-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
That is indeed their hope. Its a sad state of the UK politically when someones strengh is based on the oppo weakness.
Yet both major parties have that as their only positive trait.
StephenH
David Ginola
With characters as rooted in 1950’s and ira of old privilege like Boris and Rees-Mogg.
He may well get in!
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
If he does then GHod help us.
I see a huge issue of the game being so old school who wants to now at a young age go into the game? Not saying some young folk don't but can't imagine its like the old days....
I see a huge issue of the game being so old school who wants to now at a young age go into the game? Not saying some young folk don't but can't imagine its like the old days....
Great imagery in that photo .. Sun know what they are doing
So, one more party conference to go. I honestly don't know how anybody can go to one of these and sit through hours of speeches, you have to be a lunatic to attend unless you have something to vote on.
Tories up next, I wonder what sort of performance May has got in store this year. Can't be any worse than the last one, but I suppose the difference is there are more sharks circling her now.
Tories up next, I wonder what sort of performance May has got in store this year. Can't be any worse than the last one, but I suppose the difference is there are more sharks circling her now.
StephenH
David Ginola
They are all a bore imho!
Baleforce
Ron Henry
They were fine until they moved to london to be fair.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Been saying this for ages. Lets make it about politics and policy, about people voting for a cause they believe in, instead "Dont vote for them!!"
StephenH
David Ginola
Is has be this time as there is little charisma around!
You will of course get the old folks home residence voting for Boris “because he used to be on the telly”!
More likely to get this with proportional representation imo - FPP means party lines are more prominent.
(PR hs its own issues).
parklane1
Vic Buckingham
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Boris Johnson: My plan for a better Brexit
As we come now to the final months of the Brexit negotiations we are arriving, at last, at the moment of truth. It is not just that we must decide what kind of relationship we want with the EU.
We must decide who we are – whether we really believe in the importance of our democratic institutions.
We must decide whether we have the guts to fulfil the instruction of the people – to leave the EU and truly take back control of our laws and our lives.
The next few weeks are critical. If we continue on the current path we will, I am afraid, betray centuries of progress.
From the development of parliamentary democracy to the industrial revolution the British have been first movers. They have been most willing to challenge received wisdom, to expose vested interests and to put their leaders to the test.
So in June 2016 it was no surprise that they voted to leave the EU - because they had a clear insight into the way that institution works and its manifest flaws.
They saw a body that has evolved far beyond the “Common Market” they were invited to join, a superstate with no real democratic control. The British were told that it was politically essential for them to stay in the EU; and yet they saw an institution that responds to every problem with a call for more integration – to the point where it now has five presidents and plans for at least one of them to be directly elected by the entire population of the EU, hardly any of whom will properly understand who that person is or what he or she is doing.
The British were warned it was economically essential for them to stay in the EU; and yet they observed that the EU’s signature economic project, the euro, had consigned millions of young people to the misery of unemployment across the Mediterranean, with 21 per cent of the Greek population still in a state of severe material deprivation according to Eurostat.
They noted that the one size fits all EU model of regulation – according to the Treasury itself - has probably cost about 7 per cent of GDP, that the EU is a zone of low growth and low innovation, and that the EU institutions themselves are colossal and extravagant wasters of taxpayers’ money.
In voting to leave, the British showed good judgment about the EU – but also about themselves. They instinctively understood the connection between British political liberty and economic progress, and they saw in a globalised economy how the UK might have a glorious future.
This was the chance, they decided, to take back control of their immigration system – so that the UK could attract the right mix of talent from abroad, and so that British business would no longer have an excuse not to invest either in the skills of young people or in capital equipment.
This was the moment to take back control of the enormous sums given every week to the EU, and to spend them on British priorities such as the NHS. It was the time to take back control above all of their democracy – to ensure that laws were not only made in the interests of UK people and business, and to support UK innovation, but that the British people would be able once again to remove their lawmakers from power in the normal democratic way.
The polls have shown that it was not immigration, but a concern about national self-determination, that was the single most important consideration that encouraged people to vote leave.
In short, they saw a choice between an outdated and sclerotic EU, and the chance to do things differently; between remaining inside – always protesting, and always being carried along by the federalising process – and seizing the opportunities of a changing economy and doing new free trade deals around the world.
They voted for freedom. It must be admitted, alas, that at this rate their hopes will not be fulfilled.
As we come now to the final months of the Brexit negotiations we are arriving, at last, at the moment of truth. It is not just that we must decide what kind of relationship we want with the EU.
