Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

EdgeCase

David Cameron also seems to look much happier and healthier now that he's not PM.

Imreoir2

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Would either of you be making such comments about a male politician?

Yes, the very same thing was noted in respect of Obama's term in office. I remember plenty of Before and After pictures doing the rounds back in 2015/16 comparing Obamas apperance in 2008 to 2015.

volchitsa

J Mysterio wrote: »

Obama for example. It was regularly mentioned how he went grey in office.

Yeah. The "greying statesman with the cares of the world on his shoulders" is a very different sort of comment from the "oul wan haircut" that was said about T May just now. (And no, I don't like her either but that's kind of irrelevant when we're just dissing her appearance and her taste in haircuts).

To put it in context, can anyone imagine derogatory comments about Obama's nappy hair or something else to do with his race? Other than from out and out racists of course. But when it's a woman, derogatory comments like that are to be expected it seems.

Anthracite

briany wrote: »

Maybe the dictionary agrees, but officials would still do well to pay attention to the sensitivities around the word. If they're deliberately trying to inflame sentiment by using the word, that'd be a little out of step with EU officials' usually quite dry language. In a roundabout way, it could be a suggestion that EU officials are a bit rattled.

That is all unless that's just what the EU are using for each overseas holding, including ones by EU members who are not departing, but if not then it does indicate a bit of niggle.

I think it's indicative of differential treatment for those inside and those outside the club.

FrancieBrady

briany wrote: »

Maybe the dictionary agrees, but officials would still do well to pay attention to the sensitivities around the word. If they're deliberately trying to inflame sentiment by using the word, that'd be a little out of step with EU officials' usually quite dry language. In a roundabout way, it could be a suggestion that EU officials are a bit rattled.

That is all unless that's just what the EU are using for each overseas holding, including ones by EU members who are not departing, but if not then it does indicate a bit of niggle.

UN have no problem using the term 'decolonisation' in it's list. How do you decolonise something that isn't a colony?


http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml

tuxy

They can't all be like the iron lady and get by on four hours sleep a night!

kunst nugget

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Would either of you be making such comments about a male politician?

I've seen plenty of people make comparison with how Obama looked when he started his presidency and when he finished it and look how much Trump gets slagged off for his looks.

BorneTobyWilde

Hurrache wrote: »

Watching the BBC documentary last week it struck me how much she aged in the period from when Cameron was PM to now.

Incredibly so, makes me think, everyone needs a break, a time to relax.
Stress kills. It's not even her fight that is the funny thing.

J Mysterio

The Closer UK gets to Brexit, more it Regrets it.


Source

YouGov poll.

volchitsa

kunst nugget wrote: »

I've seen plenty of people make comparison with how Obama looked when he started his presidency and when he finished it and look how much Trump gets slagged off for his looks.

That's true about Trump, but then Trump is very much part of that coarsening of public speech generally that has made hateful personal comments more commonplace everywhere - and he very much attacks women for their appearance and even for supposedly being on their periods.

Not defending that slagging off of Trump, I'd like to see it all stopping, but I think he gives far more of it than he gets, and has done for years.

EdgeCase

Trump's just unbelievable. To be fair to the British extreme nationalist politicians and I'm not really finding a whole lot of sympathy, they mostly just stick to simple jingoism and xenophobia.

Most of the taunting comments have actually been aimed at Juncker.

Imreoir2

volchitsa wrote: »

Yeah. The "greying statesman with the cares of the world on his shoulders" is a very different sort of comment from the "oul wan haircut" that was said about T May just now. (And no, I don't like her either but that's kind of irrelevant when we're just dissing her appearance and her taste in haircuts).

To put it in context, can anyone imagine derogatory comments about Obama's nappy hair or something else to do with his race? Other than from out and out racists of course. But when it's a woman, derogatory comments like that are to be expected it seems.

I mean, people take the piss out of BoJo haircut all the time. I think its fair to comment on a woman's appearance and choice of haircut if it is in some way comment worthy, just as one might with a man.

