Scrutable

Sheldrake seems to be articulating the UK government's point of view fairly accurately - a view that 14 million people supported with the vote at the election. Responding to this opinion by calling him a troll has to be the height of stupidity.

I'd actually quite like to see a competent, aspirational liberal/left of centre opposition in the UK. It cannot happen until certain ideas and tactics are rejected. Liberals have let themselves become the new pompous establishment, replacing the old regimes' faith in 'good breeding' with an irrational faith in the value of technocratic paper credentials.

Corbyn actually had victory in this election within his grasp until the self important London element f.cked it up for him. The longer the centre left refuses to concede it was wrong about anything the longer the pain will last. Have no doubt.

Things they need to publicly accept they were wrong about: -

i) Brexit

ii) Policing priorites (i.e. preventative policing to reduce street crime and burglary vs intimidating people who said something politically incorrect on Twitter)

iii) People's appetite for using public money to fund things that only wealthy, educated liberals care about.

Just for starters.

This leaves plenty of room for other traditional left of centre policies.

lpm wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 5:18 pm Sheldrake seems to be articulating the UK government's point of view fairly accurately - a view that 14 million people supported with the vote at the election. Responding to this opinion by calling him a troll has to be the height of stupidity.

How about just plain wrong? Just because he’s one of the 14 million that voted for equivalent of pi being to equal 3 doesn’t make pi equal 3. He continues to argue pi is 3 with poor arguments, incorrect facts and a self satisfied smugness.

Straight to ignore.

bjn wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:36 pm

lpm wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 5:18 pm Sheldrake seems to be articulating the UK government's point of view fairly accurately - a view that 14 million people supported with the vote at the election. Responding to this opinion by calling him a troll has to be the height of stupidity.

How about just plain wrong? Just because he’s one of the 14 million that voted for equivalent of pi being to equal 3 doesn’t make pi equal 3. He continues to argue pi is 3 with poor arguments, incorrect facts and a self satisfied smugness.

Straight to ignore.

u ok hon?

sheldrake wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 4:29 pm

jimbob wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 3:43 pm

sheldrake wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 3:23 pm

Maybe they are, but it doesn't mean they will. It's the opinion of a single academic. There's no reason to always believe the most pessimisstic view of the UK's position that you're presented with; it's tended to be continually wrong in the past.

It's also obvious as the UK government has decided to negotiate from a position of weakness with a self imposed time pressure, which is not a good place to start from

Up until the election, the EU knew they were negotiating with people who didn't believe in their own negotiating position and who were amenable to helping finding reasons to agree to stupid deals in the hope it would lead to us cancelling article 50 or maintaining a permanent 'vassal' status. They're not negotiating with that kind of government any more. Watch.

That would the same government that managed to produce a deal worse than May’s* when up against their own pointless deadline.

*I mean the naysayers said it couldn’t be done but they found a way.

Little waster wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 8:23 pm That would the same government that managed to produce a deal worse than May’s* when up against their own pointless deadline.

In what way do you believe Boris' deal to be worse than May's?

sheldrake wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:12 pm

Little waster wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 8:23 pm That would the same government that managed to produce a deal worse than May’s* when up against their own pointless deadline.

In what way do you believe Boris' deal to be worse than May's?

The bit where NI has been cut adrift with no reference to the wishes of the Northern Irish and despite Johnson’s solemn promise that an Irish Sea birder was a concession “no Conservative PM” could ever agree too, oh and we still pay the divorce bill and we get a shorter transition period to complete the next phase of the negotiations.

Now can you point to anyways Johnson’s deal is better than May’s?

Little waster wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:36 pm

sheldrake wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:12 pm

Little waster wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 8:23 pm That would the same government that managed to produce a deal worse than May’s* when up against their own pointless deadline.

In what way do you believe Boris' deal to be worse than May's?

The bit where NI has been cut adrift with no reference to the wishes of the Northern Irish and despite Johnson’s solemn promise that an Irish Sea birder was a concession “no Conservative PM” could ever agree too, oh and we still pay the divorce bill and we get a shorter transition period to complete the next phase of the negotiations.

Now can you point to anyways Johnson’s deal is better than May’s?

Oh, I know.

It was done by a man.

Little waster wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:36 pm

sheldrake wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:12 pm

Little waster wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 8:23 pm That would the same government that managed to produce a deal worse than May’s* when up against their own pointless deadline.

In what way do you believe Boris' deal to be worse than May's?

The bit where NI has been cut adrift with no reference to the wishes of the Northern Irish and despite Johnson’s solemn promise that an Irish Sea birder was a concession “no Conservative PM” could ever agree too, oh and we still pay the divorce bill and we get a shorter transition period to complete the next phase of the negotiations.

Now can you point to anyways Johnson’s deal is better than May’s?

No permanent entrapment in a customs union with the EU that the EU gets to prolong as long as it wants. Political declaration points in a much better direction.

I agree we should recalculate the divorce bill to reflect return of our share of EU assets.

Wait a minute: in what way did Corbyn have a winning move in this election? He had two thirds Remainers and one third Leavers and managed to appeal to neither. What was his masterstroke to be? Come down on the Leave side to appease the angry Northerners and piss off most of his voters even more?

sheldrake wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:53 pm

Little waster wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:36 pm

sheldrake wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:12 pm

In what way do you believe Boris' deal to be worse than May's?

The bit where NI has been cut adrift with no reference to the wishes of the Northern Irish and despite Johnson’s solemn promise that an Irish Sea birder was a concession “no Conservative PM” could ever agree too, oh and we still pay the divorce bill and we get a shorter transition period to complete the next phase of the negotiations.

Now can you point to anyways Johnson’s deal is better than May’s?

No permanent entrapment in a customs union with the EU that the EU gets to prolong as long as it wants. Political declaration points in a much better direction.

I agree we should recalculate the divorce bill to reflect return of our share of EU assets.

It’s ok you don’t have to worry about that as the backstop would never have been needed because, as the Brexiteers repeatedly assured us, technological solutions to the Irish border definitely existed and we’re going to be implemented any minute now, as the PM solemnly promised himself it would be all be solved by something akin to the London congestion zone.

Are you suggesting that that might not have been 100% accurate?*

That would be a bit confusing as your entire schtick has been a feeble attempt to convince us that the events since the referendum haven’t conclusively confirmed that the Brexiteers are a bunch of dishonest, incompetents, peddling obvious fantasies, which don’t last a second’s contact with reality or a moment’s casual scrutiny.

It’s simply baffling that a sizeable majority of the country are continuing to insist on calling out Brexit as the shitshow it so clearly is.

*TBH I was a little bit puzzled why, given his vehement insistence that technological solutions existed, Johnson folded so quickly on the Irish Sea border. It is almost as if he knew it was utter horse-sh.t from the get-go.

Anyway I digress, you were telling us that the Government we have in December are going to do a much better job of negotiating with the EU compared to the the spineless halfwits we clearly had in control in October (IIRC I think there was some talk about them dying in a ditch come the 31st October, I’ve been busy lately so I will just assume that definitely happened). Please, carry on educating us ...

Martin Y wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:31 pm Wait a minute: in what way did Corbyn have a winning move in this election? He had two thirds Remainers and one third Leavers and managed to appeal to neither. What was his masterstroke to be? Come down on the Leave side to appease the angry Northerners and piss off most of his voters even more?

The remainers weren't going anywhere. Corbyn did better in 2017 when he gave the north and the midlands a clear signal that he was listening to them.

Littlewaster, your post is a kind of erratic diatribe that shows you've not really understood most of the debate. Probably because you're doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting most of the time.

I love that 'keep our share of the assets' bollocks.

OK, Airbus will move all of their production and we keep the factory, after all it was built with massive EU development grants.

Sheldrake - The Daily Express of the Scrutable board.

veravista wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 11:31 pm I love that 'keep our share of the assets' bollocks.

OK, Airbus will move all of their production and we keep the factory, after all it was built with massive EU development grants.

Sheldrake - The Daily Express of the Scrutable board.

If the Daily Express is right as often as me, you ought to start reading it.

Can't disagree with that. Once in the last 3 years is pretty good.

sheldrake wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 11:26 pm

Martin Y wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:31 pm Wait a minute: in what way did Corbyn have a winning move in this election? He had two thirds Remainers and one third Leavers and managed to appeal to neither. What was his masterstroke to be? Come down on the Leave side to appease the angry Northerners and piss off most of his voters even more?

