holystove

holy crap. 😲
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49810261
It is now a fact that a prime minister with no electoral mandate or majority tried to unlawfully suspend parliament.  
(and yes this in the right thread)

Had a nice header today, he’s scoring all the time in Italy.  Man what we would look like now if we had big rom up top... I digress

But if it’s law then it has to be followed. 
Germany and France don’t want us to leave, it’s not like they always get what they want. I’m baffled by your viewpoint on this one John, the idea they will just change laws at will because France and Germany say so is just ridiculous. 

Best one I've read is this one :
 
I’m not saying there wasn’t a democratic mandate for Brexit at the time. I’m just saying if I narrowly decided to order fish at a restaurant that was known for chicken, but said it was happy to offer fish, and so far I’ve been waiting three hours, and two chefs who promised to cook the fish had quit, and the third one is promising to deliver the fish in the next five minutes whether it’s cooked or not, or indeed still alive, and all the waiting staff have spent the last few hours arguing amongst themselves about whether I wanted battered cod, grilled salmon, jellied eels or dolphin kebabs, and if large parts of the restaurant appeared to be on fire but no-one was paying attention to it because they were all arguing about fish, I would quite like, just once, to be asked if I definitely still wanted the fish.

Best one I've read is this one :
 
I’m not saying there wasn’t a democratic mandate for Brexit at the time. I’m just saying if I narrowly decided to order fish at a restaurant that was known for chicken, but said it was happy to offer fish, and so far I’ve been waiting three hours, and two chefs who promised to cook the fish had quit, and the third one is promising to deliver the fish in the next five minutes whether it’s cooked or not, or indeed still alive, and all the waiting staff have spent the last few hours arguing amongst themselves about whether I wanted battered cod, grilled salmon, jellied eels or dolphin kebabs, and if large parts of the restaurant appeared to be on fire but no-one was paying attention to it because they were all arguing about fish, I would quite like, just once, to be asked if I definitely still wanted the fish.

Best one I've read is this one :
 
I’m not saying there wasn’t a democratic mandate for Brexit at the time. I’m just saying if I narrowly decided to order fish at a restaurant that was known for chicken, but said it was happy to offer fish, and so far I’ve been waiting three hours, and two chefs who promised to cook the fish had quit, and the third one is promising to deliver the fish in the next five minutes whether it’s cooked or not, or indeed still alive, and all the waiting staff have spent the last few hours arguing amongst themselves about whether I wanted battered cod, grilled salmon, jellied eels or dolphin kebabs, and if large parts of the restaurant appeared to be on fire but no-one was paying attention to it because they were all arguing about fish, I would quite like, just once, to be asked if I definitely still wanted the fish.

Best one I've read is this one :
 
I’m not saying there wasn’t a democratic mandate for Brexit at the time. I’m just saying if I narrowly decided to order fish at a restaurant that was known for chicken, but said it was happy to offer fish, and so far I’ve been waiting three hours, and two chefs who promised to cook the fish had quit, and the third one is promising to deliver the fish in the next five minutes whether it’s cooked or not, or indeed still alive, and all the waiting staff have spent the last few hours arguing amongst themselves about whether I wanted battered cod, grilled salmon, jellied eels or dolphin kebabs, and if large parts of the restaurant appeared to be on fire but no-one was paying attention to it because they were all arguing about fish, I would quite like, just once, to be asked if I definitely still wanted the fish.

Best one I've read is this one :
 
I’m not saying there wasn’t a democratic mandate for Brexit at the time. I’m just saying if I narrowly decided to order fish at a restaurant that was known for chicken, but said it was happy to offer fish, and so far I’ve been waiting three hours, and two chefs who promised to cook the fish had quit, and the third one is promising to deliver the fish in the next five minutes whether it’s cooked or not, or indeed still alive, and all the waiting staff have spent the last few hours arguing amongst themselves about whether I wanted battered cod, grilled salmon, jellied eels or dolphin kebabs, and if large parts of the restaurant appeared to be on fire but no-one was paying attention to it because they were all arguing about fish, I would quite like, just once, to be asked if I definitely still wanted the fish.