Seth Brundle

EdgeCase wrote: »

she's very much in control

In what way is she in control?
I don't think she has had any control over her party, her cabinet or her policies since she became PM. It's been one disaster after another. She then compounds the disaster by doing a u-turn or making another atrocious announcement. The only reason she is still there is because her opposition is just as bad.
She is an utter failure!

J Mysterio

Check this out...

The Liberal Democrat leader, Vince Cable, warned about the potential impact of a no-deal Brexit on Northern Ireland, after the government conceded it had not specifically earmarked funds for avoiding disruption in the province.

The Northern Ireland minister, John Penrose, told Cable in a written parliamentary answer “the Northern Ireland Office has not specifically allocated any funding for no-deal preparations,” adding: “A number of staff across the department work on both EU exit and non-EU exit related work.”

Cable said: “If the government is serious about letting Britain crash out of the EU, there should be a dedicated unit in the Northern Ireland office, preparing for this eventuality. We can only conclude that the no-deal threat is a false one.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/04/we-will-deliver-a-brexit-that-mps-and-northern-ireland-can-support-pm-to-say

Woefully underprepared! 53 feckin days left!

EdgeCase

Seth Brundle wrote: »

In what way is she in control?
I don't think she has had any control over her party, her cabinet or her policies since she became PM. It's been one disaster after another. She then compounds the disaster by doing a u-turn or making another atrocious announcement. The only reason she is still there is because her opposition is just as bad.
She is an utter failure!

She's in control in the sense that she has chosen this path. The fact that it's a complete disaster doesn't means she's not in control.

If she wanted to she could have pulled together support from the centre of the labour party, lib Dems and SNP. She opted to continue to placate the DUP for some reason.

She could make a speech laying out in stark terms what a huge risk this is and appeal for cross party support.
She doesn't. She just engages in sniping.

She could also resign on principle and attempt to trigger an election again

She's done none of these things because she doesn't want to.

She's the PM. She has significant political power but seems dogmatic about this path

c.p.w.g.w

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Pretty stark portrayal of the position of Irish citizens in northern Ireland by a barrister on Claire Byrne.
It's getting scary on a practical level for them now.

What was the barrister saying?

Peregrinus

Folkstonian wrote: »

Neither does the colony of Gibraltar.

It’s a British Overseas Territory.

Doesn’t bother me what you call it - but it does demonstrate a desire to be antagonistic

Maybe it just represents a desire to call a spade a spade?

What used to be known as "Crown Colonies" were rebranded in 1983 as "British Dependent Territories", and rebranded again in 2002 as "British Overseas Territories". But the rebranding wasn't accompanied by any change in substance; the shiny new Territories don't have any greater autonomy, independence, control or democratic participation in Westminster than they had when they were dusty old Colonies. They still have exactly as much internal self-government as Westminster chooses to allow them from time to time, and they still have no voice at Westminister when it comes to making that choice (or any other). The term "Colony" may no longer be considered politically correct, but their colonial status hasn't changed at all.

Gibraltar voted 96% to remain in the EU, but is being taken out of the EU. That tells you all you need to know about how much self-government Gibraltar has.

woohoo!!!

Whatever stress May is dealing with, it's mostly generated by trying to manage her own party. She was correct to call a GE, she had a huge lead in the polls at the time in the order of 15% over Corbyn. This would have possibly enabled her to ignore ERG and push her own way.

But we all know what happened instead and she's merely riding the broncho now, just about hanging on.

Peregrinus

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Whatever stress May is dealing with, it's mostly generated by trying to manage her own party. She was correct to call a GE, she had a huge lead in the polls at the time in the order of 15% over Corbyn. This would have possibly enabled her to ignore ERG and push her own way.

But we all know what happened instead and she's merely riding the broncho now, just about hanging on.

She had already decided, some months previously, to pander to the ERG. This was evidenced in her Lancaster House speech of January 2017, when she set the UK firmly on course for a hard Brexit - no participation in any arrangements regulated by the European Court of Justice, no free movement, no membership of the Single Market, no Common Commercial Policy, no common tariffs, no Customs Union.