The remainers weren't going anywhere. Corbyn did better in 2017 when he gave the north and the midlands a clear signal that he was listening to them.

Littlewaster, your post is a kind of erratic diatribe that shows you've not really understood most of the debate. Probably because you're doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting most of the time.

Excellent, having failed to adequately address a single point raised by any poster in this thread sheldrake has moved straight to the abuse, that’s always a sign of someone winning an argument.

So come on then why don’t you educate me? I’m sure the sight of you thoroughly schooling me will make your points better than anything else you could possibly write.

You tend to post emotive rants, that when they contain a substantive point tend to rehash something that was debunked earlier in the thread, or sometimes years before on Badscience. If you want to discuss something serious, ask a very specific question.

sheldrake wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:54 am You tend to post emotive rants, that when they contain a substantive point tend to rehash something that was debunked earlier in the thread, or sometimes years before on Badscience. If you want to discuss something serious, ask a very specific question.

b.llsh.t, I bet you can’t provide a single example of anything you’ve managed to debunk. The reality is you almost never respond to any specific counterargument you are presented with; your MO is to post a PRATT, get pulled up on it, so then move almost instantly onto another PRATT and continue the cycle. There’s a term for that posting style.

Double b.llsh.t on the fact you claim to have debunked stuff years ago which have only happened in the last few days, weeks or months, what you got a f.cking crystal ball?

You want a specific question here’s one: given that Johnson folded on the supposedly blood-red line of an Irish Sea border almost instantly in the Autumn under almost no pressure, how do you support your assertion that Johnson will now prove to be a more difficult and skilful negotiator in the Spring?

Little waster wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:11 am You want a specific question here’s one: given that Johnson folded on the supposedly blood-red line of an Irish Sea border almost instantly in the Autumn under almost no pressure, how do you support your assertion that Johnson will now prove to be a more difficult and skilful negotiator in the Spring?

That red line was May's. Johnson has agreed in principle that their could be checks on goods heading to Northern Ireland whose final destination is not Northern Ireland. The DUP and ERG were okay with it at the time, although he doesn't need the DUP any more.

Do you think that's a bad compromise? If so, why ?

sheldrake wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:54 am You tend to post emotive rants, that when they contain a substantive point tend to rehash something that was debunked earlier in the thread, or sometimes years before on Badscience. If you want to discuss something serious, ask a very specific question.

Since no one can check the old forum anymore, I think it's ok to go over particular points here.

Indeed. Everyone, read this. Calm down. And stop being dicks, all of you, me included <glares at self>.

sheldrake wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:21 am

Little waster wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:11 am You want a specific question here’s one: given that Johnson folded on the supposedly blood-red line of an Irish Sea border almost instantly in the Autumn under almost no pressure, how do you support your assertion that Johnson will now prove to be a more difficult and skilful negotiator in the Spring?

That red line was May's. Johnson has agreed in principle that their could be checks on goods heading to Northern Ireland whose final destination is not Northern Ireland. The DUP and ERG were okay with it at the time, although he doesn't need the DUP any more.

Do you think that's a bad compromise? If so, why ?

To be fair, probably the only solution which could have honoured the GFA and allowed Britain to diverge from EU stuff was an arrangement that separated NI out from the rest of the UK from a trade perspective. Not what I want, but more sensible than what May was trying to achieve.

sheldrake wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:21 am

That red line was May's. Johnson has agreed in principle that their could be checks on goods heading to Northern Ireland whose final destination is not Northern Ireland. The DUP and ERG were okay with it at the time, although he doesn't need the DUP any more.

Well lets fisk that line-by-line.

That red line was May's

May was more open to an Irish Sea border than any of the other relevant groups as a way out of the backstop bind she was, however she had concluded that it wouldn't fly with the ERG, DUP or the Conservative and Unionist Party as a whole.

Johnson, Sept 2018

"We would be damaging the fabric of the Union with regulatory checks and even customs controls between Great Britain and Northern Ireland on top of those extra regulatory checks down the Irish Sea that are already envisaged in the withdrawal agreement,"

ERG, Sept 2018

The ERG’s view is that the prospect of an internal regulatory border down the Irish Sea is completely unacceptable.

Such a border formed part of Michel Barnier’s proposals in the draft Withdrawal Agreement.

