• limpid

      Just visiting?   27/12/16

      Please click "Sign Up" and login to use the full functionality of the site.


Full Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


peterms last won the day on October 5 2016

peterms had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,679 Excellent

About peterms

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

1,077 profile views
  1. U.S. Politics

  2. U.S. Politics

    When Randy met Woody. That's a short story waiting to be written, right there.
  3. That's the point. The US will doubtless give us a trade deal, but it will be one which is based on terms that no-ons would want. Fox is totally in bed with some very extreme US think tanks and lobbyists, and he will actively seek to destroy our NHS to please his masters overseas. The deal will doubtless also include the right of corporations to sue us if we don't toe the line, like TTIP but worse. Handing over power from our government to US corporations in that way looks to me like an act of treason, and I will be interested to see if there is backing for bringing such a case.
  4. U.S. Politics

    That's a fake. No spelling mistakes.
  5. I think what's happening is that people are trying to construct a narrative that the referendum was a conscious, informed choice made on the basis of a common understanding of what was an offer, and that any attempt to ask for further consideration in the light of better knowledge of the real-life consequences amounts to an attempted coup. On the back of that, there have been attempts by Falange and the rest to whip up a fever about supposed attempts at "betrayal". Parliamentarians seem either cowed by this, or confused about the best strategy in a situation where their own constituencies fall into both camps, so they see a danger of alienating a crucial part of their core support. In that situation, I think the conclusion they reach may be that there has to be a certain amount of shit hitting fans before people are prepared to accept that there may be enough problems with the current approach that some kind of rethink may be necessary. They will be cautious about trying to act before there is evidence of enough of a shift in public opinion to make it supportable to propose, for example, a further referendum on the terms and conditions actually available as opposed to the fantasies spun by imbeciles like the disgraced Fox and Davis.
  6. U.S. Politics

    Well done her. Take some basic protection against pepper spray/cs gas, and carry the number of a lawyer. May get unpleasant. Many of his events have.
  7. U.S. Politics

    I thought in general, honours or pardons granted by outgoing rulers were accepted as valid regardless of their credentials or propriety as they would otherwise be judged. Doesn't that go back to antiquity? I have a vague recollection of Frazier and the Golden Bough, but I'm not going to look for it. Well, unless I really, really can't sleep tonight.
  8. Here's a comparison of the tubthumping nonsense of the Mail, and how Europe ses us.
  9. U.S. Politics

    What you can't see from this angle is that it's actually the khazi. Which accounts for the expression.
  10. Excellent! I shall start to prepare the stable immediately. I'll need some bedding. Do you have many sacks of shredded tax documents you could let me have?
  11. I'm going to feed my unicorn on cake. When can I expect to receive my unicorn, by the way?
  12. U.S. Politics

    I find this quite amusing. Supposed to be him writing a Presidential address. The setting, the framing, the faked expression, pretending to write by holding the pad in the air making it pretty hard to write...there is literally nothing natural or genuine about this shot, other than "man poses for contrived photo meant to connote traits he doesn't possess, like concentration, focus on public duty...". Arse.
  13. An important issue is whether A50 can be revoked by the state that issues it (ie without the consent of the 27). There is discussion of that here. Michel Barnier has said that the negotiations with the UK will need to be concluded within 18 months of the trigger date to allow time to ratify the deal. And David Davis agrees this is achieveable. So there will be ample time after the deal is concluded for Parliament to consider whether it wishes to accept the deal and act accordingly. Parliament is supreme and sovereign. Should MPs or the House of Lords reject the deal they would have the (theoretical) so-called ‘cliff-edge’ option of leaving the EU without a deal. But they will also have the (viable) option of remaining in the EU. Or (more likely) putting the question back to the electorate in the form of a Referendum on the Final Deal. A ‘Final Deal’ referendum has previously commended itself to a number of prominent Brexiters, including Dominic Cummings. Whether one is likely to happen will be a function of the prevailing popular mood at the time Parliament is required to consider the question. As I explained here, it would be a mistake to assume that the mood today (which is broadly static since the referendum) remains static over time. We have not, after all, at the time of writing, even triggered Article 50 and many things can and will change.
  14. Johnson said it, a few months ago. It was also discussed in a meeting between officials and aides. The government line was that the aide whose notes were photographed was not an official. The conclusion we are meant to take from this is presumably that no such phrase was used in the discussion she had annotated, and presumably that she made it up from her own fevered imagination. The phrase is of course being used by very many people, here and abroad, as a shorthand term to characterise the UK government's demand for something they should know to be impossible.