Whatever her reason for calling a general election in June 2017, it certainly wasn't an attempt to outflank the hard brexiters.

murphaph

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I mean, people take the piss out of BoJo haircut all the time. I think its fair to comment on a woman's appearance and choice of haircut if it is in some way comment worthy, just as one might with a man.

Sammy "slovenly" Wilson's nose picking has also been commented on. Mogg's been referred to as all sorts, including resembling a "haunted pencil". Comments about appearance have certainly been made about male politicians in this thread. Probably more comments about the appearance of various men than of women in fact.

Zubeneschamali

briany wrote: »

Maybe the dictionary agrees, but officials would still do well to pay attention to the sensitivities around the word. If they're deliberately trying to inflame sentiment by using the word, that'd be a little out of step with EU officials' usually quite dry language. In a roundabout way, it could be a suggestion that EU officials are a bit rattled.

No, this is a sign that the Spanish see the Brits are down and it's safe to start kicking them. Just wait until you see the list of demands when the UK inevitably admit they cannot Brexit in March, and please can they have an extension, sir. Spain: about Gibraltar. France et al: about those fish. Ireland: about that border.

Zubeneschamali

volchitsa wrote: »

can anyone imagine derogatory comments about Obama's nappy hair or something else to do with his race? Other than from out and out racists of course.

You are kidding, right? The press had a three day sensation when Obama wore a tan suit once.

Zubeneschamali

J Mysterio wrote: »

Woefully underprepared! 53 feckin days left!

Cable is not saying they are unprepared for No Deal so they should prepare.

He is saying they have not even pretended to prepare for No Deal in NI, so they are clearly bluffing, and plan to fold if their bluff is called.

Peregrinus

briany wrote: »

Maybe the dictionary agrees, but officials would still do well to pay attention to the sensitivities around the word. If they're deliberately trying to inflame sentiment by using the word, that'd be a little out of step with EU officials' usually quite dry language. In a roundabout way, it could be a suggestion that EU officials are a bit rattled.

That is all unless that's just what the EU are using for each overseas holding, including ones by EU members who are not departing, but if not then it does indicate a bit of niggle.

SFAIK, no other EU member state has colonies, by whatever name. Spain has Ceuta and Melilla, France has its départements d’outre-mer, Portugal has the Azores, etc, but these no longer have a colonial form of government (and some of them never did). They are fully part of the country concerned, represented in parliament, denizens having full birthright citizenship, etc. The UK is the only country which has territories that are not part of the UK, but for which the UK is the sovereign power, and which have only limited powers of self-government which are conferred by the UK, and can be revoked by the UK.

Portugal used to have a colony in Macau, but no longer does. Greenland used to be classed as a colony of Denmark, but not since 1953, when it was incorporated into the Kingdom of Denmark. And various French possessions, mostly in the Pacific, were regarded as colonial possessions until incorporated in the French Republic as Overseas Departments and Regions.

woohoo!!!

Peregrinus wrote: »

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Whatever stress May is dealing with, it's mostly generated by trying to manage her own party. She was correct to call a GE, she had a huge lead in the polls at the time in the order of 15% over Corbyn. This would have possibly enabled her to ignore ERG and push her own way.

But we all know what happened instead and she's merely riding the broncho now, just about hanging on.

She had already decided, some months previously, to pander to the ERG. This was evidenced in her Lancaster House speech of January 2017, when she set the UK firmly on course for a hard Brexit - no participation in any arrangements regulated by the European Court of Justice, no free movement, no membership of the Single Market, no Common Commercial Policy, no common tariffs, no Customs Union.

Whatever her reason for calling a general election in June 2017, it certainly wasn't an attempt to outflank the hard brexiters.

Certainly her red lines didn't come from nowhere. They have boxed her in and now 2 years later, she knows first hand what she can get, but she neglected to bring HoC with her. Tory unity far more important than building cross party consensus on the issue of a generation.

lawred2

volchitsa wrote: »

Yeah. The "greying statesman with the cares of the world on his shoulders" is a very different sort of comment from the "oul wan haircut" that was said about T May just now. (And no, I don't like her either but that's kind of irrelevant when we're just dissing her appearance and her taste in haircuts).

