That quote is not in the link. It was always our suggestion that the Irish border is dealt with by the ultimate trade deal so if you've decided to talk about other things (like the ultimate trade deal) then I fail to see a reason to be alarmed by that.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
It's hilarious because if this is real, it means the UK will legally commit itself to either continued CU & SM participation OR a border between NI and mainland UK--with extreme economic devolution--indefinitely. The former will make a bunch of assholes scream. The latter will def. titillate politicians in Scotland and Wales.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Rather, "... so we decided to make the decision for them."
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No we're committing to reaching a trade deal as first preference. Nobody other than lunatics like Farage objects to that and I couldn't give less of a fuck about them.
Before Brexit isn't after Brexit.
Congratulations America
No but banks are acting now on the basis of what they expect after Brexit. They are acting by investing MORE into London not less.
The article is about day to day business, but of course in your world what happens in the trenches is strategy.
Congratulations America
No. This is about the withdrawal agreement, not a future trade agreement. It would legally make full alignment the default agreement if the UK and the EU can't agree on either option A or B. At best the EU would agree to option B. Option A, the UK's preferred arrangement, remains a non-starter. If this goes through--and I'm not sure it will, considering recent Tory attacks on the GFA--the UK will be legally bound to uphold the GFA as is, which in practice entails acceptance of either option B or C, with C being the default in the absence of an agreement. No matter how you slice it.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
See the report referred to in that extremely sloppy and misleading editorial from City AM. Business leaders are expecting the softest of soft Brexits. Moreover, this is a good time to squeeze out profits before things go south.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Thread about the civil war:
https://mobile.twitter.com/SamCoates...46081921552385
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Their front bench is moving in the opposite direction; the way these speeches go they're massaging in surrender to a Brexit in name only. Which probably is why the rebels decided to leak this letter a full 4 days after they sent it.
Congratulations America
I'd disagree with the interpretation of one of the points in that thread.
Twitter Link
I think that's going a bit further. What they're saying here I believe is that the final agreement mustn't be one with us in the Single Market or maintaining Single Market rules, in particular with reference to the Northern Ireland (C) fallback position.
If on the other hand we have the ability to change our own regulations but choose to on a case-by-case basis maintain membership of organisations like REACH or the EASA then that would be our choice still.
The problem is that they don't get to say what the final agreement (if there will be one) is going to look like. And you have been told over and over again that we don't do case-by-case.
Congratulations America
The littlest of Englands:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/w...ting-5rnfd6rff
For neither the first nor I suspect the last time since Brexit my thoughts have in recent days been borne back to The Great Gatsby. Specifically, that moment when F Scott Fitzgerald writes: “They were careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
Well, the Brexiteers — Boris and Michael and Liam and David and Nigel and the rest of them — are careless people too. They like smashing things as well. Yesterday Daniel Hannan, the MEP sometimes considered the leader of Brexit’s intellectual wing, suggested that “the Good Friday agreement has failed”. This is about more than just the latest impasse in the saga of how best to restore devolved rule to the province; it’s also a question of the Good Friday agreement getting in the way of Brexit.
Now it is true that the Belfast agreement has, as Mr Hannan noted, been exalted to something near sacred status. Peace, albeit a qualified peace, came at a price. What passed for the centre of Northern Irish politics was hollowed out; the ensuing space was filled by the extremes. The SDLP and Ulster Unionist parties were the highest-profile political casualties of the process. Peace was revolutionary, you see, and the revolution devoured its parents.
A Sinn Féin-Democratic Unionist Party duopoly was not quite what the founders of the peace process had in mind. It is entirely reasonable to think this sometimes unseemly double act vastly preferable to some of the available alternatives while still maintaining it is a sub-optimal outcome. Trust has remained elusive and will continue to do so, not least since an atmosphere of mistrust bakes in the electoral supremacy enjoyed by the DUP and Sinn Féin in their respective communities.
Nevertheless, the manner in which Brexiteers casually dismiss the problems of the Irish question would be breathtaking if it weren’t so very unsurprising. The Good Friday agreement, which is to say, the entire Northern Irish peace process, complicates and even threatens Brexit. This being so, it is obvious that the fault lies with the Belfast agreement, not with Brexit, and if one of them must go, well, it is not difficult to discern which of them Brexiteers consider more important.
According to the most recent Future of England survey, a joint initiative of the University of Edinburgh and Cardiff University, 81 per cent of Leave voters in England believe destabilising the Northern Irish peace process a price worth paying if that’s what Brexit requires. That’s quite something. But then so is the discovery that 88 per cent of those Leave voters consider Brexit more important than the survival of the United Kingdom. That is, they would accept Scottish independence if doing so guaranteed Brexit.
Now some of this may be a matter of prioritising something that’s happening now — Brexit — over hypothetical scenarios that are, perhaps, too hypothetical to be properly quantified in the here and now. That is, if the UK were on the brink of collapse even Leave voters in England may recalibrate their priorities. And yet, even in the abstract, these findings seem — and feel — telling.
