Discussion:
Is Dominic Cummings the new Cromwell?
Add Reply
MM
2019-08-08 08:49:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.

Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?

MM
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-08-08 09:26:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
Incubus
2019-08-08 10:08:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The Iceberg
2019-08-08 10:13:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
also they don't care one bit about democracy within the EUSSR or even our representation in the EUSSR, they are like robots though.
The Todal
2019-08-08 10:20:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.

It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.

It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
abelard
2019-08-08 10:34:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
your dishonesty amazes me...
the was out or in...
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
--
www.abelard.org
The Iceberg
2019-08-08 10:48:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
you fraud, most people that voted Leave want a No Deal and you know that.
Incubus
2019-08-08 11:12:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
They didn't vote for a "deal" Brexit either. What they voted for was to leave
the EU.
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Post by The Todal
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
There is no waiting until we have a deal. Parliament rejected the bad deal
that May brokered with Merkel and the EU say they won't renegotiate. That only
leaves one option - to leave with no deal.
Keema's Nan
2019-08-08 11:25:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
They didn't vote for a "deal" Brexit either. What they voted for was to leave
the EU.
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
I don’t remember anything about deals either.

Just that A50 said there would be a period when both sides would negotiate an
agreement and if nothing could be agreed in 2 years we would just leave;
which is what we haven’t done.

There is nothing in A50 which says if we can’t reach a deal then we can’t
leave - and yet that is what our parliament seems to have imposed on us.

So, as far as I am concerned it is Westminster which has over-ridden what the
leavers voted for.Hopefully when it comes to the next GE, parliament will pay
the price for that.
Post by The Todal
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
There is no waiting until we have a deal. Parliament rejected the bad deal
that May brokered with Merkel and the EU say they won't renegotiate. That only
leaves one option - to leave with no deal.
The Todal
2019-08-08 11:25:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
They didn't vote for a "deal" Brexit either. What they voted for was to leave
the EU.
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
There is no waiting until we have a deal. Parliament rejected the bad deal
that May brokered with Merkel and the EU say they won't renegotiate. That only
leaves one option - to leave with no deal.
But you're wrong, surely.

Boris and Gove have promised us a wonderful new deal, to take the place
of Theresa's deal. Boris said it was a million to one possibility that
we'd leave with no deal and he was confident that he could make a new deal.

Oh fuck. Was he lying again? Who would ever have expected that?
Incubus
2019-08-08 11:33:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
They didn't vote for a "deal" Brexit either. What they voted for was to leave
the EU.
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
There is no waiting until we have a deal. Parliament rejected the bad deal
that May brokered with Merkel and the EU say they won't renegotiate. That only
leaves one option - to leave with no deal.
But you're wrong, surely.
Boris and Gove have promised us a wonderful new deal, to take the place
of Theresa's deal. Boris said it was a million to one possibility that
we'd leave with no deal and he was confident that he could make a new deal.
When and where did he say that?

Change of subject noted, by the way.
Post by The Todal
Oh fuck. Was he lying again? Who would ever have expected that?
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-08-08 11:44:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
They didn't vote for a "deal" Brexit either. What they voted for was to leave
the EU.
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a
successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party.
And in any case, can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated? The
sentence doesn't say 'we will /successfully/ negotiate'. And as for the
inclusion of the rather optimistic 'careful change'... :-) Well, I can
only suggest that there is little satisfaction to be had from giving
such things too much of one's attention.
Incubus
2019-08-08 12:01:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
They didn't vote for a "deal" Brexit either. What they voted for was to leave
the EU.
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a
successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party.
Indeed.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
And in any case, can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated? The
sentence doesn't say 'we will /successfully/ negotiate'. And as for the
inclusion of the rather optimistic 'careful change'... :-) Well, I can
only suggest that there is little satisfaction to be had from giving
such things too much of one's attention.
It helps Remainers to muddy the waters and accuse politicians and campaigns of
having lied. The fact that a Remainer PM performed the negotiations and put us
in the current situation doesn't factor into their analysis.
abelard
2019-08-08 12:28:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
They didn't vote for a "deal" Brexit either. What they voted for was to leave
the EU.
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a
successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party.
And in any case, can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated? The
sentence doesn't say 'we will /successfully/ negotiate'. And as for the
inclusion of the rather optimistic 'careful change'... :-) Well, I can
only suggest that there is little satisfaction to be had from giving
such things too much of one's attention.
it is common for orgs like banks to try to impose the likes of
higher interest rates and call that 'renegotiating'

toad seem rather inexperienced in the real world

never the less the referendum was for in or out...to claim
otherwise is merely crude dishonesty..
--
www.abelard.org
Mike Scott
2019-08-08 13:06:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 08/08/2019 12:44, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
.....
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a
successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party.
And in any case, can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated?  The ....
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels
would not negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
--
Mike Scott
Harlow, England
Yellow
2019-08-08 15:04:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:06:37 +0100 Mike Scott <usenet.16
Post by Mike Scott
.....
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a
successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party.
And in any case, can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated?  The ....
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels
would not negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
You are of course correct.

https://tinyurl.com/y22ulgku

or

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/03/eu-commission-still-
refuses-uk-talks-before-article-50-triggered
The Todal
2019-08-08 15:27:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:06:37 +0100 Mike Scott <usenet.16
Post by Mike Scott
.....
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a
successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party.
And in any case, can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated?  The ....
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels
would not negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
You are of course correct.
https://tinyurl.com/y22ulgku
or
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/03/eu-commission-still-
refuses-uk-talks-before-article-50-triggered
Yes, I think most of us remember that.

