Honey Honey

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.

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?

Had a double take there, thought that was @Blue 2nd from the right

Fair enough (charge depending). No one should be allowed to comment before the game on a referee, positive or negative. I know the FA will only punish negative.

A real Brexit news topic instead of the monthly spasm about how it's going is the clash between the socialists and the FBPE at the Labour Party conference.

They've had one before. Club used their local mouth piece journo to say it's nothing serious. Perhaps more interestingly though, there's someone on the inside leaking things to Craig Hope at the Daily Mail. To do so you'd have to have an agenda against the team, against Rafa.

It's got to the point where a local MP is trying to petition parliament to force the FA to make transparency a regulatory requirement of fit and proper.

The club have cancelled tommorows fans forum as managing director Lee Charnley doesn't want to face any supporter questions. Coward.

Even there though you say for others they see Bond as white. For people without a racial lens turned on, the very idea that Bond is white is a bizarre persona they never saw in the first place, they are therefore amenable to change. They could see all those other traits you listed and more but skin colour wouldn't be one of them. It's all about what is salient to the individual and why that might be, but my general point is to be seeing race here is of a certain lens. Daniel Craig doesn't have a northern accent in the Bond films. Bond is always a posh role. Even Sean Connery is speaking in a very gentry Scottish voice. With accent you can act it regardless of your personal background so I for example might oppose change there and yet not oppose changing race.

I can't agree with the idea that it is just an aversion to change. That makes the assumption that racialist or racist thinking is an isolated cognition rather than manifesting from a pattern of thoughts which in some areas overlap across other processes and behaviours. Aversion to change is also not one all encompassing process in itself, it can be because of fear, anxiety, values, loyalty, laziness etc. It requires digging beneath the surface. Why I say racialist (which is not necessarily the same as racist) is because I don't believe there is good justification to see Bond racially. To any frequent observer of the forum, the names speaking out against a black Bond are the most predictable on the basis of the way they talk about all ethnic groups. There is, in my opinion, on that basis, a philosophy and way of thinking around race and ethnic groups that has to be present to be in opposition to a black Bond. Particularly when placed in contrast to someone who thinks differently such as Rando.

I'm old enough to remember when Daniel Craig got the position and there was all that hype about how great it was that a working class man's son from Northern England got a posh persons role. I don't recall posh people froffing at the mouth over it and refusing to go to the cinema. There was largely good old fashioned indifference to identity. Fast forward to today and the racialists seem to have a megaphone on most mediums.

Net spend since promotion: Brighton -£118.9m Huddersfield -£75.3m Newcastle +£0.7m Thank fuck we've got Rafa. Supporters are asking a simple question. Where's the money gone? Why don't they answer that question? They hold us in such contempt that they won't entertain talking to us. We have no choice but to fight such arrogant distant ownership of our communal club. Our chief executive sat in his seat shaking his head when we chanted for Ashley to fuck off. If you are so right and we are so wrong answer our question scumbag cuntbag ballbag wanker. The anger was allowed to build and build and build because of their silence and contempt for us. The PR advisor is telling them it will all blow over by September so say nothing. Meanwhile we have to put up with tosser pundits saying what we have done is fine and Rafa should shut up. They are just braindead docile fucks. Tell us where the money is and then we can all judge how the club is being ran properly with evidence.

No protests in the ground today until the last few minutes. Everyone with the players and Rafa in game time. There was a peaceful protest with a few hundred people outside Sports Direct on Northumberland street and they gave a bag of chocolate bars to the Sports Direct staff as an apology and to say no hard feelings