We must decide who we are – whether we really believe in the importance of our democratic institutions.
We must decide whether we have the guts to fulfil the instruction of the people – to leave the EU and truly take back control of our laws and our lives.
The next few weeks are critical. If we continue on the current path we will, I am afraid, betray centuries of progress.
From the development of parliamentary democracy to the industrial revolution the British have been first movers. They have been most willing to challenge received wisdom, to expose vested interests and to put their leaders to the test.
So in June 2016 it was no surprise that they voted to leave the EU - because they had a clear insight into the way that institution works and its manifest flaws.
They saw a body that has evolved far beyond the “Common Market” they were invited to join, a superstate with no real democratic control. The British were told that it was politically essential for them to stay in the EU; and yet they saw an institution that responds to every problem with a call for more integration – to the point where it now has five presidents and plans for at least one of them to be directly elected by the entire population of the EU, hardly any of whom will properly understand who that person is or what he or she is doing.
The British were warned it was economically essential for them to stay in the EU; and yet they observed that the EU’s signature economic project, the euro, had consigned millions of young people to the misery of unemployment across the Mediterranean, with 21 per cent of the Greek population still in a state of severe material deprivation according to Eurostat.
They noted that the one size fits all EU model of regulation – according to the Treasury itself - has probably cost about 7 per cent of GDP, that the EU is a zone of low growth and low innovation, and that the EU institutions themselves are colossal and extravagant wasters of taxpayers’ money.
In voting to leave, the British showed good judgment about the EU – but also about themselves. They instinctively understood the connection between British political liberty and economic progress, and they saw in a globalised economy how the UK might have a glorious future.
This was the chance, they decided, to take back control of their immigration system – so that the UK could attract the right mix of talent from abroad, and so that British business would no longer have an excuse not to invest either in the skills of young people or in capital equipment.
This was the moment to take back control of the enormous sums given every week to the EU, and to spend them on British priorities such as the NHS. It was the time to take back control above all of their democracy – to ensure that laws were not only made in the interests of UK people and business, and to support UK innovation, but that the British people would be able once again to remove their lawmakers from power in the normal democratic way.
The polls have shown that it was not immigration, but a concern about national self-determination, that was the single most important consideration that encouraged people to vote leave.
In short, they saw a choice between an outdated and sclerotic EU, and the chance to do things differently; between remaining inside – always protesting, and always being carried along by the federalising process – and seizing the opportunities of a changing economy and doing new free trade deals around the world.
They voted for freedom. It must be admitted, alas, that at this rate their hopes will not be fulfilled.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
cont...
The failure of the negotiations so far
It is widely accepted that the UK is now in a weak position in the Brexit negotiations. The Chequers proposals are deservedly unpopular with the UK electorate and have at least formally been rejected by our EU friends. If we are to make a success of the talks, we must first understand how we have arrived at this position.
It was clear from the very beginning of Theresa May’s government that the UK was in the grip of a fatal uncertainty about whether or not to leave the customs union.
Ministers and officials were still very much influenced by the logic of Project Fear – which in many cases they had themselves promulgated in the course of the Referendum campaign. They had claimed that there would be huge disruption – and they found it difficult once in office to jettison those claims.
The result was that from the very beginning the British government exuded a conspicuous infirmity of purpose – a reluctance to take any kind of action to deliver the single most important requirement of Brexit.
This basic nervousness was soon detected by our partners, both in Brussels and most importantly in Dublin.
They realised that some of the most important voices in the UK government – notably the Treasury – retained their pre-referendum antipathy to a real Brexit. In particular they saw that the UK did not have the political will to devise and push hard for the technical solutions to deliver an unobtrusive soft customs border in Northern Ireland. Instead the EU negotiators realised that they had a path to eventual victory in the negotiations.
They offered a different solution: that regulations in Northern Ireland should remain the same as in Ireland, so that there was no need for checks of any kind. This of course evoked the spectre of a border in the Irish Sea, and a threat therefore to the Union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They knew that this would be unacceptable to any British Government, and that London would then instead have to push for the whole UK to remain in the customs union and large parts of the EU’s regulatory apparatus.
That is exactly what has happened. Such is the intellectual route by which we have stumbled and collapsed first into the Dec 8 Northern Irish backstop, and now into the Chequers proposals.
It was a further symptom of the utter lack of conviction with which the UK embarked on these talks that we so meekly accepted the sequencing proposed by the EU. This means that we have effectively agreed to pay £40 billion as an exit fee without any assurances as to the future relationship.
