Latest BBC news reports seem to indicate that Treeza is going to call up reservist soldiers in the event that this miserable country ends up with a no-deal Brexit (O how I loathe that word!).
It's been a while since we had a revolution......
Yes, yes - I know. Be careful what you wish for, but really - is there no other way of ridding ourselves of this shower of self-serving, treacly-mouthed, racist creeps?
Any reason whatsoever actually. Anything that is not just ridiculous (like plugs).
Not a thing.
Border control?
The ability to make trade deals with whoever we want, and in our own interests rather than those of the whole continent?
Freedom from EU rules and laws?
Not having to pay into the EU?
Are these not reasons, or are they reasons you consider to be just ridiculous? Or have you honestly never heard any of them before?
Border control?
The ability to make trade deals with whoever we want, and in our own interests rather than those of the whole continent?
Freedom from EU rules and laws?
Not having to pay into the EU?
Are these not reasons, or are they reasons you consider to be just ridiculous? Or have you honestly never heard any of them before?
We can already do (a), just that we choose not to.
(b) and (c) indicate that there are somehow things that we could have, like lower environmental, labour and consumer standards, that would be inexplicably beneficial to the general British population.
(d) indicates the belief that we're not richer being in the EU than we would be outside it.
Sure, okay. They're comprehensible, they're just not very good.
Again, sure, if you think that worse conditions for everyone and most people being poorer is 'good'.
I guess if you're one of the tiny number of people who won't end up poorer and can insulate yourself from the environment, labour laws, bad food and crappy consumer protection, then yes, those things would be 'good'.
But I'm not a sociopathic millionaire, and neither are 99% of the country.
Any reason whatsoever actually. Anything that is not just ridiculous (like plugs).
Not a thing.
Border control?
The ability to make trade deals with whoever we want, and in our own interests rather than those of the whole continent?
Freedom from EU rules and laws?
Not having to pay into the EU?
Are these not reasons, or are they reasons you consider to be just ridiculous? Or have you honestly never heard any of them before?
I have heard these at various times. Not cogently argued.
Particulalry, I have not really heard any argumetns as to why these are positives? OK, not having to pay into the EU will save us money short term. But, as is becoming clear, our economy benefits by vast amounts more than we pay in, so that seems like a good deal.
Any reason whatsoever actually. Anything that is not just ridiculous (like plugs).
Not a thing.
Border control?
The ability to make trade deals with whoever we want, and in our own interests rather than those of the whole continent?
Freedom from EU rules and laws?
Not having to pay into the EU?
Are these not reasons, or are they reasons you consider to be just ridiculous? Or have you honestly never heard any of them before?
Ok, border control. I guess we can lock out EU migrants, but do we want to face the reality of thousands of British retirees returning?
Trade deals. Potentially sounds attractive - until one realises those deals will take years and we are competing with the EU. Why would anyone want to give us a more advantageous deal? Ok we might lower standards. But if we have little access to a market outside of our 65 million people, then any potential trade partner would have to really, really want to access the British market. I'm not sure there are potential partners clambering over themselves to do that.
Freedom from EU laws and regulations. Ok, but in return we will have to set up our own regulations. We can't simply turn into a system without regulation. If anyone wants to export to the EU, they'd have to keep to EU standards anyway.
Not having to pay into the EU. Ok, but under any option we are going to have to pay. And who is going to pay for the things that were previously covered by EU structural funds, research grants, etc and so on? Ok we put a bit in (not really a lot compared to the amounts spent on social security to be really honest) but we got quite a lot out.
Empty rhetoric does not become an argument, however frequently repeated. Likewise, it is never possible to take back what was not taken away, as in the case of borders: powers not used can only be taken up, not taken back.
Self-comforting bullshit for the lazy bewildered may serve a purpose, but if it drives our national future, we are lost.
That's the reality. Sugar coat it til you're blue in the face, but in terms of governing, of actually directing the future of the country, you're serving no-one.
This in no way takes away the guilt of those who have conspired to make the currently prevalent version of global capitalism far more friendly to super-companies than it is to people, or the need to swing the pendulum back in the direction of meeting people's needs to build communities and belong to them, but these are totally different issues from the empty brexiteer slogans, which are simply distractions from their ambitions to further increase the control of corporate capital over our lives.
