Parafox Posted 30 January 2019 Posted 30 January 2019 1 hour ago, Realist Guy In The Room said: No. I think she means junction 13 of the M5 that leads you off to Michael Wood services or through Clifton into Bristol. Locals refer to it as the ‘Brexit (Bristol Exit)’. The word does seem to have been hijacked somewhat. So Junction 21 is now "Lexit"? Or if we don't leave the EU, "L'Exit"
WigstonWanderer Posted 30 January 2019 Posted 30 January 2019 47 minutes ago, Toddybad said: There nothing stopping the UK bereaucrats doing something. I was referring to the way the Euro authorities (quite rightly) used to take Microsoft to task 20 years ago or so regarding its monopoly practices and lamenting that they seem to have lost their appetite for this sort of thing now when it’s needed more than ever.
yorkie1999 Posted 30 January 2019 Posted 30 January 2019 2 hours ago, Parafox said: So Junction 21 is now "Lexit"? Or if we don't leave the EU, "L'Exit" Not to be confused with Junction 43 "Le'Exit"
Izzy Posted 30 January 2019 Posted 30 January 2019 I was working in Dublin yesterday and got a taxi from the city center to the airport. Dave the taxi driver was telling me all about the implications there of Brexit and particularly what might happen if border patrols are re-introduced. He reckons the 'real IRA' are already putting things in motion and there's been three bombs in border towns recently. We talked about the bad old days of the Brighton, Birmingham bombings etc. and it all got very depressing. I don't understand Brexit or any of the details, but whatever happens there's no way we can possibly entertain going back to all that shit. No way.
Alf Bentley Posted 30 January 2019 Posted 30 January 2019 16 minutes ago, Izzy said: I was working in Dublin yesterday and got a taxi from the city center to the airport. Dave the taxi driver was telling me all about the implications there of Brexit and particularly what might happen if border patrols are re-introduced. He reckons the 'real IRA' are already putting things in motion and there's been three bombs in border towns recently. We talked about the bad old days of the Brighton, Birmingham bombings etc. and it all got very depressing. I don't understand Brexit or any of the details, but whatever happens there's no way we can possibly entertain going back to all that shit. No way. Apparently they're called the "New IRA" now - a merger between the Real IRA and another group. They're the ones who allegedly set off a car bomb outside a Derry courthouse last week. Nobody hurt, but CCTV showed that a group of teenagers walked past the car minutes before it blew up. The good news is that, by all accounts, they have only a tiny fraction of the capacity of the old Provisional IRA in terms of manpower, expertise, money and weapons. The bad news is that such groups could mushroom rapidly, on both sides of the sectarian divide, if violence started up to any extent: e.g. shootings at border, retaliation killlings or bombs by the likes of New IRA designed specifically to provoke conflict. That's partly why my main concern is that No Deal must be avoided. I'm still hopeful that it will be, but we're cutting it awfully fine. For me, while the differences between Remain and Soft Brexit or even an organised Hard Brexit do matter, avoiding No Deal matters much more. There's also the potential economic harm that could be caused on both sides of the border, which could push a few into the hands of the extremists if they lose their livelihoods due to Brexit border issues. It's always worth remembering that, while the DUP are the biggest party in N. Ireland (10 MPs to 7 Sinn Fein & 1 Independent Unionist), they do not speak for the province on Brexit: overall N. Ireland voted 56%-44% Remain, but that disguises a massive community divide: the Remain vote was about 70% in Catholic areas - higher than in Scotland or London (most but not all Unionist areas voted Leave, but by a much smaller margin).