However, the mistake we made was to serve Article 50 notice before
Parliament knew what sort of a deal would be acceptable to Parliament.

I remember the Norman opinion in this group - that we should keep all
our options secret both from the public and from Parliament. Which is
like going into a garage to buy a car without knowing whether your
spouse wants to pay 10k or 50k, or have a big car or a small car, or an
old car or a new car, etc etc. After all, if the salesman had a clue
what you wanted to buy, he might actually swindle you.
Yellow
2019-08-08 19:31:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:06:37 +0100 Mike Scott <usenet.16
Post by Mike Scott
.....
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a
successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party.
And in any case, can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated?  The ....
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels
would not negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
You are of course correct.
https://tinyurl.com/y22ulgku
or
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/03/eu-commission-still-
refuses-uk-talks-before-article-50-triggered
Yes, I think most of us remember that.
However, the mistake we made was to serve Article 50 notice before
Parliament knew what sort of a deal would be acceptable to Parliament.
You may well be right, in hindsight, but it seems to me that it is only
the EU who were really pointing this out. Here, no one (in Parliament)
seemed that bothered.

But given it is now clear that we had a government that didn't really
have their heart in it I am not sure it could ever have gone another way
with that particular crowd in charge.

And of course the opposition were more interested in trying to gain
power, with a view to nationalising everything that was not nailed down,
than doing their job properly in this area either.
Post by The Todal
I remember the Norman opinion in this group - that we should keep all
our options secret both from the public and from Parliament. Which is
like going into a garage to buy a car without knowing whether your
spouse wants to pay 10k or 50k, or have a big car or a small car, or an
old car or a new car, etc etc. After all, if the salesman had a clue
what you wanted to buy, he might actually swindle you.
That is not quite how I remember Norman's position and instead recall
him arguing that strategies should not be made public.

But given Norman does not have influence out in the real world, I am not
sure that knowing his opinion really helped us very much.
kat
2019-08-08 22:04:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
.....
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say 'we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless when a successful
outcome depends upon the full co-operation of another party. And in any case,
can it not be claimed that they /have/ negotiated?  The ....
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels would not
negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
That's what I recall.

Don't think I ever read the Vote leave leaflet referred to.
--
kat
^..^<
Norman Wells
2019-08-08 22:10:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by kat
Post by Mike Scott
.....
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
TBH, I'd expect at least an /attempt/ at a negotiation; but to say
'we will negotiate the terms of a new deal' is surely meaningless
when a successful outcome depends upon the full co-operation of
another party. And in any case, can it not be claimed that they
/have/ negotiated?  The ....
Can someone verify or correct my memory please, which is that Brussels
would not negotiate at all until after we'd given notice of leaving?
That's what I recall.
Until we triggered Article 50 there was nothing to negotiate. The
necessary negotiations are those that Article provides.
The Todal
2019-08-08 13:38:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?

Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
Incubus
2019-08-08 14:11:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?
Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
It doesn't say that we wouldn't leave without a deal. That's your
interpretation of it, which is not backed up the Vote Leave campaign elsewhere
or, indeed, other campaigns such as Leave.eu.
The Todal
2019-08-08 15:41:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?
Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
It doesn't say that we wouldn't leave without a deal. That's your
interpretation of it, which is not backed up the Vote Leave campaign elsewhere
or, indeed, other campaigns such as Leave.eu.
Did any voters think that we'd leave without a deal? They probably
didn't give it much thought, most of them. Obviously the plasterer and
the electrician and the factory worker didn't think of such matters but
most people who run their own businesses and have to import from Europe
or export to Europe would have had it very much in mind. They would have
been reassured that we would negotiate a new deal before starting any
legal process to leave.

But most people may well have voted because they wanted all those
millions of pounds for the NHS ("enough to build a brand new fully
staffed NHS hospital EVERY WEEK") and they may have been worried about
terrorists ("the EU court also stops us from deporting dangerous terror
suspects") and I know a few people who were worried about where we could
possibly put 76 million Turkish people when they start to come over.

And the leaflet mentions a quarter of a million European migrants every
year, without pointing out that many of them come to work here but don't
plan to stay permanently, that even more migrants come from non EU
countries but our Home Office can't be bothered to reduce that number,
and that our own people are able to move freely to EU countries to take
up jobs and settle down in those countries. Is it possible that most
Leave voters don't speak any foreign languages and have no intention of
working or living in a country where they don't speak English? That
doesn't make them stoopid, of course. Just a bit selfish and short-sighted.
JNugent
2019-08-08 15:49:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?
Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
It doesn't say that we wouldn't leave without a deal.  That's your
interpretation of it, which is not backed up the Vote Leave campaign elsewhere
or, indeed, other campaigns such as Leave.eu.
Did any voters think that we'd leave without a deal? They probably
didn't give it much thought, most of them. Obviously the plasterer and
the electrician and the factory worker didn't think of such matters...
Why do you think so little of skilled workers?

