Eh? I thought it was rather good! 
(Did I repeat what Mali said? Soz if that's the case, Mali. Too subtle for me
)
(Did I repeat what Mali said? Soz if that's the case, Mali. Too subtle for me
) 
Cavey wrote:
Eh? I thought it was rather good!
(Did I repeat what Mali said? Soz if that's the case, Mali. Too subtle for me )
(Did I repeat what Mali said? Soz if that's the case, Mali. Too subtle for me
)That you did, you charlatan
Hmmm... "Charlatan"... Is that good?
I think it's a band Curio likes.
Grim... wrote:
I think it's a band Curio likes.
He doesn’t like them anymore. He only liked them before they were popular.
Are people holding parties to watch the Prime Minister's big speech tomorrow? I'm really struggling to concentrate today what with all the anticipation in the air. It's like Christmas Eve.
Kern wrote:
Are people holding parties to watch the Prime Minister's big speech tomorrow? I'm really struggling to concentrate today what with all the anticipation in the air. It's like Christmas Eve.
If the response to her at the UN was anything to go by, no one will really be listening anyway.
I quite liked Polly Toynbee's suggestion for the speech.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nce-speech
Quote:
Sitting at her desk, Theresa May is drafting her Florence speech for Friday. The time has come, she finally decides, to put country before party; to abandon the vain attempt to bind together her party’s utterly incompatible factions. What’s the point? There’s no possible EU deal that would induce John Redwood and Liam Fox to agree with Anna Soubry and Ken Clarke, no fence left to sit on. She must become the prime minister no one thinks she is.
“The time has come,” she writes, “to face the truth about Brexit. Our people have voted to leave, and so we shall. But no one asked how, on what terms or at what national or personal sacrifice. Nothing on that small ballot paper gave me any clue as to what each of 17,410,742 voters had in mind. So it falls to me to interpret the people’s will. And, as my chancellor says, no one voted to become poorer.
“In the 15 months since that vote, I have studied every option. I have listened to experts – yes, I believe in expertise. Businesses small and large almost with one voice warn that leaving the single market and the customs union risks devastating manufacturing, finance and services. Already we see banks and companies setting up new headquarters across the Channel. I see talented Europeans ready to depart, not least from the NHS: they need reassurance now.” The words begin to flow.
“To stay within the single market and the customs union, we must pay our dues: we will strike a fair price, fair for the gain that buys our economy. We will leave the EU’s councils and its parliament, as the vote requires. But we are not leaving our closest neighbours and old allies. Instead we shall seek to stay in the EEA, alongside Switzerland and Norway, who are thriving. And so shall we. There is no other solution to the problem of the Northern Irish border: the EU cannot leave open a back door; and it is my duty not to jeopardise the hard-won peace agreement. Nor will we put at risk the great good brought by all our fellow European citizens who have chosen to live with us, interwoven in the rich fabric of our cultural life.
“The time has come to refute the delirious fantasies of those who have led us out of the EU. My colleague Boris has just given another firework display of his own imagined glorious future. Words are his milieu, but mine is the real world in which ordinary people earn their living and hope to flourish. I have yet to see from him, or any of those who would plunge us over the cliff edge, any details as to how cutting off half our trade will do us anything but harm. I am shocked any minister of mine would wilfully ignore the chair of the UK Statistics Authority on a matter of fact.
“Some will still follow these pied pipers spinning airy dreams. No doubt some will challenge me. But I will stand and fight for the interests of my country against the whims of elements in my own party. I am prime minister of the country first, leader of my party second. Protecting the people is my prime duty, and I will condone no damage to all who have already suffered a hard decade since the start of this global recession.
“Judge me not as a party politician, but as a prime minister delivering my people’s wish to take Britain out of the European Union while seeing our country thrive and prosper. Out of the EU, yes, but we will stay close to our good neighbours after 70 years of mutual prosperity and peace. Here in Italy, as in France, Germany and all the EU nations, we rely on one another’s strengths and our common civilisation in a dangerous world. In Brexit, Britain will neither harm itself nor its good friends.”
Her peroration complete, she sits back to consider the words she has written, sighs, crumples the paper and throws it into the bin. She dare not, after all.
“The time has come,” she writes, “to face the truth about Brexit. Our people have voted to leave, and so we shall. But no one asked how, on what terms or at what national or personal sacrifice. Nothing on that small ballot paper gave me any clue as to what each of 17,410,742 voters had in mind. So it falls to me to interpret the people’s will. And, as my chancellor says, no one voted to become poorer.
