But in happier news, Brexit secretary who twiddled his thumbs for two years for his minister’s salary won’t be needing food banks anytime soon, as he’s managed to secure a £3000/hour job with Brexit supporter and Tory donor Anthony Bamford.
"Whether homosexuality has caused less harm (than slavery) is debateable" - Ada
"Hey Nobbi, Wazzup? It's about BREXIT here, Brexit means Brexit, not shutdown"
But wait ...
1: The Longstanding Neoliberal War on “Big Government”: a proper understanding of the shutdown in relation to the longstanding capitalist project of what the leading corporate-neoliberal champion Grover Norquist called “starving the beast,” with “beast” taken to mean “big government.” Norquist wanted, he said, “to cut government down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”
Now here is the key for the understanding why some of the intelligent Brexiteers are going with full knowledge of what that means for the no-deal-hard-Brexit. They are not like the many other Brexiteers who think "Ah, somehow it will all turn out fine, most was scaremongering anyways". They are more like
"Why should we work out any plans for a smooth transition phase? In secret, we WANT it to be a disaster bc this will lead to a complete shutdown of govt. by excessive demands in a short time! Excellent! We will starve that beast."
One could name is as a sort of war against the own nation! Because - unlike Americans - many Brits still want some tasks NOT to be in the private sector but in the hands of the govt.
Although, let’s be honest, the other party in this negotiation - the EU - has never for one minute believed that the UK would go through with “no deal” as it is self-evidently a lot worse in economic terms - for the UK than the deal, and a lot worse for the UK than it is for the EU. They can see we might just do it by accident, indecision or incompetence. But not on purpose. The EU side has, however, persistently underestimated the accident risk. And it has insufficiently understood from the outset that, for reasons I explain later, a lurch out to a WTO only world, which both leaders and technocrats think an obviously wholly irrational course, could be attractive to a sizeable chunk of the governing Party. It’s never been a credible threat in EU eyes, bc the consequences are obviously so damaging to a Government that inflicts a “no deal” outcome on the country when an alternative negotiated outcome is available, that they are relaxed that no Government could do it and survive. Not least bc they are very confident that if it did, it would be have to be back at the negotiating table within weeks with its chequebook open, desperately seeking a preferential deal because WTO terms are so unpalatable and the amage from going there so asymmetrical much worse for the UK than the EU.
Nothing in the last 2 1⁄2 years has shaken that mindset, and much has reinforced it. ...
Begging the private sector not to activate contingency plans for “no deal” because you will not allow it to happen, but then a llowing it to happen, would be an extraordinary act of folly and self-harm by a Government whose reputation with investors would never recover, and would not deserve to.
When we get into them, we will discover, at a granular level, just how bad it is to start from a tabula rasa third country baseline on services. And we shall then spend a lot of negotiating capital and use a lot of concessions on other issues and the free movementof people question is, as we have seen, intimately linked to services provision - to try and lever up our level of market access into what used to be our home market to something nearer Single Market levels. What is dismal about our political debate is the inability to start that debate until it is upon us.
The discussion of Irish unity is gaining momentum. Brexit has fundamentally altered the nature of this conversation, as more people now reflect on the constitutional future. The debate is happening and has been ongoing for some time. That does not mean Irish unity is any closer; it simply suggests a willingness to contemplate this option and then to think through the implications. The intention here is to offer reflections on this evolving dialogue.
First, there is a need to bring civility, and some measure of calm, to the conversation. ... Third, no one wants to be forced into rushed referendums on this island based on inadequate information and there should be careful planning within an appropriate timeframe. Too often, however, this argument is deployed as an excuse for inaction; unity as a hazy aspiration for a mythical future that never arrives. ... And finally, although unity is plainly not at the top of the Irish Government’s priority list at the moment, it is arguably in the longer-term strategic interests of the Irish state in a post-Brexit world. The Irish government has a formidable incentive to ensure alignment on this island for its own purposes. That is one reason for its effective and impressive approach to the EU-UK negotiations, and why it needs the Withdrawal Agreement and future relationship negotiations to succeed.
Successive governments have sought, and will continue to seek, to contain this region and conserve the existing arrangements. This place remains the abandoned reminder of past sins of British-Irish relations. There are pragmatic and principled reasons for doing so and it would be silly to ignore the scale of anxiety about potential unity and its implications. There will be equally fierce resistance to this discussion in the south: "official Ireland" does not want to have this conversation and those raising it know the consequences.
