|
Post by alancalverd on Dec 5, 2018 0:58:11 GMT 1
I have a feeling that I once met Jean in real life, and we did indeed enjoy a wee dram. But however much I've supped on haggis washed doon wi Irn Bru (my in-laws being of the tartan persuasion) I cannae stand the golf.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 5, 2018 16:18:12 GMT 1
I have a feeling that I once met Jean in real life Ah yes, I'm sure we've all had that feeling. Where you find yourself standing up straight and your balls retract into your body. Dinna fret laddie, they drop again, and you can slouch off at your leisure. Anyway. that was probably Charlotte Rampling, in Red Sparrow mode. Maggie Snith then. jean (in downton Abbey mode):
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Dec 5, 2018 16:57:52 GMT 1
Au contraire. Many years ago, one wet summer's day (are there any others?) in Skye, I was dragged onto a course at the in-laws' behest and provided with the relevant bat and ball, as a rite of passage into the family. My first tee shot actually hit the flag, so, mindful of the statistical physics of the game, I put down the racquet and said "it won't get much better, so I'll stop now".
I was right. Father-in-law, handicap 1, got one hole in one for 70 years' play. Mother-in-law, handicap 3, has two to her name in 65 years. Skill my arse. If you hit enough balls often enough, one is bound to go into the hole. The calculation takes seconds, but life is too short to do the experiment.
That said, all credit to the inlaws. At the age of 80, with two new hips, M-i-l took pleasure in thrashing teenagers. After watching a mighty 250 yard drive she would say "and now ye have tae get it in the wee hole....like this."
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 5, 2018 17:12:10 GMT 1
Au contraire. Many years ago, one wet summer's day (are there any others?) in Skye, I was dragged onto a course at the in-laws' behest and provided with the relevant bat and ball, as a rite of passage into the family. My first tee shot actually hit the flag, so, mindful of the statistical physics of the game, I put down the racquet and said "it won't get much better, so I'll stop now". I was right. Father-in-law, handicap 1, got one hole in one for 70 years' play. Mother-in-law, handicap 3, has two to her name in 65 years. Skill my arse. If you hit enough balls often enough, one is bound to go into the hole. The calculation takes seconds, but life is too short to do the experiment. What I always say after I've tried to play full-size snooker. Watching the awesome jaw-dropping performance of Ronnie this afternoon, there's some comfort in such inescapable logic. Ah, wouldn't we all, wouldn't we all, if only. I can see why you had the feeling you'd met Jean, Gunga Din.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 13, 2018 10:49:23 GMT 1
I think it’s worth reviewing at this pivot-point what is causing this parliamentary impasse, because it seems to me that the only people who understand it clearly - or, rather, the only people who are expressing the truth about it - are the ERG, the DUP, and those who voted they had no confidence in May’s leadership.
The so-called “backstop” is a trap, deliberately designed to keep the UK effectively in the EU, on either a permanent basis or if and until the people of Northern Ireland vote to unify with Eire. I find it quite impossible to believe that May and her Civil Service and the MPs who support her deal, and of course the whole EU negotiating team, do not understand this full well. It is perfectly legally clear, and if this deal is passed, completely binding. There would be absolutely nothing this country – whatever Party might be in power, whatever manifesto they might get elected on - could do to rescind it.
The only possible way that the Irish arrangement clause would not be invoked, and might ever be thereafter suspended, is if we could manage to negotiate a Free Trade agreement with the EU. So, according to the EU, what must that entail? First of all, that we are in their Customs Union, or, whatever it might be called, mirror it completely. There is of course no point in such an arrangement unless we share the EU’s internal market. To do so, the EU has been totally consistent in making absolute, we must accept Free Movement, or, if we are made exempt, we must pay a fee that enables us to enjoy the benefits of that market. In either case we must accept the supremacy of the ECJ. We will not be able to negotiate any further trade deals with other nation or bloc that is not completely in accord with the EU’s customs union – any such deal will be subject to EU veto (the head of the WTO has made this obvious point quite explicit, and anyone – such as Theresa May or Philip Hammond, for example - who says we will be able to make our own deals that diverge from the EU’s customs regime is straightforwardly lying.)
