|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: UK General Election June 8th 2017
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Do we think Boris Johnson and Michael Gove in the same room is going to work well ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
what if the EU puts out a statement in response saying that's not an option, or "ok, but no opt-outs and sign here to adopt the Euro"?
My understanding was that considered opinion said that within the 2-year period, one could revoke an article 50 declaration and go back to the status quo (at least in legal terms - clearly you're going to be Norman no-mates at the EU table for a long time.)
Once the UK has actually left, I think there's no question - the EU is never going to let it back in on special terms. It'll be Schengen-and-the-Euro or nothing.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
My understanding was that considered opinion said that within the 2-year period, one could revoke an article 50 declaration and go back to the status quo
From this side of the Channel:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Yes, let's give everyone else in the EU-27 the chance to pull this shit and then say "oh, sorry, we changed our minds". I'd love to see what "considered opinion" that is.
The status quo has gone. For the nth time, the rest of the EU-27 operation has not been in suspended animation while the UK washes its dirty laundry in public. Brexit sucks, but going back on invoking article 50 has about as much political credibility in the eyes of everyone else as Trump pulling out of the Paris agreement.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Brexit sucks, but going back on invoking article 50 has about as much political credibility in the eyes of everyone else as Trump pulling out of the Paris agreement.
I know you read the clause following the one you quoted.
"Political credibility" and legal fact are not at all the same thing. The UK has already thrown away any kind of political credibility it might have had (and might even have had after voting for Brexit) by acting like a bunch of clueless adolescents making up excuses for why their homework is missing.
I stand by my claim: if in the next year or so, the UK revokes its article 50 declaration (I don't see any chance of that being possible given domestic politics - there hasn't been a significant swing against Brexit), then it remains in the EU under the existing terms, with the added garnish of being treated with less credibility than, say, Greece, by the rest of the EU, and finding itself permanently assigned to the commission for toilet cleanliness.
One could argue that being the joke of Europe in the EU was better than not being in the EU. Again, I don't think there's a chance of that happening given domestic UK politics, but I think it's at least in principle possible.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'd love to see what "considered opinion" that is.
It is certainly the opinion of Mr. Donald Tusk.
Quoted here.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Thanks for the Scottish sectarianism info and links all; greatly appreciated and informative.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
There was a time when the Labour party went into an election expecting to win, and win handsomely. And they did, and the country was a better place for it.
Now, not getting beaten too badly seems to be a cause of celebration!
Labour, having a perfect campaign, lost against a truly dire Tory campaign. Next time they won't be so lucky.
In the end, it's four more years of slog for the most vulnerable.
It's time for Labour to play to win.
This is exactly the same nonsense the Red Tories were spouting during this "perfect campaign" (whatever that means).
It's the rhetoric of the neoliberal centrists, who want power for its own sake. It's painfully transparent, and pretty clear that the electorate is seeing through it.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
The problem we have this morning is that a DUP Brexit looks a lot less "hard" than the Labour one. FFS.
If the Tories go ahead with a plan to leave the SM, it sounds like the Labour leadership would support them. :S
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
This is the platform they were elected on. I think they probably recognise the EU won't give continued membership of the single market if free movement ends. And whatever you and I may want, it's pretty clear that most people who voted leave wanted to end free movement as they understood it.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
The thing is about the single market that both Labour and Tories have said they want to leave it, but they will then negotiate maximum access.
It sounds like they both feel that symbolically we have to burn that bridge but then we will build another bridge that will inevitably require almost all of the same sorts of compromises.
They also seem to not be arguing for migration and its importance economically. That is an argument that needs to be made some time. Either we crash the economy and get down immigration. Or we significantly reduce immigration and crash the economy. That seems to be the choice. Neither are currently being really honest about it.
[ 12. June 2017, 08:03: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I return to a point I made elsewhere, there is nothing to stop you having a points based immigration system and then give EU citizens automatic maximum points by virtue of their being EU citizens.
[ 12. June 2017, 08:15: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
This is the platform they were elected on.
Technically, "retaining the benefits of the single market and customs union" aren't necessarily the same as remaining within the single market and customs union. But, it seems very difficult to see how that's possible without actually remaining within the single market and customs union. They left themselves some wriggle room in the wording, but unless they can produce a roadmap of how they can square the circle of retaining benefits without retaining membership the only option available for them is to campaign to remain in.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I return to a point I made elsewhere, there is nothing to stop you having a points based immigration system and then give EU citizens automatic maximum points by virtue of their being EU citizens.
Which isn't functionally different from freedom of movement. So, what's the benefit of the costs of changing the system to something functionally identical?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Well, in theory it give any UK government in the future the option to reduce immigration by changing the points allocation should they wish to do so.
