means we’re always outvoted
• The UK has been outvoted every single time it has voted
against EU laws" (page 8)

etc.
Yellow
2019-08-08 19:16:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 08:39:45 -0700 (PDT) pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
Just to interject....
What do you actual mean by "no-deal"?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/46607260
'... What is a no deal Brexit?
'A no-deal Brexit means the UK would leave the EU immediately on
31 October 2019, and there would be no agreements in place about
what the relationship between the UK and the EU will be like in future.
'This includes special agreements about how UK and EU companies
could work and do trade with each other.
Don't you think it is interesting that the BBC are telling you that a
trade deal is part of the "no-deal" definition yet Mrs May's "deal" did
not actually include one?

But OK - if that is your definition of choice now answer this...

If Mrs May's deal had been passed by Parliament and we had left the EU
on the 29th of March 2019, would that therefore in fact have been a "no-
deal"?
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Incubus
Might I remind you that Leave won.
Using a false prospectus.
Evidence? Cite?
http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55fd82d8ebad646cec000001/attachments/original/1463496002/Why_Vote_Leave.pdf?1463496002
https://tinyurl.com/hkm6kzs
I have never seen this before and am pretty sure therefore it was not
posted through everyone's letterbox but OK, I'll bite. :-)
Post by pensive hamster
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden stop
- we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start
any legal process to leave"
The UK tried, this is therefore true.
Post by pensive hamster
"The European Court will be in charge of our borders, immigration,
asylum and even our intelligence services" (page 2)
This too is true.
Post by pensive hamster
"The EU costs us over £350 million a week" (page 3)
And this is the correct gross figure, so also true.
Post by pensive hamster
"The EU is letting in more and more countries (page 7)
"... Turkey: 76.0 million
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11283616

So according to the BBC..... true.
Post by pensive hamster
[Syria and Iraq are also coloured-in as joiners in the
accompanying map]
So you cannot tell the different between red, yellow and orange or
notice they are not on the list headed "The next countries set to join
are..."?
Post by pensive hamster
"Over half our laws are made by unelected EU bureaucrats in
Brussels who we never voted for
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36473105

And I will leave you to pick the bones out of that!
Post by pensive hamster
? The Eurozone has a permanent majority in the EU voting system
? this means we?re always outvoted
True.
Post by pensive hamster
? The UK has been outvoted every single time it has voted
against EU laws" (page 8)
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

Again, more bones to pick but it would seem the claim is not actually
wrong.
Post by pensive hamster
etc.
etc?
Mike Scott
2019-08-08 20:01:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 08:39:45 -0700 (PDT) pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
Just to interject....
What do you actual mean by "no-deal"?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/46607260
'... What is a no deal Brexit?
'A no-deal Brexit means the UK would leave the EU immediately on
31 October 2019, and there would be no agreements in place about
what the relationship between the UK and the EU will be like in future.
'This includes special agreements about how UK and EU companies
could work and do trade with each other.
Don't you think it is interesting that the BBC are telling you that a
trade deal is part of the "no-deal" definition yet Mrs May's "deal" did
not actually include one?
Again, could someone refresh my memory - I recall from somewhere that
the EU would not negotiate actual trade deals until after we had left.
All we could do was negotiate "terms of leaving" (basically a big bill)
and a framework for future talks. Right or wrong recollection?