All of this is Labour’s stated aim, of course (which raises the question of why they are opposing this agreement), but it is very far from being the expressed intention of May and the Tories trying to sell this deal. Their claim – not explicit, but as clearly implicit as any herd of elephants ever could be - is that during the negotiations for this Free Trade agreement, our wily negotiators will somehow cleverly outfox the EU and get around this so-called red line of theirs, wangling our free access to the Single Market, with an exemption from Free Movement, without having to pay for it. And if the EU says non? Then there will be some sort of tariff regime – if not WTO, then some softer version of it. But. If there’s any sort of tariff regime – there have to be border controls in Ireland. That’s what the EU has insisted, with no possibility of movement – hence the backstop, and the backstop to the backstop, in perpetuity. Thus, if we want to leave the condition of “the transition period” – already optionally three years long, with an acknowledged possibility of extending it further, indefinitely indeed – and stop paying our fees into the EU, we must accept that Northern Ireland is no longer part of the UK. The border where the tariffs and legal writ will apply will be between Ulster and Britain. Forever. Until we reach a Free Trade agreement where there are no such tariffs. To get that, we will have to agree to pay fees into the EU, accept the rules of the Customs Union, and the supremacy of the ECJ... and the circle returns.
I repeat:. I find it quite impossible to believe that May and her Civil Service and the MPs who support her deal, and of course the whole EU negotiating team, do not understand this full well.
They do. And they are blatantly trying to deceive the whole country by saying anything other.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 13, 2018 12:19:55 GMT 1
In case there's anyone who doesn't believe this, that it's a deliberate trap, and the EU has no intention of not springing it, and keeping it thereafter permanently sprung, and gives any credence at all to the EU's preposterous claim that "the backstop is necessary" in the interests of peace and the international treaty obligations of the Good Friday Agreement, I'll repeat again the obvious alternative.
All that is required to keep the Irish border completely open - as open as it is now, at any rate - in the event of a trade agreement not being concluded by the end of the transition period (Dec '22, as of writing) is that the UK maintains a Free Trade area on Ireland, for goods of Irish origin, and with the UK. Of course, the EU should, if what they say has any truth in it, do the same - that is, the RoI should. Now, this is perfectly legal according to WTO rules - at least, it is for ten years. After that, it is technically possible for a WTO member to challenge the arrangement, on the grounds of discrimination - but no one has ever invoked this arcane clause, and it's puzzling to work out who on earth would do so in the case of Ireland. The Chinese, possibly, just conceivably. It is in any case by no means clear whether such a claimant would succeed in their challenge - it would take a couple of years at least to determine, in the face of the fiercest opposition from anyone with a genuine interest in peace, including the UK and the USA, and, presumably, the EU.
So - 15 years from now, after a by no means predictable legal case, if it happens at all, the question of the Irish border might become a problem, if in that time we still haven't concluded a Free Trade deal with the EU. Then would be the time to start worrying about it. And if we haven't in that time worked out and installed ways to organise and implement any customs arrangements between N.Ireland an Ireland by technological means, then our Civil Service is even more hopeless and sluggardly than even I thought.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 13, 2018 20:31:58 GMT 1
I think it’s worth reviewing at this pivot-point what is causing this parliamentary impasse, because it seems to me that the only people who understand it clearly - or, rather, the only people who are expressing the truth about it - are the ERG, the DUP, and those who voted they had no confidence in May’s leadership. The so-called “backstop” is a trap, deliberately designed to keep the UK effectively in the EU, on either a permanent basis or if and until the people of Northern Ireland vote to unify with Eire. I find it quite impossible to believe that May and her Civil Service and the MPs who support her deal, and of course the whole EU negotiating team, do not understand this full well. It is perfectly legally clear, and if this deal is passed, completely binding. There would be absolutely nothing this country – whatever Party might be in power, whatever manifesto they might get elected on - could do to rescind it. The only possible way that the Irish arrangement clause would not be invoked, and might ever be thereafter suspended, is if we could manage to negotiate a Free Trade agreement with the EU. So, according to the EU, what must that entail? First of all, that we are in their Customs Union, or, whatever it might be called, mirror it completely. There is of course no point in such an arrangement unless we share the EU’s internal market. To do so, the EU has been totally consistent in making absolute, we must accept Free Movement, or, if we are made exempt, we must pay a fee that enables us to enjoy the benefits of that market. In either case we must accept the supremacy of the ECJ. We will not be able to negotiate any further trade deals with other nation or bloc that is not completely in accord with the EU’s customs union – any such deal will be subject to EU veto (the head of the WTO has made this obvious point quite explicit, and anyone – such as Theresa May or Philip Hammond, for example - who says we will be able to make our own deals that diverge from the EU’s customs regime is straightforwardly lying.) All of this is Labour’s stated aim, of course (which raises the question