Are you just cleverer than they all are?
The Todal
2019-08-08 15:54:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?
Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
It doesn't say that we wouldn't leave without a deal.  That's your
interpretation of it, which is not backed up the Vote Leave campaign elsewhere
or, indeed, other campaigns such as Leave.eu.
Did any voters think that we'd leave without a deal? They probably
didn't give it much thought, most of them. Obviously the plasterer and
the electrician and the factory worker didn't think of such matters...
Why do you think so little of skilled workers?
Are you just cleverer than they all are?
I thought I had made it clear, but perhaps you aren't as clever as I am.

Those were examples of people who have no reason to give any thought to
export and import tariffs because it doesn't affect their jobs on a
daily basis.

If it makes you any happier, I'd add "solicitors specialising in
domestic conveyancing".
JNugent
2019-08-08 16:19:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to
leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?
Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
It doesn't say that we wouldn't leave without a deal.  That's your
interpretation of it, which is not backed up the Vote Leave campaign elsewhere
or, indeed, other campaigns such as Leave.eu.
Did any voters think that we'd leave without a deal? They probably
didn't give it much thought, most of them. Obviously the plasterer
and the electrician and the factory worker didn't think of such
matters...
Why do you think so little of skilled workers?
Are you just cleverer than they all are?
I thought I had made it clear, but perhaps you aren't as clever as I am.
Those were examples of people who have no reason to give any thought to
export and import tariffs because it doesn't affect their jobs on a
daily basis.
So you think that people in manual - even skilled manual - jobs have no
business voting.

Thanks for the clarification.
Post by The Todal
If it makes you any happier, I'd add "solicitors specialising in
domestic conveyancing".
It seems you think that only people rather similar to yourself (in
background, upbringing, education, occupational group and political
beliefs) should have a right to vote.

Thanks for the further clarification.
Incubus
2019-08-08 16:05:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?
Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
It doesn't say that we wouldn't leave without a deal. That's your
interpretation of it, which is not backed up the Vote Leave campaign elsewhere
or, indeed, other campaigns such as Leave.eu.
Did any voters think that we'd leave without a deal?
I'm sure they were aware that it was a possibility.
Post by The Todal
They probably
didn't give it much thought, most of them.
If you believe that they are all stupid and racist then perhaps you might look
at it that way.
Post by The Todal
Obviously the plasterer and
the electrician and the factory worker didn't think of such matters but
most people who run their own businesses and have to import from Europe
or export to Europe would have had it very much in mind.
Since we're doing other people's thinking for them, I imagine they will have
had the thought of not getting cheap labour due to the market being flooded as
a paramount concern.
Post by The Todal
They would have
been reassured that we would negotiate a new deal before starting any
legal process to leave.
Things didn't turn out that way. So what?
Post by The Todal
But most people may well have voted because they wanted all those
millions of pounds for the NHS ("enough to build a brand new fully
staffed NHS hospital EVERY WEEK") and they may have been worried about
terrorists ("the EU court also stops us from deporting dangerous terror
suspects") and I know a few people who were worried about where we could
possibly put 76 million Turkish people when they start to come over.
And the leaflet mentions a quarter of a million European migrants every
year, without pointing out that many of them come to work here but don't
plan to stay permanently, that even more migrants come from non EU
countries but our Home Office can't be bothered to reduce that number,
and that our own people are able to move freely to EU countries to take
up jobs and settle down in those countries. Is it possible that most
Leave voters don't speak any foreign languages and have no intention of
working or living in a country where they don't speak English? That
doesn't make them stoopid, of course. Just a bit selfish and short-sighted.
People are selfish and short-sighted. The business owners who want cheap
labour aren't thinking about the impact on jobs and housing for people already
here. The Millennials who might want to work abroad one day aren't thinking
about the effect on jobs and housing for people on the continent. The Guardian
readers who like to claim the moral high ground aren't thinking about
conditions for the working classes to whom they smugly preach. People like me
who don't want a four-week waiting list every time I need a doctor's
appointment and who don't want to pay the ridiculous housing costs in London
and the South East and would rather have stronger wages quite frankly don't
give a damn about helping people from Poland and other European countries come
here and have a "better" life.