Any reason whatsoever actually. Anything that is not just ridiculous (like plugs).
Not a thing.
Border control?
The ability to make trade deals with whoever we want, and in our own interests rather than those of the whole continent?
Freedom from EU rules and laws?
Not having to pay into the EU?
Are these not reasons, or are they reasons you consider to be just ridiculous? Or have you honestly never heard any of them before?
I know others have responded. I think I am going to end up writing a few posts about this. This is why Remainers end up being accused of being patronising. The thing is none of these make any sense when you dig deeper.
I am going to start with this one: Freedom from EU rules and laws
Before I do, I want to take a quick detour.
A few years ago there was a lot of fuss about the value of Benefits. Quite apart from the fact that the correct term is welfare, this argument is problematic. It entirely reasonable to believe that benefits are too high, provided you know their actual value. I.e. the argument I think umemployement benefit if ridiculous, I mean £150/week for not working.... makes the speaker look like an idiot. If you think benefits are much higher than they actually are then it is simply unreasonable to believe they are too high. Whilst everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not all opinions deserve the same respect.
This was the case with this particular argument - and the same applies to wanting 'freedom from EU laws' - for this to make sense then you have to justify it in one of two ways:
1) By naming an EU Law or rule that actually is a problem. I think actually given the benefits of the EU, to make this a valid argument, one would need lots. Thus far I have yet to meet anyone who has used this argument who can name even one. The closest people get is the perceived 'rules' which are myths.
2) On principle, you believe that UK sovereignty means we should never adopt rules from elsewhere. This has a few issues with it. Firstly EU rules and laws are all subject to scrutiny by the UK parliament and they are worked out cooperatively and hence the UK plays a very large part in writing them.
But the biggest issue here is that you can have that kind of 'pure' sovereignty if you want but if you do, then you can never have any trade deals. By definition, a trade deal is an agreed set of rules, regulations and standards between one or more nation with some form of super-national arbitration mechanism. Now, once again everyone who argues for 'Freedom from EU law' is apparently pro- Trade Deals with the rest of the world. You can hold one or the other but not both.
Each of the 'reasons' suffer from the same problem: they are great soundbites but not at all reasonable when examined properly. So yes, they are ridiculous.
AFZ
P.S. When I have time, I will deconstruct the rest.
Although, those points (and similar) have been deconstructed many, many times over the last few years. We've been pointing out the stupidity of the soundbite arguments for Brexshit 'til we're blue in the face and get nothing more than "it's taking back control" - and, look where that got us! Treeza is really in control, isn't she? Parliament has to wait another month to debate what should have been debated years ago. The people are denied the opportunity to cast a properly informed vote. The country is in a bus heading at full speed to a cliff, the passengers crowding up to tell the driver to stop the bus, and the driver has left the cab to tell the passengers to get behind the line.
Treeza is really in control, isn't she? Parliament has to wait another month to debate what should have been debated years ago.
I agree that this looks like an abuse of her position and contempt of Parliament.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
She wants the House to accept the deal on the table. They can kick and scream all they like. Her end-game is obvious; it will be "this deal" or "over the cliff we go". Plus "if you don't like that, show me what you are going to do about it".
I agree with the objective but dislike the tactics. I saw the Commons were debating something to do with Mental Capacity the other evening. At first I thought it might be theirs.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
I don't think it's mental capacity, just modern political small-mindedness. They are all walled in by party political constraints. So far as the national interest is concerned, well surely it is served by the success of the party? Or so far too many of them think.
Who will carry the lamp in the daytime, looking for an honest man?
We have control of our borders already. Freedom of movement within the EU means freedom to move for work. If you've not found a job within 3 months, you can be chucked out and refused access to the benefits system. Most EU countries have some kind of checks and balances to stop people taking the piss. Except one ... The UK never applied any of those rules.
Net migration from outside the EU - which we have total control of - is higher than from within the EU.