If so, it's a nonsense to suggest any leaving "deal" as procuring any
sort of future trading arrangement.
--
Mike Scott
Harlow, England
The Todal
2019-08-08 15:43:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 07:33:09 -0700 (PDT) pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper.
Nobody voted to leave with a deal either. It also wasn't on the ballot paper.
Post by The Todal
Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
The Leave side maintained that a deal is desirable but by no means necessary
and better to have no deal than a bad one and that leaving without a deal is
better than remaining.
Did they maintain that before the referendum? Evidence? Cite?
Just to interject....
What do you actual mean by "no-deal"?
I think I mean the same as Jacob Rees-Mogg means. Leaving without any
deal "on WTO terms" which he fondly believes is some sort of useful
safety net.
Yellow
2019-08-09 05:51:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 07:33:09 -0700 (PDT) pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper.
Nobody voted to leave with a deal either. It also wasn't on the ballot paper.
Post by The Todal
Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
The Leave side maintained that a deal is desirable but by no means necessary
and better to have no deal than a bad one and that leaving without a deal is
better than remaining.
Did they maintain that before the referendum? Evidence? Cite?
Just to interject....
What do you actual mean by "no-deal"?
I think I mean the same as Jacob Rees-Mogg means. Leaving without any
deal "on WTO terms" which he fondly believes is some sort of useful
safety net.
As Mrs May's deal was just the terms of leaving and did not contain a
trade deal, on that basis, it was therefore also "no-deal".
The Todal
2019-08-09 12:31:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 07:33:09 -0700 (PDT) pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper.
Nobody voted to leave with a deal either. It also wasn't on the ballot paper.
Post by The Todal
Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
The Leave side maintained that a deal is desirable but by no means necessary
and better to have no deal than a bad one and that leaving without a deal is
better than remaining.
Did they maintain that before the referendum? Evidence? Cite?
Just to interject....
What do you actual mean by "no-deal"?
I think I mean the same as Jacob Rees-Mogg means. Leaving without any
deal "on WTO terms" which he fondly believes is some sort of useful
safety net.
As Mrs May's deal was just the terms of leaving and did not contain a
trade deal, on that basis, it was therefore also "no-deal".
It contained a temporary form of customs union. A single customs
territory until at least July 2020 which could be extended or terminated
by mutual agreement.
Mike Scott
2019-08-09 12:45:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 09/08/2019 13:31, The Todal wrote:
....
Post by The Todal
It contained a temporary form of customs union. A single customs
territory until at least July 2020 which could be extended or terminated
by mutual agreement.
No... which /would/ be extended until /both/ sides agreed to end it.
That's not the same as continuing by mutual agreement, and AIUI is the
prime reason so many have baulked at it.
--
Mike Scott
Harlow, England
Norman Wells
2019-08-08 16:15:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper.
Nobody voted to leave with a deal either. It also wasn't on the ballot paper.
Post by The Todal
Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
The Leave side maintained that a deal is desirable but by no means necessary
and better to have no deal than a bad one and that leaving without a deal is
better than remaining.
Did they maintain that before the referendum? Evidence? Cite?
It follows from a minute's study of Negotiation 101. If you enter into
a negotiation there is never a guarantee of reaching a deal. Any party
to a negotiation must be prepared to walk away at any stage. And no
deal is better than a bad deal.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Incubus
Might I remind you that Leave won.
Using a false prospectus.
Oh, whine, whine, moan, moan. That argument has never been upheld.

We voted to leave. We are leaving.

Best get used to it.
The Todal
2019-08-08 16:33:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[...]
Post by The Todal
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper.
Nobody voted to leave with a deal either.  It also wasn't on the
ballot paper.
Post by The Todal
Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
The Leave side maintained that a deal is desirable but by no means necessary
and better to have no deal than a bad one and that leaving without a deal is
better than remaining.
Did they maintain that before the referendum?  Evidence? Cite?
It follows from a minute's study of Negotiation 101.  If you enter into
a negotiation there is never a guarantee of reaching a deal.  Any party
to a negotiation must be prepared to walk away at any stage.  And no
deal is better than a bad deal.
That's what a lot of Leave supporters say, in phone-ins and in the
Question Time audience, and I think few of them have ever negotiated.
And I bet you haven't done any negotiating either.

