Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Thread Split! Culture Cup Rules!

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:But none of the play stuff matters at all. Their political leanings don’t matter. If a woman is screaming “get off me” while pouring banging can be heard during a domestic dispute in her own home, that’s a matter of public responsibility. The fact that it involved the prospective future PM makes it in the public interest.

No, it does not.

Sorry mate, but it absolutely does. If there is a chance that the next PM is a domestic abuser, it's in the public interest. Madness to claim otherwise.

Fine. We're entitled to differing opinions, but in my view this just reflects modern society i.e. we have a 'right' to know others' business. We don't and given there's no, you know, evidence, of any abuse etc here, it's just a row isn't it? Move along, nothing to see here...

SecretFly wrote:Now there's real thinking.

Boris could be a victim here.  Boris could be laughing at how well the show is going.  Boris could be setting up Hunt to say too much and Boom introduce a clinger to Hunt himself.  

Politics is a spin and backstabbing business.  Business as usual.

There's only 3 elements which need to be controlled by the players in that scenario.

1. Ms Symonds shouts "get off me" loud enough so that the neighbours can hear... she does this a few times since about June 6.
2. Boris says nothing... denies everything.
3. Donald says nothing.

navyblueshorts wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Nice try at suppressing the truth, lads.  The concerned neighbours forgot to say they were Left wing EU supporters when they rang the newspapers?  Well, when you're genuinely 'concerned', you can forget these little details of course.

Meanwhile, the woman with Boris feels like she's a victim, feels wronged, feels played... 'stitch up', she says.  
So all the feminists groups will be out in force now to support her?

Are you suggesting that, given they were hearing a banging, shouting and a woman saying "get off me", that they shouldn't have called the police and instead just let it happen?

Were they supposed to declare their political leanings while they reported their concerns to the police?

What a bizarre post.

Whatever the outcome of the call to the police, nothing justifies selling the recording to the newspapers. Nothing. It is nothing to do with the public and it's not remotely 'in the public interest'. And I loathe Johnson. Why would it even cross your mind to record it?? Unless, of course, you know who your neighbour is in this case...

The Guardian famously never pays for stories, so they didn't sell it.

That makes it alright then?

That's your inference from my post. I was merely correcting your error.

Look I think you're being a little coy here, Joey.  If you're prospectively implicating Donald, then it's a fact he don't go nowhere or do nothing without the approval of Putin.  So Russia must be involved in this too.

Beer.  Does Boris drink beer?  That's always a good alibi to have if the police come calling again.  If he likes Beer that makes life easier.  Unfortunately though, it looks bad with the wine.

Have you been listening to "Slap and Tickle" again?

You have to throw a stone... to get the pool to ripple.

Spoiler:

ha... raining here at 1:00am and my TV is reflected in the pool. Nice ripples.

Pal Joey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Now there's real thinking.

Boris could be a victim here.  Boris could be laughing at how well the show is going.  Boris could be setting up Hunt to say too much and Boom introduce a clinger to Hunt himself.  

Politics is a spin and backstabbing business.  Business as usual.

There's only 3 elements which need to be controlled by the players in that scenario.

1. Ms Symonds shouts "get off me" loud enough so that the neighbours can hear... she does this a few times since about June 6.
2. Boris says nothing... denies everything.
3. Donald says nothing.

For Christ's sake don't encourage him, PJ.

Joey is one of 606's more lucid contributors. He knows I need no encouragement.

It's all a distraction- and now an excuse for Boris to avoid a Sky sponsored leadership debate with silent K - which nobody will be talking about because of - see above. In reality his team are desperate for him not to say anything.

How can you possibly justify someone being PM if they won't actually stand up to scrutiny? (Corbyn is the same).

How did we ever end up in a situation where Mr. Rhyming Slang would be the preferred option?

Have (c)Hunt stand next to an empty podium with Johnsons name on it and keep cutting back to it for rebuttals and answers.

lostinwales wrote:How can you possibly justify someone being PM if they won't actually stand up to scrutiny?

It's fine. Being prime minister is a bit of a doss, no one really pays any attention to you.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:But none of the play stuff matters at all. Their political leanings don’t matter. If a woman is screaming “get off me” while pouring banging can be heard during a domestic dispute in her own home, that’s a matter of public responsibility. The fact that it involved the prospective future PM makes it in the public interest.

No, it does not.

Sorry mate, but it absolutely does. If there is a chance that the next PM is a domestic abuser, it's in the public interest. Madness to claim otherwise.

Fine. We're entitled to differing opinions, but in my view this just reflects modern society i.e. we have a 'right' to know others' business. We don't and given there's no, you know, evidence, of any abuse etc here, it's just a row isn't it? Move along, nothing to see here...

This is the thing. It became everyone's business the minute they started arguing so loudly that multiple neighbours could hear.

