RugbyRebels

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:Okay, but how many of those who didn't want curry if actually having to go for a curry would want a hot curry even if they'd rather had a steak or pizza?

And further how many want spicy in addition to hot, and I am drawing a distinction between spicy and hot, how many want seafood or vegetarian, how many want pork only to find owing to ownership of who makes most curries pork isn't an option, how many want a wet or dry curry, or want rice, naan or a roti, who wants a curry swimming with ghee and who wants less oily, or those wanting rice who wants plain Vs flavoured, who wants beer, or if wanting beer do you want a curry house that serves its own beer or to find a bring a bottle place...?

And who in the name of all that's holy wants that weird pot of green yoghurt?

Thanks for bringing your expertise to this debate.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:
I don't know if they would hold their noses when it comes to Corbyn, it's a big ask too when he's going to be seen as an equal danger. I do think the EU will play ball unless someone like Orban sticks in a veto.

That does leave us some chance to revoke A50, but that could get even messier, and we're already into constitutional peril

Why would the Victator veto? Wouldn't make much political sense for him...

proves he has power, sticks it to the multilateralists, and even who needs logic when you're a nationalistic autocrat anyway

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
Why would the Victator veto? Wouldn't make much political sense for him...

proves he has power, sticks it to the multilateralists, and even who needs logic when you're a nationalistic autocrat anyway

He uses quite sound logic, generally. And he can't afford a bad situation in the UK considering the number of Hungarians in London.

Plus Fidesz are odds on to suffer big losses in the locals this month.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

proves he has power, sticks it to the multilateralists, and even who needs logic when you're a nationalistic autocrat anyway

He uses quite sound logic, generally. And he can't afford a bad situation in the UK considering the number of Hungarians in London.

Plus Fidesz are odds on to suffer big losses in the locals this month.

It does seem a little odd, more than a little odd, that you'd lament the Tories in the UK whilst simultaneously considering Orban uses quite sound logic.

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:Okay, but how many of those who didn't want curry if actually having to go for a curry would want a hot curry even if they'd rather had a steak or pizza?

And further how many want spicy in addition to hot, and I am drawing a distinction between spicy and hot, how many want seafood or vegetarian, how many want pork only to find owing to ownership of who makes most curries pork isn't an option, how many want a wet or dry curry, or want rice, naan or a roti, who wants a curry swimming with ghee and who wants less oily, or those wanting rice who wants plain Vs flavoured, who wants beer, or if wanting beer do you want a curry house that serves its own beer or to find a bring a bottle place...?

And who in the name of all that's holy wants that weird pot of green yoghurt?

Thanks for bringing your expertise to this debate.

The less oily bit is something I've actually found useful over the years. Never occurred to me until when living in London and going out for curries with the contractors over from India who often asked for their curry to be cooked less oily, as they felt the traditional British curry house experience far too rich as standard fare.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Thanks for bringing your expertise to this debate.

The less oily bit is something I've actually found useful over the years. Never occurred to me until when living in London and going out for curries with the contractors over from India who often asked for their curry to be cooked less oily, as they felt the traditional British curry house experience far too rich as standard fare.

Don't knock the yoghurt thing, it works for me.

Possibly we could use Brexit as a simplifying analogy for the curry house options.

Digby wrote:That and the DUP aren't as influential with Boris having lost his majority anyway, want to prevent the IRA supporting Corbyn coming in and protect their bribe above and beyond the Barnett formula

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:That and the DUP aren't as influential with Boris having lost his majority anyway, want to prevent the IRA supporting Corbyn coming in and protect their bribe above and beyond the Barnett formula

Not sure logic and the DUP exist in the same sentence often.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:That and the DUP aren't as influential with Boris having lost his majority anyway, want to prevent the IRA supporting Corbyn coming in and protect their bribe above and beyond the Barnett formula

Not sure logic and the DUP exist in the same sentence often.

Sadly all too true

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Not sure logic and the DUP exist in the same sentence often.

Sadly all too true

emblematic of Brexit, I suppose.

"Whitehall and Buckingham Palace are on red alert after being warned that Boris Johnson could attempt to prorogue Parliament for a second time if he is defeated in the courts or tied down further by MPs over Brexit, The Mail on Sunday has learned.

The 'nuclear option' is understood to have been discussed by the Prime Minister's closest advisers in a move that could see the Government, Parliament and the courts plunged into a legal quagmire just days before Britain's planned exit from the European Union on October 31.

Concerned officials believe nothing is off-limits for Downing Street's current 'chaos strategy' to avoid letting MPs pass fresh legislation halting Britain's exit from the EU, even crippling political institutions to let the UK slip out on No Deal terms."

Article continues...

Digby wrote:Who in the blazes is briefing on that days before the Supreme Court ruling?

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:Who in the blazes is briefing on that days before the Supreme Court ruling?

Presumably, someone with supreme arrogance?

Which Tyler wrote:After being embarassed by Varadkar at the podium last week - Boris opts not to step up and make a statement this week (Simon McCoy calls it the Incredible Sulk ).

Boris Johnson’s nightmare in Luxembourg was more than just a public embarrassment delivered at the hands of the Grand Duchy’s Xavier Bettel.
The FT on Wednesday morning reports on a chastening encounter over lunch between Mr Johnson, Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker, which one official described as a “penny dropping” moment for the prime minister over what it really means to replace the Irish backstop.
According to an account of the meeting, the prime minister was told by his EU counterparts in no uncertain terms that the UK’s plan to replace the backstop by allowing Northern Ireland to stick to common EU rules on food and livestock (known as SPS) was not enough to prevent customs checks on the vast majority of goods that cross the Irish border.
At that point, a befuddled Mr Johnson turned to David Frost, his chief negotiator, and Stephen Barclay, Brexit secretary, and said: “So you’re telling me the SPS plan doesn’t solve the customs problem?”
The exchange, according to one EU official, was part of an abrupt “learning curve” for Mr Johnson in his first face-to-face meeting with Mr Barnier and Mr Juncker since he took office.
Another official describes the prime minister gradually “slumping” in his chair as the reality of the UK’s negotiating position and the limited time left to strike an agreement dawned on him. “He wasn’t used to hearing it”, added the official.

Article Continues...

The founder of Momentum, a key ally of Jeremy Corbyn, has succeeded in a bid to make the party effectively abolish its 40-year-old student wing, which is dominated by the more centrist side of the party.
Jon Lansman won the backing of Labour’s ruling national executive committee (NEC) for a motion that argued Labour Students was not officially affiliated and should be replaced.
The motion said Labour Students had not paid affiliation fees but this was disputed by Rania Ramli, its chair, who wrote to Jennie Formby, the party’s general secretary, setting out its case. Labour Students could now look at a legal challenge on the grounds it has been excluded on the basis of inaccurate information.
The move against Labour Students was condemned by a number of MPs as counterproductive at a time when the party should be focusing on preparing for an election rather than internal rows.

Article Continues...

Which Tyler wrote:
It's apparently up for debate in their conference;