Difference is you said it was discussed (suggesting a discussion) in the House of Commons prior to the referendum - and not logged as a major problem (again suggesting a discussion) and you said you'd provide evidence of this.
The "evidence" you provided consisted of a thirty second clip of Hammond mentioning it; that's quite a significant difference. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855

Someone made a post on here linking research that concluded the S*n boycott helped to cut Euroscepticism in Liverpool.
Over the weekend, the former Europe correspondent for The Daily Telegraph, David Rennie, gave some insights into how his paper goes about covering Brussels:
"As one of Boris Johnson's successors as Telegraph Brussels correspondent from 2005-2007, I fear Sir Max is being too easy on the role his paper played in establishing the idea that Europe has only foolish and bad ideas, imposed on a hapless Britain.  I inherited Boris's office, with its fine view over a Brussels park and lake, and his assistant who told adoring tales of her scallywag boss.  I also inherited a beat predicated on the idea that stories about the EU did not have to be wholly true as long as they were funny.  I wrote at the time that UK journalism felt like school bullying and the EU was the kid in the playground with glasses who had to be punched, because it never fought back and deserved it.  I should say I had some fine Foreign desk editors, who let me knock down flase stories, but it felt like swimming against a tide.  Two small stories, then I'll stop.  I once asked for a briefing about a project to connect national databases of asylum applications.  A patient EU Commission official explained how real-time maps could now be shared with governments.  I rang London and was told to speak to the home news desk.  I explained the scheme to the editor on duty.  He was sincerely baffled. "But that's helpful to the UK", he said. "Yes," I said. "It sounds sensible," he went on, audibly at a loss at what to do with the story.  It was buried.  Last story.  Shortly before my move to The Economist in 2007 I was rung to be told that the Telegraph was closing its Brussels staff bureau and wanted me to move to Paris as Europe editor.  I argued for keeping an EU staff job, though I already knew I was off. I reminded my then boss that an op-ed colleague Simon Heffer had that week written a column comparing the EU threat to Nazi Germany. "Don't you think our readers should have a correspondent here to explain what such an institution is actually doing?" I asked.  My then boss told me: "Telegraph readers hate the EU so much they don't want to read about it." This was the logical end of years of unserious, unprincipled, lazy polemic. Europe's wickedness was established as a feeling, a delicious channeling of contempt and rage. Facts didn't matter because the EU didn't sue and if Eurocrats complained that proved the UK press was doing something right.  Boris Johnson didn't invent that journalism, but he and Sir Max put it on page 1, week after week, forcing others to compete, and changing UK debate."
Eye-opening, though unsurprising.

Someone made a post on here linking research that concluded the S*n boycott helped to cut Euroscepticism in Liverpool.
Over the weekend, the former Europe correspondent for The Daily Telegraph, David Rennie, gave some insights into how his paper goes about covering Brussels:
"As one of Boris Johnson's successors as Telegraph Brussels correspondent from 2005-2007, I fear Sir Max is being too easy on the role his paper played in establishing the idea that Europe has only foolish and bad ideas, imposed on a hapless Britain.  I inherited Boris's office, with its fine view over a Brussels park and lake, and his assistant who told adoring tales of her scallywag boss.  I also inherited a beat predicated on the idea that stories about the EU did not have to be wholly true as long as they were funny.  I wrote at the time that UK journalism felt like school bullying and the EU was the kid in the playground with glasses who had to be punched, because it never fought back and deserved it.  I should say I had some fine Foreign desk editors, who let me knock down flase stories, but it felt like swimming against a tide.  Two small stories, then I'll stop.  I once asked for a briefing about a project to connect national databases of asylum applications.  A patient EU Commission official explained how real-time maps could now be shared with governments.  I rang London and was told to speak to the home news desk.  I explained the scheme to the editor on duty.  He was sincerely baffled. "But that's helpful to the UK", he said. "Yes," I said. "It sounds sensible," he went on, audibly at a loss at what to do with the story.  It was buried.  Last story.  Shortly before my move to The Economist in 2007 I was rung to be told that the Telegraph was closing its Brussels staff bureau and wanted me to move to Paris as Europe editor.  I argued for keeping an EU staff job, though I already knew I was off. I reminded my then boss that an op-ed colleague Simon Heffer had that week written a column comparing the EU threat to Nazi Germany. "Don't you think our readers should have a correspondent here to explain what such an institution is actually doing?" I asked.  My then boss told me: "Telegraph readers hate the EU so much they don't want to read about it." This was the logical end of years of unserious, unprincipled, lazy polemic. Europe's wickedness was established as a feeling, a delicious channeling of contempt and rage. Facts didn't matter because the EU didn't sue and if Eurocrats complained that proved the UK press was doing something right.  Boris Johnson didn't invent that journalism, but he and Sir Max put it on page 1, week after week, forcing others to compete, and changing UK debate."
Eye-opening, though unsurprising.