of why they are opposing this agreement), but it is very far from being the expressed intention of May and the Tories trying to sell this deal. Their claim – not explicit, but as clearly implicit as any herd of elephants ever could be - is that during the negotiations for this Free Trade agreement, our wily negotiators will somehow cleverly outfox the EU and get around this so-called red line of theirs, wangling our free access to the Single Market, with an exemption from Free Movement, without having to pay for it. And if the EU says non? Then there will be some sort of tariff regime – if not WTO, then some softer version of it. But. If there’s any sort of tariff regime – there have to be border controls in Ireland. That’s what the EU has insisted, with no possibility of movement – hence the backstop, and the backstop to the backstop, in perpetuity. Thus, if we want to leave the condition of “the transition period” – already optionally three years long, with an acknowledged possibility of extending it further, indefinitely indeed – and stop paying our fees into the EU, we must accept that Northern Ireland is no longer part of the UK. The border where the tariffs and legal writ will apply will be between Ulster and Britain. Forever. Until we reach a Free Trade agreement where there are no such tariffs. To get that, we will have to agree to pay fees into the EU, accept the rules of the Customs Union, and the supremacy of the ECJ... and the circle returns. I repeat:. I find it quite impossible to believe that May and her Civil Service and the MPs who support her deal, and of course the whole EU negotiating team, do not understand this full well.They do. And they are blatantly trying to deceive the whole country by saying anything other. Indeed. Clearly and articulately enunciated. What everyone knows, but few dare say - an establishment stitch-up - failed so far but who knows where we go from here? The Conservatives seem to have a death-wish, or are paralysed by fear, as they re-elect a PM THAT HAD SIGNED A TREATY SURRENDERING OUR SOVEREIGNTY, a control-freak, a self-obsessed incompetent such as we have very rarely seen in our political elite! Only one thing is sure - that if the Conservatives fail to deliver Brexit as clearly voted for by a majority, they will shrivel and die as a political force Yellow-vest anyone?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Dec 14, 2018 0:40:33 GMT 1
The Irish border has not been a problem for years. There are different currencies, different laws, and different rates of duty, VAT, income tax and corporation tax on either side. This has not had any impact on the freedom or fluidity of crossborder trade. Personal shoppers are welcome to take advantage of whatever they can carry, and wholesale traffic (including personal earnings) is documented and taxed by accountants and VAT inspectors, every day. There is no reason why this should change.
Whilst UK and Irish citizens have nominally free movement across the border, and can even choose where to live, register for taxation, and vote, without changing nationality, this arrangement predates the EU by an entire world war, and should not be affected by Brexit or otherwise. Neither country is a signatory to Schengen so either or both can require at least passport checks on foreign entrants. It's odd that you can cross the Irish Sea westward by boat without a passport, but not by air, and at present you can cross eastward by any means without a passport. All that is required is to remove that anomaly: passports for everyone, please, except that maybe an Irish driving licence or student ID will suffice, and no Irish ID will be refused.
Here's an oddity, vaguely related. Some years ago I was getting on a plane from Stansted to Edinburgh. A policeman demanded to see my passport. I said "I don't need a passport to travel within the UK". He said that the airline required photo ID, most people used a passport, and if I happened to be carrying one, he was entitled to demand to see it, including the right to search me if he thought I might have one. I can see the underlying logic, since a passport actually belongs to the issuing government, not the bearer, but it raises an interesting anomaly.
|
|
|
Post by deansmith1966 on Dec 16, 2018 17:41:31 GMT 1
The Irish border has not been a problem for years. There are different currencies, different laws, and different rates of duty, VAT, income tax and corporation tax on either side. This has not had any impact on the freedom or fluidity of crossborder trade. Personal shoppers are welcome to take advantage of whatever they can carry, and wholesale traffic (including personal earnings) is documented and taxed by accountants and VAT inspectors, every day. There is no reason why this should change. Whilst UK and Irish citizens have nominally free movement across the border, and can even choose where to live, register for taxation, and vote, without changing nationality, this arrangement predates the EU by an entire world war, and should not be affected by Brexit or otherwise. Neither country is a signatory to Schengen so either or both can require at least passport checks on foreign entrants. It's odd that you can cross the Irish Sea westward by boat without a passport, but not by air, and at present you can cross eastward by any means without a passport. All that is required is to remove that anomaly: passports for everyone, please, except that maybe an Irish driving licence or student ID will suffice, and no Irish ID will be refused. Here's an oddity, vaguely related. Some years ago I was getting on a plane from Stansted to Edinburgh. A policeman demanded to see my passport. I said "I don't need a passport to travel within the UK". He said that the airline required photo ID, most people used a passport, and if I happened to be carrying one, he was entitled to demand to see it, including the right to search me if he thought I might have one. I can see the underlying logic, since a passport actually belongs to the issuing government, not the bearer, but it raises an interesting anomaly.
