One thing I really like is the way Mr Sunak has tried to rebuild our relationships with the EU. Boris & Dolly Dewdrop (Ms Truss) both went out of their way to destroy the relationship. That could only end badly.
It makes no sense to make enemies of our neighbours & biggest trading partners.
Common sense from both Sunak and Starmer. The simple fact is that this has nothing to do with "Brexit", and (for Johnson) everything to do with his imaginary "legacy". History will show that, having opposed May's proposed way forward, he successfully polished the self-same turrd in order to force Brexit through. Successful in getting us to leave, but sadly deficient going forward.
In reality, the DUP & Sinn Fein have 1 particular "red line" that needs to go. The 1 that says they will automatically oppose anything that is acceptable to the other.
5:26 / 5:51
Jacob Rees-Mogg Doesn't Understand Ireland But Wants To Copy It!
Not for the first time, the Labour Party shows more willingness to support Rishi Sunak than the Conservative Party.
Sometimes, Mr Sunak must wonder whether he is in the right Party
On a separate note, amusing to watch Boris be as two-faced as ever. Press is full of him claiming he is subject of a "witch hunt" in relation to being investigated over whether he misled Parliament. I can only marvel at the spirited defence, where he claims that he was only the Prime Minister at the time, and his claim that it is outrageous that he can ever be criticised for merely "recklessly" misleading Parliament, as opposed to "deliberately" doing so.
"Reckless" is rather more than "negligent/careless". To quote wiki, as it is a good definition,
" In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action. Recklessness is less culpable than malice, but is more blameworthy than carelessness." (my bold)
So you didn't know it was wrong. Mainly because you didn't look too closely-simply because you knew that would cause its own problems.
Not for the first time, the Labour Party shows more willingness to support Rishi Sunak than the Conservative Party.
Sometimes, Mr Sunak must wonder whether he is in the right Party
On a separate note, amusing to watch Boris be as two-faced as ever. Press is full of him claiming he is subject of a "witch hunt" in relation to being investigated over whether he misled Parliament. I can only marvel at the spirited defence, where he claims that he was only the Prime Minister at the time, and his claim that it is outrageous that he can ever be criticised for merely "recklessly" misleading Parliament, as opposed to "deliberately" doing so.
"Reckless" is rather more than "negligent/careless". To quote wiki, as it is a good definition,
" In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action. Recklessness is less culpable than malice, but is more blameworthy than carelessness." (my bold)
So you didn't know it was wrong. Mainly because you didn't look too closely-simply because you knew that would cause its own problems.
The DUP are having none of it. The ERG are claiming they will support the DUP. Interesting to see how far that goes. The highlighted bit above seems to describe the Boris actions perfectly. I think he gets battered on Wednesday. Its unfortunate that we have to fund his defence of the indefensible.
Not for the first time, the Labour Party shows more willingness to support Rishi Sunak than the Conservative Party.
Sometimes, Mr Sunak must wonder whether he is in the right Party
On a separate note, amusing to watch Boris be as two-faced as ever. Press is full of him claiming he is subject of a "witch hunt" in relation to being investigated over whether he misled Parliament. I can only marvel at the spirited defence, where he claims that he was only the Prime Minister at the time, and his claim that it is outrageous that he can ever be criticised for merely "recklessly" misleading Parliament, as opposed to "deliberately" doing so.
"Reckless" is rather more than "negligent/careless". To quote wiki, as it is a good definition,
" In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action. Recklessness is less culpable than malice, but is more blameworthy than carelessness." (my bold)
So you didn't know it was wrong. Mainly because you didn't look too closely-simply because you knew that would cause its own problems.
The DUP are having none of it. The ERG are claiming they will support the DUP. Interesting to see how far that goes. The highlighted bit above seems to describe the Boris actions perfectly. I think he gets battered on Wednesday. Its unfortunate that we have to fund his defence of the indefensible.
The two-faced bit is this.