We all vote out of self-interest, even if we like to tell ourselves it's
actually because we "care". The self-interest of 17 million people who voted
to leave trumps the self-interest of those who wanted to stay in the EU.
That's how democracy works. Tell yourself you're a bit more altruistic and
far-sighted if you prefer; it's no less self-seeking, egocentric and selfish.
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2019-08-08 20:30:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
People are selfish and short-sighted. The business owners who want cheap
labour aren't thinking about the impact on jobs and housing for people already
here. The Millennials who might want to work abroad one day aren't thinking
about the effect on jobs and housing for people on the continent. The Guardian
readers who like to claim the moral high ground aren't thinking about
conditions for the working classes to whom they smugly preach. People like me
who don't want a four-week waiting list every time I need a doctor's
appointment and who don't want to pay the ridiculous housing costs in London
and the South East and would rather have stronger wages quite frankly don't
give a damn about helping people from Poland and other European countries come
here and have a "better" life.
I wish I'd written that.
--
Evremonde
The Todal
2019-08-08 22:16:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
People are selfish and short-sighted.  The business owners who want cheap
labour aren't thinking about the impact on jobs and housing for people already
here.  The Millennials who might want to work abroad one day aren't
thinking
about the effect on jobs and housing for people on the continent.  The
Guardian
readers who like to claim the moral high ground aren't thinking about
conditions for the working classes to whom they smugly preach.  People
like me
who don't want a four-week waiting list every time I need a doctor's
appointment and who don't want to pay the ridiculous housing costs in London
and the South East and would rather have stronger wages quite frankly don't
give a damn about helping people from Poland and other European countries come
here and have a "better" life.
I wish I'd written that.
You will, Oscar. You will.
Norman Wells
2019-08-08 16:49:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
And the leaflet mentions a quarter of a million European migrants every
year, without pointing out that many of them come to work here but don't
plan to stay permanently, that even more migrants come from non EU
countries but our Home Office can't be bothered to reduce that number,
and that our own people are able to move freely to EU countries to take
up jobs and settle down in those countries. Is it possible that most
Leave voters don't speak any foreign languages and have no intention of
working or living in a country where they don't speak English?  That
doesn't make them stoopid, of course. Just a bit selfish and short-sighted.
Leaving the EU does not mean no Brits will live and work in the EU, nor
that no EU citizens will live and work here. It just means that it will
no longer be a *right* to do so. If we want EU citizens here, we can
let them in. If the EU wants Brits there, it will let them in.

The formalities may be a little more complicated, but it's Project Fear
to imply that the interchange of necessary workers will cease, or that
students won't be able to study abroad if they wish It's only one in
two hundred students that does, incidentally.
Keema's Nan
2019-08-08 16:53:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would
only
leave when we had a deal.
That doesn't accord with my recollections, which are that we would try
and
arrange a suitable deal failing which it would be better to leave
without one.
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
It's not on that page.
Found it yet?
Using most browsers, scroll down to the big red rectangle "Why should we
vote leave on 23rd June?" where you have a slideshow of all the pages in
the Leave leaflet. Use the arrows to scroll forward and backward in the
leaflet.
It doesn't say that we wouldn't leave without a deal. That's your
interpretation of it, which is not backed up the Vote Leave campaign elsewhere
or, indeed, other campaigns such as Leave.eu.
Did any voters think that we'd leave without a deal?
I don’t know.

But what I do know is that most people expected parliament to vote in
accordance with the wishes expressed in the referendum.

Of course, their perceived self importance was far too dominant for that.
They wanted total control over a decision which had already been made; and
that is why we are in this situation now.

It was not the government who were weak, at least not at first - but their
negotiating position was steadily undermined by the self serving wasters in
parliament who made sure the EU knew that they could stick to their side of
the deal because the self-servers would vote it down and make May’s
position untenable.

So our wonderful ‘servants’ in parliament have put paid to any kind of
deal, put paid to a Prime Minister and most of the cabinet; and yet they
appear to have got off scot-free.
Post by The Todal
They probably
didn't give it much thought, most of them. Obviously the plasterer and
the electrician and the factory worker didn't think of such matters but
most people who run their own businesses and have to import from Europe
or export to Europe would have had it very much in mind. They would have
been reassured that we would negotiate a new deal before starting any
legal process to leave.
But most people may well have voted because they wanted all those
millions of pounds for the NHS ("enough to build a brand new fully
staffed NHS hospital EVERY WEEK") and they may have been worried about
terrorists ("the EU court also stops us from deporting dangerous terror
suspects") and I know a few people who were worried about where we could
possibly put 76 million Turkish people when they start to come over.
And the leaflet mentions a quarter of a million European migrants every
year, without pointing out that many of them come to work here but don't
plan to stay permanently, that even more migrants come from non EU
countries but our Home Office can't be bothered to reduce that number,
and that our own people are able to move freely to EU countries to take
up jobs and settle down in those countries. Is it possible that most
Leave voters don't speak any foreign languages and have no intention of
working or living in a country where they don't speak English? That
doesn't make them stoopid, of course. Just a bit selfish and short-sighted.
Mike Scott
2019-08-08 11:37:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 08/08/2019 12:25, The Todal wrote:
....
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
Actually, I don't find that on the web page you quote., although I'll
grant it may appear in their leaflet.

Nevertheless implicit anyway is the assumption that an acceptable-to-us
"deal" is possible in the first place. Otherwise you simply hand to
Brussels the choice of whether we leave or not.
--
Mike Scott
Harlow, England
The Todal
2019-08-08 13:52:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike Scott
....
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to
leave".
Actually, I don't find that on the web page you quote., although I'll
grant it may appear in their leaflet.
Nevertheless implicit anyway is the assumption that an acceptable-to-us
"deal" is possible in the first place. Otherwise you simply hand to
Brussels the choice of whether we leave or not.
I hope you've found it now - the big red rectangle with arrows that
enable you to scroll through the leaflet.