I could see a deal with the EU that said something like, as long as we give maximum points you give us tariff free access. Or a deal that says we'll give permits to any EU citizen with a job offer (which some EU states do even under free movement rules) who isn't on a terror watch list - in exchange no tariff but we will do x, y, z that the EU want.
I think this is where the statements of leaving the single market vs, amended access to the single market mesh.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Likewise, reciprocal student visas for Erasmus and other higher education opportunities shouldn't be that hard to negotiate - because both sides benefit.
I think financial passporting is going to be much harder, if not impossible to get, because both Frankfurt and Paris want that - and it maybe one of the biggest economic losses of Brexit.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I don't see how a hard Brexit is possible now given the odd bedfellows the Tories now have. No border controls between Norn Iron and the Republic essentially means free movement and customs union/ single market.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Of course it is possible to leave the SM - both the Tories and Labour are now saying it is policy.
The practical difficulty is that the DUP probably wouldn't support it, given that one would think that this would end any possibility of free cross-border trade in Ireland (which is quite ironic/funny when you think about it.. they want to be in the Union and out of the EU - but wait, we want to have free trade with the Republic because..).
But I'm increasingly thinking that the Tories don't actually give much of a shit about the DUP and they'll spin a line of giving them support only as long as it takes to survive a couple of confidence votes and long enough to set landmines in the EU negotiations.
Eventually the DUP will realise they've been DUPed and that the Tories had no intention of giving them anything ever.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Eventually the DUP will realise they've been DUPed and that the Tories had no intention of giving them anything ever.
I think that assuming you can get something over someone whose negotiation skills have been learnt during a sectarian conflict is rather hopeful to say the least.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I return to a point I made elsewhere, there is nothing to stop you having a points based immigration system and then give EU citizens automatic maximum points by virtue of their being EU citizens.
Which isn't functionally different from freedom of movement. So, what's the benefit of the costs of changing the system to something functionally identical?
Exactly my point. I think the second option is untenable for all the reasons free movement is untenable and the points system is far too slow unresponsive for many areas of the economy. (Only works in Australia because they want migration to increase.)
Put simply combination of both options is likely to satisfy neither side. At some point the benefits of immigration has to be sold rather than euphemised.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Well, in theory it give any UK government in the future the option to reduce immigration by changing the points allocation should they wish to do so.
I could see a deal with the EU that said something like, as long as we give maximum points you give us tariff free access. Or a deal that says we'll give permits to any EU citizen with a job offer (which some EU states do even under free movement rules) who isn't on a terror watch list - in exchange no tariff but we will do x, y, z that the EU want.
I think this is where the statements of leaving the single market vs, amended access to the single market mesh.
My guess is that what you suggest might well be where we end up. It will probably mean a really clunky system that satisfies no-one but there you go.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think that assuming you can get something over someone whose negotiation skills have been learnt during a sectarian conflict is rather hopeful to say the least.
Quite so. Which makes one wonder whether there will ever be a deal with the DUP. They're already playing their cards close to their chest and obviously are relishing the position in the limelight.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Why would anybody but swivel eyed English loons want to hurt the economies of the island of Ireland? The EU won't. There will be a soft Brexit with regard to the island of Ireland regardless, there always would have been. The UK will pay its dues, it always does. If the dementia tax is shelved then the Tories can only increase the size of the cake by becoming an offshore low tax haven, which means ensuring corporation tax is the lowest in the developed world and letting the cake crumbs Antoinettely trickle down, as was obvious a year ago, even more so.
The Brexiters will realise that they are worse off thanks to being misled. That the really, really rich fooled them in to giving them a low tax economy through the Tory lackey really, really rich wannabees. That they have been betrayed by the Tory lackeys of the really, really rich for the 40 directorships of silver that will allow them entry to the really, really rich club and despite losing 20 odd constituencies in coming boundary changes and needing nearly 50 seats in 2022, Labour under Sadiq Khan will win a famous victory and tax the really, really rich.
And in five years the Tories will net lose 3 seats easily to by-elections and lose their majority even with the DUP. There were 31 in the last 7 years.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
She has given Michael Gove a job. Michael fucking Gove.
When he tried for the PM's job one commentator said the idea that Michael Gove could attract a popular vote was something that only made sense inside the Westminster echo chamber. On the other hand the vilified Corbyn has shown that someone 20 odd points adrift and the bane of the parliamentary party can come within a whisker of pinching the job.
May won't last longer than the current face-saving exercise, then all bets are off. We can be fairly sure the big hitters will keep their powder dry until Brexit is confirmed one way or the other, which leaves the Pob's and Gussie Fink-Nottle's of Westminster to negotiate with Brussels. A scary prospect, even for Eurosceptics.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I watched Jeremy Corbyn yesterday with Andrew Married when he replied "definitely" to the question of whether Labour would take us out of the Single Market. John McDonnel also said to Robert Preston that staying in the SM would be seen by the electorate as a betrayal. To me this is hard Brexit, given that Labour is also certain that leaving the EU means that free movement ends.