Boris said to Conservative MPs-"back me over Brexit, or I will expel you from the Conservative Party". And he did. To lots of Tories.
Now he claims that if any new PM dares to suggest similar rules, this is a "McCarthy Witch Hunt".
No it is not-it is exactly the same.
The ERG should be given a simple choice. You can support your Conservative Party leader. Or the DUP.
But if you wish to pledge allegiance to the DUP over the Conservative Party, it is time for you to leave the Conservative Party.
Funny how Momentum (or before them, Militant) were once regarded as a disgraceful unelected cabal running the Labour Party, which the Press demanded were rooted out before anyone could ever vote Labour. Whereas they were no different to the ERG. Except the ERG appear to have far more sway than Momentum/Militant ever did. And still do. And are still busy deselecting Tory MPs who they consider are not right wing enough according to the ERG.
Not for the first time, the Labour Party shows more willingness to support Rishi Sunak than the Conservative Party.
Sometimes, Mr Sunak must wonder whether he is in the right Party
On a separate note, amusing to watch Boris be as two-faced as ever. Press is full of him claiming he is subject of a "witch hunt" in relation to being investigated over whether he misled Parliament. I can only marvel at the spirited defence, where he claims that he was only the Prime Minister at the time, and his claim that it is outrageous that he can ever be criticised for merely "recklessly" misleading Parliament, as opposed to "deliberately" doing so.
"Reckless" is rather more than "negligent/careless". To quote wiki, as it is a good definition,
" In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action. Recklessness is less culpable than malice, but is more blameworthy than carelessness." (my bold)
So you didn't know it was wrong. Mainly because you didn't look too closely-simply because you knew that would cause its own problems.
The DUP are having none of it. The ERG are claiming they will support the DUP. Interesting to see how far that goes. The highlighted bit above seems to describe the Boris actions perfectly. I think he gets battered on Wednesday. Its unfortunate that we have to fund his defence of the indefensible.
The two-faced bit is this.
Boris said to Conservative MPs-"back me over Brexit, or I will expel you from the Conservative Party". And he did. To lots of Tories.
Now he claims that if any new PM dares to suggest similar rules, this is a "McCarthy Witch Hunt".
No it is not-it is exactly the same.
The ERG should be given a simple choice. You can support your Conservative Party leader. Or the DUP.
But if you wish to pledge allegiance to the DUP over the Conservative Party, it is time for you to leave the Conservative Party.
Funny how Momentum (or before them, Militant) were once regarded as a disgraceful unelected cabal running the Labour Party, which the Press demanded were rooted out before anyone could ever vote Labour. Whereas they were no different to the ERG. Except the ERG appear to have far more sway than Momentum/Militant ever did. And still do. And are still busy deselecting Tory MPs who they consider are not right wing enough according to the ERG.
They are a strange bunch. I cant for the life of me understand why a group of people could select someone like Mark Francois as a candidate. Steve Baker seems to be a different bloke. The ERG should be an embarrassment to any political party. Off at a tangent Graham Brady is standing down then.
One thing I really like is the way Mr Sunak has tried to rebuild our relationships with the EU. Boris & Dolly Dewdrop (Ms Truss) both went out of their way to destroy the relationship. That could only end badly.
It makes no sense to make enemies of our neighbours & biggest trading partners.
Common sense from both Sunak and Starmer. The simple fact is that this has nothing to do with "Brexit", and (for Johnson) everything to do with his imaginary "legacy". History will show that, having opposed May's proposed way forward, he successfully polished the self-same turrd in order to force Brexit through. Successful in getting us to leave, but sadly deficient going forward.
In reality, the DUP & Sinn Fein have 1 particular "red line" that needs to go. The 1 that says they will automatically oppose anything that is acceptable to the other.
Brexit Reduces UK's Overall Output By 4% Compared To Remain, Expert Says
People really need to stop comparing anything that they don't like to Nazism.
It makes otherwise good points seem stupid. And bad points look laughable.
