blandy

Not intentionally so. A50 requires an agreement to be concluded. No ifs, buts, or maybes. You're right that if one isn't concluded, a breach of what A50 requires, then "No deal" as people call it happens. But that isn't really "no deal" because the very first thing that then has to happen for the world to function is "deal(s)" need to be agreed. It just means that we have less leverage to get better deals.

Like most posts on Brexit, there's a mixture of truth, sound opinion and less sound content in what you've written (mine are no doubt the same). You're dead right that parliament voted to trigger article 50 way back. That was a massive mistake (the timing, not the fact they did) because they did so before anyone had any idea what we (the UK) actually wanted - there were all kinds of views - be like Norway, be like Switzerland, be like Canada, stay in the CU and SM, leave the CU, but stay in the SM and so on. Parliament should have collectively worked out what we wanted, and then triggered A50. Article 50 though, doesn't at all say that "if you can't agree a deal you leave without one". What it says is And indeed they did exactly that. That was May's deal. Parliament then (rightly) said "that's a terrible deal, it's worse than remaining" and that was people like Rees Mogg and Johnson and so on, who were like you, desperate to leave. People who voted remain felt the same. It's why the ERG Brexit extremists voted against it. Since way back, there's been an election. Both Labour and the tories promised in their manifestos to leave with a deal. In the General election (democracy in action) people voted on the promise to leave with a deal (and everything else they all said. This re-inforced the "No deal was not what was promised" to the likes of us lot. We will lose some freedoms (and theoretically gain others) if we leave. Overall the country will by all measures and all assessments be worse off if we leave, however we do it. We're already worse off, though not as much as the remainers said at the time. People might think "it's worth it" or that "it's not worth it" - that's fine. In an ideal world Parliament would have sorted out, collectively, how to enact the narrow vote to leave, and then gone ahead and tried to get that. Instead May decided her personal version of what she wanted, and pursued that, despite all the objections of pretty much everyone else. And so here we are. Fustercluck, isn't it?

Yes, the BBC reporting I heard did say why both were there and didn't spin it into an ambush story at all. But what you heard was obviously different, and so they should have done better going on what you say. Even the tweets.

You're right. Nor is it the job of the BBC to keep pertinent information from us. They have clearly failed as per the QT examples. I feel that not revealing that the man was a politcal campaigner for (in this case) Labour would be wrong, particularly when he himself advertised that fact on his twitter, re the incident. Identifying "politican confronted by political opponent" is not "defending" the politician. The exchange video is available in full on the BBC website. I percieve that many Labour people kicking up a fuss about LK, or the BBC, rather than Johnson lying again, on camera, are helping distract from him lying. The actual news value of "man tells Johnson there are not enough staff on hospital ward" is low. It's possibly lower still when the man is a Labour campaigner. The News value is in Johnson lying again, surely. LK telling the truth in a tweet is seemingly more of a thing, for some. It seems oddly disproportionate to me. The BBC is biased towards the establishment and struggles to differentiate between "balance" and "truth" sometimes - some interviewers granting some politicians an easy ride, or programmes allowing non-experts to appear as experts, or their arguments to be given equal weight without any merit. In this instance, I don't think there's much if anything wrong - fail to report the man was an activist, and it's "bias", report the fact he is and it's "bias" - better to reveal the facts, than hide them I'd suggest. If people then go off on one and make the story about LK or the BBC rather than Johnson, then they help the tories, paradoxically.

I wonder if a background of Eton and all that, the way the path for everything has always been made ready for him, the privelege and so on, together with the ambition, has not just led to asense of such entitlement that in the vent things aren't as he would want them to be, he cannot accept that they are not that way. And that never having anyone say "no" to you doesn't lead to a feeling of "no consequences" for misdeeds and lies. Same with Trump. A life of guilded privelege doesn't lead, generally, to the same behaviours that other people learn and exhibit.

That’s a strange argument. It’s part of her job to communicate about things she’s at and covering. It’s not part of her job to communicate about pre recorded tv shows she’s not present at. And if the problem with QT was that people who were activists were being allowed to speak without us knowing at the time that they were activists, then surely LK reporting that someone is an activist, at the time, is right/better? If it was the other way round, and it was some throbby UKIPer or Tory talking to Corbz, wouldn't you want the BBC to repoprt that "the man haranguing Corbyn is a Tory activist"? - we're smart enough to be able to speperate a complaint from the politics of the person making it, aren't we? You can be both a Labour supporter and have experience of hospital staffing levels, or whatever. Because of the BBC need to demonstrate balance, when the man with the sick child outed himself as a Labour activist, she probably felt obligated to report that. Most sensible folk would be able to understand he was there because his son was ill, not because he votes or campaigns for whichever party. That his points to Johnson were regarding his sons treatment etc. All these angry twitter tramp folk going ape at LK are missing the point completely. PM lies on camera, NHS resourcing complaints - “I know let’s call LK names and get all self righteousness about her”

It’s a miss for me, Dave, I mean where’s the melody? It’s hardly Cliff Richard is it? No I can’t see the kids going down to their local Woolies and spending 3 and 6 on that platter.