Those of us who have negotiated for a living, as I have, know that "walk
away" is usually a temporary expedient and solves nothing. When you are
negotiating the financial arrangements in a divorce, or the access
arrangements for the children, or a claim pursued by one insurer against
another after a building has burned down, the purpose of a negotiation
is to arrive at a settlement so that you don't have to let the judge
decide. With Brexit, there is no judge to decide. So it has to be solved
by negotiation. Walking away is equivalent to plunging your head in the
sand. It may feel nice for a bit, but everyone will laugh at you.
Incubus
2019-08-08 16:54:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
[...]
Post by The Todal
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper.
Nobody voted to leave with a deal either.  It also wasn't on the
ballot paper.
Post by The Todal
Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
The Leave side maintained that a deal is desirable but by no means necessary
and better to have no deal than a bad one and that leaving without a deal is
better than remaining.
Did they maintain that before the referendum?  Evidence? Cite?
It follows from a minute's study of Negotiation 101.  If you enter into
a negotiation there is never a guarantee of reaching a deal.  Any party
to a negotiation must be prepared to walk away at any stage.  And no
deal is better than a bad deal.
That's what a lot of Leave supporters say, in phone-ins and in the
Question Time audience, and I think few of them have ever negotiated.
And I bet you haven't done any negotiating either.
Those of us who have negotiated for a living, as I have, know that "walk
away" is usually a temporary expedient and solves nothing.
With all due respect, what negotiating does a conveyancer engage in beyond a
few fixtures and fittings and an occasional bad survey? Even then, the agent
does the majority of the negotiating.
The Todal
2019-08-08 17:18:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
[...]
Post by The Todal
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper.
Nobody voted to leave with a deal either.  It also wasn't on the
ballot paper.
Post by The Todal
Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
The Leave side maintained that a deal is desirable but by no means necessary
and better to have no deal than a bad one and that leaving without a deal is
better than remaining.
Did they maintain that before the referendum?  Evidence? Cite?
It follows from a minute's study of Negotiation 101.  If you enter into
a negotiation there is never a guarantee of reaching a deal.  Any party
to a negotiation must be prepared to walk away at any stage.  And no
deal is better than a bad deal.
That's what a lot of Leave supporters say, in phone-ins and in the
Question Time audience, and I think few of them have ever negotiated.
And I bet you haven't done any negotiating either.
Those of us who have negotiated for a living, as I have, know that "walk
away" is usually a temporary expedient and solves nothing.
With all due respect, what negotiating does a conveyancer engage in beyond a
few fixtures and fittings and an occasional bad survey? Even then, the agent
does the majority of the negotiating.
In a conveyance, the buyer or seller can of course "walk away". And wait
for another house, or another buyer. If we walk away from our Brexit
negotiations the problem doesn't disappear - unless, in walking away, we
are agreeing to stay put until a better deal comes along.