Are you seriously suggesting that, unless hard, physical evidence of physical abuse can be produced, that nobody should have known about this domestic dispute? This is the future PM we're talking about here.

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:But none of the play stuff matters at all. Their political leanings don’t matter. If a woman is screaming “get off me” while pouring banging can be heard during a domestic dispute in her own home, that’s a matter of public responsibility. The fact that it involved the prospective future PM makes it in the public interest.

No, it does not.

Sorry mate, but it absolutely does. If there is a chance that the next PM is a domestic abuser, it's in the public interest. Madness to claim otherwise.

Fine. We're entitled to differing opinions, but in my view this just reflects modern society i.e. we have a 'right' to know others' business. We don't and given there's no, you know, evidence, of any abuse etc here, it's just a row isn't it? Move along, nothing to see here...

This is the thing. It became everyone's business the minute they started arguing so loudly that multiple neighbours could hear.

[b]Are you seriously suggesting that, unless hard, physical evidence of physical abuse can be produced, that nobody should have known about this domestic dispute? This is the future PM we're talking about here.

[/b]
WHY?

However. If a criminal offence has occurred then the Police could launch a prosecution, then a court of competent jurisdiction can decide as to whether any details of the case including the identity of the parties shoud/should not be suppressed.

superflyweight wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Nice try at suppressing the truth, lads.  The concerned neighbours forgot to say they were Left wing EU supporters when they rang the newspapers?  Well, when you're genuinely 'concerned', you can forget these little details of course.

Meanwhile, the woman with Boris feels like she's a victim, feels wronged, feels played... 'stitch up', she says.  
So all the feminists groups will be out in force now to support her?

Are you suggesting that, given they were hearing a banging, shouting and a woman saying "get off me", that they shouldn't have called the police and instead just let it happen?

Were they supposed to declare their political leanings while they reported their concerns to the police?

What a bizarre post.

Whatever the outcome of the call to the police, nothing justifies selling the recording to the newspapers. Nothing. It is nothing to do with the public and it's not remotely 'in the public interest'. And I loathe Johnson. Why would it even cross your mind to record it?? Unless, of course, you know who your neighbour is in this case...

The Guardian famously never pays for stories, so they didn't sell it.

That makes it alright then?

That's your inference from my post.  I was merely correcting your error.  

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:But none of the play stuff matters at all. Their political leanings don’t matter. If a woman is screaming “get off me” while pouring banging can be heard during a domestic dispute in her own home, that’s a matter of public responsibility. The fact that it involved the prospective future PM makes it in the public interest.

No, it does not.

Sorry mate, but it absolutely does. If there is a chance that the next PM is a domestic abuser, it's in the public interest. Madness to claim otherwise.

Fine. We're entitled to differing opinions, but in my view this just reflects modern society i.e. we have a 'right' to know others' business. We don't and given there's no, you know, evidence, of any abuse etc here, it's just a row isn't it? Move along, nothing to see here...

This is the thing. It became everyone's business the minute they started arguing so loudly that multiple neighbours could hear.

Are you seriously suggesting that, unless hard, physical evidence of physical abuse can be produced, that nobody should have known about this domestic dispute? This is the future PM we're talking about here.

So what? It's not your business, or anyone elses either. Never mind.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:But none of the play stuff matters at all. Their political leanings don’t matter. If a woman is screaming “get off me” while pouring banging can be heard during a domestic dispute in her own home, that’s a matter of public responsibility. The fact that it involved the prospective future PM makes it in the public interest.

No, it does not.

Sorry mate, but it absolutely does. If there is a chance that the next PM is a domestic abuser, it's in the public interest. Madness to claim otherwise.

Fine. We're entitled to differing opinions, but in my view this just reflects modern society i.e. we have a 'right' to know others' business. We don't and given there's no, you know, evidence, of any abuse etc here, it's just a row isn't it? Move along, nothing to see here...

This is the thing. It became everyone's business the minute they started arguing so loudly that multiple neighbours could hear.

[b]Are you seriously suggesting that, unless hard, physical evidence of physical abuse can be produced, that nobody should have known about this domestic dispute? This is the future PM we're talking about here.

[/b]
WHY?

However. If a criminal offence has occurred then the Police could launch a prosecution, then a court of competent jurisdiction can decide as to whether any details of the case including the identity of the parties shoud/should not be suppressed.

Nice try laurie, but we're talking pre-formed opinions here. It won't do any good.

Personally, I think this sort of thing is more of an issue for Johnson, but a bit like that fart in the White House, I doubt it'll affect those that're thinking of voting for him:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/boris-johnson-prime-minister-tory-party-britain

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:But none of the play stuff matters at all. Their political leanings don’t matter. If a woman is screaming “get off me” while pouring banging can be heard during a domestic dispute in her own home, that’s a matter of public responsibility. The fact that it involved the prospective future PM makes it in the public interest.