“In the 15 months since that vote, I have studied every option. I have listened to experts – yes, I believe in expertise. Businesses small and large almost with one voice warn that leaving the single market and the customs union risks devastating manufacturing, finance and services. Already we see banks and companies setting up new headquarters across the Channel. I see talented Europeans ready to depart, not least from the NHS: they need reassurance now.” The words begin to flow.
“To stay within the single market and the customs union, we must pay our dues: we will strike a fair price, fair for the gain that buys our economy. We will leave the EU’s councils and its parliament, as the vote requires. But we are not leaving our closest neighbours and old allies. Instead we shall seek to stay in the EEA, alongside Switzerland and Norway, who are thriving. And so shall we. There is no other solution to the problem of the Northern Irish border: the EU cannot leave open a back door; and it is my duty not to jeopardise the hard-won peace agreement. Nor will we put at risk the great good brought by all our fellow European citizens who have chosen to live with us, interwoven in the rich fabric of our cultural life.
“The time has come to refute the delirious fantasies of those who have led us out of the EU. My colleague Boris has just given another firework display of his own imagined glorious future. Words are his milieu, but mine is the real world in which ordinary people earn their living and hope to flourish. I have yet to see from him, or any of those who would plunge us over the cliff edge, any details as to how cutting off half our trade will do us anything but harm. I am shocked any minister of mine would wilfully ignore the chair of the UK Statistics Authority on a matter of fact.
“Some will still follow these pied pipers spinning airy dreams. No doubt some will challenge me. But I will stand and fight for the interests of my country against the whims of elements in my own party. I am prime minister of the country first, leader of my party second. Protecting the people is my prime duty, and I will condone no damage to all who have already suffered a hard decade since the start of this global recession.
“Judge me not as a party politician, but as a prime minister delivering my people’s wish to take Britain out of the European Union while seeing our country thrive and prosper. Out of the EU, yes, but we will stay close to our good neighbours after 70 years of mutual prosperity and peace. Here in Italy, as in France, Germany and all the EU nations, we rely on one another’s strengths and our common civilisation in a dangerous world. In Brexit, Britain will neither harm itself nor its good friends.”
Her peroration complete, she sits back to consider the words she has written, sighs, crumples the paper and throws it into the bin. She dare not, after all.
This made me laugh. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... CMP=twt_gu
Grayling on R4 this morning spoke absolute twatwaffle about May's speech and how Britain will change. It was incredibly nebulous, and he sounded like he was just reading it ans didn't believe it himself. I was amused.
But it'll still be good, right?
Kern wrote:
But it'll still be good, right?
Just sent this to my Gmail. Automated responses:
- I think so!
- I don't know.
- I don't think so.
Even the normally effusive Google AI is down on it.
MaliA wrote:
Grayling on R4 this morning spoke absolute twatwaffle about May's speech and how Britain will change. It was incredibly nebulous, and he sounded like he was just reading it ans didn't believe it himself. I was amused.
I just made the mistake of listening to that. It was awful. Almost nothing of substantive content was said. What a waste of time.
Kern wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Grayling on R4 this morning spoke absolute twatwaffle about May's speech and how Britain will change. It was incredibly nebulous, and he sounded like he was just reading it ans didn't believe it himself. I was amused.
I just made the mistake of listening to that. It was awful. Almost nothing of substantive content was said. What a waste of time.
I spent a couple of hours with him in his Parliament office when he was shadow transport sec'. He's as dumb as a box of hair whose entire career seems to be thanks to the fact that he willingly plays the role of lightning rod for the leader.
DBSnappa wrote:
Kern wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Grayling on R4 this morning spoke absolute twatwaffle about May's speech and how Britain will change. It was incredibly nebulous, and he sounded like he was just reading it ans didn't believe it himself. I was amused.
I just made the mistake of listening to that. It was awful. Almost nothing of substantive content was said. What a waste of time.
He's as dumb as a box of hair.
Love that.
DBSnappa wrote:
Kern wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Grayling on R4 this morning spoke absolute twatwaffle about May's speech and how Britain will change. It was incredibly nebulous, and he sounded like he was just reading it ans didn't believe it himself. I was amused.
I just made the mistake of listening to that. It was awful. Almost nothing of substantive content was said. What a waste of time.
I spent a couple of hours with him in his Parliament office when he was shadow transport sec'. He's as dumb as a box of hair whose entire career seems to be thanks to the fact that he willingly plays the role of lightning rod for the leader.
Apparently he's rather useful as a local mp, so...
May just basically said that she wants a two year transition where basically nothing will change. Brexit can just firmly kicked two more years down the road
And she committed to paying the EU tens of billions. "Go whistle," indeed.
Most of it was pretty vacuous, as seems par for the course these days.
I'm not sure how having our arrangements to keep in line with changing EU regulations is going to be any better than the existing EEA arrangements.
I'm not sure how having our arrangements to keep in line with changing EU regulations is going to be any better than the existing EEA arrangements.
Also, she really can't do rousing speeches, and shouldn't try. That part was painful.
'Let's think creatively'.
Ugh.
Ugh.
Kern wrote:
Also, she really can't do rousing speeches, and shouldn't try. That part was painful.
She can't do "Walking without looking like she's a reject from Mars Attack" never mind anything else
My gran could make a better fist of this clownshow and she's been dead for twenty years.
Cras wrote:
May just basically said that she wants a two year transition where basically nothing will change. Brexit can just firmly kicked two more years down the road
Do you think the EU will say "No deal, or stay" come 2019 and push away any transition stuff?
MaliA wrote:
Cras wrote:
May just basically said that she wants a two year transition where basically nothing will change. Brexit can just firmly kicked two more years down the road
Do you think the EU will say "No deal, or stay" come 2019 and push away any transition stuff?
If they don't agree to the transition, we fall out of the EU in March 2019 automatically.
Kern wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Cras wrote:
May just basically said that she wants a two year transition where basically nothing will change. Brexit can just firmly kicked two more years down the road
Do you think the EU will say "No deal, or stay" come 2019 and push away any transition stuff?
If they don't agree to the transition, we fall out of the EU in March 2019 automatically.
Wasn't there an "Oh, we didn't really mean it" Art50 straw of hope?
I'm pretty sure that if we came begging back, the EU would find a way. But I'm not sure we'd get the rebate back.
The makeup sex would be fantastic, however.
Kern wrote:
I'm pretty sure that if we came begging back, the EU would find a way. But I'm not sure we'd get the rebate back.
Yeah, i think that ship Doone is well and truly underway on that
Kern wrote:
'Let's think creatively'.
Ugh.
Ugh.
"Ceci n'est pas une Brexit"
Zardoz wrote:
Kern wrote:
'Let's think creatively'.
Ugh.
Ugh.
"Ceci n'est pas une Brexit"
Bravo!
Michel Barnier's response - http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_ST ... 427_en.htm
Quote:
We look forward to the United Kingdom's negotiators explaining the concrete implications of Prime Minister Theresa May's speech.
Barnier is excellent.
He's basically saying that Mrs May no longer gets fashion tips from Vogue but now uses the Emperor's tailors.
Low effort Photoshop after reading that the cost of Brexit per household is about £4.2K compared to £317 for staying in.
GazChap wrote:
Low effort Photoshop after reading that the cost of Brexit per household is about £4.2K compared to £317 for staying in.
Superb
GazChap wrote:
Low effort Photoshop after reading that the cost of Brexit per household is about £4.2K compared to £317 for staying in.
It's worth it for bendy bananas.
Don't forget the blue passports!
Mariana Hyde wins first prize in this week's 'best allegory for Brexit' competition:
Quote:
I increasingly picture Brexit as one of those criminally underwhelming Christmas theme parks in which the UK specialises
. http://news.sky.com/story/revealed-how- ... s-11057545
Quote:
Doubt has been cast over one of the longest-standing economic claims in the Brexit debate after a Sky investigation revealed that Britain's real exports to outside the EU are actually far lower than official figures suggest.
The Government's trade statistics show that, over the past five years, the share of UK goods being exported to the European Union was only 46% - a fact frequently referred to by those who campaigned for Brexit.
However, this number is severely distorted by the flow of gold bullion in and out of London - the world's major centre for the trade of this precious metal.
When gold is excluded from the trade figures, the numbers are transformed - with half of UK physical exports over the past five years going to the EU.
...
Since the vast majority of this gold is shipped to non-EU countries such as China, Switzerland and India, the upshot of these gold figures is to swell the total amount of goods reported as being shipped outside Europe.
...
In the fourth quarter of last year, a sharp outflow of gold showed up as a sudden spike in exports, causing some economists to conclude that Britain's manufacturers were starting to benefit from a post-Brexit jump in confidence.
In fact, the spike was primarily a sign of investors pulling gold out of vaults in London.
The Government's trade statistics show that, over the past five years, the share of UK goods being exported to the European Union was only 46% - a fact frequently referred to by those who campaigned for Brexit.
However, this number is severely distorted by the flow of gold bullion in and out of London - the world's major centre for the trade of this precious metal.
When gold is excluded from the trade figures, the numbers are transformed - with half of UK physical exports over the past five years going to the EU.
...
Since the vast majority of this gold is shipped to non-EU countries such as China, Switzerland and India, the upshot of these gold figures is to swell the total amount of goods reported as being shipped outside Europe.
...
In the fourth quarter of last year, a sharp outflow of gold showed up as a sudden spike in exports, causing some economists to conclude that Britain's manufacturers were starting to benefit from a post-Brexit jump in confidence.
In fact, the spike was primarily a sign of investors pulling gold out of vaults in London.
Ho. My.
On one hand, I am taking great delight in how much is being exposed, on the other, saddened that Labour aren't saying "Ich nicten licten, but we've got to go along with it" and instead His Savioir of Us All saus he wants to rescue the idiotic project.
It's all coming out in the wash.
On one hand, I am taking great delight in how much is being exposed, on the other, saddened that Labour aren't saying "Ich nicten licten, but we've got to go along with it" and instead His Savioir of Us All saus he wants to rescue the idiotic project.
It's all coming out in the wash.
I think I might have to start reading the Daily Mail and the Express just to remind myself that this is a good idea and things are going brilliantly.
What I find so frustrating is that, as was once said about the poll tax, it appears that so many otherwise intelligent people seem hell-bent on advocating something ridiculously stupid. At some point the mainstream public (ie - those who were quite happy living their lives without caring about the EU or tariffs or EFTA or Jean-Claude Juncker) will start to suffer and turn against the incumbents. But it takes time, and probably requires a capable opposition leader to channel their discontent.
What I find so frustrating is that, as was once said about the poll tax, it appears that so many otherwise intelligent people seem hell-bent on advocating something ridiculously stupid. At some point the mainstream public (ie - those who were quite happy living their lives without caring about the EU or tariffs or EFTA or Jean-Claude Juncker) will start to suffer and turn against the incumbents. But it takes time, and probably requires a capable opposition leader to channel their discontent.
Not sure why you feel a reasonable alternative is required for people to vote against something - given the topic of this thread! 
Oh, yes. I forgot Mr Corbyn won the election.
I'm not convinced he'd want to back out of this. I can understand why Sir Keir is currently charmingly ambivalent, doing enough to keep the remainers on side without pushing around Labour voters who opted for leave, but I don't think the leader is displaying anything other than his deeply held political beliefs.
What I want to avoid is a whole 'stabbed in the back' myth developing. People should feel that the decision to end this nonsense comes from them, rather than the 'slimy European elites'.
I'm not convinced he'd want to back out of this. I can understand why Sir Keir is currently charmingly ambivalent, doing enough to keep the remainers on side without pushing around Labour voters who opted for leave, but I don't think the leader is displaying anything other than his deeply held political beliefs.
What I want to avoid is a whole 'stabbed in the back' myth developing. People should feel that the decision to end this nonsense comes from them, rather than the 'slimy European elites'.
Fun (YMMV) stuff on Twitter today regarding the Parliament Act. The Parliament Act allows the government to force through a bill after it has been rejected twice by the lords in two separate sessions. Normally this means a year's delay, as a session of parliament is a year. However, after the election, May extended the current session to two years to avoid there being a vote on the Queen's speech, so if they want to use the parliament act to force through a withdrawal bill rejected by the Lords, it'll take two years instead of just one.
Ah, the joys of our constitution! That's made me realise that I've always interpreted 'session' as 'year' when thinking about the Parliament Acts.
The downside is that if the bill doesn't pass and the EU don't agree to extra time we'll be even more fucked in 2019 than we currently will be.
The downside is that if the bill doesn't pass and the EU don't agree to extra time we'll be even more fucked in 2019 than we currently will be.
Kern wrote:
Ah, the joys of our constitution! That's made me realise that I've always interpreted 'session' as 'year' when thinking about the Parliament Acts.
The downside is that if the bill doesn't pass and the EU don't agree to extra time we'll be even more fucked in 2019 than we currently will be.
The downside is that if the bill doesn't pass and the EU don't agree to extra time we'll be even more fucked in 2019 than we currently will be.
Currently, we're just dropping into the abyss, aren't we? No 'transition phase' has been agreed.
For avoidance of doubt, I think the bill is a dog's breakfast of poorly thought through ideas and shows an utter disdain for the role of Parliament. It's important, however, for a reception statute of some form to exist, otherwise we're opening up a whole can of legal worms as nobody would know which rules apply and which don't.
I thought Ministers could just make up their own laws now anyway.