You can ponder which parts of the leaflet may have influenced voters.

How about "The EU is letting in more and more countries" with the
prediction that Turkey would soon join, with a population of 76 million.
The implication being that many of them will come and live in the UK.

How about "A vote to leave takes back control.... we have better
relations with our European friends (yeah, right!) and we regain our
influence in the wider world and become a truly global nation once again".

Can anyone see any signs of our influence growing as a result of Brexit?
What would it mean, anyway? A new British Empire? A Royal Navy feared
throughout the world? Does America value us more because we're leaving
the EU bloc, or does America see us as a tasty mid-morning snack for
trade deals?
JNugent
2019-08-08 15:47:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Mike Scott
....
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will
negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process
to leave".
Actually, I don't find that on the web page you quote., although I'll
grant it may appear in their leaflet.
Nevertheless implicit anyway is the assumption that an
acceptable-to-us "deal" is possible in the first place. Otherwise you
simply hand to Brussels the choice of whether we leave or not.
I hope you've found it now - the big red rectangle with arrows that
enable you to scroll through the leaflet.
You can ponder which parts of the leaflet may have influenced voters.
Why does it matter?
The Todal
2019-08-08 15:58:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by Mike Scott
....
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal
process to leave".
Actually, I don't find that on the web page you quote., although I'll
grant it may appear in their leaflet.
Nevertheless implicit anyway is the assumption that an
acceptable-to-us "deal" is possible in the first place. Otherwise you
simply hand to Brussels the choice of whether we leave or not.
I hope you've found it now - the big red rectangle with arrows that
enable you to scroll through the leaflet.
You can ponder which parts of the leaflet may have influenced voters.
Why does it matter?
Well, it's this "false prospectus" notion that some of us keep banging
on about, while Leave supporters say "I knew exactly what I was voting
for, thanks very much. Don't fucking tell me I'm fucking stupid".

The assertion that "the EU court" stops us from deporting dangerous
terror suspects is, of course, utter baloney. Was it one of Dominic
Cummings's ingenious ideas? Did it help anyone make up their mind on
referendum day?

Why does it matter? Leave won!!! It was the best victory since
Agincourt, or Waterloo!!
JNugent
2019-08-08 16:20:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by Mike Scott
....
Post by The Todal
Your recollections are faulty. Here's the main Leave leaflet.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we
will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal
process to leave".
Actually, I don't find that on the web page you quote., although
I'll grant it may appear in their leaflet.
Nevertheless implicit anyway is the assumption that an
acceptable-to-us "deal" is possible in the first place. Otherwise
you simply hand to Brussels the choice of whether we leave or not.
I hope you've found it now - the big red rectangle with arrows that
enable you to scroll through the leaflet.
You can ponder which parts of the leaflet may have influenced voters.
Why does it matter?
Well, it's this "false prospectus" notion that some of us keep banging
on about, while Leave supporters say "I knew exactly what I was voting
for, thanks very much. Don't fucking tell me I'm fucking stupid".
Why does THAT matter?
Post by The Todal
The assertion that "the EU court" stops us from deporting dangerous
terror suspects is, of course, utter baloney. Was it one of Dominic
Cummings's ingenious ideas? Did it help anyone make up their mind on
referendum day?
Why does it matter? Leave won!!! It was the best victory since
Agincourt, or Waterloo!!
Why do these things matter? The same arguments could easily be made in
respect of general elections - particularly in respect of the one (1997)
which led to the start of the breaking up of the United Kingdom.
Norman Wells
2019-08-08 12:03:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected?  Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would only
leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
Actually, this is what we were told in the government leaflet pushed
through all our letterboxes before the referendum:

"What happens if we leave?

"Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential
economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs.

"The government judges it could result in 10 years or more of
uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and
renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries
around the world.

"Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because
they want to keep access to our market.

"But the government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that"

https://tinyurl.com/jyouurq

It's absolutely clear from the leaflet that the government anticipated
leaving the EU would be with no deal. The above would just not be true
or necessary if we had a deal.

Despite all the dire warnings from the government, the people still
voted to leave. It follows that they voted to leave if necessary with
no deal.
The Todal
2019-08-08 13:45:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected?  Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would
only leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
Actually, this is what we were told in the government leaflet pushed
"What happens if we leave?
"Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential
economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs.
"The government judges it could result in 10 years or more of
uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and
renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries
around the world.
"Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because
they want to keep access to our market.
"But the government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that"
https://tinyurl.com/jyouurq
It's absolutely clear from the leaflet that the government anticipated
leaving the EU would be with no deal.  The above would just not be true
or necessary if we had a deal.
No it isn't.

It can equally be interpreted in a more sensible way - that we wouldn't
be leaving either the day after the referendum or even a few years after
that, but only when all the "relationships" had been unpicked and a good
deal had been struck.