Someone made a post on here linking research that concluded the S*n boycott helped to cut Euroscepticism in Liverpool.
Over the weekend, the former Europe correspondent for The Daily Telegraph, David Rennie, gave some insights into how his paper goes about covering Brussels:
"As one of Boris Johnson's successors as Telegraph Brussels correspondent from 2005-2007, I fear Sir Max is being too easy on the role his paper played in establishing the idea that Europe has only foolish and bad ideas, imposed on a hapless Britain.  I inherited Boris's office, with its fine view over a Brussels park and lake, and his assistant who told adoring tales of her scallywag boss.  I also inherited a beat predicated on the idea that stories about the EU did not have to be wholly true as long as they were funny.  I wrote at the time that UK journalism felt like school bullying and the EU was the kid in the playground with glasses who had to be punched, because it never fought back and deserved it.  I should say I had some fine Foreign desk editors, who let me knock down flase stories, but it felt like swimming against a tide.  Two small stories, then I'll stop.  I once asked for a briefing about a project to connect national databases of asylum applications.  A patient EU Commission official explained how real-time maps could now be shared with governments.  I rang London and was told to speak to the home news desk.  I explained the scheme to the editor on duty.  He was sincerely baffled. "But that's helpful to the UK", he said. "Yes," I said. "It sounds sensible," he went on, audibly at a loss at what to do with the story.  It was buried.  Last story.  Shortly before my move to The Economist in 2007 I was rung to be told that the Telegraph was closing its Brussels staff bureau and wanted me to move to Paris as Europe editor.  I argued for keeping an EU staff job, though I already knew I was off. I reminded my then boss that an op-ed colleague Simon Heffer had that week written a column comparing the EU threat to Nazi Germany. "Don't you think our readers should have a correspondent here to explain what such an institution is actually doing?" I asked.  My then boss told me: "Telegraph readers hate the EU so much they don't want to read about it." This was the logical end of years of unserious, unprincipled, lazy polemic. Europe's wickedness was established as a feeling, a delicious channeling of contempt and rage. Facts didn't matter because the EU didn't sue and if Eurocrats complained that proved the UK press was doing something right.  Boris Johnson didn't invent that journalism, but he and Sir Max put it on page 1, week after week, forcing others to compete, and changing UK debate."
Eye-opening, though unsurprising.

By false advertising on people’s social media to stir up racial hatred and convince vulnerable people of things that would happen if we didn’t leave. On an absolutely massive scale, they spent millions employing Cambridge Analytica to do this for them. There was such a scandal around it that there was government inquiry into the firm and the inquiry stated at the end that we will never be able to have a fair election ever again after what they did, such was the damaging but every effective work they carried out. When a government inquiry states that a fair election can never happen again I’d say that pretty damaging to democracy. 
I’d love to know your thoughts on how fair you think that it. But I suspect you didn’t even know it happened and thus you don’t really care. As a leave voter it makes me feel sick that that is how they won.