But in answer to your question, the estate agent has only his commission
in mind, not the best interests of his client. He will clinch a deal
even if with a bit more work he could have got a higher price for the
seller, whose interests he is supposed to represent. He then does his
utmost to get contracts exchanged quickly so that the commission goes
into his bank account. If the seller is worried because the extension
never had planning permission, the agent will badger the solicitors into
exchanging contracts nonetheless. The solicitor will have to decide
whether to take out an insurance policy and get the seller to pay for
it. In that scenario, we might call the greedy estate agent Mr Raab, or
Mr Rees-Mogg.
Norman Wells
2019-08-08 17:11:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
[...]
Post by The Todal
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper.
Nobody voted to leave with a deal either.  It also wasn't on the
ballot paper.
Post by The Todal
Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
The Leave side maintained that a deal is desirable but by no means necessary
and better to have no deal than a bad one and that leaving without a deal is
better than remaining.
Did they maintain that before the referendum?  Evidence? Cite?
It follows from a minute's study of Negotiation 101.  If you enter
into a negotiation there is never a guarantee of reaching a deal.  Any
party to a negotiation must be prepared to walk away at any stage.
And no deal is better than a bad deal.
That's what a lot of Leave supporters say, in phone-ins and in the
Question Time audience, and I think few of them have ever negotiated.
And I bet you haven't done any negotiating either.
Those of us who have negotiated for a living, as I have, know that "walk
away" is usually a temporary expedient and solves nothing. When you are
negotiating the financial arrangements in a divorce, or the access
arrangements for the children, or a claim pursued by one insurer against
another after a building has burned down, the purpose of a negotiation
is to arrive at a settlement so that you don't have to let the judge
decide.
If you're offered or can negotiate only a bad deal in such
circumstances, it's always open to you to say right, we'll leave it for
the judge to decide. That is, effectively, walking away. You have to
decide whether you're likely to get a better deal that way.
Post by The Todal
With Brexit, there is no judge to decide. So it has to be solved
by negotiation. Walking away is equivalent to plunging your head in the
sand. It may feel nice for a bit, but everyone will laugh at you.
No, it's exactly the same. The default position is no-deal. That's
what you get if you walk away, and it's quite workable. If you can only
negotiate a bad deal, then no deal may well be better. Negotiations
only have to succeed if you're absolutely desperate. And we're not.
The Todal
2019-08-08 17:21:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
[...]
Post by The Todal
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper.
Nobody voted to leave with a deal either.  It also wasn't on the
ballot paper.
Post by The Todal
Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
The Leave side maintained that a deal is desirable but by no means necessary
and better to have no deal than a bad one and that leaving without a deal is
better than remaining.
Did they maintain that before the referendum?  Evidence? Cite?
It follows from a minute's study of Negotiation 101.  If you enter
into a negotiation there is never a guarantee of reaching a deal.
Any party to a negotiation must be prepared to walk away at any
stage. And no deal is better than a bad deal.
That's what a lot of Leave supporters say, in phone-ins and in the
Question Time audience, and I think few of them have ever negotiated.
And I bet you haven't done any negotiating either.
Those of us who have negotiated for a living, as I have, know that
"walk away" is usually a temporary expedient and solves nothing. When
you are negotiating the financial arrangements in a divorce, or the
access arrangements for the children, or a claim pursued by one
insurer against another after a building has burned down, the purpose
of a negotiation is to arrive at a settlement so that you don't have
to let the judge decide.
If you're offered or can negotiate only a bad deal in such
circumstances, it's always open to you to say right, we'll leave it for
the judge to decide.  That is, effectively, walking away.  You have to
decide whether you're likely to get a better deal that way.
Post by The Todal
With Brexit, there is no judge to decide. So it has to be solved by
negotiation. Walking away is equivalent to plunging your head in the
sand. It may feel nice for a bit, but everyone will laugh at you.
No, it's exactly the same.  The default position is no-deal.  That's
what you get if you walk away, and it's quite workable.  If you can only
negotiate a bad deal, then no deal may well be better.  Negotiations
only have to succeed if you're absolutely desperate.  And we're not.
You're not. Evidently.

The nation, however, is absolutely desperate. Apparently some of the
worst effects of a no-deal at the ports are mitigated because we rely on
the preparations that the French have taken. Our own preparations are
negligible.