No, it does not.

Sorry mate, but it absolutely does. If there is a chance that the next PM is a domestic abuser, it's in the public interest. Madness to claim otherwise.

Fine. We're entitled to differing opinions, but in my view this just reflects modern society i.e. we have a 'right' to know others' business. We don't and given there's no, you know, evidence, of any abuse etc here, it's just a row isn't it? Move along, nothing to see here...

This is the thing. It became everyone's business the minute they started arguing so loudly that multiple neighbours could hear.

Are you seriously suggesting that, unless hard, physical evidence of physical abuse can be produced, that nobody should have known about this domestic dispute? This is the future PM we're talking about here.

So what? It's not your business, or anyone elses either. Never mind.

You're right, it's not my business. I'm not a voting member of the British public.

But those that are deserve to know what kind of person will be in Number 10.

I think they already know more than they need to know about Boris Johnson.  Even if you never watched a news broadcast in your life, you'd know Boris Johnson if you lived in the UK.

Besides, it's better for the people who are against Boris and his alleged politics to remain unclear about the nature of his argument with his partner.  His reticence helps their cause.  The less they know the more legitimacy they can attach to their opinion that Boris nearly 'murdered' the woman - to repeat Bertie's humorous point.

The less Boris says, the more his enemies can spin it.  Some people don't know when they are ahead.

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:But none of the play stuff matters at all. Their political leanings don’t matter. If a woman is screaming “get off me” while pouring banging can be heard during a domestic dispute in her own home, that’s a matter of public responsibility. The fact that it involved the prospective future PM makes it in the public interest.

No, it does not.

Sorry mate, but it absolutely does. If there is a chance that the next PM is a domestic abuser, it's in the public interest. Madness to claim otherwise.

Fine. We're entitled to differing opinions, but in my view this just reflects modern society i.e. we have a 'right' to know others' business. We don't and given there's no, you know, evidence, of any abuse etc here, it's just a row isn't it? Move along, nothing to see here...

This is the thing. It became everyone's business the minute they started arguing so loudly that multiple neighbours could hear.

Are you seriously suggesting that, unless hard, physical evidence of physical abuse can be produced, that nobody should have known about this domestic dispute? This is the future PM we're talking about here.

So what? It's not your business, or anyone elses either. Never mind.

You're right, it's not my business. I'm not a voting member of the British public.

But those that are deserve to know what kind of person will be in Number 10.

What? A man who can raise his voice in a blazing row like most of the rest of us? Wow. As I said, never mind.

I wonder when the BBC and others will demand that Boris Johnson's Winkle becomes a topic for the public interest.  

I think in the US it was established that the nature of Bill Clinton's Winkle was an important topic of public interest and I think it has been claimed that Donald Trumps Winkle should be an important topic of public interest.

Thinking about it the British media did take a particular interest in the Winkle of David Cameron in an alleged student initiation ritual involving a pigs head.

It sort of demonstrates how far the public discussion on important and complex matters has descended into a prurient interest in sex, Winkle, personal lives, personalities.  Maybe the general media think the general public just can't handle or are uninterested in analysing parliamentary bills and other detailed relevant matters.

In other political news, why did Youtube delete an investigative 'whistleblower' video that showed footage of a big tech company exec saying that they were changing their algorithms to try to ensure 2016 couldn't happen again.
Why?  Well of course because the big tech company is YouTube's Momma, Google.
This Google exec then goes on to criticise Elizabeth Warren (Democratic Presidential Runner) who said the company should be broken up, saying that breaking up Google won't help because smaller companies "will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation. It's like a small company can't do that.".

Yeah, why let free voters search for their own topics, words, phrases or videos when you can be a good Communist Big Brother company and forcefully direct them to Approved Political Content instead.

American values, culture and political system is under heavy pressure ok, but not from the fart in the White House.

No name Bertie wrote:I wonder when the BBC and others will demand that Boris Johnson's Winkle becomes a topic for the public interest.  

I think in the US it was established that the nature of Bill Clinton's Winkle was an important topic of public interest and I think it has been claimed that Donald Trumps Winkle should be an important topic of public interest.

Thinking about it the British media did take a particular interest in the Winkle of David Cameron in an alleged student initiation ritual involving a pigs head.

It sort of demonstrates how far the public discussion on important and complex matters has descended into a prurient interest in sex, Winkle, personal lives, personalities.  Maybe the general media think the general public just can't handle or are uninterested in analysing parliamentary bills and other detailed relevant matters.

You're right - for the most part, the general public can't handle or are uninterested in analysing parliamentary bills and other detailed relevant matters. But they are interested in celebrity gossip, and Johnson likes to be a celebrity. That's why we'll end up with Johnson as PM. I saw a Tory member saying she'd vote for Boris because "he makes people laugh, and that's important."