They can promise as much as they like that they will retain tariff free access to the SM, but their position is as untenable as the Tories. The biggest hope for softening Brexit lies with Ruth Davidson's 13 members refusing to support hard Brexit. 82% of the electorate voted the two parties who both promised a Brexit that can't be other than hard. The Lib Dems didn't make any serious breakthrough.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I meant Andrew Marr. Damned autofill!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Taking a moment to point out that if Labour were in the position to be a minority government propped up Sinn Fein, the press would be in utter meltdown by now.
Somehow, the Tories and the DUP aren't getting the same sort of pressure. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
Taking a moment to ponder whether there would be the same kind of meltdown if Labour's attempts to do deals with the DUP in 2010 and again in 2015 had come to anything.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Taking a moment to ponder whether there would be the same kind of meltdown if Labour's attempts to do deals with the DUP in 2010 and again in 2015 had come to anything.
Seems to me that even if this is true, there is quite a difference between (a) talking to the DUP when there is a faint possibility of a coalition and concluding that they're a bunch of arseholes and (b) telling everyone that you definitely have their support before properly talking to them and whilst everyone is talking about the extent to which they're arseholes.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I meant Andrew Marr. Damned autofill!
The name that you oroginally went with would make for a good Abbott and Costello skit.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Taking a moment to ponder whether there would be the same kind of meltdown if Labour's attempts to do deals with the DUP in 2010 and again in 2015 had come to anything.
Firstly what mr cheesy said. Secondly in the case of 2010 we only know about this second hand - at best - and therefore we don't know what level of seriousness was attached to that plan.
Lastly, it's the Conservatives that have run with the argument that a vote for Labour was actually a vote to be governed by the interests of a smaller part of the UK (in that case Scotland) and most recently that a vote for Labour was a vote to be governed by people with ties to terrorism.
I assume your previous arguments re terrorism a few pages back were making an emotive point for political purposes, rather than anything more substantive.
[ 12. June 2017, 12:37: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I assume your previous arguments re terrorism a few pages back were making an emotive point for political purposes, rather than anything more substantive.
It's embarrassingly clear that Anglican't is very hard on any link between Corbyn and the IRA, however ephemeral, while putting the telescope to his blind eye with regards to the DUP and the Loyalist paramilitaries, which is right there in plain sight.
The Tories are doing deals with people who owe their parliamentary seats to terrorist influence and patronage. That's it. How else are we supposed to frame this?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Seems to me that even if this is true, there is quite a difference between (a) talking to the DUP when there is a faint possibility of a coalition and concluding that they're a bunch of arseholes and (b) telling everyone that you definitely have their support before properly talking to them and whilst everyone is talking about the extent to which they're arseholes.
Don't think that holds up. The arseholeness of the DUP has been well known for a long time. You don't learn that they're arseholes by talking to them - you learn whether you can do a deal with them.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Don't think that holds up. The arseholeness of the DUP has been well known for a long time. You don't learn that they're arseholes by talking to them - you learn whether you can do a deal with them.
Arguably nobody should be talking to them ever about forming a government. I certainly subscribe to that view.
But the main point I was making is that there is a difference between talking to them and declaring to the world that they are partners in government.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Tories are doing deals with people who owe their parliamentary seats to terrorist influence and patronage. That's it. How else are we supposed to frame this?
Yes. Yes, they are.
Of course, doing deals with people who owe their parliamentary seats to terrorist influence is the entire basis of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
But there's no honest way to paint doing deals with the DUP in Westminster as anything other than a bad thing.
I'm not sure what realistic alternative there was, though. Apart from a hard Brexit, on which May and Corbyn seem to be agreed for fear of what the electorate would do to them if they broke ranks, what do you think are the chances of a cluster of Tory MPs supporting the policies of a minority Labour government, or of a cluster of Labour MPs supporting the policies of a minority Tory government?
I don't see much chance of either. I see lots of scope for political posturing and bullshit games, but I don't see anyone who looks interested in an honest compromise.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Two observations:
Firstly, May getting into bed with the DUP has killed her credibility. You just don't get to criticise someone else for liking terrorists and then get into bed with terrorists yourself without that happening.
Secondly, I find it amusing that after several years of Scotland whining about having a Conservative government imposed on it by England it's now the Scottish voters who have given us a Conservative government. Kinda puts paid to the primary motivation behind independence, doesn't it?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Secondly, I find it amusing that after several years of Scotland whining about having a Conservative government imposed on it by England it's now the Scottish voters who have given us a Conservative government. Kinda puts paid to the primary motivation behind independence, doesn't it?