The rest will be similar to the hostile environment that Teresa started. It's quite something to hear the child of migrants supporting policies that mean his parents would have been refused entry to the UK.
The ability to make trade deals with whoever we want, and in our own interests rather than those of the whole continent?
Other countries work in exactly the same way. (Something that is going to come as a huge shock to some who seem to think the world owes them something for being English / British). They will do a trade deal with us - once we've sorted out stuff with the WTO - if it's in their interests. We're unlikely to get as good a deal as we got via the EU as we're not a big a market as them and we're going to be totally desperate.
Freedom from EU rules and laws?
Up to a point. If you want to sell into a country, your goods and services will need to comply with their laws and standards even if they're different to yours.
Not having to pay into the EU?
That's about the only thing. Although the benefits the UK gets out - in terms of jobs, investments, grants etc - are greater than what we pay in.
OTH, even if you think those things are important, they don't put food on your table or keep the roof over your head. Judging from today's announcements, shit is going to get real.
Although, those points (and similar) have been deconstructed many, many times over the last few years. We've been pointing out the stupidity of the soundbite arguments for Brexshit 'til we're blue in the face and get nothing more than "it's taking back control" - and, look where that got us! Treeza is really in control, isn't she? Parliament has to wait another month to debate what should have been debated years ago. The people are denied the opportunity to cast a properly informed vote. The country is in a bus heading at full speed to a cliff, the passengers crowding up to tell the driver to stop the bus, and the driver has left the cab to tell the passengers to get behind the line.
Good summary. She's assuming a kind of bonapartist position, seemingly elevated above the political scrum, and disdainful of it. She knows what the people want, always a dangerous claim. In some ways, it's clever, but ruinous of democracy. No need for that, except in sound-bites.
It is ok to look at and analyse the reasons for leaving as people are, but the plain truth is we need a government we trust to make them work. They mean nothing without a government who will not have self seeking cronyism at it’s heart. Alas I would say this government is not one.
Although, those points (and similar) have been deconstructed many, many times over the last few years. We've been pointing out the stupidity of the soundbite arguments for Brexshit 'til we're blue in the face and get nothing more than "it's taking back control" - and, look where that got us! Treeza is really in control, isn't she? Parliament has to wait another month to debate what should have been debated years ago. The people are denied the opportunity to cast a properly informed vote. The country is in a bus heading at full speed to a cliff, the passengers crowding up to tell the driver to stop the bus, and the driver has left the cab to tell the passengers to get behind the line.
Not only are the people denied an opportunity to cast a properly informed vote, but Parliament is being denied this too. I'm convinced that the government (I'm not falling for the idea that it's Mrs May alone: the whole shower are culpable) have decided on a policy of brinkmanship to get the 585-page deal through, although I do wonder if the EU27 will vote to accept it before Britain has done so.
As for making 3,500 troops available: do we have that many troops at hand? Something like 8,000 soldiers are deployed outside the UK and it appears that some reservists will have to be called up to make up the numbers. We have about 27,000 full-time soldiers so 3,500 makes a fair dent in that when training, leave and non-operational rotation is taken into account.
The very suggestion of calling up troops, whether regulars or reservists, surely indicates that the 'government' (sic) has truly Lost The Plot.
The son-in-law of a friend is a serving soldier - I wonder what his (the soldier's) thoughts might be? I shall enquire...
The recent exchanges in Parliament, with Corbyn (according to some - it's difficult to tell, as his remark was sotto voce) calling Treeza a 'stupid woman' shows the depths to which we have sunk.
If he did say that, he is, of course, Right, but Repulsive (due acknowledgments to Sellars & Yeatman). Not that the 'government' is Wrong, but Wromantic, you understand.
The very suggestion of calling up troops, whether regulars or reservists, surely indicates that the 'government' (sic) has truly Lost The Plot.
The son-in-law of a friend is a serving soldier - I wonder what his (the soldier's) thoughts might be? I shall enquire...
The recent exchanges in Parliament, with Corbyn (according to some - it's difficult to tell, as his remark was sotto voce) calling Treeza a 'stupid woman' shows the depths to which we have sunk.
If he did say that, he is, of course, Right, but Repulsive (due acknowledgments to Sellars & Yeatman). Not that the 'government' is Wrong, but Wromantic, you understand.
It wasn't wise for Corbyn to call the PM a "Stupid woman". She has done some stupid things, and wouldn't recognise the Right Thing To Do if it was delivered to her on a baseball bat. I do wonder who is advising her. Corbyn OTOH continues to look muddled and indecisive, and this at a time when a capable Leader of the Opposition should be making mincemeat of his opposite number (and filling up pies to be fed back to her own party).
The very suggestion of calling up troops, whether regulars or reservists, surely indicates that the 'government' (sic) has truly Lost The Plot.
The son-in-law of a friend is a serving soldier - I wonder what his (the soldier's) thoughts might be? I shall enquire...
The recent exchanges in Parliament, with Corbyn (according to some - it's difficult to tell, as his remark was sotto voce) calling Treeza a 'stupid woman' shows the depths to which we have sunk.
If he did say that, he is, of course, Right, but Repulsive (due acknowledgments to Sellars & Yeatman). Not that the 'government' is Wrong, but Wromantic, you understand.
It wasn't wise for Corbyn to call the PM a "Stupid woman". She has done some stupid things, and wouldn't recognise the Right Thing To Do if it was delivered to her on a baseball bat. I do wonder who is advising her. Corbyn OTOH continues to look muddled and indecisive, and this at a time when a capable Leader of the Opposition should be making mincemeat of his opposite number (and filling up pies to be fed back to her own party).
Sadly, all too true, but the phrase 'a capable Leader of the Opposition' also appears to be an oxymoron.
O well. At my age, I haven't got much longer to witness the unedifying end of this once-great nation, but I do feel sorry for the poor and disadvantaged who will be left behind to cope with the fallout. The Tory mega-rich bar-stewards, OTOH, will, I hope, find a nice hot circle of Hell in due course.
It wasn't wise for Corbyn to call the PM a "Stupid woman". She has done some stupid things
Whether he said "stupid woman" or "stupid people" doesn't really change the fact that while given an opportunity to give intelligent and considered replies to the questions put to her, Mrs May instead chose to make stupid comments about pantomimes, and members on both sides behaved in a stupid manner as they joined in. It, of course, happens every PMQ. The whole House shows itself as a bunch of stupid people, turning what should be the serious and considered answering of questions into a pantomime whatever the time of the year. Rank stupidity. And, an embarrassment to what could be an exemplar of representative democracy.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
I can't believe it. We now have Stupidgate on top of all our other woes.
I thought Mrs May's pantomime jibes were indeed stupid. At the very best, an exercise in cheap pointscoring was pretty inappropriate given the seriousness of the issue.
He should have just admitted it and apologised. Killed the issue dead.
And if he didn’t say it? It certainly looks to me like he said ‘people’. And since that’s what he says he said, I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt. If he did actually say ‘woman’ it was astonishingly quick PR to come up with another word that fits his lip-sync perfectly.
Pierre Trudeau was once caught muttering 'fuck off' to John Diefenbaker in the Canadian House of Commons; when challenged on his unparliamentary language he claimed he had merely said Fuddle Duddle, and so Fuddle Duddle became something of a political phrase in Canada for a while.
Is May stupid, or something worse? Deliberately damaging your country when you know full well that that's what you're doing comes damned close to treason in my book.
Honestly I have seen 4 year olds behave better. Corbyn is an experienced MP. He is not going to be so stupid as to say something like Stupid Woman. Unless he was doing an impression of René from Allo Allo. That would have been fun.
Any reason whatsoever actually. Anything that is not just ridiculous (like plugs).
Not a thing.
Border control?
The ability to make trade deals with whoever we want, and in our own interests rather than those of the whole continent?
Freedom from EU rules and laws?
Not having to pay into the EU?
Are these not reasons, or are they reasons you consider to be just ridiculous? Or have you honestly never heard any of them before?
Just wanted to come back to this... I know, I know, I really should let this go but...
Not having to pay into the EU
The latest figures I can give you are for 2017. The UK's contribution to the EU is £13Bn / year with £4Bn coming back to the UK in various forms.
Hence membership of the EU costs the UK £9Bn.
Wanting to save £9Bn is a potential reason for leaving the EU but it's a ridiculous one.
There are direct savings from EU membership which run to millions and probably billions - things like cooperation on aviation regulation, car safety etc. etc.
The benefits of EU membership are difficult to be precise about but the lowest estimate starts at £50Bn.
So, for £9Bn spent, there is an extra £50Bn in the economy. That's a pretty good deal whichever way you look at it.
Also, it's possible to estimate the tax take from that which will be something like £20Bn. So, purely in terms of the public finances, EU membership costs the UK taxpayer -£11Bn (That's minus $11Bn). These are very crude estimates but I am certain that UK membership of the EU doesn't actually cost the taxpayer anything.
Hence, the point of all this, wanting to leave the EU to avoid paying-in is just stupid.
He should have just admitted it and apologised. Killed the issue dead.
And if he didn’t say it? It certainly looks to me like he said ‘people’. And since that’s what he says he said, I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt. If he did actually say ‘woman’ it was astonishingly quick PR to come up with another word that fits his lip-sync perfectly.
Really? Maybe its the power of suggestion then, because I thought it was obvious that he said stupid woman.
Really? Maybe its the power of suggestion then, because I thought it was obvious that he said stupid woman.
Well, yeah. The power of suggestion can be pretty strong. See.
Both words are three mouth shapes. The middle one is indistinguishable (M/B/P). An anunciated W has an ‘o’ shape, but a muttered W has a wider mouth which is very similar to MBP, and an ‘L’ at the end of a words, and the general consonant shape at the end of ‘woman’ are also similar shapes - it’s just a slightly different tongue position. Muttering just makes it even harder to tell.
I’m not saying he didn’t say ‘woman’. It looks to me like he said ‘people’, though. It’s hard to tell for sure either way. But as Bercow said, you don’t just impugn someone, you take them at their word unless there is evidence to the contrary.
But this really shouldn’t have been the massive news story that it was, either way.
(Just to clarify, there are more than three mouth shapes in both words, as there are the vowel shapes that flow between them. But hopefully you get what I mean).
Partly I’m intrigued in this about the allegations of sexism. If it had been the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Corbyn had said, “Stupid man” would that have been sexist? If not, then why is “Stupid woman”? (Obviously it’s preferable not to be calling people stupid in the first place, but sometimes it’s a case of ‘If the cap fits…’)
But this really shouldn’t have been the massive news story that it was, either way.
Indeed, the big news stories from Parliament should have been from several days of MPs conducting mature, sensible discussions of EU membership, working towards meaningful votes on our national future. But, we don't have that because Treeza has decided to delay that by another month.
Partly I’m intrigued in this about the allegations of sexism. If it had been the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Corbyn had said, “Stupid man” would that have been sexist? If not, then why is “Stupid woman”? (Obviously it’s preferable not to be calling people stupid in the first place, but sometimes it’s a case of ‘If the cap fits…’)
I would argue that Stupid Woman is a problematic phrase because there is an unspoken tautology in it. What I mean by that is that most people hear it as well, of course, you are stupid: you're a woman, so you must be. Whether that's logical or not is beside the point. All communication is what is heard, not what is said. How connected those two things are is an endlessly fascinating topic. Hence it is a phrase to be avoided. Rightly or wrongly, stupid man does not necessarily carry the same connitations.
Three points I would like to make.
1) Lip-reading experts have claimed with certainty that he said 'Stupid woman.' Other lip-reading experts have claimed with equal certainty that he said 'Stupid people.'
2) As has been intimated above, the way Corbyn responded sounds real to me. To come up with 'stupid people' like that would be a bit odd and impressive PR. Something Corbyn is constantly being accused of having no ability to do. Moreover, he is looking across the Conservative benches as he says it in response to their pantomime antics as May refuses to answer real, vital questions on Brexit.
No sane person could disagree with that assessment of that segment of PMQs. Rude it may be, be it is also accurate.
3)What @Alan Cresswell said. There is no way this should be the story right now. There are proper issues. The opportunism and hypocrisy of the Conservative Party and media is as breathtaking as it is unsurprising.
Comments
Not a thing.
Reasons for staying - economic benefits, which are clear now, and freedom of movement, which is what has supported the NHS and our farming industry.
And I don't take the view that the EU is perfect, I want reform. But we have lost any chance to propose reform.
It's been a while since we had a revolution......
Yes, yes - I know. Be careful what you wish for, but really - is there no other way of ridding ourselves of this shower of self-serving, treacly-mouthed, racist creeps?
Border control?
The ability to make trade deals with whoever we want, and in our own interests rather than those of the whole continent?
Freedom from EU rules and laws?
Not having to pay into the EU?
Are these not reasons, or are they reasons you consider to be just ridiculous? Or have you honestly never heard any of them before?
We can already do (a), just that we choose not to.
(b) and (c) indicate that there are somehow things that we could have, like lower environmental, labour and consumer standards, that would be inexplicably beneficial to the general British population.
(d) indicates the belief that we're not richer being in the EU than we would be outside it.
Sure, okay. They're comprehensible, they're just not very good.
Which comes right back to the whole question of whose definition of “good” to use.
I guess if you're one of the tiny number of people who won't end up poorer and can insulate yourself from the environment, labour laws, bad food and crappy consumer protection, then yes, those things would be 'good'.
But I'm not a sociopathic millionaire, and neither are 99% of the country.
I have heard these at various times. Not cogently argued.
Particulalry, I have not really heard any argumetns as to why these are positives? OK, not having to pay into the EU will save us money short term. But, as is becoming clear, our economy benefits by vast amounts more than we pay in, so that seems like a good deal.
Ok, border control. I guess we can lock out EU migrants, but do we want to face the reality of thousands of British retirees returning?
Trade deals. Potentially sounds attractive - until one realises those deals will take years and we are competing with the EU. Why would anyone want to give us a more advantageous deal? Ok we might lower standards. But if we have little access to a market outside of our 65 million people, then any potential trade partner would have to really, really want to access the British market. I'm not sure there are potential partners clambering over themselves to do that.
Freedom from EU laws and regulations. Ok, but in return we will have to set up our own regulations. We can't simply turn into a system without regulation. If anyone wants to export to the EU, they'd have to keep to EU standards anyway.
Not having to pay into the EU. Ok, but under any option we are going to have to pay. And who is going to pay for the things that were previously covered by EU structural funds, research grants, etc and so on? Ok we put a bit in (not really a lot compared to the amounts spent on social security to be really honest) but we got quite a lot out.
Self-comforting bullshit for the lazy bewildered may serve a purpose, but if it drives our national future, we are lost.
That's the reality. Sugar coat it til you're blue in the face, but in terms of governing, of actually directing the future of the country, you're serving no-one.
This in no way takes away the guilt of those who have conspired to make the currently prevalent version of global capitalism far more friendly to super-companies than it is to people, or the need to swing the pendulum back in the direction of meeting people's needs to build communities and belong to them, but these are totally different issues from the empty brexiteer slogans, which are simply distractions from their ambitions to further increase the control of corporate capital over our lives.
I know others have responded. I think I am going to end up writing a few posts about this. This is why Remainers end up being accused of being patronising. The thing is none of these make any sense when you dig deeper.
I am going to start with this one: Freedom from EU rules and laws
Before I do, I want to take a quick detour.
A few years ago there was a lot of fuss about the value of Benefits. Quite apart from the fact that the correct term is welfare, this argument is problematic. It entirely reasonable to believe that benefits are too high, provided you know their actual value. I.e. the argument I think umemployement benefit if ridiculous, I mean £150/week for not working.... makes the speaker look like an idiot. If you think benefits are much higher than they actually are then it is simply unreasonable to believe they are too high. Whilst everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not all opinions deserve the same respect.
This was the case with this particular argument - and the same applies to wanting 'freedom from EU laws' - for this to make sense then you have to justify it in one of two ways:
1) By naming an EU Law or rule that actually is a problem. I think actually given the benefits of the EU, to make this a valid argument, one would need lots. Thus far I have yet to meet anyone who has used this argument who can name even one. The closest people get is the perceived 'rules' which are myths.
2) On principle, you believe that UK sovereignty means we should never adopt rules from elsewhere. This has a few issues with it. Firstly EU rules and laws are all subject to scrutiny by the UK parliament and they are worked out cooperatively and hence the UK plays a very large part in writing them.
But the biggest issue here is that you can have that kind of 'pure' sovereignty if you want but if you do, then you can never have any trade deals. By definition, a trade deal is an agreed set of rules, regulations and standards between one or more nation with some form of super-national arbitration mechanism. Now, once again everyone who argues for 'Freedom from EU law' is apparently pro- Trade Deals with the rest of the world. You can hold one or the other but not both.
Each of the 'reasons' suffer from the same problem: they are great soundbites but not at all reasonable when examined properly. So yes, they are ridiculous.
AFZ
P.S. When I have time, I will deconstruct the rest.
Who will carry the lamp in the daytime, looking for an honest man?
Border control?
We have control of our borders already. Freedom of movement within the EU means freedom to move for work. If you've not found a job within 3 months, you can be chucked out and refused access to the benefits system. Most EU countries have some kind of checks and balances to stop people taking the piss. Except one ... The UK never applied any of those rules.
Net migration from outside the EU - which we have total control of - is higher than from within the EU.
The rest will be similar to the hostile environment that Teresa started. It's quite something to hear the child of migrants supporting policies that mean his parents would have been refused entry to the UK.
The ability to make trade deals with whoever we want, and in our own interests rather than those of the whole continent?
Other countries work in exactly the same way. (Something that is going to come as a huge shock to some who seem to think the world owes them something for being English / British). They will do a trade deal with us - once we've sorted out stuff with the WTO - if it's in their interests. We're unlikely to get as good a deal as we got via the EU as we're not a big a market as them and we're going to be totally desperate.
Freedom from EU rules and laws?
Up to a point. If you want to sell into a country, your goods and services will need to comply with their laws and standards even if they're different to yours.
Not having to pay into the EU?
That's about the only thing. Although the benefits the UK gets out - in terms of jobs, investments, grants etc - are greater than what we pay in.
OTH, even if you think those things are important, they don't put food on your table or keep the roof over your head. Judging from today's announcements, shit is going to get real.
Good summary. She's assuming a kind of bonapartist position, seemingly elevated above the political scrum, and disdainful of it. She knows what the people want, always a dangerous claim. In some ways, it's clever, but ruinous of democracy. No need for that, except in sound-bites.
Not only are the people denied an opportunity to cast a properly informed vote, but Parliament is being denied this too. I'm convinced that the government (I'm not falling for the idea that it's Mrs May alone: the whole shower are culpable) have decided on a policy of brinkmanship to get the 585-page deal through, although I do wonder if the EU27 will vote to accept it before Britain has done so.
As for making 3,500 troops available: do we have that many troops at hand? Something like 8,000 soldiers are deployed outside the UK and it appears that some reservists will have to be called up to make up the numbers. We have about 27,000 full-time soldiers so 3,500 makes a fair dent in that when training, leave and non-operational rotation is taken into account.
The son-in-law of a friend is a serving soldier - I wonder what his (the soldier's) thoughts might be? I shall enquire...
The recent exchanges in Parliament, with Corbyn (according to some - it's difficult to tell, as his remark was sotto voce) calling Treeza a 'stupid woman' shows the depths to which we have sunk.
If he did say that, he is, of course, Right, but Repulsive (due acknowledgments to Sellars & Yeatman). Not that the 'government' is Wrong, but Wromantic, you understand.
It wasn't wise for Corbyn to call the PM a "Stupid woman". She has done some stupid things, and wouldn't recognise the Right Thing To Do if it was delivered to her on a baseball bat. I do wonder who is advising her. Corbyn OTOH continues to look muddled and indecisive, and this at a time when a capable Leader of the Opposition should be making mincemeat of his opposite number (and filling up pies to be fed back to her own party).
Sadly, all too true, but the phrase 'a capable Leader of the Opposition' also appears to be an oxymoron.