The decision to authorise service of Article 50 notice was rash, hasty
and an attempt to look strong and stable. As most sensible people would
now say, it was daft to serve Article 50 notice until the Commons had
decided what sort of deal it should be trying to achieve with the EU,
irrespective of whether the EU would be willing to grant that deal. Mrs
May and her huge team of civil servants made important assumptions about
what sort of deal would please the Commons. It was a great surprise to
Mrs May when the Commons refused to pass her deal.
Post by Norman Wells
Despite all the dire warnings from the government, the people still
voted to leave.  It follows that they voted to leave if necessary with
no deal.
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper. Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
abelard
2019-08-08 13:49:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected?  Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would
only leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
Actually, this is what we were told in the government leaflet pushed
"What happens if we leave?
"Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential
economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs.
"The government judges it could result in 10 years or more of
uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and
renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries
around the world.
"Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because
they want to keep access to our market.
"But the government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that"
https://tinyurl.com/jyouurq
It's absolutely clear from the leaflet that the government anticipated
leaving the EU would be with no deal.  The above would just not be true
or necessary if we had a deal.
No it isn't.
It can equally be interpreted in a more sensible way - that we wouldn't
be leaving either the day after the referendum or even a few years after
that, but only when all the "relationships" had been unpicked and a good
deal had been struck.
The decision to authorise service of Article 50 notice was rash, hasty
and an attempt to look strong and stable. As most sensible people would
now say, it was daft to serve Article 50 notice until the Commons had
decided what sort of deal it should be trying to achieve with the EU,
irrespective of whether the EU would be willing to grant that deal. Mrs
May and her huge team of civil servants made important assumptions about
what sort of deal would please the Commons. It was a great surprise to
Mrs May when the Commons refused to pass her deal.
Post by Norman Wells
Despite all the dire warnings from the government, the people still
voted to leave.  It follows that they voted to leave if necessary with
no deal.
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper. Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
more of your inevitable dishonesty...
the vote was not for or against a deal
--
www.abelard.org
Incubus
2019-08-08 14:14:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected?  Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would
only leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
Actually, this is what we were told in the government leaflet pushed
"What happens if we leave?
"Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential
economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs.
"The government judges it could result in 10 years or more of
uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and
renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries
around the world.
"Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because
they want to keep access to our market.
"But the government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that"
https://tinyurl.com/jyouurq
It's absolutely clear from the leaflet that the government anticipated
leaving the EU would be with no deal.  The above would just not be true
or necessary if we had a deal.
No it isn't.
It can equally be interpreted in a more sensible way - that we wouldn't
be leaving either the day after the referendum or even a few years after
that, but only when all the "relationships" had been unpicked and a good
deal had been struck.
The decision to authorise service of Article 50 notice was rash, hasty
and an attempt to look strong and stable. As most sensible people would
now say, it was daft to serve Article 50 notice until the Commons had
decided what sort of deal it should be trying to achieve with the EU,
irrespective of whether the EU would be willing to grant that deal. Mrs
May and her huge team of civil servants made important assumptions about
what sort of deal would please the Commons. It was a great surprise to
Mrs May when the Commons refused to pass her deal.
Post by Norman Wells
Despite all the dire warnings from the government, the people still
voted to leave.  It follows that they voted to leave if necessary with
no deal.
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper.
Nobody voted to leave with a deal either. It also wasn't on the ballot paper.
Post by The Todal
Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
The Leave side maintained that a deal is desirable but by no means necessary
and better to have no deal than a bad one and that leaving without a deal is
better than remaining. Might I remind you that Leave won.
Incubus
2019-08-08 16:54:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[...]
Post by The Todal
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper.
Nobody voted to leave with a deal either.  It also wasn't on the
ballot paper.
Post by The Todal
Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
The Leave side maintained that a deal is desirable but by no means necessary
and better to have no deal than a bad one and that leaving without a deal is
better than remaining.
Did they maintain that before the referendum?  Evidence? Cite?
It follows from a minute's study of Negotiation 101.  If you enter into
a negotiation there is never a guarantee of reaching a deal.  Any party
to a negotiation must be prepared to walk away at any stage.  And no
deal is better than a bad deal.
That's what a lot of Leave supporters say, in phone-ins and in the
Question Time audience, and I think few of them have ever negotiated.
And I bet you haven't done any negotiating either.
Those of us who have negotiated for a living, as I have, know that "walk
away" is usually a temporary expedient and solves nothing.
With all due respect, what negotiating does a conveyancer engage in beyond a
few fixtures and fittings and an occasional bad survey? Even then, the agent
does the majority of the negotiating.
The Todal
2019-08-08 17:18:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
[...]
Post by The Todal
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper.
Nobody voted to leave with a deal either.  It also wasn't on the
ballot paper.
Post by The Todal
Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
The Leave side maintained that a deal is desirable but by no means necessary
and better to have no deal than a bad one and that leaving without a deal is
better than remaining.
Did they maintain that before the referendum?  Evidence? Cite?
It follows from a minute's study of Negotiation 101.  If you enter into
a negotiation there is never a guarantee of reaching a deal.  Any party
to a negotiation must be prepared to walk away at any stage.  And no
deal is better than a bad deal.
That's what a lot of Leave supporters say, in phone-ins and in the
Question Time audience, and I think few of them have ever negotiated.
And I bet you haven't done any negotiating either.
Those of us who have negotiated for a living, as I have, know that "walk
away" is usually a temporary expedient and solves nothing.
With all due respect, what negotiating does a conveyancer engage in beyond a
few fixtures and fittings and an occasional bad survey? Even then, the agent
does the majority of the negotiating.
In a conveyance, the buyer or seller can of course "walk away". And wait
for another house, or another buyer. If we walk away from our Brexit
negotiations the problem doesn't disappear - unless, in walking away, we
are agreeing to stay put until a better deal comes along.