Izzy Posted 30 January 2019 Posted 30 January 2019 33 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: Apparently they're called the "New IRA" now - a merger between the Real IRA and another group. They're the ones who allegedly set off a car bomb outside a Derry courthouse last week. Nobody hurt, but CCTV showed that a group of teenagers walked past the car minutes before it blew up. The good news is that, by all accounts, they have only a tiny fraction of the capacity of the old Provisional IRA in terms of manpower, expertise, money and weapons. The bad news is that such groups could mushroom rapidly, on both sides of the sectarian divide, if violence started up to any extent: e.g. shootings at border, retaliation killlings or bombs by the likes of New IRA designed specifically to provoke conflict. That's partly why my main concern is that No Deal must be avoided. I'm still hopeful that it will be, but we're cutting it awfully fine. For me, while the differences between Remain and Soft Brexit or even an organised Hard Brexit do matter, avoiding No Deal matters much more. There's also the potential economic harm that could be caused on both sides of the border, which could push a few into the hands of the extremists if they lose their livelihoods due to Brexit border issues. It's always worth remembering that, while the DUP are the biggest party in N. Ireland (10 MPs to 7 Sinn Fein & 1 Independent Unionist), they do not speak for the province on Brexit: overall N. Ireland voted 56%-44% Remain, but that disguises a massive community divide: the Remain vote was about 70% in Catholic areas - higher than in Scotland or London (most but not all Unionist areas voted Leave, but by a much smaller margin). Sorry you’re right, the Dublin taxi driver did say New IRA not Real IRA. He also mentioned the Derry Courthouse bomb you referred to. The conversation shit me up a bit Alf tbh and the implications became very real. I’ve flippantly said “No deal, whatever, just get on with it etc” in the past but I’ve changed my tune now. We must all come together and do what we can to avoid Ireland going back to its troubles at all costs. Thanks for explaining it in simple terms and clear terms Alf. You’re one of the few posters on this thread who talks sense that I understand.
Wymsey Posted 31 January 2019 Posted 31 January 2019 https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/council-tax-bills-could-go-2490923 A good idea? Doesn't sound like a long-term plan.
Jon the Hat Posted 31 January 2019 Posted 31 January 2019 41 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said: https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/council-tax-bills-could-go-2490923 A good idea? Doesn't sound like a long-term plan. Lord Willy ?
davieG Posted 31 January 2019 Posted 31 January 2019 Brexit: Is it time for transactional politics? Laura Kuenssberg Political editor A couple of weeks ago, a Labour MP confessed quietly that they would vote for Theresa May's Brexit deal in the end. But they wanted something to show for it, suggesting, half-teasingly, that they wanted the PFI debt of their local hospital paid off. That MP was frustrated that the government had taken so long, as they saw it, to try to reach out to get them on board. But they predicted that we would soon see what they described as "transactional politics", in a way that we haven't seen before in this country. With Number 10 in a frantic hunt for support, maybe that time has arrived. I'm not so sure how new this really is, but it's playing out in public. Another MP, now a minister, described once how - when they were an aide to a very senior member of a former government - it had been their job to come up with projects that would cost just under £1m for MPs whose support might be required in sticky political moments. They were duly located and kept in a file on a shelf in the office, for just the right moment. Whether a new bypass, a station upgrade, or some other local bauble, it's naïve to imagine that promises of financial help for local projects never play a role in individual politicians' decisions. And sometimes it happens in a big way - after all, this government brokered a deal to stay in power with the DUP with a very public promise of £1bn to be spent in Northern Ireland. But right now, the government's need for votes is more urgent than it's ever been. And there are at least 20 Labour MPs who are, theoretically, interested in being persuaded. Judgement on whether that is right or not is, inevitably, in the eye of the beholder. You might find it deeply unsavoury that some Labour MPs appear to have a price. Or, you might think it's perfectly right for MPs to be using this opportunity to push for as much financial help and support for their towns as they can get. You can listen to John Mann, one of those taking part in the negotiations with Number 10, explain their viewpoint here. After many, many years of spending cuts, you might not blame them for pushing for a fund, potentially of many billions, to be put together and spent in parts of the country that have often been left out. And if it helps the government get a tweaked Brexit deal through the Commons, well - so be it. For union leaders who are now engaging with Number 10 over workers' rights and environmental protections, there is an opportunity too. And just as there are vocal supporters of another referendum in the Labour Party, there are dozens and dozens of MPs who want it over with, and want to avoid there being no deal at all. Number 10 would deny that there is anything grubby about all of this. They are serious about trying to show that they are listening to what their normal rivals are asking for. Promises like the extension of rights for new parents at work that was made last week demonstrates this is more than just a talking exercise. What we can't yet know though, is how significant this kind of collective bargaining might prove (remember lots of Labour MPs are former union officials too). And those opposition MPs who take part publicly in these kinds of deals can also expect a fair amount of criticism, perhaps very bitter, from Labour Party members and, maybe, some of their colleagues too. But there aren't many hard and fast rules in politics. And it's not impossible to see how, after many more twists and turns, these conversations might turn into promises that might make all the difference. As ever, in this long and twisty journey, never assume what might happen, really will.