We can all have our own beliefs as to which this is. Although I am going for the 2nd.
And it should be noted what "crossbench" or "non-affiliated" actually means. She left the Labour Party in 2019. Simply because, rightly or wrongly, she considers Brexit to be far more important that everything else.
The Media need to stop calling her an "ex Labour MP". That is not what defines her. Winston Churchill wasn't defined by being "an ex Liberal MP", or Lee Anderson as an "ex Labour stalwart and Campaign Manager"
People really need to stop comparing anything that they don't like to Nazism.
It makes otherwise good points seem stupid. And bad points look laughable.
We can all have our own beliefs as to which this is. Although I am going for the 2nd.
And it should be noted what "crossbench" or "non-affiliated" actually means. She left the Labour Party in 2019. Simply because, rightly or wrongly, she considers Brexit to be far more important that everything else.
The Media need to stop calling her an "ex Labour MP". That is not what defines her. Winston Churchill wasn't defined by being "an ex Liberal MP", or Lee Anderson as an "ex Labour stalwart and Campaign Manager"
She is a Brexit fanatic, who always seems very keen to point out problems, but never seems able to suggest solutions. The NI problems were caused by Brexit, and could have easily been foreseen by clever politicians. Many people would see the Sunak deal as an improvement on the current state of affairs. Yet a little digging beneath the headlines would suggest that it may not be as good as the headlines suggest.
People really need to stop comparing anything that they don't like to Nazism.
It makes otherwise good points seem stupid. And bad points look laughable.
We can all have our own beliefs as to which this is. Although I am going for the 2nd.
And it should be noted what "crossbench" or "non-affiliated" actually means. She left the Labour Party in 2019. Simply because, rightly or wrongly, she considers Brexit to be far more important that everything else.
The Media need to stop calling her an "ex Labour MP". That is not what defines her. Winston Churchill wasn't defined by being "an ex Liberal MP", or Lee Anderson as an "ex Labour stalwart and Campaign Manager"
She is a Brexit fanatic, who always seems very keen to point out problems, but never seems able to suggest solutions. The NI problems were caused by Brexit, and could have easily been foreseen by clever politicians. Many people would see the Sunak deal as an improvement on the current state of affairs. Yet a little digging beneath the headlines would suggest that it may not be as good as the headlines suggest.
"Better", as you rightly say, does not necessarily mean "good".
The simple problem is that lots of politicians are demanding perfect solutions when, of course, none exist. So, for example, the DUP look for perfection-rather than considering whether or not the Sunak deal is better than the Johnson one.
I feel that Sunak's proposals are probably the least bad alternative in the circumstances. At least in the short-term. Probably longer.
People really need to stop comparing anything that they don't like to Nazism.
It makes otherwise good points seem stupid. And bad points look laughable.
We can all have our own beliefs as to which this is. Although I am going for the 2nd.
And it should be noted what "crossbench" or "non-affiliated" actually means. She left the Labour Party in 2019. Simply because, rightly or wrongly, she considers Brexit to be far more important that everything else.
The Media need to stop calling her an "ex Labour MP". That is not what defines her. Winston Churchill wasn't defined by being "an ex Liberal MP", or Lee Anderson as an "ex Labour stalwart and Campaign Manager"
She is a Brexit fanatic, who always seems very keen to point out problems, but never seems able to suggest solutions. The NI problems were caused by Brexit, and could have easily been foreseen by clever politicians. Many people would see the Sunak deal as an improvement on the current state of affairs. Yet a little digging beneath the headlines would suggest that it may not be as good as the headlines suggest.
"Better", as you rightly say, does not necessarily mean "good".
The simple problem is that lots of politicians are demanding perfect solutions when, of course, none exist. So, for example, the DUP look for perfection-rather than considering whether or not the Sunak deal is better than the Johnson one.
I feel that Sunak's proposals are probably the least bad alternative in the circumstances. At least in the short-term. Probably longer.
The DUP are looking for the impossible.