Then there was the election. It certainly did not help that the Government weakened itself greatly not just at home but in the eyes of our partners by this serious strategic mistake, that cost the Conservatives a majority.
But the single greatest failing has been the Government’s appalling and inexplicable delay in setting out a vision for what Brexit is. As Britain has run out of time, the initiative has been transferred to our counterparts on the other side of the table, and – disgracefully – no proper preparations have been made for leaving on WTO terms.
The net result of two years’ negotiation has been to guarantee EU citizens’ rights – which could and should have been done on day one unilaterally; to pay over £40bn for nothing in return; and to negotiate a transition period by which the UK would effectively remain in the EU for another two years and under the most humiliating terms, with no say on laws or taxes this country would have to obey. And if for some reason the negotiations on the future trade agreement break down altogether we have additionally agreed to remain in the customs union indefinitely, for the sake of the Irish border – so making Brexit meaningless.
That is a pretty invertebrate performance. There has been a collective failure of government, and a collapse of will by the British establishment, to deliver on the mandate of the people.
It is true that the EU has conducted the negotiations as though dealing with an adversary rather than a friendly country that simply wants to govern itself. But it is the UK’s supine posture that has enabled the EU to get away with it.
It is this failure either to see or to defend our own national interest that has led to the Chequers proposals and the current crisis.
The failure of the negotiations so far
It is widely accepted that the UK is now in a weak position in the Brexit negotiations. The Chequers proposals are deservedly unpopular with the UK electorate and have at least formally been rejected by our EU friends. If we are to make a success of the talks, we must first understand how we have arrived at this position.
It was clear from the very beginning of Theresa May’s government that the UK was in the grip of a fatal uncertainty about whether or not to leave the customs union.
Ministers and officials were still very much influenced by the logic of Project Fear – which in many cases they had themselves promulgated in the course of the Referendum campaign. They had claimed that there would be huge disruption – and they found it difficult once in office to jettison those claims.
The result was that from the very beginning the British government exuded a conspicuous infirmity of purpose – a reluctance to take any kind of action to deliver the single most important requirement of Brexit.
This basic nervousness was soon detected by our partners, both in Brussels and most importantly in Dublin.
They realised that some of the most important voices in the UK government – notably the Treasury – retained their pre-referendum antipathy to a real Brexit. In particular they saw that the UK did not have the political will to devise and push hard for the technical solutions to deliver an unobtrusive soft customs border in Northern Ireland. Instead the EU negotiators realised that they had a path to eventual victory in the negotiations.
They offered a different solution: that regulations in Northern Ireland should remain the same as in Ireland, so that there was no need for checks of any kind. This of course evoked the spectre of a border in the Irish Sea, and a threat therefore to the Union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They knew that this would be unacceptable to any British Government, and that London would then instead have to push for the whole UK to remain in the customs union and large parts of the EU’s regulatory apparatus.
That is exactly what has happened. Such is the intellectual route by which we have stumbled and collapsed first into the Dec 8 Northern Irish backstop, and now into the Chequers proposals.
It was a further symptom of the utter lack of conviction with which the UK embarked on these talks that we so meekly accepted the sequencing proposed by the EU. This means that we have effectively agreed to pay £40 billion as an exit fee without any assurances as to the future relationship.
Then there was the election. It certainly did not help that the Government weakened itself greatly not just at home but in the eyes of our partners by this serious strategic mistake, that cost the Conservatives a majority.
But the single greatest failing has been the Government’s appalling and inexplicable delay in setting out a vision for what Brexit is. As Britain has run out of time, the initiative has been transferred to our counterparts on the other side of the table, and – disgracefully – no proper preparations have been made for leaving on WTO terms.
The net result of two years’ negotiation has been to guarantee EU citizens’ rights – which could and should have been done on day one unilaterally; to pay over £40bn for nothing in return; and to negotiate a transition period by which the UK would effectively remain in the EU for another two years and under the most humiliating terms, with no say on laws or taxes this country would have to obey. And if for some reason the negotiations on the future trade agreement break down altogether we have additionally agreed to remain in the customs union indefinitely, for the sake of the Irish border – so making Brexit meaningless.
That is a pretty invertebrate performance. There has been a collective failure of government, and a collapse of will by the British establishment, to deliver on the mandate of the people.
It is true that the EU has conducted the negotiations as though dealing with an adversary rather than a friendly country that simply wants to govern itself. But it is the UK’s supine posture that has enabled the EU to get away with it.
It is this failure either to see or to defend our own national interest that has led to the Chequers proposals and the current crisis.