RugbyRebels

Moving on from Hamilton's hypocrisy it looks like we're to be saved on the Brexit front by the Mad Monk himself, it's not obvious why Johnson likes him but if you seek some of the deeper meanings of his writings you can start to glean what Boris might be seeing in Abbott

"So apparently the country that saw off Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada is now paralysed with fear at the very thought of leaving the EU."

It doesn't matter if you break the law providing you break the law in a good way, if some think it exposes you as a lying piece of shit who'd be ignoring your oath just tell 'em it's the will of the people.

Digby wrote:Moving on from Hamilton's hypocrisy it looks like we're to be saved on the Brexit front by the Mad Monk himself, it's not obvious why Johnson likes him but if you seek some of the deeper meanings of his writings you can start to glean what Boris might be seeing in Abbott

"So apparently the country that saw off Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada is now paralysed with fear at the very thought of leaving the EU."

That's funny. It's closer to the truth to say the Brexit vote got over the line because some Brits were terrified of Turks.

On another point entirely re Abbott: obviously the guy's a cunt, but even if he wasn't, and had relevant skills for the job etc, I'd still feel uneasy about having a non-Brit* negotiating huge long-term deals for the UK which he wouldn't in any way need to live with the consequences of.


*not wishing to sound like a xenophobe, obviously.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:Moving on from Hamilton's hypocrisy it looks like we're to be saved on the Brexit front by the Mad Monk himself, it's not obvious why Johnson likes him but if you seek some of the deeper meanings of his writings you can start to glean what Boris might be seeing in Abbott

"So apparently the country that saw off Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada is now paralysed with fear at the very thought of leaving the EU."

That's funny. It's closer to the truth to say the Brexit vote got over the line because some Brits were terrified of Turks.

On another point entirely re Abbott: obviously the guy's a cunt, but even if he wasn't, and had relevant skills for the job etc, I'd still feel uneasy about having a non-Brit* negotiating huge long-term deals for the UK which he wouldn't in any way need to live with the consequences of.


*not wishing to sound like a xenophobe, obviously.

I'd be fine with a non Brit negotiating the deal, I'd like them to be competent and ethical, and I don't consider Abbott competent or ethical. Though if it cheers you up Abbott was born British

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:Moving on from Hamilton's hypocrisy it looks like we're to be saved on the Brexit front by the Mad Monk himself, it's not obvious why Johnson likes him but if you seek some of the deeper meanings of his writings you can start to glean what Boris might be seeing in Abbott

"So apparently the country that saw off Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada is now paralysed with fear at the very thought of leaving the EU."

That's funny. It's closer to the truth to say the Brexit vote got over the line because some Brits were terrified of Turks.

On another point entirely re Abbott: obviously the guy's a cunt, but even if he wasn't, and had relevant skills for the job etc, I'd still feel uneasy about having a non-Brit* negotiating huge long-term deals for the UK which he wouldn't in any way need to live with the consequences of.


*not wishing to sound like a xenophobe, obviously.

I'd be fine with a non Brit negotiating the deal, I'd like them to be competent and ethical, and I don't consider Abbott competent or ethical. Though if it cheers you up Abbott was born British

I’m with Diggers here. This government doesn’t want competent or ethical, though.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:Moving on from Hamilton's hypocrisy it looks like we're to be saved on the Brexit front by the Mad Monk himself, it's not obvious why Johnson likes him but if you seek some of the deeper meanings of his writings you can start to glean what Boris might be seeing in Abbott

"So apparently the country that saw off Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada is now paralysed with fear at the very thought of leaving the EU."

That's funny. It's closer to the truth to say the Brexit vote got over the line because some Brits were terrified of Turks.

On another point entirely re Abbott: obviously the guy's a cunt, but even if he wasn't, and had relevant skills for the job etc, I'd still feel uneasy about having a non-Brit* negotiating huge long-term deals for the UK which he wouldn't in any way need to live with the consequences of.


*not wishing to sound like a xenophobe, obviously.

There may be an issue with the availability of Brits with the relevant experience. I'm being generous and that could be shyte; perhaps Cummins like Abbott's style.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:Moving on from Hamilton's hypocrisy it looks like we're to be saved on the Brexit front by the Mad Monk himself, it's not obvious why Johnson likes him but if you seek some of the deeper meanings of his writings you can start to glean what Boris might be seeing in Abbott

"So apparently the country that saw off Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada is now paralysed with fear at the very thought of leaving the EU."

That's funny. It's closer to the truth to say the Brexit vote got over the line because some Brits were terrified of Turks.