|
|
|
Post by deansmith1966 on Dec 16, 2018 17:42:01 GMT 1
Here it is, in a nutshell: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bp3d24/question-time-2018-18102018#Michael Dobbs, from 12:30 to 14:35 Now, what I've been trying with no success to get people like Aqua to address is this fundamental issue. Do they disagree with this basic point, and if so, why? Or do they think it's mistaken, and if so, why? Or do they perhaps have some sort of superior vision, whereby the future USE morally supercedes the values of democracy and self-determination? I mean - something a little more substantial than what possible jobs his granddaughters might get on the European gravy train. Everyone accepts there might well be such losses, especially for the well-to-do middle classes, who earn their living through State extortion of working people. Nevertheless, most of us discounted the logic of such authoritarian privilege - we voted for higher values. What is the response of the ilk of Aqua to this crucial essential point of Michael Dobbs?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 17, 2018 8:37:12 GMT 1
Very interesting mr.smith. I especially liked your second post - very very interesting. Do you have anything to add, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 17, 2018 8:49:10 GMT 1
The Irish border has not been a problem for years. There are different currencies, different laws, and different rates of duty, VAT, income tax and corporation tax on either side. This has not had any impact on the freedom or fluidity of crossborder trade. Personal shoppers are welcome to take advantage of whatever they can carry, and wholesale traffic (including personal earnings) is documented and taxed by accountants and VAT inspectors, every day. There is no reason why this should change. Whilst UK and Irish citizens have nominally free movement across the border, and can even choose where to live, register for taxation, and vote, without changing nationality, this arrangement predates the EU by an entire world war, and should not be affected by Brexit or otherwise. Neither country is a signatory to Schengen so either or both can require at least passport checks on foreign entrants. It's odd that you can cross the Irish Sea westward by boat without a passport, but not by air, and at present you can cross eastward by any means without a passport. All that is required is to remove that anomaly: passports for everyone, please, except that maybe an Irish driving licence or student ID will suffice, and no Irish ID will be refused. Here's an oddity, vaguely related. Some years ago I was getting on a plane from Stansted to Edinburgh. A policeman demanded to see my passport. I said "I don't need a passport to travel within the UK". He said that the airline required photo ID, most people used a passport, and if I happened to be carrying one, he was entitled to demand to see it, including the right to search me if he thought I might have one. I can see the underlying logic, since a passport actually belongs to the issuing government, not the bearer, but it raises an interesting anomaly. Did you see Jacob grilling Guy Verhofstadt when he came over to lecture the Scrutiny Committee last year? Why, he asked, if the UK, and the Rep of Ireland, and Northern Ireland, and the EU all repeatedly insist that they will not put up any hard border on Ireland, does the EU nevertheless say there will be one without this "backstop". Who would put one up? Ah - there will be one automatically, was the response - it's the rules of the EU, and the EU is a rules-based organisation. But the EU bends the rules when it suits them, does it not? asked Jacob, and gave several examples where it had done just that (Germany and France, in their breaking of the Stability Pact, in the cases he cited.) What a sleazeball. Him, Juncker, and Tusk - they're like the geekiest kids at school you used to feel sorry for because they were such bully magnets, who then grew up to be Traffic Wardens. There are some darn'd odd coves in Parliament, admittedly, but can you imagine those three ever getting elected in this country?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 17, 2018 9:18:14 GMT 1
What everyone knows, but few dare say - an establishment stitch-up - failed so far but who knows where we go from here? The Conservatives seem to have a death-wish, or are paralysed by fear, as they re-elect a PM THAT HAD SIGNED A TREATY SURRENDERING OUR SOVEREIGNTY, a control-freak, a self-obsessed incompetent such as we have very rarely seen in our political elite! Only one thing is sure - that if the Conservatives fail to deliver Brexit as clearly voted for by a majority, they will shrivel and die as a political force Yellow-vest anyone? She hasn't been allowed to sign it yet, thanks to the Brexiteers and DUP. I'd like to think you're right about them dying as a political force if the rest of them continue to try to undermine the referendum - maybe. But, then, if so, Labour will suffer an even deeper blow, surely. Who does that leave to fill the vacuum? Has there ever been such a ripe time for a new party to be formed? Neither of the right nor left, but a Libertarian union of both, based on the principles that philosophically the whole Western world is based upon, when people clearly understood that it was the Nation state, democratically governed, that enabled the freedom, legal human rights, and growing individual prosperity of its peoples.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 24, 2018 7:07:29 GMT 1
Crisps now! That's it. I want a second referendum. I don;t care about medicine stockpiles and empty greengrocers or airliners endlessly circling on fumes, unable to land anywhere in Europe except Andora. I don't care about southern Kent being turned into a lorry park - a long overdue amelioration for Folkestone, I would have thought. But no more crisps if Brexit goes ahead? You expect me to dig for me own effin crisps? I give in.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Dec 24, 2018 9:43:02 GMT 1
Citation needed! WTF is all that about?
I can't think of a more native product than crisps. If anything, the industry appears to have spent the last 50 years preparing for a siege.
|
|