Toddybad Posted 1 February 2019 Posted 1 February 2019 It's a disgrace that a tory party that dismantled industry in the North, and that had targeted austerity at the North to the extent that Northern councils have experienced four times the cuts of home counties councils, has suddenly found the magic money tree to bribe the northern MPs to voting for its brexit deal.
davieG Posted 1 February 2019 Posted 1 February 2019 10 hours ago, Toddybad said: It's a disgrace that a tory party that dismantled industry in the North, and that had targeted austerity at the North to the extent that Northern councils have experienced four times the cuts of home counties councils, has suddenly found the magic money tree to bribe the northern MPs to voting for its brexit deal. All parties do this and have done for a long time. Have you missed all the times councils have to bid for government cash for even urgent projects. Do you think they were decided on with out any thought of the political make up of those councils.
Toddybad Posted 1 February 2019 Posted 1 February 2019 7 minutes ago, davieG said: All parties do this and have done for a long time. Have you missed all the times councils have to bid for government cash for even urgent projects. Do you think their decided on with out any thought of the political make up of those councils. And during which periods do our public services usually find themselves strapped for cash with public services failing?
Toddybad Posted 1 February 2019 Posted 1 February 2019 One in three UK firms plan for no-deal Brexit relocation, IoD says https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/01/one-three-uk-firms-activate-plans-move-operations-abroad-no-deal-brexit-iod-survey?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Alf Bentley Posted 1 February 2019 Posted 1 February 2019 "Transactional politics" is presumably a new euphemism for "pork barrel politics". Seems quite a likely way for things to go, @davieG, assuming the EU stand firm as they seem to be doing - and May is already having such discussions with Labour back-benchers, unions & Corbyn. I'm unclear on the numbers, though - how many Labour MPs May would need to win over to offset Brexit hardliners who'll oppose her if/when she fails to get the backstop removed. Some ERG types will definitely hold out for No Deal, I'm sure, but not sure how many. Likewise, I suspect the DUP would do so. May could need to win over quite a lot of Labour backbenchers to compensate for that.... I cannot see May giving much ground to Corbyn on his demands re. the Customs Union as that would alienate a lot more of her party, well beyond the ERG crew - could split her party in two....and her party is her main concern, not her country. Mind you, it probably suits the PR of both May and Corbyn for them not to be seen working with their loathed opposite number. Being cynical, too, May's negotiations with backbenchers and unions could give Corbyn concessions he'd like on workers' rights and environmental protection without him being tied to the deal - so he'd still able to blame the Tories for Brexit damage afterwards, despite being a Eurosceptic himself and liking those concessions! Re. Corbyn: Interesting to see that he's not disciplined any of his MPs who opposed the Yvette Cooper amendment (designed to delay Brexit by up to 9 months to avoid No Deal) and hasn't sacked any of the front-benchers who defied the party whip on that vote.....seems to me he was quite happy for that amendment to fail as he wants Brexit to proceed as planned, just with a Softer Deal - but no chance of a second referendum. This pork-barrel approach by May seems quite feasible, MP numbers permitting, as none of what the unions or backbenchers are likely to ask for would require the Withdrawal Agreement to be opened up. Concessions on workers' rights & environmental regulations could be written into the Declaration on Future Relationship (currently vague & non-binding - & EU happy to make changes to that) and/or UK legislation, while funds/projects for individual constituencies wouldn't be the EU's concern, just the UK taxpayer's.... I presume the Tory whips will be calculating how many ERG/DUP hardliners will oppose the Withdrawal Agreement if the backstop is still in it - so as to know how many Labourites they need to win over via concessions (and some will likely be won over by concessions on workers' rights/environmental regulations, rather than the more crass pork-barrel stuff). A lot more chance of this working for May than of the EU changing the backstop/Withdrawal Agreement...