The problem now is that whereas the betrayal narrative started from the political pathology of a very small minority it has now, like poison injected into the bloodstream, infected the entire body politic. It is no longer the language of fringe politics but is used by mainstream politicians up to and including the Prime Minister.
Nor is it any longer confined to Brexiters. For example, Andrew Adonis’s criticisms of civil servants working to deliver Brexit are the flipside of persistent Brexiter attacks on the civil service for supposedly undermining it, whilst his invocations of ‘the resistance’ are, perhaps unwittingly, the counterpart of Brexiter denunciations of saboteurs.
Meanwhile, in a mirror image of Brexiter claims that a second referendum would “be a preposterous act of betrayal” for remainers and leavers alike, a newspaper article last Sunday by Labour MP and People’s Vote advocate David Lammy argued that a ‘Norway+’ Brexit would be “a betrayal” of both sides.
Ian Dunt has pointed out, in a heartfelt, almost despairing, article that this schism between Norway+ and People’s Vote factions is “insane”, and terrible tactics to boot. I agree with that, but would add that it illustrates the spread of the betrayal narrative across the Brexit debate – and notice that in both the examples just given the attempt is made to enrol remainers and leavers “alike” into a sense of being betrayed. Just as ‘betrayalism’ leads to everything being a suspected betrayal, so too does it lead to everyone being potentially betrayed.
... Britain’s most senior counter-terrorism officer, Neil Basu, has warned this week that the “febrile” atmosphere around Brexit has the danger of feeding far-right terrorism. Indeed we are told by some politicians that we had better not dare hold another referendum for fear of such extremists and of civil unrest more generally. And, of course, this is not just about another referendum given that every single outcome has been described by someone or other as being a betrayal. This includes not just the cases already mentioned of May’s deal, Norway+, and a referendum but also extending Article 50 (according to Liam Fox) or leaving with no deal (according to Philip Hammond). ...
Wow, somehow I had missed that clip. What an embarrassing mess this is. The school I teach at has had to start preparing for a no deal Brexit. Operation stack could mean lots of schools can't open. The lives, in particular of young people, tha are being absolutely fucked by people bleating "WTO" is tragic. I swing from a gallows humour mentality to being genuinely angry about these cunts.
The harsh truth about leaving the EU was obvious five years ago. But the right covered it up
It is easy to portray Cummings, Johnson and Farage as grand villains.
Indeed, if we crash out with no deal, we will be hard pressed to find so much misery brought to so many by so few.
But the Cameron government, every MP who voted for the referendum, the supposedly ferocious interviewers at the BBC and hard-nosed journalists in the press let them get away with it. None insisted that the voters be told what form of Brexit they were voting for.
It's embarrassing how the interviewers constantly insist that it is on the EU/Ireland's side to move bc of a catastrophic outcome ... it's the "the EU will blink first" narrative shining through. When they present their fantasy technology solution,
Many of the interviews Francine and I've had it's technology to the rescue and I don not hear that theme from You
the answer is right into their faces:
No, bc I've yet to have anyone demonstrate to me a technology that can look into a truck and tell me whether there's hormones in the beef or not.
It's realpolitik. It's about what is doable and what is not, simply as that.
And I absolutely LOVE the answer the interviewers get while pitying the poor bankers (13:50)
And where is the reasonable debate in the UK?
Where is any voice hinting that one should do some area exchanges at the I/NI border before thinking of building separating infrastructure at all?
You could bring me to ANY talkshow in this bloody UK and I would debunk them ALL, me a nothingburger using common sense...
This is a collaborative ESRC-funded research project between the Law Schools of Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University and the region’s leading human rights organisation, the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ).
Our project will examine the constitutional, conflict transformation, human rights and equality consequences of Brexit.
There are also significant concerns amongst the PSNI and other security officials that Brexit will have a deleterious effect on their capacity to counter organised crime and cyber-crime as well as dissident republican violence. Much of the information sharing and other practical cooperation between the PSNI and Garda Síochána is currently done through Europol and other EU regulatory structures.
The UK, Irish government and EU negotiators should recognise that NI is already supposed to enjoy a special constitutional status within the UK and on the island of Ireland and work to ensure that this status is respected and protected in the EU-UK (and Ireland-UK) negotiations and in their legal and political outcomes.