I didnt pay a lot of attention to politics prior to Brexit, but I am gobsmacked that the problems in NI did not play a bigger part in the Brexit debate.
Leaving the EU clearly meant the imposition of a border between us and them. The obvious place was on the island of Ireland. The GFA put a stop to that. Where else could it go, other than the Irish Sea? Doing this obviously separated NI from the rest of the UK. This border is not an EU invention. There is not an example anywhere in the world where 2 different customs territories meet, and there is not a border. WTO rules insist on this. So even if we had no EU trade deal, the border would be in place. So realistically leaving the EU meant that NI would be separated from the rest of the UK. What on earth did Kate Hoey, and the DUP think was going to happen?
People really need to stop comparing anything that they don't like to Nazism.
It makes otherwise good points seem stupid. And bad points look laughable.
We can all have our own beliefs as to which this is. Although I am going for the 2nd.
And it should be noted what "crossbench" or "non-affiliated" actually means. She left the Labour Party in 2019. Simply because, rightly or wrongly, she considers Brexit to be far more important that everything else.
The Media need to stop calling her an "ex Labour MP". That is not what defines her. Winston Churchill wasn't defined by being "an ex Liberal MP", or Lee Anderson as an "ex Labour stalwart and Campaign Manager"
She is a Brexit fanatic, who always seems very keen to point out problems, but never seems able to suggest solutions. The NI problems were caused by Brexit, and could have easily been foreseen by clever politicians. Many people would see the Sunak deal as an improvement on the current state of affairs. Yet a little digging beneath the headlines would suggest that it may not be as good as the headlines suggest.
"Better", as you rightly say, does not necessarily mean "good".
The simple problem is that lots of politicians are demanding perfect solutions when, of course, none exist. So, for example, the DUP look for perfection-rather than considering whether or not the Sunak deal is better than the Johnson one.
I feel that Sunak's proposals are probably the least bad alternative in the circumstances. At least in the short-term. Probably longer.
The DUP are looking for the impossible.
I didnt pay a lot of attention to politics prior to Brexit, but I am gobsmacked that the problems in NI did not play a bigger part in the Brexit debate.
Leaving the EU clearly meant the imposition of a border between us and them. The obvious place was on the island of Ireland. The GFA put a stop to that. Where else could it go, other than the Irish Sea? Doing this obviously separated NI from the rest of the UK. This border is not an EU invention. There is not an example anywhere in the world where 2 different customs territories meet, and there is not a border. WTO rules insist on this. So even if we had no EU trade deal, the border would be in place. So realistically leaving the EU meant that NI would be separated from the rest of the UK. What on earth did Kate Hoey, and the DUP think was going to happen?
I can understand why British politicians missed this. Too busy thinking about GB to properly think through the Irish Border. Because the UK is not an island. The 61 million people who do not have a land border simply forgot about the 2 million who do.
But I cannot begin to understand why the DUP missed it.
People really need to stop comparing anything that they don't like to Nazism.
It makes otherwise good points seem stupid. And bad points look laughable.
We can all have our own beliefs as to which this is. Although I am going for the 2nd.
And it should be noted what "crossbench" or "non-affiliated" actually means. She left the Labour Party in 2019. Simply because, rightly or wrongly, she considers Brexit to be far more important that everything else.
The Media need to stop calling her an "ex Labour MP". That is not what defines her. Winston Churchill wasn't defined by being "an ex Liberal MP", or Lee Anderson as an "ex Labour stalwart and Campaign Manager"
She is a Brexit fanatic, who always seems very keen to point out problems, but never seems able to suggest solutions. The NI problems were caused by Brexit, and could have easily been foreseen by clever politicians. Many people would see the Sunak deal as an improvement on the current state of affairs. Yet a little digging beneath the headlines would suggest that it may not be as good as the headlines suggest.
"Better", as you rightly say, does not necessarily mean "good".
The simple problem is that lots of politicians are demanding perfect solutions when, of course, none exist. So, for example, the DUP look for perfection-rather than considering whether or not the Sunak deal is better than the Johnson one.