That's not bad, actually. I like the motorik/Hawkwindy bits quite a lot.

A few Radio spares and an air conditoning box gubbins, apparently.

Quite. Happily I'm sure they'll have a new variation of a completely mad and non-credible policy to then fail to promote or explain very shortly.

He feels out of his element.

My prediction is that they would not do that. Once bitten, twice shy - they were eaten alive and almsot destroyed last time.. And to be fair to the LDs, they've always, always been pro Europe, pro EU. The tories are not remotely compatible with that stance any more. Labour too is a Leave party (at the moment, and for the moment, despite the efforts of the actual members and so on). Like you I can't see them doing a coalition with anyone, and I'm more sceptical that they'd co-operate formally with either the Toriest or with the Labours until Corbyn's (and any similar clown successors) are out the way.

He’s not that principled at all, IMO. Suicidally pig-headed - probably not quite that either, just so dim that he’s always miles behind where he should be, or 40 years behind.

Have I gone and been wrong again? oh heck! i clearly need to get a grip, otherwise this feeling silly business is going to be the ruin of little ol’ me. [edit] I wasn't wrong - that one Dave posted was shite , everybody else is wrong and they should stop giving it squillions of hits [/edit].

15 years old. Cripes!

As bonkers as that and she is, it's completely uttterly irrelevant to anything or anyone. There's not the remotest chance of either the LDs or Farage's personal Gravy train party ever going into coalition with the Jemery Corbyns. It's liking asking me "Salma Hayek or Kate Beckinsale".

They say that Dominic Cummins, Johnson's evil brexity advisor is really clever. I don't agree. I think at best you could call him Wise.

I wouldn't fret about it.

I may lead a sheltered life, but I don't "often hear" either of those things. I think the only few times I've heard anything remotely like that is when a Brexiter has taken something like Will Self's accusation to Mark Francois that "all racists voted leave" and then either through his own stupidity, or through inability to follow reason generally Francois said "How dare you call all Brexiteers racists". You're spot on about the tendency towards extreme accusations, and I think along with that there is a tendency not to actually read/listen to other people's points of view on all sides.

You could turn that round, too. why should we have the right to go and live and work in the EU, but not Zimbabwe? The answer of course is because the respective governments, elected by their people have chosen to co-operate in that way to further the benefit to our countries and people - and we get a lot of benefit from Bulgarian builders and so on. The EU says they have to find a job or have independent means of supporting themselves or they can be deported after 3 months, so it's not open ended, but if you or I want to go to France, Germany, Bulgaria etc to live and work, you can. That's a benefit, and you get NHS workers, plumbers, fruit pickers, Labourers and so on as well - jobs that need filling. That agreement doesn't exist for Zimbabwe. I get the argument treat all people the same, do a points based system or whatever, but ultimately it will still lead to immigration. There's not much wrong with the current situation, that the UK isn't perfectly able to fix, without leaving the EU. We could throw more people out, we could do an immigration type deal with India, Zimbabwe, wherever to address your point. But if people want fewer immigrants regardless, then the UK government could act to reduce it (with all the downsides it would bring, as well as any potential "benefits").

I don't think that on its own is "racist". I live in a town in Lancashire that is mostly white people. When I moved here 30 years ago, I'd go to Manchester and most of the people there were also a similar mix (or lack of mix). Now there's all kinds of people from all over. I've "noticed" it. I've noticed that the mix of people around has changed. I'm fine with it, but I can imagine people sort of feeling that "their" country has changed and that some of them would find it all a bit disconcerting. I stress I don't think it's bad, and I don't think it's really anything much to do with the EU, but as per the post about fear of immigration being biggest where there isn't much, it's kind of human nature, or human nature for a lot of humans to be cautious about "different". Of course when we get to know the "different" we tend to find out they're not actually different at all. Hence people where there are many more folk from different backgrounds being cool with it. But some politicians and media play on that early fear of the different and ramp it up for their own means.

One of those New fangled F-35 fighters just pootled past the window. (not my pic)

I don't know a lot about films, but one I like from the 90s (just) is "Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai". Ever since i first saw it yonks ago, I've looked out for films directed by Jim Jarmusch. There's a sort of calm about them, somehow. Anyway, good film, great soundtrack.

I'm no Corbyn fan, by a very, very, long way, but he (or his advisors) got this one spot on. Why help Johnson out of a self imposed hole, by agreeing to timing of an election that would both free Johnson and harm Corbyn, when he can wait a couple of week longer and have the election, but further harm Johnson's prospects and enhance his own. He'll still lose, mind, but everyone but the reckless tories will benefit. It's the role and duty of the opposition to oppose, not to lie supine while the government wrecks the country.