On another point entirely re Abbott: obviously the guy's a cunt, but even if he wasn't, and had relevant skills for the job etc, I'd still feel uneasy about having a non-Brit* negotiating huge long-term deals for the UK which he wouldn't in any way need to live with the consequences of.


*not wishing to sound like a xenophobe, obviously.

There may be an issue with the availability of Brits with the relevant experience. I'm being generous and that could be shyte; perhaps Cummins like Abbott's style.

We've certainly little experience in negotiating trade deals, and it's showing. The Aussies have lots of experienced negotiators, though why you'd pick a moron out of all their qualified individuals remains a fair question

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: That's funny. It's closer to the truth to say the Brexit vote got over the line because some Brits were terrified of Turks.

On another point entirely re Abbott: obviously the guy's a cunt, but even if he wasn't, and had relevant skills for the job etc, I'd still feel uneasy about having a non-Brit* negotiating huge long-term deals for the UK which he wouldn't in any way need to live with the consequences of.


*not wishing to sound like a xenophobe, obviously.

There may be an issue with the availability of Brits with the relevant experience. I'm being generous and that could be shyte; perhaps Cummins like Abbott's style.

We've certainly little experience in negotiating trade deals, and it's showing. The Aussies have lots of experienced negotiators, though why you'd pick a moron out of all their qualified individuals remains a fair question

Well we have just appointed someone utterly without relevant experience too head up the civil service. And of course we have someone unqualified to be the National Security Advisor. Anyone else spotting a theme?

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: There may be an issue with the availability of Brits with the relevant experience. I'm being generous and that could be shyte; perhaps Cummins like Abbott's style.

We've certainly little experience in negotiating trade deals, and it's showing. The Aussies have lots of experienced negotiators, though why you'd pick a moron out of all their qualified individuals remains a fair question

Well we have just appointed someone utterly without relevant experience too head up the civil service. And of course we have someone unqualified to be the National Security Advisor. Anyone else spotting a theme?

Is the theme corrupt banana republics?

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
We've certainly little experience in negotiating trade deals, and it's showing. The Aussies have lots of experienced negotiators, though why you'd pick a moron out of all their qualified individuals remains a fair question

Well we have just appointed someone utterly without relevant experience too head up the civil service. And of course we have someone unqualified to be the National Security Advisor. Anyone else spotting a theme?

Is the theme corrupt banana republics?

Almost. Minus the bananas. And we're not a republic.

Otherwise, all good.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
We've certainly little experience in negotiating trade deals, and it's showing. The Aussies have lots of experienced negotiators, though why you'd pick a moron out of all their qualified individuals remains a fair question

Well we have just appointed someone utterly without relevant experience too head up the civil service. And of course we have someone unqualified to be the National Security Advisor. Anyone else spotting a theme?

Is the theme corrupt banana republics?

Nope. Banana republics actually produce and export things.

Puja

Even Michael Howard is drawing a line in the sand over breaking the law.

I wonder if Boris and Agent Cummings think they can avoid 40 or so dissenters over this.

Norman Lamont suggesting the government should be allowed to do something because they don't like the idea of a border down the Irish Sea, which is just weird when this is the deal they signed up to. Lamont is also seemingly suggesting the problem with their behaviour is the clarity with which they stated this would be breaking the law, so there we go, had they done the same thing and lied about it Lamont seemingly considered it could have cleared the House of Lords, something he now thinks can't happen

If Boris really wants to claim he didn't know what was in the deal he should simply resign in disgrace

Digby wrote:Norman Lamont suggesting the government should be allowed to do something because they don't like the idea of a border down the Irish Sea, which is just weird when this is the deal they signed up to. Lamont is also seemingly suggesting the problem with their behaviour is the clarity with which they stated this would be breaking the law, so there we go, had they done the same thing and lied about it Lamont seemingly considered it could have cleared the House of Lords, something he now thinks can't happen

If Boris really wants to claim he didn't know what was in the deal he should simply resign in disgrace

This is the inevitable result of the government claiming that they would completely leave the single market, keep the border between Ireland and N.Ireland open, and would have no barriers between N.Ireland and mainland UK. Simple inarguable reality says you can only have 2 of 3, but the Conservatives have been loudly proclaiming that they want all 3, they can have all 3, and they are going to have all 3.