This is unbelievable.  The first clip shows him lying for something he prepared for, the second one lying answering something unexpected. 
How could anyone vote for this person? 

By that logic he wouldn't be PM because he'd have been thrown out himself in March.

Well that took a lot of catch up and fuck me it was a waste of time largely. Even after all this time, simple things are basically still not understood, e.g about what actually constitutes the British democracy and what the EU democracy. Basic hypocrisies are still being ignored, e.g. still calling the vote being “democratic” despite being a tool of direct democracy, not parliamentary, e.g. comparing the year, let alone current global economic situation we live in, with that of 10-50 years ago (how that even starts to be an “argument” for either side) is baffling. 
If anything though, there may be 1 bright side to Brexit. It is the biggest evidence of parliamentary democracy being completely outdated and unrepresentative of the population. My only hope is that causes some sort of revolution in Britain. But it won’t, because the population seems to still be shouting about a yes/no result that had no detail or plan on either side and was largely fuelled by lies and deceit by the very people who are left to “run” the country. 
This isn’t aimed just at the leavers in here, but a lot of the remainers too. Too much personal opinion on too big a topic. Which, ironically, is why we have a parliamentary democracy in the first place. 
Also found this recently too, which seems to undermine the main arguments of both sides of the “debate”
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851

Brexit means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.  May's deal may not be what you think you were told, or what you specifically voted for, but you can't presume this extends to 17.4m people.   May's deal would have taken you out of the EU and would have effectively ended freedom of movement  (a lot of people would say immigration concerns were one of the major driving forces behind Brexit).
One thing is for sure, you certainly weren't told you were voting for 'no-deal'.
They tried to achieve remaining in the EU, by voting for the only available way to leave the EU?  That is strange reasoning.

Just say it. He’s a cunt. 

Brexit means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.  May's deal may not be what you think you were told, or what you specifically voted for, but you can't presume this extends to 17.4m people.   May's deal would have taken you out of the EU and would have effectively ended freedom of movement  (a lot of people would say immigration concerns were one of the major driving forces behind Brexit).
One thing is for sure, you certainly weren't told you were voting for 'no-deal'.
They tried to achieve remaining in the EU, by voting for the only available way to leave the EU?  That is strange reasoning.

That's a bit tough on Corbyn as a lot of people would call that an accurate description of Brexit.   Today your PM tried to make a speech in front of 10 Downing Street but was drowned out by chants of "stop the coup", while yesterday one of his Cabinet said government wouldn't automatically respect laws passed by Parliament, which the PM himself suspended to push through his policies.  I'd say Corbyn can't be much more disruptive to the economic and social cohesion in the UK.
I'm all for being upbeat about Brexit (I hope it all works out for the UK and EU), but at some point its time to face reality.  The UK is a services based economy (80%); there has never been an FTA between two countries (or blocs) that covered services in any meaningful way. Countries are not waiting in line to do a trade deal with the UK; to the contrary numerous countries are refusing to roll over their EU deal for the UK (until they see what the EU-UK relationship will be) or offering worse terms. Only Trump seems interested as it is his policy to support anything that weakens the EU (which Brexit definitely does). Even the most ambitions FTA with the US will only add 2% to GDP (as opposed to the massive drop from leaving your primary market).  The UK is fifth in per capita contributions to the EU, but the anual beneftis from EU membership (increased tax take, membership numerous agencies, horizon programmes, etc) far outweigh the cost. etc. etc. etc.
Brexit might be a good idea in the long run, who knows.  But you can only get there if people aren't deluded but rather up front and honest about the consequences of a crash out Brexit and realistic about the (short to middle term) future. 

I very much disagree with this.  Even Leave.EU, Farage's outfit, stated in their official plan (sadly now deleted from their website but still available elsewhere on the internet) the UK would leave the political institutions after 2 years, and the economic partnership only after 10.  There is noone, literally noone, that talked about no-deal during the campaign.  Raab tried to claim he did, but all factcheckers showed he didn't and even Gove called him out on it.  No-deal is the legal default, but based on the referendum result it cannot be the political (or economic) default.
 