After all, what do they know of the United Kingdom who only England know? Precious little, it sometimes seems. We must risk burning the village to save it. The difference between England and other parts of the realm is that, for many voters, Brexit has become England’s national question whereas it is, in the main, a matter of only subsidiary importance in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Leave votes in England were markedly more likely to be an expression of identity than they were in Scotland or Northern Ireland (Wales, as so often, is sui generis).
Brexit was made in England — unavoidably so, given that England comprises 84 per cent of the UK population — and it was made by Englishness. The more British a resident of England felt, the more likely they were to vote Remain but the impact, or pull, of Britishness was much less powerful than the effect Englishness had on an individual’s propensity to vote Leave.
That impact was even more keenly felt among Conservative voters than it was among Leave supporters. Almost 90 per cent of Tory Leavers think the Northern Irish peace process an acceptable piece of collateral damage on the way to a clean Brexit and a staggering 92 per cent say they think Brexit must be achieved even if doing so were to come at the cost of independence for Scotland. We must take back control even if doing so leaves us a smaller country.
All of which further underlines the radical carelessness at the heart of the Brexit project. For all that many Tory voters and Tory MPs endorsed Brexit, it remains a profoundly unconservative manoeuvre. A Tory sensibility, after all, is supposed to look askance at grand and radical projects; it is supposed to privilege a known, if imperfect, status quo over the unknown consequences of pursuing great adventures. Brexit is a repudiation of that Tory sensibility not its proof, and the carelessness with which its adherents treat the rest of the country is as revealing as it is dispiriting.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
If the Scots want to go then let them. I've always had that opinion. I don't believe in keeping people imprisoned in a union they don't want.
Except they don't want to go. Scottish independence is less likely now than it was before Brexit. Nor is this the first time the Good Friday Agreement has failed, quite the opposite. Stormont was suspended from 2002-2007 and it broke down last year not over Brexit but over controversy over a Heating Initiative and the usage of the Irish language.
Northern Ireland has a ridiculous electoral system which means that no government is possible unless the two most extreme parties opposed to each other reach an agreement. Effectively it would mean in America that a government could only be formed if Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders could reach an agreement with Sanders being Trump's deputy leader and both Sanders' and Trump's acolytes sharing power. Great if a power sharing agreement can be reached, not so great if it can't.
I must say that as May and her unruly bunch are going into retreat to hammer out a compromise, the Commission rejecting the potential outcome was awfully funny.
Congratulations America
Yeah, I really don't get how they ever even began to think that their retreat results would be acceptable to the EU.
"Oh hai, we gots some results! Basically we wants to hav our cake and eat it, too!"
As someone summarized it: "In essence, since the Remain and Leave parts could not agree on anything, they put everything into the paper. Nevermind that several parts of the paper directly contradict themselves..."
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
The only purpose I've ever found in having a cake is in order to eat it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_ca...ake_and_eat_it
Obviously we now have to school you in your own language as well, in addition to everything else.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Oooh, I found a description for the latest brainfart: "Three basket cases."
Or: "They seem to think that those skits from Monty Python were documentaries."
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Oh, appearantly we already rejected whatever Theresa is going to offer next week. Brexit is really the gift that keeps giving.
I would like to coin the word Brexiturd here; we can use it for whatever it is the British government says about Brexit.
Congratulations America
Not sure what you're trying to prove there given that your own link has a long passage about the illogical nature of the current idiom which was my [quite clearly flippant] point. The original expression was arguably that 'you can not eat your cake and [still] have it' [or "wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?"] but by reversing the phrases we've ended up with a phrase that everyone knows the meaning to but has no actual literal point.
In the literal sense, you can have your cake and eat it right up until the point where there's no more cake and you're left with a vague feeling of nausea and guilt.
This is, of course, not a workable model for trade relations.
https://www.ft.com/content/a5f6feae-...c-25c814761640
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Jesus Christ, dude, it's an idiom. You really don't cut the mustard on this. But I'm sure that once in a blue moon you'll be able to understand the whole nine yards, maybe when you hear it straight from the horse's mouth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom
As in: If you apply it literally you'll get garbage. I don't have high hopes of you grasping the difference before you kick the bucket.Categorized as formulaic language, an idiom's figurative meaning is different from the literal meaning.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Guys, we've all been around long enough to know rand likes to play at being as literal as possible when he is backed into a corner or has nothing left to add. We've even compared him to Drax before.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
My initial remark was a joke. I would have thought that was self-evident but even if it wasn't my last response even self-declared the prior remark as "quite clearly flippant".
Do I need to ask Wraith to implement some sarcasm tags or something like spoiler tags?
No fucking shit Sherlock. Did you think I didn't know it was an idiom when I wrote ...
Dude, you know about jokes? They're supposed to be funny.
But rest assured: If there ever comes a point in your life when you're genuinely amusing we'll tell you.
Promise!
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Gee thanks, I'll await with bated breath for endorsement from a German's sense of humour.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote