Jump to content

ml1dch

Full Members
  • Content Count

    2,738
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

ml1dch last won the day on October 29 2018

ml1dch had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,895 Excellent

About ml1dch

  • Rank
    First Team

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. All very interesting links, thanks - let's hope we get to find out whether political theory and political reality match up sooner rather than later.
  2. I've read and re-read this and still don't really understand what you mean. No-deal is ruled out and then leave is put up against leave? Is it just a typo or have I missed something?
  3. Obviously we're all fumbling in the dark, as it's never had to happen before (I think?). But ultimately, a Government is nothing more than the biggest group of elected MPs who are happy to (broadly) vote together. The day that a group of MPs who are happy to say "we want Jeremy Corbyn to sit on that side of the chamber rather than Theresa May" is big enough to vote for that, is the day that she doesn't get a choice in the matter anymore. Although writing that last paragraph made the whole thing feel very far away again...
  4. I don't think it's quite the case that nobody is sure what happens. There are fourteen days in which other parties can attempt to form a Government that has the confidence of the house. So Corbyn tries. Presumably those Europhile Tories are doing this with an aim beyond "just ditch May and hang the consequences". So on day one, you could have a rag-tag coalition of everyone but the DUP and most of the Conservatives, forming a short-term Government with the backing of a dozen or so Tories (immolating their political careers in the process) who say that the support in a confidence motion is dependent on an A50 revocation and an immediate General Election. Which I reckon Corbyn would go for, given the "prize" of the latter part. But are Flint, Mann etc going to back even this nuclear plan? I'd guess probably not.
  5. I spent a very pleasant few hours today strolling around the Water Gardens of Dorne. Nowhere near as many breasts, skirmishes or attempted rescues of Stockholm-syndromed princesses as the show would lead you to believe.
  6. It's worse than that. Let's say it eventually hits 5m signatures. The response will be "11m who originally wanted that must have changed their mind then". It provides evidence for the exact opposite thing that they want, unless it hits the figure Chris refers to.
  7. It was a curious tactic. Appeal directly to the public who you've been surprisingly honest about saying will have no input for the rest of this process, while putting all the blame at the feet of the MPs who you desperately need to perform a U-turn at great personal cost to support you. *slow hand-clap*
  8. There are two things that are important - the legal and the practical. The legal "has that microwave lasagne been produced under the auspices of EU regulation where each step of the process has been underpinned by structure and oversight?" (1) and the practical "is it actually filled with hormone treated rat meat and the toenails of deported asylum seekers so they can flood our marketplace with substandard products?" (2) I expect that in a practical "what do the EU actually do about this in two weeks time" sense, you basically do two things: First, you go full Trump and do Article XXI of GATT (a different article to one to the one that Farage bangs on about): ...nothing in this Agreement shall be construed . . . to prevent any contracting party from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests . . . taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations It's not a long-term solution, but works until someone important kicks off about it. And you're unlikely to have the US kicking off about something that Ireland wants. Diaspora etc. So you suspend your checks on the immediate border until you're actually concerned about (2) above. Second, you state that any UK-sourced product used by Irish businesses needs to be able to demonstrate that full tariffs have been paid and full regulatory compliance has been met (with the burden of proof being on the Irish business), with spot checks and penalties for non-compliance. Basically prevent it being in the interest of Irish companies to source goods of any sort from the north or the rest of the UK. Pretty horrible solution for everyone involved. And that paragraph above basically shits all over the the spirit of the Belfast Agreement. But crucially not the legality of it. But then they're having to clear up someone else's dopey mess, so there's bound to be mess to be cleared up. And as long as the world knows that the blame is situated in Westminster, not Brussels or Dublin then they make do.
  9. I wouldn't worry about that - in the event of a crash-out, that'll probably be massively in surplus. We export huge amounts every spring after lambing season, and in a crash-out we won't be an authorised export of animal produce to the EU. So there will be huge stocks of it, and nothing but a domestic market to sell it in. So prices will tank, meaning really cheap lamb for a couple of months. Then hundreds of sheep farmers going out of business, so very expensive lamb in the future. So your cost-effective looting will be next year.
  10. Well no - but the likely result is another vote on her shabby little deal which passes as There Is No Alternative. And the narrative magically changes into her being the hero that delivered Brexit against the odds and a massive boost in the polls.
  11. They're one of only four on there I've ever even heard of. Sort-of-thanks to you, I'm now in a YouTube rabbit-hole of what a Candlewick Green is. (with apologies to all for side tracking the sort of thread that shouldn't really be side tracked).
  12. Without wanting to be flippant (I also have a four year old and a one year old, and have had many a melancholic night when I've pondered whether this is a world worth bringing children into, but I always end up on the side of), this is no different to how it has always been. Assuming you're aged between 30 and 45 (as I am, and the age of your child would indicate), our parents brought us here under the real and plausible threat of an imminent nuclear wasteland. My parents were both conceived at a point when it was a bit of a coin-toss whether the Nazis would be in control of the country at the time of their birth. Going back another one, three or ten generations doesn't make the picture any brighter for the world that our ancestors were being raised in. The world has always been very shit, for a lot of people, and while very shit things happen to people who don't deserve it, it's not any more shit for our kids than it was for those who came before them, and us.
  13. Appears that she's helping my prediction by at least asking for the above.

×
×
  • Create New...
Â