Dunno but if this game was played on june 22nd 2016 score would be 1-0 to spurs... Be careful seth will say brexit has made spurs be shit. And its all my fault.
If you're going to mention me, then perhaps you can apologise for calling me a liar...but then again that would take a bit of class on your part so would represent a massive challenge for you.
I had a handshake with you a while ago not to comment or tick the little tags at the bottom. Despite the fact that you continued to break "our agreement" I refrained from joining in. Then I thought if he cant be honourable and that's how he behaves when he handshakes with someone, I would join in. Now, who lacks class.
This would be a way you justify whatever to yourself, except we kind of agreed to ignore each other but you persisted with your continual lol's on my posts (which in themselves I don't care about, but as a point of order I haven't 'ticked' you), and your continual indirect responses which didn't include quotes of my posts but were comments on them. Classless. I have accepted your responses however you framed them, but you called me a liar directly and have failed to either justify that, or apologise. Not a matter of honour, a simple matter of classlessness, calling me out as a liar just like that is the internet equivalent of a footballer spitting on an opponent, and it is low grade unimaginative classlessness at that.
I don't have to justify anything to anybody especially myself. I hand shake on deals every week with honourable people who like me, stick to what they agree on. You broke that bond on an internet forum, classless, and the equivalent of the above.
I never established any 'bond' of any kind with you. For reasons that are crystal clear to anybody with any self awareness. I wouldn't trust you to be steadfast about anything, a point you reenforce daily judging by what you write on this thread.
The whole Brexit fiasco has proven beyond all doubt that our political elite are utterly hopeless.
Cameron's decision to hold a referendum based on something nobody had done any planning for and had no idea how to implement was breathtakingly stupid. Nothing that's happened since then has suggested otherwise.
Regardless of how you voted I can't see how anyone in their right mind can be happy with how things have progressed.
So despite barely any time having passed between the leaking of the reports confirming that in all conceivable scenarios the UK will be worse off after Brexit, there has been a procession of Brexiters denouncing the reports as wrong, even though it is unlikely they have even read the reports, let alone performed their own independent analysis of the reports to determine their legitimacy.
What do you call someone who denounces something as wrong without even having read it? Is there a word for such a contemptible fuckwit?
So despite barely any time having passed between the leaking of the reports confirming that in all conceivable scenarios the UK will be worse off after Brexit, there has been a procession of Brexiters denouncing the reports as wrong, even though it is unlikely they have even read the reports, let alone performed their own independent analysis of the reports to determine their legitimacy.
What do you call someone who denounces something as wrong without even having read it? Is there a word for such a contemptible fuckwit?
@Dippenhall 's new favourite European politician with excellent advice for the UK and the EU. Dipps may reflect on the danger of seeing all European politics through the island prism.
I am slightly surprised that you endorse his opinion that:
'The European Union... are only concerned with one thing: How to signal to the rest of Europe that anyone who votes in a government or who votes in a referendum in a manner which challenges the authority of the deep establishment in Europe will get crushed.'
I thought A/ you did not accept that there is an elite and B/ that you think the EU believes in democracy?
I have never believed either that A/ the British elite wants to separate itself from its EU clones or B/ that the EU is democratic, they are part of the reasons I want to leave.
I am slightly surprised that you endorse his opinion that:
'The European Union... are only concerned with one thing: How to signal to the rest of Europe that anyone who votes in a government or who votes in a referendum in a manner which challenges the authority of the deep establishment in Europe will get crushed.'
I thought A/ you did not accept that there is an elite and B/ that you think the EU believes in democracy?
I have never believed either that A/ the British elite wants to separate itself from its EU clones or B/ that the EU is democratic, they are part of the reasons I want to leave.
Dear Southbank.
1. I don't endorse his opinion here, or rather, the harsh terms in which he phrases the sentence. But having read his book, I understand why he might phrase it that way
2. Nowhere does YV use the phrase "elite". You have gratuitously introduced it.
3. YV came to the UK to help campaign for Remain. His position on that remains unchanged. He has his ideas about a better Europe, some of which I agree with, some not. But he 100% endorses my view that you change it from within, as a member.
I am slightly surprised that you endorse his opinion that:
'The European Union... are only concerned with one thing: How to signal to the rest of Europe that anyone who votes in a government or who votes in a referendum in a manner which challenges the authority of the deep establishment in Europe will get crushed.'