At some point, the fiction was always going to break and the government were going to have to choose which one to ditch. Earlier this year, it appeared to be barriers between N.Ireland and UK. Now we seem to be pivoting to the border with Ireland, although I suspect some backpedalling may occur given the strident response from the US. First time the white US population's delusion that they are the ancestry of their grandparents or great grandparents has come in handy for something.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Norman Lamont suggesting the government should be allowed to do something because they don't like the idea of a border down the Irish Sea, which is just weird when this is the deal they signed up to. Lamont is also seemingly suggesting the problem with their behaviour is the clarity with which they stated this would be breaking the law, so there we go, had they done the same thing and lied about it Lamont seemingly considered it could have cleared the House of Lords, something he now thinks can't happen

If Boris really wants to claim he didn't know what was in the deal he should simply resign in disgrace

This is the inevitable result of the government claiming that they would completely leave the single market, keep the border between Ireland and N.Ireland open, and would have no barriers between N.Ireland and mainland UK. Simple inarguable reality says you can only have 2 of 3, but the Conservatives have been loudly proclaiming that they want all 3, they can have all 3, and they are going to have all 3.

At some point, the fiction was always going to break and the government were going to have to choose which one to ditch. Earlier this year, it appeared to be barriers between N.Ireland and UK. Now we seem to be pivoting to the border with Ireland, although I suspect some backpedalling may occur given the strident response from the US. First time the white US population's delusion that they are the ancestry of their grandparents or great grandparents has come in handy for something.

Puja

It's intentionally done to sabotage the talks and crash out with a no-deal, and blame the EU in the process.

and anyone saying that this is totally un-British behaviour from the government is off their rocker. The phrase 'Perfidious Albion' didn't come from nowhere.

Britain certainly has a proud history of lying its face off. But a lot of that deception came when it was a much more significant power so it did't matter/hurt in the same way.

We have though for a long while kept to certain accepted norms when it comes to respecting international norms, our days of promising Israel to the Arabs and the Jews are long gone, even if in part because we now lack the power to deliver on such a statement

At what point is the UK government going to concede they never had any intent of honouring the withdrawal agreement they negotiated and signed, and that they signed merely to progress the talks to areas they consider more interesting with the intent they'd renege if those more interesting talks didn't deliver what they wanted.

We've not got the Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, saying he hopes ministers will never need the authority granted them in the Internal Market Bill and that he himself would resign if he thought the UK ended up breaking the law in a way he found unacceptable. Which is about as reassuring as Harold Shipman saying he'll take good care of your gran.

There is a problem with the land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland that complicates any deal any government would want to make on this issue, but it does highlight the failure at any point in time to set out what Brexit means other than Brexit.

Digby wrote:At what point is the UK government going to concede they never had any intent of honouring the withdrawal agreement they negotiated and signed, and that they signed merely to progress the talks to areas they consider more interesting with the intent they'd renege if those more interesting talks didn't deliver what they wanted.

We've not got the Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, saying he hopes ministers will never need the authority granted them in the Internal Market Bill and that he himself would resign if he thought the UK ended up breaking the law in a way he found unacceptable. Which is about as reassuring as Harold Shipman saying he'll take good care of your gran.

There is a problem with the land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland that complicates any deal any government would want to make on this issue, but it does highlight the failure at any point in time to set out what Brexit means other than Brexit.

They can't do that.

This government doesn't do politics, they do electioneering. So Brexit is all about dressing up other parties as big bads. They need to paint the EU as acting in bad faith, that the UK had no other choice if "we wanted our control back!". Meanwhile, painting Labour as a threat to the very fabric of Britishness!

But instead, Starmer is a confident and clever leader, and Labour are not playing the game Agent Eye Test is trying to play.

Hopefully, they'll crash and burn spectacularly before the year is out, so Labour can go back to the negotiating table with the EU and sort out the mess in the only way possible: closer integration with the EU to prevent the breaking of the Good Friday agreement.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:At what point is the UK government going to concede they never had any intent of honouring the withdrawal agreement they negotiated and signed, and that they signed merely to progress the talks to areas they consider more interesting with the intent they'd renege if those more interesting talks didn't deliver what they wanted.

We've not got the Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, saying he hopes ministers will never need the authority granted them in the Internal Market Bill and that he himself would resign if he thought the UK ended up breaking the law in a way he found unacceptable. Which is about as reassuring as Harold Shipman saying he'll take good care of your gran.

There is a problem with the land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland that complicates any deal any government would want to make on this issue, but it does highlight the failure at any point in time to set out what Brexit means other than Brexit.

They can't do that.

This government doesn't do politics, they do electioneering. So Brexit is all about dressing up other parties as big bads. They need to paint the EU as acting in bad faith, that the UK had no other choice if "we wanted our control back!". Meanwhile, painting Labour as a threat to the very fabric of Britishness!

But instead, Starmer is a confident and clever leader, and Labour are not playing the game Agent Eye Test is trying to play.