But in answer to your question, the estate agent has only his commission
in mind, not the best interests of his client. He will clinch a deal
even if with a bit more work he could have got a higher price for the
seller, whose interests he is supposed to represent. He then does his
utmost to get contracts exchanged quickly so that the commission goes
into his bank account. If the seller is worried because the extension
never had planning permission, the agent will badger the solicitors into
exchanging contracts nonetheless. The solicitor will have to decide
whether to take out an insurance policy and get the seller to pay for
it. In that scenario, we might call the greedy estate agent Mr Raab, or
Mr Rees-Mogg.
Norman Wells
2019-08-08 16:04:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected?  Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would
only leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
Actually, this is what we were told in the government leaflet pushed
"What happens if we leave?
"Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and
potential economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost
jobs.
"The government judges it could result in 10 years or more of
uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and
renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries
around the world.
"Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU
because they want to keep access to our market.
"But the government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that"
https://tinyurl.com/jyouurq
It's absolutely clear from the leaflet that the government anticipated
leaving the EU would be with no deal.  The above would just not be
true or necessary if we had a deal.
No it isn't.
It can equally be interpreted in a more sensible way - that we wouldn't
be leaving either the day after the referendum or even a few years after
that, but only when all the "relationships" had been unpicked and a good
deal had been struck.
The people voted on the basis that 'the government will implement what
you decide', not the government will prvaricate interminably.
Post by The Todal
The decision to authorise service of Article 50 notice was rash, hasty
and an attempt to look strong and stable.
Well, that's *Parliament* for you. *Parliament* voted overwhwelmingly,
by 498 votes to 114, to trigger Article 50. Before Article 50 was
triggered, there was nothing for the EU to negotiate. We hadn't
notified our intention to leave.

Article 50 prescribes the negotiations that *follow* such a
notification. They cannot precede it.
Post by The Todal
As most sensible people would
now say, it was daft to serve Article 50 notice until the Commons had
decided what sort of deal it should be trying to achieve with the EU,
irrespective of whether the EU would be willing to grant that deal.
That would be negotiating in public and setting out our bottom lines.
No-one with any sense does that for the other side to see. It's
Negotiation 101.
Post by The Todal
Mrs May and her huge team of civil servants made important assumptions about
what sort of deal would please the Commons. It was a great surprise to
Mrs May when the Commons refused to pass her deal.
Can't argue with that, but the negotiations had to be carried out by
someone. The Commons as a whole can't negotiate, so it had to delegate.
And who better to delegate it to than the UK government and in turn
its selected negotiators?

Properly structured, the negotiators should have had full and
irrevocable authority to finalise the deal. You don't negotiate with
the monkey if the organ grinder can just waltz in at the end and say no
after all the painful concessions have been made. But it wasn't
structured that way. Parliament was given the role of the organ
grinder, and has decided to play it. It was always a possibility.

Most people, I think, are happy that Mrs May's deal is a dead duck.
Apart from the EU of course who think we should honour it and think it
rather disreputable that we're not going to. But it was all in the
rules, so they can't really complain.

If the EU wants a deal, it will have to re-open negotiations on the
Withdrawal Agreement, and it too will have to second guess what
Parliament might approve, just as Mrs May did and got wrong.

Good luck with that I say.
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Despite all the dire warnings from the government, the people still
voted to leave.  It follows that they voted to leave if necessary with
no deal.
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper. Both
sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
It takes two to negotiate a deal. If one party is intransigent and
inflexible then it's always possible no deal will be achieved. But it
comes back to this - Article 50 had to be triggered before negotiations
could start, and Article 50 prescribes the time frame for those
negotiations. If no deal can be reached within the defined time frame,
then it's leaving with no deal.

That doesn't preclude future negotiations on trade or anything else. In
fact, necessity might even speed them up.
Gladys Street-Porter
2019-08-08 19:11:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's
"assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected?  Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we
would only leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under
the carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps
"wait until we have a deal".
Actually, this is what we were told in the government leaflet
"What happens if we leave?
"Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and
potential economic disruption. This would reduce investment and
cost jobs.
"The government judges it could result in 10 years or more of
uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and
renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other
countries around the world.
"Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU
because they want to keep access to our market.
"But the government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that"
https://tinyurl.com/jyouurq
It's absolutely clear from the leaflet that the government
anticipated leaving the EU would be with no deal.  The above would
just not be true or necessary if we had a deal.
No it isn't.
It can equally be interpreted in a more sensible way - that we
wouldn't be leaving either the day after the referendum or even a few
years after that, but only when all the "relationships" had been
unpicked and a good deal had been struck.
The decision to authorise service of Article 50 notice was rash,
hasty and an attempt to look strong and stable. As most sensible
people would now say, it was daft to serve Article 50 notice until
the Commons had decided what sort of deal it should be trying to
achieve with the EU, irrespective of whether the EU would be willing
to grant that deal. Mrs May and her huge team of civil servants made
important assumptions about what sort of deal would please the
Commons. It was a great surprise to Mrs May when the Commons refused
to pass her deal.
Post by Norman Wells
Despite all the dire warnings from the government, the people still
voted to leave.  It follows that they voted to leave if necessary
with no deal.
Nobody voted to leave with no deal. It wasn't on the ballot paper.
Both sides were predicting that a deal would have to be made.
You can believe your own lies but no one else does. Absolutely
pathetic.
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Yellow
2019-08-08 12:12:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
Yes we did.