Some of our companies, with many employees, will go bust under a
no-deal. I'm sure Boris will say that the government was prepared and he
can't be responsible for the lack of preparation that others can be
blamed for.
Norman Wells
2019-08-08 17:46:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
[...]
Post by The Todal
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper.
Nobody voted to leave with a deal either.  It also wasn't on the
ballot paper.
Post by The Todal
Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
The Leave side maintained that a deal is desirable but by no means necessary
and better to have no deal than a bad one and that leaving without a deal is
better than remaining.
Did they maintain that before the referendum?  Evidence? Cite?
It follows from a minute's study of Negotiation 101.  If you enter
into a negotiation there is never a guarantee of reaching a deal.
Any party to a negotiation must be prepared to walk away at any
stage. And no deal is better than a bad deal.
That's what a lot of Leave supporters say, in phone-ins and in the
Question Time audience, and I think few of them have ever negotiated.
And I bet you haven't done any negotiating either.
Those of us who have negotiated for a living, as I have, know that
"walk away" is usually a temporary expedient and solves nothing. When
you are negotiating the financial arrangements in a divorce, or the
access arrangements for the children, or a claim pursued by one
insurer against another after a building has burned down, the purpose
of a negotiation is to arrive at a settlement so that you don't have
to let the judge decide.
If you're offered or can negotiate only a bad deal in such
circumstances, it's always open to you to say right, we'll leave it
for the judge to decide.  That is, effectively, walking away.  You
have to decide whether you're likely to get a better deal that way.
Post by The Todal
With Brexit, there is no judge to decide. So it has to be solved by
negotiation. Walking away is equivalent to plunging your head in the
sand. It may feel nice for a bit, but everyone will laugh at you.
No, it's exactly the same.  The default position is no-deal.  That's
what you get if you walk away, and it's quite workable.  If you can
only negotiate a bad deal, then no deal may well be better.
Negotiations only have to succeed if you're absolutely desperate.  And
we're not.
You're not. Evidently.
The nation, however, is absolutely desperate.
Many disagree with that, though.
Post by The Todal
Apparently some of the
worst effects of a no-deal at the ports are mitigated because we rely on
the preparations that the French have taken. Our own preparations are
negligible.
Ill-preparedness is not a consequence of no deal.
Post by The Todal
Some of our companies, with many employees, will go bust under a
no-deal.
So you say. So Project Fear says. We will see.
Post by The Todal
I'm sure Boris will say that the government was prepared and he
can't be responsible for the lack of preparation that others can be
blamed for.
And he might well be right.
Norman Wells
2019-08-08 16:04:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected?  Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would
only leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
Actually, this is what we were told in the government leaflet pushed
"What happens if we leave?
"Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and
potential economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost
jobs.
"The government judges it could result in 10 years or more of
uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and
renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries
around the world.
"Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU
because they want to keep access to our market.
"But the government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that"
https://tinyurl.com/jyouurq
It's absolutely clear from the leaflet that the government anticipated
leaving the EU would be with no deal.  The above would just not be
true or necessary if we had a deal.
No it isn't.
It can equally be interpreted in a more sensible way - that we wouldn't
be leaving either the day after the referendum or even a few years after
that, but only when all the "relationships" had been unpicked and a good
deal had been struck.
The people voted on the basis that 'the government will implement what
you decide', not the government will prvaricate interminably.
Post by The Todal
The decision to authorise service of Article 50 notice was rash, hasty
and an attempt to look strong and stable.
Well, that's *Parliament* for you. *Parliament* voted overwhwelmingly,
by 498 votes to 114, to trigger Article 50. Before Article 50 was
triggered, there was nothing for the EU to negotiate. We hadn't
notified our intention to leave.

Article 50 prescribes the negotiations that *follow* such a
notification. They cannot precede it.
Post by The Todal
As most sensible people would
now say, it was daft to serve Article 50 notice until the Commons had
decided what sort of deal it should be trying to achieve with the EU,
irrespective of whether the EU would be willing to grant that deal.
That would be negotiating in public and setting out our bottom lines.
No-one with any sense does that for the other side to see. It's
Negotiation 101.
Post by The Todal
Mrs May and her huge team of civil servants made important assumptions about
what sort of deal would please the Commons. It was a great surprise to
Mrs May when the Commons refused to pass her deal.
Can't argue with that, but the negotiations had to be carried out by
someone. The Commons as a whole can't negotiate, so it had to delegate.
And who better to delegate it to than the UK government and in turn
its selected negotiators?

Properly structured, the negotiators should have had full and
irrevocable authority to finalise the deal. You don't negotiate with
the monkey if the organ grinder can just waltz in at the end and say no
after all the painful concessions have been made. But it wasn't
structured that way. Parliament was given the role of the organ
grinder, and has decided to play it. It was always a possibility.

Most people, I think, are happy that Mrs May's deal is a dead duck.
Apart from the EU of course who think we should honour it and think it
rather disreputable that we're not going to. But it was all in the
rules, so they can't really complain.