Hopefully, they'll crash and burn spectacularly before the year is out, so Labour can go back to the negotiating table with the EU and sort out the mess in the only way possible: closer integration with the EU to prevent the breaking of the Good Friday agreement.

Actually on Starmer this is the first time he hasn't impressed since taking over. Like Corbyn he seems to have no idea what to do or say about Brexit, simply saying Brexit is done and we should focus on covid isn't enough, and he surely has spent some time thinking about how he thinks the country can move forwards allowing Labour to progress potential voting numbers among the remain voting constituency whilst regaining some of that red wall, if he hasn't or hr hasn't got any good ideas then he's in the wrong job.

About the best Starmer can do right now is say it's not my fault, and certainly this is much more a mess created by others, but it's not exactly leadership

The opposition's job is to hold the government to account not to come up with policy of their own - the time for that is the run-up to an election.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:At what point is the UK government going to concede they never had any intent of honouring the withdrawal agreement they negotiated and signed, and that they signed merely to progress the talks to areas they consider more interesting with the intent they'd renege if those more interesting talks didn't deliver what they wanted.

We've not got the Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, saying he hopes ministers will never need the authority granted them in the Internal Market Bill and that he himself would resign if he thought the UK ended up breaking the law in a way he found unacceptable. Which is about as reassuring as Harold Shipman saying he'll take good care of your gran.

There is a problem with the land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland that complicates any deal any government would want to make on this issue, but it does highlight the failure at any point in time to set out what Brexit means other than Brexit.

They can't do that.

This government doesn't do politics, they do electioneering. So Brexit is all about dressing up other parties as big bads. They need to paint the EU as acting in bad faith, that the UK had no other choice if "we wanted our control back!". Meanwhile, painting Labour as a threat to the very fabric of Britishness!

But instead, Starmer is a confident and clever leader, and Labour are not playing the game Agent Eye Test is trying to play.

Hopefully, they'll crash and burn spectacularly before the year is out, so Labour can go back to the negotiating table with the EU and sort out the mess in the only way possible: closer integration with the EU to prevent the breaking of the Good Friday agreement.

Actually on Starmer this is the first time he hasn't impressed since taking over. Like Corbyn he seems to have no idea what to do or say about Brexit, simply saying Brexit is done and we should focus on covid isn't enough, and he surely has spent some time thinking about how he thinks the country can move forwards allowing Labour to progress potential voting numbers among the remain voting constituency whilst regaining some of that red wall, if he hasn't or hr hasn't got any good ideas then he's in the wrong job.

About the best Starmer can do right now is say it's not my fault, and certainly this is much more a mess created by others, but it's not exactly leadership

You’ve kinda answered it yourself: there’s nothing he can do except hold tight while the government screws up.

I'm sure Starmer would love to rip into the government about Brexit, the EU trade talks etc but he knows he can't change a thing and in the long run it's better than to give the Tory press an excuse to attack him ... and anyway, any complaint he makes about Brexit (or anything even remotely related to it) will lead directly to 'you lost, we won, accept the will of the people, get over it'.

Frustrating as it is to see him not making a deal about the Tories breaking international law, the strategy is understandable. And if this gets into law (as I expect it will) he can forever criticise the Tories as lawbreakers and Johnson as the man who binned his own 'oven-ready deal'.

Starmer doesn't have to come up with detailed policy, but he's got to have an inkling of an idea. Saying as he has Brexit is done with and we need to focus on Covid is way short of the mark, as is saying I might have an idea but I'm not obliged to mention it for many years, a good idea would be bloody useful right now, and if you don't want to be pushed on having a good idea maybe don't ask to lead a major political party as that does involve leadership, whether in power or not

Edd's doing some great work this afternoon in Keir's absence, not that one suspects Boris will care, hard to shame the shameless.

Digby wrote:Starmer doesn't have to come up with detailed policy, but he's got to have an inkling of an idea. Saying as he has Brexit is done with and we need to focus on Covid is way short of the mark, as is saying I might have an idea but I'm not obliged to mention it for many years, a good idea would be bloody useful right now, and if you don't want to be pushed on having a good idea maybe don't ask to lead a major political party as that does involve leadership, whether in power or not

Edd's doing some great work this afternoon in Keir's absence, not that one suspects Boris will care, hard to shame the shameless.

Sure, I find it frustrating, but IMO a good idea from Labour would be of absolutely no use right now since it would be ignored or might even cause Johnson to do the opposite.

I'm somewhat relieved my MP has said he will not be able to support the government in breaking the law (and their oaths in the process). Though whether he's going to vote against the government or merely abstain I don't know