Honey Honey

Just watching BBC News and Jacob Rees Mogg looks an awful lot like Hitler in this lighting

Artful dodger was talking about German politics role in economics not the decision making process of minor market rules and regs. The concept of German financial dominance and control is primarily a left wing idea centred around the arguments and observations of left wing economists. Most right wing city economists support the present flavour of Germany's politics. Indeed George Osbourne used to love it. The financial reich is a term from left wing circles.

Looks good

A lot of car finance is backed by the car industry themselves so that's not smart. I'm not sure what basis there is for assuming the EU or industry within it is ok with no deal. Strategically it would risk increasing the UK's pivot to other markets. I would argue that the EU has shown it's strong desire to prevent this. In any FTA trade offs on specific aspects of the market must be made. The unique position for Britain is that we are potentially taking away market competitiveness and advantage for some EU firms. This is fairly unprecedented in trade negotiations and why there is a genuine risk of a worse deal than EFTA.

There have been plenty of warnings against no deal from German industry. There was one the other week from the BDI. It is completely economically illiterate to assume if the price of a BMW goes up substantially then the number of sales won't fall. Some consumers will move to alternatives particularly as the British car market is driven by credit creation and is one of the biggest bubbles in the economy, unless you have evidence that credit supply would increase with the increased price?

Absolutely it is a core element, but the key is that it is interlocked with the wider package. May's deal bombed among political leave because in part it has assumed that immigration is a singular matter. It fundamentally considers leave in accordance with a caricature. It may have been a singular matter to non politically active voters, as in folk who barely follow everday events. The remain commentariat really honed in on those singular issue voters post ref. Caricturing leave as a buffoon from Barnsley for example. The heart of the domestic issue is that the UK is trying to leave the EU by referendum and not by political party. A second referendum that stops this Brexit and forces the next election into party splits could be a solution of some sorts. There may like in Denmark in the early 90s be a few days of violent riots.

Spin is part of all elections. It's disingenuous to deligitimise one election for spin and not all of the others. Why does it matter so virulently to some now? Simple, historically under Labour and the Conservatives life doesn't immediately change for most that much. You bemoan the spin but get on with it in the knowledge that you'll survive. Without that past reference of security and with the assumption that everything is going to hell in a hand basket because of Brexit it is suddenly the be all and end all. It's brought to the forefront on an assumption due to the lack of historical reference.

Read my post again. It says "Immigration was part of a wider package" and why that appears the case. I don't think you understood the post at all. You just doubled down instead of tackling the points raised in it.

So it's not based on any objective accountability it's just your own subjective outset. Sounds like an unhealthy way to run democratic accountability.

On that I think Fairy's point is broadly in the right ball park. A reasonably strong argument can now be made that May and Robbins deal has landed poorly because they like you mistakenly exaggerate, misconstrue and misunderstand the role of immigration. As of last week the deal was polling at just 17% approval among leave voters even though it will bring about the end of open borders. It has a higher approval rating among those who voted remain. Its loudest opposition are the political groups you would consider the most irked by immigration. Immigration was part of a wider package which included the courts and trade in the lingo and probably has other intangible elements surrounding national narrative attached too. Who from the original leave side is it that is in power that you're going to hold politically accountable and who is it from the leave side who supports this Brexit? Michael Gove? We've had over 2 years of all of the main leave factions and leaders repeatedly complaining, whining and making unmet demands. Theresa May might not get the WA through because of Brexiteer backbenchers meaning it will only go through if original remain voters put it through. This sums up what has always been wrong with the situation. Brexit by referendum and not by political party. Swathes of establishment implementing what they don't like or understand out of principle toward a narrative concept of democracy. But we are going to let them off and solely blame anyone who campaigned to leave in the first place?

2 dead and 600 injured in on going protests in Paris against rise in fuel tax.

His contract is up at the end of the season and I expect he will part ways then. He's probably only hanging around still for the reason he joined. He's addicted to football and wants to settle down in England.