If the EU wants a deal, it will have to re-open negotiations on the
Withdrawal Agreement, and it too will have to second guess what
Parliament might approve, just as Mrs May did and got wrong.

Good luck with that I say.
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Despite all the dire warnings from the government, the people still
voted to leave.  It follows that they voted to leave if necessary with
no deal.
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper. Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
It takes two to negotiate a deal. If one party is intransigent and
inflexible then it's always possible no deal will be achieved. But it
comes back to this - Article 50 had to be triggered before negotiations
could start, and Article 50 prescribes the time frame for those
negotiations. If no deal can be reached within the defined time frame,
then it's leaving with no deal.

That doesn't preclude future negotiations on trade or anything else. In
fact, necessity might even speed them up.
MM
2019-08-08 17:13:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected?  Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would
only leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
Actually, this is what we were told in the government leaflet pushed
"What happens if we leave?
"Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and
potential economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost
jobs.
"The government judges it could result in 10 years or more of
uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and
renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries
around the world.
"Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU
because they want to keep access to our market.
"But the government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than
that"
https://tinyurl.com/jyouurq
It's absolutely clear from the leaflet that the government anticipated
leaving the EU would be with no deal.  The above would just not be
true or necessary if we had a deal.
No it isn't.
It can equally be interpreted in a more sensible way - that we wouldn't
be leaving either the day after the referendum or even a few years after
that, but only when all the "relationships" had been unpicked and a good
deal had been struck.
The people voted on the basis that 'the government will implement what
you decide', not the government will prvaricate interminably.
Parliament has absolute sovereignty over the government.

"Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer (though the word has often
a different sense in conversation) the King, the House of Lords, and
the House of Commons: these three bodies acting together may be aptly
described as the "King in Parliament", and constitute Parliament. The
principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less
than this, namely that Parliament thus defined has, under the English
constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever: and,
further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as
having a right to override or set aside the legislation of
Parliament."

MM
Norman Wells
2019-08-08 17:29:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
The people voted on the basis that 'the government will implement what
you decide', not the government will prvaricate interminably.
Parliament has absolute sovereignty over the government.
And it voted 498 to 114 to trigger Article 50, thereby initiating the
implementation of what we decided, just as the government said.

What is your point?
MM
2019-08-09 10:13:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
The people voted on the basis that 'the government will implement what
you decide', not the government will prvaricate interminably.
Parliament has absolute sovereignty over the government.
And it voted 498 to 114 to trigger Article 50, thereby initiating the
implementation of what we decided, just as the government said.
No, it didn't. It voted to trigger Article 50 to get the negotiations
started. Nothing was going to happen until then.
Post by Norman Wells
What is your point?
My point is that I seem to know more about it than you do.

What was that someone said earlier about Remainers being cleverer?