I thought A/ you did not accept that there is an elite and B/ that you think the EU believes in democracy?
I have never believed either that A/ the British elite wants to separate itself from its EU clones or B/ that the EU is democratic, they are part of the reasons I want to leave.
Dear Southbank.
1. I don't endorse his opinion here, or rather, the harsh terms in which he phrases the sentence. But having read his book, I understand why he might phrase it that way
2. Nowhere does YV use the phrase "elite". You have gratuitously introduced it.
3. YV came to the UK to help campaign for Remain. His position on that remains unchanged. He has his ideas about a better Europe, some of which I agree with, some not. But he 100% endorses my view that you change it from within, as a member.
This morning’s Brexit subcommittee meeting of the most senior cabinet members passed off without a fracas and was - according to those in the room - “constructive and useful”.
Why wasn’t there the now traditional Brexit punch-up?
Well it is because the PM, foreign sec, home sec, Brexit sec, Chancellor and agric sec - inter alia - were debating the “uncontentious” questions of what our future security relationship with the EU should look like and how we would share data.
In other words, the policy so politically hot that it glows blue in the dark - the shape of our preferred future trading relationship with the EU - was not discussed.
But the cabinet’s biggest hitters will have their electric debate on this question - which is so disputed that it may prompt ministerial resignations - in the middle of next week, on 7 Feb, I am told.
Now what will be a ministerial brawl is being “informed” by confidential and highly sensitive analysis of the economic impact of different possible trading relationships the UK might have with the EU.
The analysis is being disseminated in a novel way: because of fear of leaks, ministers are not being given documents.
Instead a director general and economist at the Department of Exiting the EU, Susannah Storey, makes a personal presentation - with slides - to any Secretary of State on the crucial cabinet sub-committee who requests it.
She’s accompanied by an economist from the Treasury. And the relevant Secretary of State is encouraged to bring along the chief economist from his or her respective department, just in case he or she wants reassurance that it isn’t a terrible Whitehall stitch-up.
What amuses me most is the civil-service politics of this. The analysis is led by the economics section of the arch-Brexiteer David Davis’s Dexeu - and not by that last bastion of the Remoaners, which cried Armageddon during the EU referendum campaign, the Treasury.
The work was done and is owned by the cross departmental Government Economic Service.
With this device, the Treasury and the chancellor Philip Hammond are trying to protect themselves from the inevitable charge that they are mugging the heroes of the Leave campaign, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.
In practice of course Johnson and Gove are being well and truly duffed up.
The point is that the analysis shows UK growth and prosperity would be significantly greater if UK rules and regulations for business were closely aligned to those of the EU, and never diverged to any significant extent - because this would be expected to deliver cheaper and less cumbersome access for UK goods and services to the EU’s giant single market.
In other words, the civil service economists are underwriting the political position of Hammond, Amber Rudd and Greg Clark that it is worth sacrificing a degree of national control over rules and regs for the sake of becoming a bit less poor or a bit more rich (depending on what else is transpiring in an economic sense).
Or to put it another way, the Whitehall “experts” - so derided by Gove in the run-up to the referendum - are getting their own back on Gove and Johnson by providing supposed empirical proof that the Leavers’ passion to take back total control over making laws that affect business and commerce would be to throw mountains of £50 notes on to a religious fire.
The government economists’ case for remaining “converged” with the EU is so clear and overwhelming, I am informed, that ministers tell me they are utterly bemused by how Johnson and Gove will dismiss it - as they surely will.
Which leaves a PM, who in effect has the casting vote, with the invidious decision of whether to back an ostensibly impartial civil service analysis or embrace the convictions of her two most outspoken and influential colleagues.
Will she back the orthodoxy of Sir Humphrey and the mandarinate or the apostasy of Mr Boris and the Brexit bunch?
Which ever choice she makes has the potential to split her party. So it presumably feels to her less like boring boring economics and more like Russian roulette with a loaded bazooker.
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
Ah, that usual gem when Brexiteers are throwing their toys out of the pram.
"All the experts/predictions are wrong!"
Too bad it's total bollocks.
In fairness, was some old bollocks spoken by the omnishambles of the people who elected themselves spokesmen for remain, the difference is that we don't keep repeating the same old bollocks over and over when we now know it to be wrong...