Pretty sure that's not actually true.
It is was just England it would be
Tory - 297
Labour - 227
LD - 8
Green - 1
That's a pretty healthy majority. If anything, Scotland, Wales and NI have tilted the balance away from a Tory gov, not towards it. The Tories did better but still lost overall in Scotland, and were some way behind in Wales. In NI, of course, they didn't win any seats at all.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Huh, here's a thought I've just seen from former Taoiseach John Bruton that hadn't even crossed my mind. Because I'm stupid.
Maybe the DUP are actually playing a clever game to get SF to restart the Stormont executive.
The reasoning is; currently there is a stalemate at the NI executive because SF refuses to rejoin because of the issues with Arlene Foster and the stink of corruption.
But if the DUP wave around that they're going to do some-kind-of-deal with the Tories, then direct rule from London on some level means direct rule by the (or at the whim of) DUP.
So SF have to decide whether they're going to back down and get the executive back on track (in which case they'll have the advantages of the last Stormont election) or whether they're going to sit in the corner grumbling*, without the power at Stormont and allowing DUP to rule the roost from London.
God knows what happens to Westminster if they back down and restart the Stormont executive. Presumably any DUP deal is dead because they'll have what (maybe) they want; ie working devolved government.
The only problem with this analysis could be that it is too intelligent for the DUP.
*to be clear, there seems to be something to grumble about. I just can't see how they're in a strong position to do anything about it at the moment.
[ 12. June 2017, 13:46: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The only problem with this analysis could be that it is too intelligent for the DUP.
.. and in theory at least they would be more in favour of direct rule.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
.. and in theory at least they would be more in favour of direct rule.
I don't know enough about how they operate on the ground, I thought they were generally in favour of devolution - particularly since they had inbuilt power in the NI Executive. I'm not sure how well it would play in NI if they're seen to be bulldozing Stormont because they have an advantage in London.
For one thing, if the current government in London only lasts a few months then the chances are they'll have burned bridges they'd need to have to get back into Stormont.
It does seem like a game of chess - but it seems fairly persuasive to me to think that the DUP are more interested in having long-term power in Stormont than temporary influence in London.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
From the BBC NEWS website regarding the postponement of the Queen's speech:
"One of the reasons for the delay is also believed to be because the speech has to be written on goat's skin parchment paper, which takes a few days to dry"
Is somebody having a laugh?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Vellum is a better bet for archiving than paper. That's why original copies of the Magna Carta still exist.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Oh I understand that, but they have until next Monday to catch a suitable goat, kill, skin and prepare. But honestly, are we really expected to believe that there isn't a single shop in the UK that hasn't got any vellum? I know a nice place in Spain that can post it to them on overnight express delivery. It seems such an utterly ridiculous excuse for a delay to the Queen's speech.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think it's the writing that has to dry, and they can't write on it till they've decided what's going in the speech.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
It is the hand written penmanship that takes the time, apparently.
But out of all the Commonwealth countries that have a State Opening of Parliament, it beggars belief that nobody has found a solution that doesn't involve a week of preparation and handwriting on expensive paper.
If nothing else, one would have thought that the speech could be written on vallum (or alternative) after the actual speech was given.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I am mildly surprised you couldn't print onto vellum.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
A ferocious article by Mark Mardell on the BBC website makes the point that May is now trapped by her own party, and cannot be allowed to resign.
"Mrs May has been broken on the electoral wheel but is forced to stand on splintered limbs, grimacing through the pain, for the sake of her party's chance to cling to office. She is like a medieval monarch, captured by her barons, shorn of the advisers she loved and trusted, allowed one old close friend to minister cold comfort."
I'm not sure if he is being unduly sympathetic to her, although later he does say that she may be determined to fight her way back, and win another election. Unlikely. But the other day, I was surprised to feel pity for her, when I saw a picture of her coming back from church. She looks wounded.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40245800
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure if he is being unduly sympathetic to her, although later he does say that she may be determined to fight her way back, and win another election. Unlikely. But the other day, I was surprised to feel pity for her, when I saw a picture of her coming back from church. She looks wounded.
In a human sense she is deserving of pity and sympathy. Although, of course, she has brought this on herself by her own hubris. I think I posted this before but hey, it's relevant. It is sad for her. I balance that against all the harm this government has done over the past 7 years to the most vulnerable in our country and against the huge risks they are taking with Brexit.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
What I find interesting psychologically, is that she may be deserving of pity, but that's not why I feel pity. In a sense, I can't control that, and it has no rational basis (I think), but is to do with empathy and sympathy. Going o/t.
Congratulations on the article - very prophetic. Any tips for Ascot?
[ 12. June 2017, 15:11: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