The frozen Brexit thing has been disproven. The date was agreed today, 2022 is the latest extension point. People jumped the gun when the withdrawal agreement used XX in the date and started printing the idea that the extension can last til the end of the century.

I think right now she probably has to face down the ERG rather than appease them. If they can't overthrow her they will be almost forced to accept the deal or bring their own party down. Some of these ERG guys have been against the negotiation strategy since September 2016. Like the continuity remain element who refuse to attempt to find a solution they were predisposed to reject anything May offered. They made their minds up the deal was bad without being able to articulate why since they hadn't read or understood any of it yet. They'll now go through it and find confirmation biases that suit their argument.

Again, it's a withdrawal agreement. It's not the future relationship. One common theme in this thread has always been the sheer number of words constantly being typed about the referendum vote and the abject lack of substantial words about what is at hand now.

That might be over rating public power and underrating the composition of power within the political institutions. It also might be misdiagnosing what public attitudes are by forcing them into binary identities.

It's a withdrawal agreement, they haven't actually started the negotiations of the final deal yet. You may well have been duped into voting for Brexit. But ask yourself this, are your current expressions and hottakes any different to the behaviourial disposition that had you duped in the first place? You repeatedly sound over emotional and irrational, some of the language borders on the ridiculous. It's easy to see how someone talking like that might have got lured in by some of the similar leave campaign language. It seems like you just attach yourself to an idea then go all bonkers in without any self doubt. As for the withdrawal agreement, a lot of the political class and commentariat seemed to make their mind up without knowing what was in the agreement. There's a real dirth of intellectual reasoning going on. We have politicians deciding how they are voting without having read a single page of a highly complex legal agreement. Certain people decided ages ago they were completely against Theresa May's approach. As soon as May came out with something, rather than examine it in its context they delivered prescripted hottakes. As for May and Thatcher comparisons. They were initially based on character and personality. May never possessed Thatchers intellectualism and most likely could not replicate her authoritarian ruthless character due to power weaknesses. The person changes to the situation.

Exactly. The super league is the dumbest idea going for fans of the clubs involved. It means many who win every week and know nothing other than that will wake up one day losing every week. All so a few owners can pretty much overnight see their £1bn asset become worth £2bn.

Going to fully engage in Guy fawkes night this year now that I have matured enough to drop that completely trivial chip on my shoulder I used to have about it.

Lascelles signs 6 year contract in exchange for publicly calling Ashley a nice man. Social media backlash at Lascelles. The next day the papers report a Newcastle fan saw Ashley in a restaurant in North London, went over and told Ashley he was a parasite and should get out of the club and city, Ashley's response was to call him a prick and threaten to knock him out.

As you said just before, politicians don't make decisions by ethics and morals. This is case and point for your argument, let's stop selling arms not because of what Khashoggi reported but because he was killed and people are talking about it. Everything is PR since at least the 90s. The German government sanctioned half a billion €uros worth of arms sales to the Saudi's this year alone, even though we've know for a long time now what the Saudi's have been up to in the Yemen, possibly with these weapons. If the UK government stops arms sales you know it will only be until everyone but the Guardian fall back asleep. The only way to kill this PR generation is to have Merkel, Cameron and Obama before the Hague. That'll put the willies right up these sociopaths.

What happened to you mate? Your political posts these days no longer account for complexity and ambiguity.

You might able to spin that to relevancy for Brexit but not for all actions. Although even in Brexit you might want to have a word with a few politicians who want to dish out punishment to threaten others to stay in. "Britain can't be seen to have a good deal" is very much on the radar of those responsible for multiple economic tragedies in Europe. The EU has bad eggs as much as the UK.

Seen it after my post. It was Jeremy Hunt who mentioned the Soviet Union not Philip Hammond. It's pretty tasteless for someone in government, but the general point of threat, coercion and punishment is an unarguable culture of the EU nationalist and centre right. The degree to which it impacts now is open to interpretation.

Philip Hammond? Really? An ardent remainer who champions staying as tight to the EU as possible. I'm intrigued as to what someome of his background and disposition has said to make you post that?