Toddybad Posted 1 February 2019 Posted 1 February 2019 48 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: "Transactional politics" is presumably a new euphemism for "pork barrel politics". Seems quite a likely way for things to go, @davieG, assuming the EU stand firm as they seem to be doing - and May is already having such discussions with Labour back-benchers, unions & Corbyn. I'm unclear on the numbers, though - how many Labour MPs May would need to win over to offset Brexit hardliners who'll oppose her if/when she fails to get the backstop removed. Some ERG types will definitely hold out for No Deal, I'm sure, but not sure how many. Likewise, I suspect the DUP would do so. May could need to win over quite a lot of Labour backbenchers to compensate for that.... I cannot see May giving much ground to Corbyn on his demands re. the Customs Union as that would alienate a lot more of her party, well beyond the ERG crew - could split her party in two....and her party is her main concern, not her country. Mind you, it probably suits the PR of both May and Corbyn for them not to be seen working with their loathed opposite number. Being cynical, too, May's negotiations with backbenchers and unions could give Corbyn concessions he'd like on workers' rights and environmental protection without him being tied to the deal - so he'd still able to blame the Tories for Brexit damage afterwards, despite being a Eurosceptic himself and liking those concessions! Re. Corbyn: Interesting to see that he's not disciplined any of his MPs who opposed the Yvette Cooper amendment (designed to delay Brexit by up to 9 months to avoid No Deal) and hasn't sacked any of the front-benchers who defied the party whip on that vote.....seems to me he was quite happy for that amendment to fail as he wants Brexit to proceed as planned, just with a Softer Deal - but no chance of a second referendum. This pork-barrel approach by May seems quite feasible, MP numbers permitting, as none of what the unions or backbenchers are likely to ask for would require the Withdrawal Agreement to be opened up. Concessions on workers' rights & environmental regulations could be written into the Declaration on Future Relationship (currently vague & non-binding - & EU happy to make changes to that) and/or UK legislation, while funds/projects for individual constituencies wouldn't be the EU's concern, just the UK taxpayer's.... I presume the Tory whips will be calculating how many ERG/DUP hardliners will oppose the Withdrawal Agreement if the backstop is still in it - so as to know how many Labourites they need to win over via concessions (and some will likely be won over by concessions on workers' rights/environmental regulations, rather than the more crass pork-barrel stuff). A lot more chance of this working for May than of the EU changing the backstop/Withdrawal Agreement... It was only a one line whip. You cab come up with all sorts of possibilities for where we go from here. It's decidedly true that May and the majority of Tories are more worried about party than country. Such a sad indictment of our politics. I've never exactly been wedded to corbyn as Labour leader but I'm really quite anti him now. There's no representation for the membership that are overwhelmingly anti brexit. Even if the silly mare gets the withdrawel agreement through in some bastardised form with bribes to individual constituencies (ask of such who be poorer, bribe or no bribe), it still doesn't take us any closer to knowing what our final outcome will be, but takes us out without that being resolved. About 30% of the country and a small % of MPs that May has allowed to run riot have lost their heads and are taking us down the rabbit hole.
Lionator Posted 1 February 2019 Posted 1 February 2019 On 30/01/2019 at 16:16, Izzy said: I was working in Dublin yesterday and got a taxi from the city center to the airport. Dave the taxi driver was telling me all about the implications there of Brexit and particularly what might happen if border patrols are re-introduced. He reckons the 'real IRA' are already putting things in motion and there's been three bombs in border towns recently. We talked about the bad old days of the Brighton, Birmingham bombings etc. and it all got very depressing. I don't understand Brexit or any of the details, but whatever happens there's no way we can possibly entertain going back to all that shit. No way. This is why avoiding no deal is so important. The Good Friday Agreement is one of the most important documents in our history. John Major, Tony Blair and yes even backbenchers like Corbyn (!!) helped to bring relative peace when it looked impossible for years. If there is any sort of hard border then there will be major issues and we will be back to the dark days and with the modern day challenges already here and around the world, it's the LAST thing we need. I cannot believe that our politicians would put us in that position again.
davieG Posted 1 February 2019 Posted 1 February 2019 9 hours ago, Toddybad said: And during which periods do our public services usually find themselves strapped for cash with public services failing? There's been plenty of them times.
Guest MattP Posted 1 February 2019 Posted 1 February 2019 1 hour ago, Lionator said: This is why avoiding no deal is so important. The Good Friday Agreement is one of the most important documents in our history. John Major, Tony Blair and yes even backbenchers like Corbyn (!!) helped to bring relative peace when it looked impossible for years. If there is any sort of hard border then there will be major issues and we will be back to the dark days and with the modern day challenges already here and around the world, it's the LAST thing we need. I cannot believe that our politicians would put us in that position again. The bit in bold is very debatable to say the least but I agree with the point in general we need to do everything we can to stop this, although I do fear if what @Izzy is saying has any truth and depth to it we probably need to be preparing for that situation anyway. Hard Border or not we need to be ready for this. There has been an upsurge in paramiltary activity over the last few years so it shouldn't come as any surprise - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/12/northern-ireland-punishment-attacks-rise-60-in-four-years My own opinion is that the Good Friday agreement was necessary given out of control the situation had become, but it is also a sticking plaster as there will be no end to the campaign for a united Ireland and no end to those who want Northern Ireland to remain British, the eventual outcome of this is always going to be a referendum and those opinions will have to come to a head, as soon as that happens and the result delivered I fail to see how it passes without trouble. Obviously though it goes without saying, British government policy and the democratic mandate given to parliament cannot change because of the threat of violence, whether that's the IRA, ISIS, the far left or the far-right.