O well. At my age, I haven't got much longer to witness the unedifying end of this once-great nation, but I do feel sorry for the poor and disadvantaged who will be left behind to cope with the fallout. The Tory mega-rich bar-stewards, OTOH, will, I hope, find a nice hot circle of Hell in due course.
For all his faults (and which of us has none?), Corbyn is a far more appealing candidate for PM.....
IMHO.
YMMV.
I thought Mrs May's pantomime jibes were indeed stupid. At the very best, an exercise in cheap pointscoring was pretty inappropriate given the seriousness of the issue.
One for the quotes file?
AFZ
And my Twitter is filled with things that Tories have said about Labour MPs. Like Cunt and Bitch.
They are a disgrace. The Tetley Chimps had more decorum.
And if he didn’t say it? It certainly looks to me like he said ‘people’. And since that’s what he says he said, I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt. If he did actually say ‘woman’ it was astonishingly quick PR to come up with another word that fits his lip-sync perfectly.
Is May stupid, or something worse? Deliberately damaging your country when you know full well that that's what you're doing comes damned close to treason in my book.
Just wanted to come back to this... I know, I know, I really should let this go but...
Not having to pay into the EU
The latest figures I can give you are for 2017. The UK's contribution to the EU is £13Bn / year with £4Bn coming back to the UK in various forms.
Hence membership of the EU costs the UK £9Bn.
Wanting to save £9Bn is a potential reason for leaving the EU but it's a ridiculous one.
There are direct savings from EU membership which run to millions and probably billions - things like cooperation on aviation regulation, car safety etc. etc.
The benefits of EU membership are difficult to be precise about but the lowest estimate starts at £50Bn.
So, for £9Bn spent, there is an extra £50Bn in the economy. That's a pretty good deal whichever way you look at it.
Also, it's possible to estimate the tax take from that which will be something like £20Bn. So, purely in terms of the public finances, EU membership costs the UK taxpayer -£11Bn (That's minus $11Bn). These are very crude estimates but I am certain that UK membership of the EU doesn't actually cost the taxpayer anything.
Hence, the point of all this, wanting to leave the EU to avoid paying-in is just stupid.
AFZ
Really? Maybe its the power of suggestion then, because I thought it was obvious that he said stupid woman.
Both words are three mouth shapes. The middle one is indistinguishable (M/B/P). An anunciated W has an ‘o’ shape, but a muttered W has a wider mouth which is very similar to MBP, and an ‘L’ at the end of a words, and the general consonant shape at the end of ‘woman’ are also similar shapes - it’s just a slightly different tongue position. Muttering just makes it even harder to tell.
I’m not saying he didn’t say ‘woman’. It looks to me like he said ‘people’, though. It’s hard to tell for sure either way. But as Bercow said, you don’t just impugn someone, you take them at their word unless there is evidence to the contrary.
But this really shouldn’t have been the massive news story that it was, either way.
I would argue that Stupid Woman is a problematic phrase because there is an unspoken tautology in it. What I mean by that is that most people hear it as well, of course, you are stupid: you're a woman, so you must be. Whether that's logical or not is beside the point. All communication is what is heard, not what is said. How connected those two things are is an endlessly fascinating topic. Hence it is a phrase to be avoided. Rightly or wrongly, stupid man does not necessarily carry the same connitations.
Three points I would like to make.
1) Lip-reading experts have claimed with certainty that he said 'Stupid woman.' Other lip-reading experts have claimed with equal certainty that he said 'Stupid people.'
2) As has been intimated above, the way Corbyn responded sounds real to me. To come up with 'stupid people' like that would be a bit odd and impressive PR. Something Corbyn is constantly being accused of having no ability to do. Moreover, he is looking across the Conservative benches as he says it in response to their pantomime antics as May refuses to answer real, vital questions on Brexit.
No sane person could disagree with that assessment of that segment of PMQs. Rude it may be, be it is also accurate.
3)What @Alan Cresswell said. There is no way this should be the story right now. There are proper issues. The opportunism and hypocrisy of the Conservative Party and media is as breathtaking as it is unsurprising.
AFZ