ml1dch

c/o Popbitch "I'm afraid to tell you that you are suffering from auto correct syndrome" "Really? I didn't even know I was I'll"

I admit I'm not following this as forensically as I could be so may well be wrong, but I didn't think that "what the substance was" is really disputed, even amongst the wilder and more fringe theories about what happened, no?

Is it? Tony Blair wasn't at Prince Edward's wedding and I don't think anybody gave the tiniest toss. On a list of "embarrassments and PR disasters of the current Conservative government", I don't think this is going scrape into the top couple of hundred.

That's definitely the big problem with knife crime. (sorry)

He wasn't. He was a mumbling, bumbling lightweight immediately after the referendum.

The Spectator (whose podcasts are surprisingly competent and even-handed) have a half hour interview between Andrew Neil and David Davis available to download. Having listened to it, we're properly buggered. I think the man's dimwitted guffaws are probably scratched into my brain, they were so frequent when the alternative was to admit he didn't know the answer to the question.

To be fair to David Davis though, back then he didn't even know that we couldn't go and do a separate trade deal with Germany or that Ireland wouldn't automatically be leaving with us. So the chap has been on a pretty steep learning curve over the last couple of years.

I'd say that's a pretty sticky line of defence. Some Jewish people not having a problem, doesn't mean that l those that do have a problem shouldn't say so. "My Indian mate said he wasn't offended by the joke, so I don't see why all those other people are now calling me a racist"

The mechanism just isn't there for it to happen. Remember last time it took six months just for the wording of the question to be decided upon. In the next twelve months any motion for this would need to go through three readings (in both houses), committee stage and report stage (in both houses) and consideration of amendments (how placid and agreeable about this do you think Rees-Mogg, Baker et al will be?), and finally it passes. Maybe. Last time there was six months between this stage and the date of the referendum to sort out the administration and campaigning. That needs to all be put into motion by two parties who are so against all this that people get fired for saying that this is a sensible course of action. And that's before the unanswered question of whether we can even unilaterally scrap the whole thing comes back around. For the same reason that our customs infrastructure won't be ready in time, that our new trading arrangements won't be ready in time and our new immigration system won't be ready in time - there's just too much "stuff" that is needed to make it happen and not enough time to do it in. Even if they really wanted to, which they demonstrably don't.

Not really. Yes, it's an obvious scandal. But it's not something that is going to make a jot of difference to anything that's actually happening.

Minford and his bunch of illiterates endorsed it as well. To highlight, that's a Professor of Economics who couldn't spot (among numerous other things) that increasing £1 by 50% doesn't give you £2.

Owen Smith: "this Brexit stuff is a bit silly really, isn't it?" Jeremy Corbyn: "you're fired" I'm sure they're still just biding their time and waiting for opinion to move though.

And to save people from having to click the link - Daily Mail (just as it wasn't explicitly clear from the article)

Wolves were pretty dire when we played them the other week too.

The Germans do the same.

Technically, he agreed with a Labour MP who made the comparison in his question. Boris never brought the subject up. Doesn't mean they're not both bellends (also, they're not completely wrong to a certain extent), but it's hard to lay this particular piece of propaganda at ABDPJ's door.

Hating to be contrary for the second time in three posts, this isn't really all that embarrassing for the Brexity position. "We'd love to have given the contract to a British company. BRUSSELS say that while we are in the EU we legally have to go with the best bid, wherever they are from. This is why we need to take ba..." It feels like I'm going native.

The home of the in-laws. One island, 12,000 people, four surnames between them. You meet a few characters, that's for sure.

Given what most fishermen of my acquaintance look like, they could quite easily be the same organisation.

Two points, which I think are important for balance (as everyone who actually voted for this and is still paying attention is now rocking back and forth, crying into their pillow) 11,800 is the approximate number of fishermen. That's not the number who are employed by, or rely on the fishing industry which is a much higher figure. (to be disingenuous) It's a bit like saying that we don't need to worry about the airline industry because there aren't all that many pilots. Edit - a less disingenuous version, there not being all that many jockeys employed by the horse-racing industry. Also the argument, "there aren't really very many fishermen anyway". Plenty in those communities would answer: "we know. That's the effing point. There used to be a whole lot more, and we don't like what it's turned into". Balance added. As you were.

He's the guy who set up "Fishing For Leave".

I'll add another one. The number of coastal constituencies that return a Conservative MP, and the higher likelihood of mobilisation in that type of community to change that if they feel they are being screwed over by a Conservative Government. Scottish Conservative MPs know that they are toast if / when fishing isn't delivered to local satisfaction (and it won't be). So they need to shout from the rooftops in the hope that "we tried our best" will be good enough to keep their jobs.

To be brutally fair, it's really a bit of both.

Also worth noting, the vessel involved today spends most of its working life at the Port of Ramsgate. The pontoon system and service infrastructure of which was recently redeveloped with a grant from the European Fisheries Fund.

It's certainly not guaranteed by its existence. I don't think anybody would claim such a silly thing. But it comes off a bit like somebody loudly shouting that having a supporting wall isn't a guarantee that a house won't fall down, over the noise of them smashing it with a sledgehammer.