I feel that Sunak's proposals are probably the least bad alternative in the circumstances. At least in the short-term. Probably longer.
The DUP are looking for the impossible.
I didnt pay a lot of attention to politics prior to Brexit, but I am gobsmacked that the problems in NI did not play a bigger part in the Brexit debate.
Leaving the EU clearly meant the imposition of a border between us and them. The obvious place was on the island of Ireland. The GFA put a stop to that. Where else could it go, other than the Irish Sea? Doing this obviously separated NI from the rest of the UK. This border is not an EU invention. There is not an example anywhere in the world where 2 different customs territories meet, and there is not a border. WTO rules insist on this. So even if we had no EU trade deal, the border would be in place. So realistically leaving the EU meant that NI would be separated from the rest of the UK. What on earth did Kate Hoey, and the DUP think was going to happen?
I can understand why British politicians missed this. Too busy thinking about GB to properly think through the Irish Border. Because the UK is not an island. The 61 million people who do not have a land border simply forgot about the 2 million who do.
But I cannot begin to understand why the DUP missed it.
Following on from that. The Irish Sea border was pointless unless NI remained in the SM/CU. How could this happen unless they were subject to EU laws?
The big Brexit plan was to diverge from the EU, and obtain trade deals throughout the world. This means that Brexit goes on forever. More agreements on trade as we diverge, and more border checks in NI.
All this goes back to Boris insisting he had an "over ready deal" & his obsession with "getting Brexit done". He had no interest in the detail, he just wanted to say he'd done it.
Now he's busy earning fortunes in the Speaker market, & we are left with the mess he created.
All this goes back to Boris insisting he had an "over ready deal" & his obsession with "getting Brexit done". He had no interest in the detail, he just wanted to say he'd done it.
Now he's busy earning fortunes in the Speaker market, & we are left with the mess he created.
My point is that once we decided to leave the EU, what followed was predictable, in respect of NI. Brexit was therefore the problem, rather than the oven ready deal, or the protocol. Boris just exacerbated the situation with his lies. The EU bent over backwards to help at every opportunity. Boris blamed them for every problem that we encountered, despite them being our fault.
Comments
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/dup-threatens-to-spark-brexit-crisis-in-first-public-verdict-on-rishi-sunak-s-new-eu-deal/ar-AA18Coas?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=575446ce90d34edbac862108fed954d8&ei=38
Jacob Rees-Mogg Doesn't Understand Ireland But Wants To Copy It!
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/several-tory-mps-may-join-175440803.html
Sometimes, Mr Sunak must wonder whether he is in the right Party
On a separate note, amusing to watch Boris be as two-faced as ever. Press is full of him claiming he is subject of a "witch hunt" in relation to being investigated over whether he misled Parliament. I can only marvel at the spirited defence, where he claims that he was only the Prime Minister at the time, and his claim that it is outrageous that he can ever be criticised for merely "recklessly" misleading Parliament, as opposed to "deliberately" doing so.
"Reckless" is rather more than "negligent/careless". To quote wiki, as it is a good definition,
" In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action. Recklessness is less culpable than malice, but is more blameworthy than carelessness." (my bold)
So you didn't know it was wrong. Mainly because you didn't look too closely-simply because you knew that would cause its own problems.
The ERG are claiming they will support the DUP.
Interesting to see how far that goes.
The highlighted bit above seems to describe the Boris actions perfectly.
I think he gets battered on Wednesday.
Its unfortunate that we have to fund his defence of the indefensible.
Boris said to Conservative MPs-"back me over Brexit, or I will expel you from the Conservative Party". And he did. To lots of Tories.
Now he claims that if any new PM dares to suggest similar rules, this is a "McCarthy Witch Hunt".
No it is not-it is exactly the same.
The ERG should be given a simple choice. You can support your Conservative Party leader. Or the DUP.