MM
Norman Wells
2019-08-09 13:51:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
The people voted on the basis that 'the government will implement what
you decide', not the government will prvaricate interminably.
Parliament has absolute sovereignty over the government.
And it voted 498 to 114 to trigger Article 50, thereby initiating the
implementation of what we decided, just as the government said.
No, it didn't. It voted to trigger Article 50 to get the negotiations
started. Nothing was going to happen until then.
Triggering Article 50 wasn't about 'getting negotiations started' but
about leaving the EU. Had they voted against triggering Article 50,
we'd be remaining in the EU and no negotiations would be necessary at all.
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
What is your point?
My point is that I seem to know more about it than you do.
Seems rather unlikely.
Post by MM
What was that someone said earlier about Remainers being cleverer?
Who was it that forecast Brexit could lead to civil war?
Gladys Street-Porter
2019-08-08 19:11:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's
"assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected?  Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we
would only leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under
the carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps
"wait until we have a deal".
Actually, this is what we were told in the government leaflet
"What happens if we leave?
"Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and
potential economic disruption. This would reduce investment and
cost jobs.
"The government judges it could result in 10 years or more of
uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and
renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other
countries around the world.
"Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU
because they want to keep access to our market.
"But the government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that"
https://tinyurl.com/jyouurq
It's absolutely clear from the leaflet that the government
anticipated leaving the EU would be with no deal.  The above would
just not be true or necessary if we had a deal.
No it isn't.
It can equally be interpreted in a more sensible way - that we
wouldn't be leaving either the day after the referendum or even a few
years after that, but only when all the "relationships" had been
unpicked and a good deal had been struck.
The decision to authorise service of Article 50 notice was rash,
hasty and an attempt to look strong and stable. As most sensible
people would now say, it was daft to serve Article 50 notice until
the Commons had decided what sort of deal it should be trying to
achieve with the EU, irrespective of whether the EU would be willing
to grant that deal. Mrs May and her huge team of civil servants made
important assumptions about what sort of deal would please the
Commons. It was a great surprise to Mrs May when the Commons refused
to pass her deal.
Post by Norman Wells
Despite all the dire warnings from the government, the people still
voted to leave.  It follows that they voted to leave if necessary
with no deal.
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper.
Both sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
You can believe your own lies but no one else does. Absolutely
pathetic.
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Yellow
2019-08-08 12:12:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
Yes we did.

Loading Image...
Ian Jackson
2019-08-08 13:28:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would
only leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
I'm sure that there were many claims that "We will get a better deal
from the EU than the one we have at the moment" - to which the EU kept
replying "Oh no you won't!".
--
Ian
abelard
2019-08-08 13:38:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:28:35 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would
only leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
I'm sure that there were many claims that "We will get a better deal
from the EU than the one we have at the moment" - to which the EU kept
replying "Oh no you won't!".
"many" and "the eu" are not persons....

hence 'they' 'say' and 'said nothing
--
www.abelard.org
Gladys Street-Porter
2019-08-08 19:01:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's
"assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm
guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would
only leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
Pure lies and nonsense, you do yourself no favours spouting tripe like
this.
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Keema's Nan
2019-08-08 11:16:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Yes, the Guardian appears to be spreading the rumours.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-08-08 11:30:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Yes, the Guardian appears to be spreading the rumours.
ISTM that if you're going to appoint such people, you'd want them to be
somewhat 'assertive' :-) TBH, from the small bits I've seen of
Cummings, he seems a bit unsure of himself. I'd want someone much more
confident.
Stephen Cole
2019-08-08 09:38:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
Dominic Cummings comes across as so highly strung that he’s almost certain
to catastrophically blow a fuse at some point and either chin someone or
have an aneurysm. Either way, I think his Number 10 career will be measured
in weeks rather than months.
--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur
The Todal
2019-08-08 09:58:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Nigel Farage hates Cummings. Even though, one would think, they share
the same aims. I think Cummings disrespected Farage and tried to
sideline him during the referendum campaign.

Cummings is an odd choice as adviser to the Prime Minister. He is not
camera-friendly, loathes journalists, loathes Commons select committees
and is focused only on ways of achieving victory for his cause. Still,
Boris can provide the camera-friendly soundbites which mean nothing.
Yellow
2019-08-08 12:26:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Nigel Farage hates Cummings. Even though, one would think, they share
the same aims. I think Cummings disrespected Farage and tried to
sideline him during the referendum campaign.
Cummings is an odd choice as adviser to the Prime Minister. He is not
camera-friendly, loathes journalists, loathes Commons select committees
and is focused only on ways of achieving victory for his cause. Still,
Boris can provide the camera-friendly soundbites which mean nothing.
According to the film where Cumberbatch plays Cummings, the polling
showed that whenever Farage 'campaigned' nationwide support for leave
actually fell.

No idea if that was true or a "some scenes are made up for dramatic
affect" but it might give some insight in to Cummings and Farage's
relationship and why Cummings did not want Farage or Arron Banks
associated with the campaign he ran.
Loading...