To put it in context, can anyone imagine derogatory comments about Obama's nappy hair or something else to do with his race? Other than from out and out racists of course. But when it's a woman, derogatory comments like that are to be expected it seems.

Comments about Obama's what?

Zubeneschamali

Regulars here won't learn much that is new, but these pieces are nicely written:

Maria Farrell on being Irish and living in Brexit Britain.

Laurie Penny explaining the whole mess to Americans.

I particularly like Penny's explanation of the Referendum result: The Tories sold out the British people and then made the mistake of giving them one real chance to make their feelings known—and, well, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like David Cameron's face.

Peregrinus

lawred2 wrote: »

Comments about Obama's what?

His nappy hair.

"Nappy", in American English, has nothing to do with what you wrap around a baby's bottom - that's a "diaper". In American English it's an adjective, meaning "frizzy". "Nap' is the layer of projecting fibres that you get on the surface of tweed, wool and similar fabrics; also the finish that is deliberately created on, e.g., velvet or corduroy fabrics by raising fibres and cutting them to a uniform length. Thus "nappy" cloth is cloth with a nap, and by analogy "nappy hair" is tightly cut frizzy hair, considered in the US to be stereotypical of black people, and especially of black people who do not use artificial hair straighteners.

It's one of those words that frequently, but not always, gets used with derogatory overtones.

Enzokk

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I mean, people take the piss out of BoJo haircut all the time. I think its fair to comment on a woman's appearance and choice of haircut if it is in some way comment worthy, just as one might with a man.

I think you have to be careful though. Johnson uses his hair as a way to enhance his profile and there are stories out there of him deliberately making a mess of it before he goes out for appearances. I think that makes him more fair game when commenting on that aspect of his appearance if he highlights it. But it is a slippery slope.

EdgeCase wrote: »

If she wanted to she could have pulled together support from the centre of the labour party, lib Dems and SNP. She opted to continue to placate the DUP for some reason.

She could make a speech laying out in stark terms what a huge risk this is and appeal for cross party support.
She doesn't. She just engages in sniping.

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Certainly her red lines didn't come from nowhere. They have boxed her in and now 2 years later, she knows first hand what she can get, but she neglected to bring HoC with her. Tory unity far more important than building cross party consensus on the issue of a generation.

Regarding May, she has gone for party unity over country. This is not surprising though, she has come through politics where there is almost no thought of breaking with your party. She is just parcel of the politics of the UK where the opposition is there to oppose and the government isn't there to find compromises. Look at PMQs and it is basically what politics in the UK is about, not about finding answers but about trying to get one over the other party.

In hindsight she should have gone for a cross party solution but there is very little examples of this needing to be done and once she lost her majority there was no chance of her going for it as the extreme wing of her party would make it impossible for her to do that. They are like little children who will throw a tantrum and embarrass her our of spite just because they didn't get their way.

Akrasia

EdgeCase wrote: »

She's in control in the sense that she has chosen this path. The fact that it's a complete disaster doesn't means she's not in control.

If she wanted to she could have pulled together support from the centre of the labour party, lib Dems and SNP. She opted to continue to placate the DUP for some reason.

She could make a speech laying out in stark terms what a huge risk this is and appeal for cross party support.
She doesn't. She just engages in sniping.

She could also resign on principle and attempt to trigger an election again

She's done none of these things because she doesn't want to.

She's the PM. She has significant political power but seems dogmatic about this path

Thats a bit like saying s drunk driver is in control because she chose to drive after 2 bottles of gin

Theresa May have made choices, but she's far from in control.

Which is ironic given how her mantra is to 'take back control' of borders by leaving them unpatrolled, money by hemmoraging a trillion pounds worth of it, and immigration, by guaranteeing labour shortages that will see the NHS grind to a halt and fruit and vegetables rotting into the soil.