RobHawk Posted 1 February 2019 Posted 1 February 2019 https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1358751170955612&id=365076723656400
Guest MattP Posted 1 February 2019 Posted 1 February 2019 This Week was hilarious for the second week in a row, after the car crash interview with James Delingpole last Thursday Ken Livingstone decided to show up to defend his mates from Venezuela. https://order-order.com/2019/02/01/brillo-tears-apart-ken-livingstone-venezuela/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+guidofawkes+(Guy+Fawkes'+blog+of+parliamentary+plots%2C+rumours+and+conspiracy) Quote Ken Livingstone made the brave choice of going on This Week to make a film explaining why “my friend Hugo Chavez” wasn’t responsible for the economic misery that has been wrought upon Venezuela and it’s all America’s fault instead. It’s almost worth watching just for Ken’s opening line of “Remember me? I used to be Mayor of London”… Predictably, Ken’s bogus arguments were completely torn apart by Andrew Neil afterwards, with a hapless Livingstone reduced to saying: “I don’t know, I’m a retired pensioner, I don’t have staff providing the information”. His only defence after that was that the Venezuelan ambassador had told him it was true. At least he wasn’t quoting the anti-Semitic historical revisionist ‘UN rapporteur’ that Chris Williamson is so keen on… Brillo then did the public service of explaining to Ken some of the real reasons why Venezuela is a basket case, including decades of self-enriching dictatorship, random confiscation of private property, price controls, and putting a loyalist army General in charge of the national oil company. It's amazing how quickly lies about "American sanctions" can spread and seen as the truth when it comes to discussing Venezuela - there hasn't been a single sanction on exports at all until this week.
Mark 'expert' Lawrenson Posted 1 February 2019 Posted 1 February 2019 If Labour had a decent leader they’d surely be in a position of strength come the next general election, Corbyn, Abbott etc just no!
Guest MattP Posted 1 February 2019 Posted 1 February 2019 6 minutes ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said: If Labour had a decent leader they’d surely be in a position of strength come the next general election, Corbyn, Abbott etc just no! Polling indicates he's doing fine... At the minute he's playing a perfect game, making sure he doesn't give any help or momentum to those who want to block Brexit but also making it appear he opposes the Tory Brexit parliament could pass. He knows he's the only alternative to the Tories so he's banking on those pro Remain youngsters still backing him when polling day comws whilst also keeping the leave votes to hold the 26-30 seats he'll also need in the north to get into office. Electorally the biggest problem for him could be Venezuela rather than Brexit given the support he has given the regime.
Jon the Hat Posted 1 February 2019 Posted 1 February 2019 10 hours ago, Toddybad said: It's a disgrace that a tory party that dismantled industry in the North, and that had targeted austerity at the North to the extent that Northern councils have experienced four times the cuts of home counties councils, has suddenly found the magic money tree to bribe the northern MPs to voting for its brexit deal. Not really. You can only cut so much from a small amount of central funding -the fact is that Northern councils have a continue to receive a lot more from central Government. I don;t have an issue with the transaction politics really - the job of an MP is to do his utmost to support his constituency. If they suddenly find they have a load of power to do so, they should use it; More important they do that than follow a party whip.
Guest MattP Posted 1 February 2019 Posted 1 February 2019 1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said: Not really. You can only cut so much from a small amount of central funding -the fact is that Northern councils have a continue to receive a lot more from central Government. I don;t have an issue with the transaction politics really - the job of an MP is to do his utmost to support his constituency. If they suddenly find they have a load of power to do so, they should use it; More important they do that than follow a party whip. This is spot on. Why would a Leave MP who believes in Brexit, in a Leave voting constiuency, go and tell his people that he is turning down much needed money for his region so he doesn't have to vote for Brexit? - it makes no sense whatsoever. I do think there is some politics in this decision though, assuming the trends of the current situations continue in the main parties, long term I can only see more working class seats going Tory and more middle class ones going Labour, there might be an element of calucation in this but is that really any worse than Labour promising things that benefit the middle classes more like free tuition fees? I don't think it is.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.