I mean how badly has someone been failed in life that they think if they don't like something they can just pretend it doesn't exist? I can understand some people who simply didn't learn this isn't an acceptable way to approach life, but Johnson and the other top Tories who also spout this profoundly anti-intellectual position attended supposedly the best schools in the country and still have this profoundly infantile mindset.
This morning’s Brexit subcommittee meeting of the most senior cabinet members passed off without a fracas and was - according to those in the room - “constructive and useful”.
Why wasn’t there the now traditional Brexit punch-up?
Well it is because the PM, foreign sec, home sec, Brexit sec, Chancellor and agric sec - inter alia - were debating the “uncontentious” questions of what our future security relationship with the EU should look like and how we would share data.
In other words, the policy so politically hot that it glows blue in the dark - the shape of our preferred future trading relationship with the EU - was not discussed.
But the cabinet’s biggest hitters will have their electric debate on this question - which is so disputed that it may prompt ministerial resignations - in the middle of next week, on 7 Feb, I am told.
Now what will be a ministerial brawl is being “informed” by confidential and highly sensitive analysis of the economic impact of different possible trading relationships the UK might have with the EU.
The analysis is being disseminated in a novel way: because of fear of leaks, ministers are not being given documents.
Instead a director general and economist at the Department of Exiting the EU, Susannah Storey, makes a personal presentation - with slides - to any Secretary of State on the crucial cabinet sub-committee who requests it.
She’s accompanied by an economist from the Treasury. And the relevant Secretary of State is encouraged to bring along the chief economist from his or her respective department, just in case he or she wants reassurance that it isn’t a terrible Whitehall stitch-up.
What amuses me most is the civil-service politics of this. The analysis is led by the economics section of the arch-Brexiteer David Davis’s Dexeu - and not by that last bastion of the Remoaners, which cried Armageddon during the EU referendum campaign, the Treasury.
The work was done and is owned by the cross departmental Government Economic Service.
With this device, the Treasury and the chancellor Philip Hammond are trying to protect themselves from the inevitable charge that they are mugging the heroes of the Leave campaign, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.
In practice of course Johnson and Gove are being well and truly duffed up.
The point is that the analysis shows UK growth and prosperity would be significantly greater if UK rules and regulations for business were closely aligned to those of the EU, and never diverged to any significant extent - because this would be expected to deliver cheaper and less cumbersome access for UK goods and services to the EU’s giant single market.
In other words, the civil service economists are underwriting the political position of Hammond, Amber Rudd and Greg Clark that it is worth sacrificing a degree of national control over rules and regs for the sake of becoming a bit less poor or a bit more rich (depending on what else is transpiring in an economic sense).
Or to put it another way, the Whitehall “experts” - so derided by Gove in the run-up to the referendum - are getting their own back on Gove and Johnson by providing supposed empirical proof that the Leavers’ passion to take back total control over making laws that affect business and commerce would be to throw mountains of £50 notes on to a religious fire.
The government economists’ case for remaining “converged” with the EU is so clear and overwhelming, I am informed, that ministers tell me they are utterly bemused by how Johnson and Gove will dismiss it - as they surely will.
Which leaves a PM, who in effect has the casting vote, with the invidious decision of whether to back an ostensibly impartial civil service analysis or embrace the convictions of her two most outspoken and influential colleagues.
Will she back the orthodoxy of Sir Humphrey and the mandarinate or the apostasy of Mr Boris and the Brexit bunch?
Which ever choice she makes has the potential to split her party. So it presumably feels to her less like boring boring economics and more like Russian roulette with a loaded bazooker.
That's a really interesting post. An I agree you have highlighted the key line in it. Surely the arch Brexiteers are going to reject the incontrovertible evidence that's stacked up against them; but, as it's incontrovertible, it's hard to see how.
However, can I raise something a bit more immediate? If Peston's right, and the sub-committee did, indeed, pass the seemingly un-contentious issue of sharing data with the EU as it pertains to security and safety (as they surely should do) they have driven a coach and horses straight through one of Theresa May's so-called red lines.
