Three Contradiction Paradoxes

[Progenitor A]

In the maelstrom of insanity that is the Brexit 'negotiations' (but can it be called 'negotiation' when a supplicant nation (for that is what Mrs May has made of us)returns with a 'deal' that will cost us £39 Billion and bind the nation that is the font of freedom and pseudo-democracy to perpetual vassalage to a gross neighbour ruled by unaccountable bureaucrats?){I still cannot believe that a British PM has returned to Britain having signed such a deal! She is now , and I hope forever will be, the most inept, bumbling, incompetent, duplicitous, control-freak of a PM to have disgraced the portals of Downing Street - damn you Conservative weeds that either did not have the balls (or had other interests) to get rid of her}

Anyway, the three paradoxes of contradictions?
1. The 'Mother of Parliaments' enshrines in British law binding clauses that we will leave the EU on 29 March 2019 with or without a deal, then the very same poltroons that overwhelmingly passed that law just a few months ago vote against the law they passed! And some of these very poltroons insist that their idiocy must prevail - that 'no-deal' must now be off the table!

2. Our ghastly PM returns from Brussels with a 'deal' that is totally unacceptable, (except to her and 'Olly') and insists that it is her deal or nothing at all - worse than nothing - we will be condemned to everlasting purgatory with emaciated skeletons in rags haunting the ruins of the City of London unless we agree with her - then to reinforce her point she wearyingly marshalls the Captains of Industry to shout 'Aye Maggie' (but Maggie she is definitely not). But all this is the normal- if disgraceful- propaganda of fright that we are all inured to by now. Everything normal up to now
But, and here is the second pradox, when it comes to a Commons vote on her appalling deal, she votes AGAINST it. Just how unbelievable is that?

3. The EU insists that its 'backstop' must remain in the agreement , it is a sine qua non - it must prevail to prevent a hard border and thus preserve the peace of the Good Friday agreement
Asked by someone what will happen if there is a no deal, a Commissioner replied 'there must be a hard border'
So there we have it folks! The EU will block a deal that does not contain the backstop; this will inevitably lead to a no-deal (unless the Conservative Party has a death wish) and the backstop will disappear

[alancalverd]

Bumbling ineptitude was demonstrated in her previous incarnation as the Home Secretary who promised to make life hell for immigrants but only succeeded in deporting pensioners who were born here.

The backstop bollocks is irrelevant. It is up to the UK to decide whether to introduce more customs checks at the border. There are of course already such checks on both sides to prevent large-scale smuggling of dutiable goods like tobacco and fuel, bureaux de change along the roads, and cross-border VAT accounting is an everyday part of all businesses, so no obvious need for more physical control over the flow of goods.

When there are outbreaks of foot and mouth disease or swine fever, the EU imposes a hard border on animal movements across the administrative line, not along any rational boundary based on epidemiology or wind direction. So there are fence posts across the middle of some fields, ready to be re-wired at any time!

Since the Republic is not a Schengen signatory, and the Common Travel Area predates the EU, we already have common no-fly lists and a common hard border at every air* and sea port, so no passport checks are needed at the land border.

Scaremongers talk about the hard border bringing back terrorism. Fact is, it was introduced to prevent it, and since B Liar handed the governance of Northern Ireland to the gang leaders, the terrorists have won anyway.

So from the UK perspective, no requirement for a hard border. If the EU wants to impose one, it's up to them to sort out the mess and take the blame for the consequences. Not that the EU's hard borders elsewhere have been particularly effective.


*It's interesting that I only need to give Border Force 4 hours' notice of a non-scheduled flight in a light aircraft from the EU to a non-customs airfield, except from Northern Ireland where they demand 24 hours to study my passenger list. Another legacy of Mrs May's reign?