But if you wish to pledge allegiance to the DUP over the Conservative Party, it is time for you to leave the Conservative Party.
Funny how Momentum (or before them, Militant) were once regarded as a disgraceful unelected cabal running the Labour Party, which the Press demanded were rooted out before anyone could ever vote Labour. Whereas they were no different to the ERG. Except the ERG appear to have far more sway than Momentum/Militant ever did. And still do. And are still busy deselecting Tory MPs who they consider are not right wing enough according to the ERG.
I cant for the life of me understand why a group of people could select someone like Mark Francois as a candidate.
Steve Baker seems to be a different bloke.
The ERG should be an embarrassment to any political party.
Off at a tangent Graham Brady is standing down then.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/brexit-food-trade-almost-half-a-billion-pounds-of-uk-taxpayers-cash-spent-on-unused-inspection-sites/ar-AA18UgA1?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=95c679c6ae5944969c141634ebd284f8&ei=37
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tory-big-beasts-lick-their-wounds-as-brexit-rebellion-fizzles-out/ar-AA18WVlq?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=cf41a1c6402b49f5ac2bba29fc625e99&ei=50
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/brexit-reduces-uks-overall-output-091427697.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brexiteer-compares-ni-politicians-who-accept-sunak-deal-to-nazi-collaborators/ar-AA19giAu?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=05cb44f4af044d1891e322f0453c15d1&ei=39
It makes otherwise good points seem stupid. And bad points look laughable.
We can all have our own beliefs as to which this is. Although I am going for the 2nd.
And it should be noted what "crossbench" or "non-affiliated" actually means. She left the Labour Party in 2019. Simply because, rightly or wrongly, she considers Brexit to be far more important that everything else.
The Media need to stop calling her an "ex Labour MP". That is not what defines her. Winston Churchill wasn't defined by being "an ex Liberal MP", or Lee Anderson as an "ex Labour stalwart and Campaign Manager"
The NI problems were caused by Brexit, and could have easily been foreseen by clever politicians.
Many people would see the Sunak deal as an improvement on the current state of affairs.
Yet a little digging beneath the headlines would suggest that it may not be as good as the headlines suggest.
The simple problem is that lots of politicians are demanding perfect solutions when, of course, none exist. So, for example, the DUP look for perfection-rather than considering whether or not the Sunak deal is better than the Johnson one.
I feel that Sunak's proposals are probably the least bad alternative in the circumstances. At least in the short-term. Probably longer.
I didnt pay a lot of attention to politics prior to Brexit, but I am gobsmacked that the problems in NI did not play a bigger part in the Brexit debate.
Leaving the EU clearly meant the imposition of a border between us and them.
The obvious place was on the island of Ireland.
The GFA put a stop to that.
Where else could it go, other than the Irish Sea?
Doing this obviously separated NI from the rest of the UK.
This border is not an EU invention.
There is not an example anywhere in the world where 2 different customs territories meet, and there is not a border.
WTO rules insist on this.
So even if we had no EU trade deal, the border would be in place.
So realistically leaving the EU meant that NI would be separated from the rest of the UK.
What on earth did Kate Hoey, and the DUP think was going to happen?
But I cannot begin to understand why the DUP missed it.
The Irish Sea border was pointless unless NI remained in the SM/CU.
How could this happen unless they were subject to EU laws?
The big Brexit plan was to diverge from the EU, and obtain trade deals throughout the world.
This means that Brexit goes on forever.
More agreements on trade as we diverge, and more border checks in NI.
All of which was very predictable.
All this goes back to Boris insisting he had an "over ready deal" & his obsession with "getting Brexit done". He had no interest in the detail, he just wanted to say he'd done it.
Now he's busy earning fortunes in the Speaker market, & we are left with the mess he created.
Brexit was therefore the problem, rather than the oven ready deal, or the protocol.
Boris just exacerbated the situation with his lies.
The EU bent over backwards to help at every opportunity.
Boris blamed them for every problem that we encountered, despite them being our fault.