Loading Image...
Ian Jackson
2019-08-08 13:28:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would
only leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
I'm sure that there were many claims that "We will get a better deal
from the EU than the one we have at the moment" - to which the EU kept
replying "Oh no you won't!".
--
Ian
abelard
2019-08-08 13:38:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:28:35 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would
only leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
I'm sure that there were many claims that "We will get a better deal
from the EU than the one we have at the moment" - to which the EU kept
replying "Oh no you won't!".
"many" and "the eu" are not persons....

hence 'they' 'say' and 'said nothing
--
www.abelard.org
Gladys Street-Porter
2019-08-08 19:01:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's
"assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm
guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
It's fascinating how Remoaners tie themselves in knots trying to present
concerns about democracy and the electorate when their overriding concern is to
overturn a democratic referendum where the electorate were given a say.
The electorate never voted for a No Deal Brexit.
It was always clear from the Leave publicity material that we would
only leave when we had a deal.
It's fascinating how Leave supporters prefer to brush that under the
carpet and pretend that "leave without a deal" somehow trumps "wait
until we have a deal".
Pure lies and nonsense, you do yourself no favours spouting tripe like
this.
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Keema's Nan
2019-08-08 11:16:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Yes, the Guardian appears to be spreading the rumours.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Are a PM's 'advisers' ever elected? Just curious, but I'm guessing the
answer is 'rarely'.
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-08-08 11:30:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
You're probably reading something a bit histrionic; but it's true that
these 'enforcers' have a reputation for toughness. :-)
Yes, the Guardian appears to be spreading the rumours.
ISTM that if you're going to appoint such people, you'd want them to be
somewhat 'assertive' :-) TBH, from the small bits I've seen of
Cummings, he seems a bit unsure of himself. I'd want someone much more
confident.
Stephen Cole
2019-08-08 09:38:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
Dominic Cummings comes across as so highly strung that he’s almost certain
to catastrophically blow a fuse at some point and either chin someone or
have an aneurysm. Either way, I think his Number 10 career will be measured
in weeks rather than months.
--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur
The Todal
2019-08-08 09:58:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Nigel Farage hates Cummings. Even though, one would think, they share
the same aims. I think Cummings disrespected Farage and tried to
sideline him during the referendum campaign.

Cummings is an odd choice as adviser to the Prime Minister. He is not
camera-friendly, loathes journalists, loathes Commons select committees
and is focused only on ways of achieving victory for his cause. Still,
Boris can provide the camera-friendly soundbites which mean nothing.
Yellow
2019-08-08 12:26:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Nigel Farage hates Cummings. Even though, one would think, they share
the same aims. I think Cummings disrespected Farage and tried to
sideline him during the referendum campaign.
Cummings is an odd choice as adviser to the Prime Minister. He is not
camera-friendly, loathes journalists, loathes Commons select committees
and is focused only on ways of achieving victory for his cause. Still,
Boris can provide the camera-friendly soundbites which mean nothing.
According to the film where Cumberbatch plays Cummings, the polling
showed that whenever Farage 'campaigned' nationwide support for leave
actually fell.

No idea if that was true or a "some scenes are made up for dramatic
affect" but it might give some insight in to Cummings and Farage's
relationship and why Cummings did not want Farage or Arron Banks
associated with the campaign he ran.
The Iceberg
2019-08-08 10:12:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
we know the EUSSR is run by an unelected president and you hate Britain, as you'd sell us out just for want of a nice high-paying EUSSR job.
RH156RH
2019-08-08 13:52:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Translation: traitorous remainers are being thwarted... RH
MM
2019-08-08 17:18:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 06:52:27 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
MM
Translation: traitorous remainers are being thwarted... RH
Seems like Boris hasn't achieved much in the two weeks since he became
PM. Was he lying about 31 October all along?

MM
tim...
2019-08-10 14:15:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Increasingly, I read about the "reign of terror" now under way in
Number 10 since Dominic Cummings took over as Johnson's "assistant",
i.e. enforcer.
Is Dom becoming too big for his unelected boots? And what do Brexiters
say now about the sovereignty of Parliament to which Cummings has not
been elected, but is calling most of the shots? Or is a coup taking
place before our very eyes?
This is hardly new though is it

Tony B Liar surrounded himself with advisers who had the effective position
of deputy PM, but who were completely unelected

Loading...