Sharing data between the EU27 and a third country (as the UK will surely be), will require that the third country adheres to policy, regulations, guidance and laws with regards to data protection. Fine. But what happens when (not if, but when) the UK transgresses those laws? Because it's bound to happen. Somewhere, some data will be misused, a thumb drive will be left on a train, a piece of data will be used for reasons outside those on which its use has been granted. Laws get broken. Sometimes deliberately, sometimes not. And when they do, cases go to court. Should Fred, a well-known purveyor of substances in Ibiza really have been arrested on his motor launch in Gravesend that Tuesday morning at 4:15am? Or has the data about him been misused by the Met? Or gathered illegally by Spanish police? Let's test it in court. Only, which court? The data is being provided under EU law. As a third country, we will have to agree to abide by EU laws. And EU laws are upheld in EU courts - ie the ECJ. Only... one of Theresa May's red lines is that we won't be subject to the ECJ.
So, what is it, Brexiteers? Are you (1) caving in to the EU and agreeing to be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ? Or (2) are you too stupid to notice what you have agreed to? Or (3) are you keeping your powder dry until next week's pow-wow on the 7th, where all hell breaks loose?
I mean how badly has someone been failed in life that they think if they don't like something they can just pretend it doesn't exist? I can understand some people who simply didn't learn this isn't an acceptable way to approach life, but Johnson and the other top Tories who also spout this profoundly anti-intellectual position attended supposedly the best schools in the country and still have this profoundly infantile mindset.
It’s quite easy for some to pretend things don’t exist.
David Davies responding to questions about the leaked analysis:
I mean how badly has someone been failed in life that they think if they don't like something they can just pretend it doesn't exist? I can understand some people who simply didn't learn this isn't an acceptable way to approach life, but Johnson and the other top Tories who also spout this profoundly anti-intellectual position attended supposedly the best schools in the country and still have this profoundly infantile mindset.
They don’t believe what they’re saying either. They are just opportunistic, self serving chancers. They say whatever suits their immediate agenda.
I mean how badly has someone been failed in life that they think if they don't like something they can just pretend it doesn't exist? I can understand some people who simply didn't learn this isn't an acceptable way to approach life, but Johnson and the other top Tories who also spout this profoundly anti-intellectual position attended supposedly the best schools in the country and still have this profoundly infantile mindset.
They don’t believe what they’re saying either. They are just opportunistic, self serving chancers. They say whatever suits their immediate agenda.
Oh, I know they don't actually believe that they can pretend these reports can be ignored. But they somehow think it is acceptable to say it with a big shit-eating grin on their faces.
Comments
Cameron's decision to hold a referendum based on something nobody had done any planning for and had no idea how to implement was breathtakingly stupid. Nothing that's happened since then has suggested otherwise.
Regardless of how you voted I can't see how anyone in their right mind can be happy with how things have progressed.
What do you call someone who denounces something as wrong without even having read it? Is there a word for such a contemptible fuckwit?
I am slightly surprised that you endorse his opinion that:
'The European Union... are only concerned with one thing: How to signal to the rest of Europe that anyone who votes in a government or who votes in a referendum in a manner which challenges the authority of the deep establishment in Europe will get crushed.'
I thought A/ you did not accept that there is an elite and B/ that you think the EU believes in democracy?
I have never believed either that A/ the British elite wants to separate itself from its EU clones or B/ that the EU is democratic, they are part of the reasons I want to leave.
1. I don't endorse his opinion here, or rather, the harsh terms in which he phrases the sentence. But having read his book, I understand why he might phrase it that way
2. Nowhere does YV use the phrase "elite". You have gratuitously introduced it.
3. YV came to the UK to help campaign for Remain. His position on that remains unchanged. He has his ideas about a better Europe, some of which I agree with, some not. But he 100% endorses my view that you change it from within, as a member.
Oh dear, look at those Brexiteer GDP forecasts. Experts, eh?
This morning’s Brexit subcommittee meeting of the most senior cabinet members passed off without a fracas and was - according to those in the room - “constructive and useful”.
Why wasn’t there the now traditional Brexit punch-up?
Well it is because the PM, foreign sec, home sec, Brexit sec, Chancellor and agric sec - inter alia - were debating the “uncontentious” questions of what our future security relationship with the EU should look like and how we would share data.
In other words, the policy so politically hot that it glows blue in the dark - the shape of our preferred future trading relationship with the EU - was not discussed.
But the cabinet’s biggest hitters will have their electric debate on this question - which is so disputed that it may prompt ministerial resignations - in the middle of next week, on 7 Feb, I am told.