[mrsonde]

Feb 1, 2019 7:46:01 GMT 1 Progenitor A said:

In the maelstrom of insanity that is the Brexit 'negotiations' (but can it be called 'negotiation' when a supplicant nation (for that is what Mrs May has made of us)returns with a 'deal' that will cost us £39 Billion and bind the nation that is the font of freedom and pseudo-democracy to perpetual vassalage to a gross neighbour ruled by unaccountable bureaucrats?){I still cannot believe that a British PM has returned to Britain having signed such a deal! She is now , and I hope forever will be, the most inept, bumbling, incompetent, duplicitous, control-freak of a PM to have disgraced the portals of Downing Street - damn you Conservative weeds that either did not have the balls (or had other interests) to get rid of her}

The "other interest" is primarily money - the wealth generated principally by multi-national corporations, wholly reliant on tariff-free barrier-free trade. They have come to believe this is what our national wealth depends upon - though when I did my Economics A-Level, the theory that a nation's currency and therefore asset value and earnings ability depended on its balance of trade was so well argued (by Smith, Ferguson, Ricardo - classical economics) and accepted that it was considered more a fact, or at least a matter of logic. You can't really blame them - most of them aren't really all that bright. They're certainly not economists - and most economists go along with neo-liberal orthodoxy these days. What you can blame them for is putting this interest above of and ahead of national sovereignty - something that smug fat-cats like Ken Clarke and Heseltine and Blair poo-poo as "not very important", and that socialists have always been highly dubious about in any case. I keep pointing out that Remainers would have negotiated a "peace" with Hitler in 1940, by the logic of the arguments they so insistently make, not because I'm some sort of jingoist throwback, but because this prioritisation of Trade and Money over every other value will inevitably - imo, and very very likely as a matter of historical experience - lead to utter catastrophe.

Anyway, the three paradoxes of contradictions?
1. The 'Mother of Parliaments' enshrines in British law binding clauses that we will leave the EU on 29 March 2019 with or without a deal, then the very same poltroons that overwhelmingly passed that law just a few months ago vote against the law they passed! And some of these very poltroons insist that their idiocy must prevail - that 'no-deal' must now be off the table!

I heard one senior Labour frontbencher say, when Neil put this point to her, that "we didn't know what we were doing."

2. Our ghastly PM returns from Brussels with a 'deal' that is totally unacceptable, (except to her and 'Olly') and insists that it is her deal or nothing at all - worse than nothing - we will be condemned to everlasting purgatory with emaciated skeletons in rags haunting the ruins of the City of London unless we agree with her - then to reinforce her point she wearyingly marshalls the Captains of Industry to shout 'Aye Maggie' (but Maggie she is definitely not). But all this is the normal- if disgraceful- propaganda of fright that we are all inured to by now. Everything normal up to now
But, and here is the second pradox, when it comes to a Commons vote on her appalling deal, she votes AGAINST it. Just how unbelievable is that?

3. The EU insists that its 'backstop' must remain in the agreement , it is a sine qua non - it must prevail to prevent a hard border and thus preserve the peace of the Good Friday agreement
Asked by someone what will happen if there is a no deal, a Commissioner replied 'there must be a hard border'

Manned by troops, no less!

So there we have it folks! The EU will block a deal that does not contain the backstop; this will inevitably lead to a no-deal (unless the Conservative Party has a death wish) and the backstop will disappear

Unless May comes back and pretends to pull the unexpected rabbit out of the hat: "Tah-dah! Norway plus! How about that folks?"

I have little doubt that Robbins et al planned this from the outset.

[mrsonde]

Talking of the magnificant national treasure that's Andrew Neil, did you see this remarkable piece with Ken Livingstone last week?

Dear oh dear, I don't think I've ever seen such an embarrassing interview, where a politician is so comprehensively exposed as being inept, unprepared, and idiotically, falsely (the fall in oil prices Livingstone attributes to Venezuela was actually due to the Saudis, and 75% of Venezuelans could read before Chavez, not one in ten), doctrinaire. I admit I'm deeply conflicted and unsure of what the hell is going on with the Venezuela situation myself - but I'm also quite certain that so should everyone else be, most of all Livingstone, Corbyn et al.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0c1x5h0/this-week-31012019

05:40-23:10