As we say on page 8 of the report:

“The Withdrawal Agreement proposals are a clear breach of the Principle of Consent enshrined in the Belfast Agreement, designed to respect the border and leave the choice about its future solely, democratically and peacefully in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland.”

This view is repeated on p. 11:

“Under his unacceptable proposals, there would be extensive controls between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.”

Our proposals, on the other hand (p. 3) “do nothing to alter the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, and do not violate the Principle of Consent enshrined in the Belfast Agreement.”

"Now, I have to tell you that no British Conservative government could or should sign up to any such arrangement,"

DUP, Sept 2019

"We're a unionist party - we're not going vote for any arrangement which makes us different than the rest of the United Kingdom and forms a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom,"

Boy I bet she is annoyed now.

Johnson has agreed in principle

Yet he continues to lie publicly about the very existence of those checks

To Andrew Marr November 2019

When Andrew Marr asked Johnson whether there will there be tariffs and checks on goods moving from Northern Ireland into Great Britain after Brexit the prime minister replied “absolutely not”.

When Marr put to Johnson that his own Brexit Secretary, Stephen Barclay, said there will have to be checks, Johnson said “there will be no tariffs and no checks”.

To Julian Smith, Northern Irish Secretary November 2019

The prime minister has been very clear, you know. We’re not going to have anything. We’re going to make sure that there’s unfettered access into the UK market

To Northern Irish manufacturers November 2019

“If somebody asks you to [fill in a form], tell them to ring up the prime minister, and I will direct them to throw that form in the bin”

To the UK as a whole, November 2019

“We can leave the EU as one UK, whole and entire and perfect as promised”

To parliament three times in a row October 2019

“There will be no checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”

All of which is odd considering he was still saying this in June 2019:-

There are “abundant technical fixes” for the Irish border

The DUP and ERG were okay with it at the time

When in reality the DUP said this:-

October 2019

DUP leader Arlene Foster has rubbished claims that the UK is set to agree to a Northern Ireland only backstop as "far off the mark".

Mrs Foster was speaking ahead of a further meeting with Prime Minister Boris Johnson in Downing Street on Tuesday evening.

Her comments come after the Guardian reported senior sources saying that a draft treaty could be published on Wednesday morning after the UK agreed in principle there will be a customs border in the Irish Sea.

Mrs Foster said that any deal would require the support of both nationalists and unionists in Northern Ireland.

"I think there's been a huge amount of speculation since the Prime Minister met with the Taoiseach last Thursday. Some of it so far off the mark you can't even see the mark anymore," she told told the BBC.

"I think that what's important is we stick with our principles that we want to get a deal, but it has to be a deal that respects the economic and constitutional integrity of the UK and that means all of the UK, Northern Ireland included, and that's very important for us."

The DUP leader was asked outright if her party were willing to concede on a customs border in the Irish Sea.

"No, I think it's very important that we say that we must remain within the UK customs union," she replied.

"It's not that we are trying to be negative around any of this, it's a principle that we have, a principle that has always been there and the principle that will forever be there."

And once the deal was announced

Arlene Foster has said the DUP cannot support a Brexit border plan that would separate Northern Ireland from Britain.

Her comments come after one of her MPs accused the prime minister of a "total betrayal".

Ms Foster, the DUP's leader, was talking to Sky News after leaked extracts of a letter she received from the PM were published in the Times.

The letter refers to EU demands for a proposed Brexit backstop that would create a border in the Irish Sea between Britain and Northern Ireland.

This would apply if a future EU-UK trade relationship failed to avert a hardening of the frontier between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Ms Foster told Sky News that would be "against the hope and desire to have future trading arrangements that work for the entire United Kingdom".

She said: "We have a legally binding document with a backstop that separates Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom.... We cannot agree to something that hives off Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom.

"The letter sent to me by the prime minister essentially says the Northern Ireland-specific backstop is still in play and that's not something we as unionists can support."

I'm not sure how any of that can be construed as the DUP being "OK" with it. I'll grant the ERG dropped their opposition pretty sharpish which is just further proof of how fundamentally dishonest and unprincipled a bunch of swivel-eyed charlatans they actually are.

So every single line of your post is demonstrably incorrect.

Ace post LW.

Cue Shelley claiming you've missed something or made a typo.

veravista wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:44 pm Ace post LW.

I agree.