Britain's economy is far more exposed to Brexit risks than the rest of Europe. Maybe the Irish are shitting themselves but even they will not experience as much disruption as the UK; when you go east of Germany, Brexit barely registers.  The FT put it very clearly two days ago: "Brexiter's suggestions that the EU will capitulate because they dare not risk a no-deal rupture misunderstands the fundamental weakness of threats made with a gun pointed at your feet". 

When the EU adopts more democratic practices and becomes more State-like, eurosceptics balk and say they only want a Common Market.  When the EU is run like an international organisation, and everything gets decided by the Member States, eurosceptics say it is not democratic enough.   🤷‍♂️
The debate has become silly as noone will convince anyone of anything anymore; choose your facts, twist them and make your case.   However, to his credit, Johnson has finally ended the debate which is more democratic, the EU or the UK.  It's not the one where a party-appointed leader can suspend Parliament to prevent it having a say on his interpretation of the "will of the people".  Ironically, behaviour like that is grounds for getting your voting rights suspended in the EU council.

That's a bit tough on Corbyn as a lot of people would call that an accurate description of Brexit.   Today your PM tried to make a speech in front of 10 Downing Street but was drowned out by chants of "stop the coup", while yesterday one of his Cabinet said government wouldn't automatically respect laws passed by Parliament, which the PM himself suspended to push through his policies.  I'd say Corbyn can't be much more disruptive to the economic and social cohesion in the UK.
I'm all for being upbeat about Brexit (I hope it all works out for the UK and EU), but at some point its time to face reality.  The UK is a services based economy (80%); there has never been an FTA between two countries (or blocs) that covered services in any meaningful way. Countries are not waiting in line to do a trade deal with the UK; to the contrary numerous countries are refusing to roll over their EU deal for the UK (until they see what the EU-UK relationship will be) or offering worse terms. Only Trump seems interested as it is his policy to support anything that weakens the EU (which Brexit definitely does). Even the most ambitions FTA with the US will only add 2% to GDP (as opposed to the massive drop from leaving your primary market).  The UK is fifth in per capita contributions to the EU, but the anual beneftis from EU membership (increased tax take, membership numerous agencies, horizon programmes, etc) far outweigh the cost. etc. etc. etc.
Brexit might be a good idea in the long run, who knows.  But you can only get there if people aren't deluded but rather up front and honest about the consequences of a crash out Brexit and realistic about the (short to middle term) future. 

That's a bit tough on Corbyn as a lot of people would call that an accurate description of Brexit.   Today your PM tried to make a speech in front of 10 Downing Street but was drowned out by chants of "stop the coup", while yesterday one of his Cabinet said government wouldn't automatically respect laws passed by Parliament, which the PM himself suspended to push through his policies.  I'd say Corbyn can't be much more disruptive to the economic and social cohesion in the UK.
I'm all for being upbeat about Brexit (I hope it all works out for the UK and EU), but at some point its time to face reality.  The UK is a services based economy (80%); there has never been an FTA between two countries (or blocs) that covered services in any meaningful way. Countries are not waiting in line to do a trade deal with the UK; to the contrary numerous countries are refusing to roll over their EU deal for the UK (until they see what the EU-UK relationship will be) or offering worse terms. Only Trump seems interested as it is his policy to support anything that weakens the EU (which Brexit definitely does). Even the most ambitions FTA with the US will only add 2% to GDP (as opposed to the massive drop from leaving your primary market).  The UK is fifth in per capita contributions to the EU, but the anual beneftis from EU membership (increased tax take, membership numerous agencies, horizon programmes, etc) far outweigh the cost. etc. etc. etc.
Brexit might be a good idea in the long run, who knows.  But you can only get there if people aren't deluded but rather up front and honest about the consequences of a crash out Brexit and realistic about the (short to middle term) future.