Now what will be a ministerial brawl is being “informed” by confidential and highly sensitive analysis of the economic impact of different possible trading relationships the UK might have with the EU.
The analysis is being disseminated in a novel way: because of fear of leaks, ministers are not being given documents.
Instead a director general and economist at the Department of Exiting the EU, Susannah Storey, makes a personal presentation - with slides - to any Secretary of State on the crucial cabinet sub-committee who requests it.
She’s accompanied by an economist from the Treasury. And the relevant Secretary of State is encouraged to bring along the chief economist from his or her respective department, just in case he or she wants reassurance that it isn’t a terrible Whitehall stitch-up.
What amuses me most is the civil-service politics of this. The analysis is led by the economics section of the arch-Brexiteer David Davis’s Dexeu - and not by that last bastion of the Remoaners, which cried Armageddon during the EU referendum campaign, the Treasury.
The work was done and is owned by the cross departmental Government Economic Service.
With this device, the Treasury and the chancellor Philip Hammond are trying to protect themselves from the inevitable charge that they are mugging the heroes of the Leave campaign, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.
In practice of course Johnson and Gove are being well and truly duffed up.
The point is that the analysis shows UK growth and prosperity would be significantly greater if UK rules and regulations for business were closely aligned to those of the EU, and never diverged to any significant extent - because this would be expected to deliver cheaper and less cumbersome access for UK goods and services to the EU’s giant single market.
In other words, the civil service economists are underwriting the political position of Hammond, Amber Rudd and Greg Clark that it is worth sacrificing a degree of national control over rules and regs for the sake of becoming a bit less poor or a bit more rich (depending on what else is transpiring in an economic sense).
Or to put it another way, the Whitehall “experts” - so derided by Gove in the run-up to the referendum - are getting their own back on Gove and Johnson by providing supposed empirical proof that the Leavers’ passion to take back total control over making laws that affect business and commerce would be to throw mountains of £50 notes on to a religious fire.
The government economists’ case for remaining “converged” with the EU is so clear and overwhelming, I am informed, that ministers tell me they are utterly bemused by how Johnson and Gove will dismiss it - as they surely will.
Which leaves a PM, who in effect has the casting vote, with the invidious decision of whether to back an ostensibly impartial civil service analysis or embrace the convictions of her two most outspoken and influential colleagues.
Will she back the orthodoxy of Sir Humphrey and the mandarinate or the apostasy of Mr Boris and the Brexit bunch?
Which ever choice she makes has the potential to split her party. So it presumably feels to her less like boring boring economics and more like Russian roulette with a loaded bazooker.
"All the experts/predictions are wrong!"
Too bad it's total bollocks.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
However, can I raise something a bit more immediate? If Peston's right, and the sub-committee did, indeed, pass the seemingly un-contentious issue of sharing data with the EU as it pertains to security and safety (as they surely should do) they have driven a coach and horses straight through one of Theresa May's so-called red lines.
Sharing data between the EU27 and a third country (as the UK will surely be), will require that the third country adheres to policy, regulations, guidance and laws with regards to data protection. Fine. But what happens when (not if, but when) the UK transgresses those laws? Because it's bound to happen. Somewhere, some data will be misused, a thumb drive will be left on a train, a piece of data will be used for reasons outside those on which its use has been granted. Laws get broken. Sometimes deliberately, sometimes not. And when they do, cases go to court. Should Fred, a well-known purveyor of substances in Ibiza really have been arrested on his motor launch in Gravesend that Tuesday morning at 4:15am? Or has the data about him been misused by the Met? Or gathered illegally by Spanish police? Let's test it in court. Only, which court? The data is being provided under EU law. As a third country, we will have to agree to abide by EU laws. And EU laws are upheld in EU courts - ie the ECJ. Only... one of Theresa May's red lines is that we won't be subject to the ECJ.
So, what is it, Brexiteers? Are you (1) caving in to the EU and agreeing to be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ? Or (2) are you too stupid to notice what you have agreed to? Or (3) are you keeping your powder dry until next week's pow-wow on the 7th, where all hell breaks loose?
For what it's worth, my money's on 2.
David Davies responding to questions about the leaked analysis:
Boris was too busy to comment.
And, if so, how good would a person have to be to Photoshop it so that it looked like the Right Honourable Jacob Rees Mogg MP?