No name Bertie wrote:I wonder when the BBC and others will demand that Boris Johnson's Winkle becomes a topic for the public interest.  

I think in the US it was established that the nature of Bill Clinton's Winkle was an important topic of public interest and I think it has been claimed that Donald Trumps Winkle should be an important topic of public interest.

Thinking about it the British media did take a particular interest in the Winkle of David Cameron in an alleged student initiation ritual involving a pigs head.

It sort of demonstrates how far the public discussion on important and complex matters has descended into a prurient interest in sex, Winkle, personal lives, personalities.  Maybe the general media think the general public just can't handle or are uninterested in analysing parliamentary bills and other detailed relevant matters.

Sex mad generation. If it don't have a sex or gender identity angle...it's boring.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:I wonder when the BBC and others will demand that Boris Johnson's Winkle becomes a topic for the public interest.  

I think in the US it was established that the nature of Bill Clinton's Winkle was an important topic of public interest and I think it has been claimed that Donald Trumps Winkle should be an important topic of public interest.

Thinking about it the British media did take a particular interest in the Winkle of David Cameron in an alleged student initiation ritual involving a pigs head.

It sort of demonstrates how far the public discussion on important and complex matters has descended into a prurient interest in sex, Winkle, personal lives, personalities.  Maybe the general media think the general public just can't handle or are uninterested in analysing parliamentary bills and other detailed relevant matters.

You're right - for the most part, the general public can't handle or are uninterested in analysing parliamentary bills and other detailed relevant matters. But they are interested in celebrity gossip, and Johnson likes to be a celebrity. That's why we'll end up with Johnson as PM. I saw a Tory member saying she'd vote for Boris because "he makes people laugh, and that's important."

Nail? Meet Mr. Hammer.

Speaking of which...if Boris were gay...and he had an argument with his partner. What news processors would either suppress it or criticise heavily any sources that tried to make political capital out of it.

Man on woman is such an easier thing to fixate on when it comes to discussions on Abuse.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:But none of the play stuff matters at all. Their political leanings don’t matter. If a woman is screaming “get off me” while pouring banging can be heard during a domestic dispute in her own home, that’s a matter of public responsibility. The fact that it involved the prospective future PM makes it in the public interest.

No, it does not.

Sorry mate, but it absolutely does. If there is a chance that the next PM is a domestic abuser, it's in the public interest. Madness to claim otherwise.

Fine. We're entitled to differing opinions, but in my view this just reflects modern society i.e. we have a 'right' to know others' business. We don't and given there's no, you know, evidence, of any abuse etc here, it's just a row isn't it? Move along, nothing to see here...

This is the thing. It became everyone's business the minute they started arguing so loudly that multiple neighbours could hear.

Are you seriously suggesting that, unless hard, physical evidence of physical abuse can be produced, that nobody should have known about this domestic dispute? This is the future PM we're talking about here.

So what? It's not your business, or anyone elses either. Never mind.

You're right, it's not my business. I'm not a voting member of the British public.

But those that are deserve to know what kind of person will be in Number 10.

What? A man who can raise his voice in a blazing row like most of the rest of us? Wow. As I said, never mind.

*Sigh*

No, not because he raised his voice. Because he was involved in a domestic dispute during which a woman could be heard screaming "get off me". I don't know how many more times I have to repeat this.

Unless you're being deliberately obtuse, which I'm sure you're not.

navyblueshorts wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:I wonder when the BBC and others will demand that Boris Johnson's Winkle becomes a topic for the public interest.  

I think in the US it was established that the nature of Bill Clinton's Winkle was an important topic of public interest and I think it has been claimed that Donald Trumps Winkle should be an important topic of public interest.

Thinking about it the British media did take a particular interest in the Winkle of David Cameron in an alleged student initiation ritual involving a pigs head.

It sort of demonstrates how far the public discussion on important and complex matters has descended into a prurient interest in sex, Winkle, personal lives, personalities.  Maybe the general media think the general public just can't handle or are uninterested in analysing parliamentary bills and other detailed relevant matters.

You're right - for the most part, the general public can't handle or are uninterested in analysing parliamentary bills and other detailed relevant matters. But they are interested in celebrity gossip, and Johnson likes to be a celebrity. That's why we'll end up with Johnson as PM. I saw a Tory member saying she'd vote for Boris because "he makes people laugh, and that's important."

Nail? Meet Mr. Hammer.

Or as Robert Peston put it, if Tory members elect Johnson as leader, they're voting to be cheered up by an optimist. Nothing wrong with that, it's understandable even - but it won't solve anything.

Well it might - might - just finally solve Brexit.
And Lord knows, most sane people in Europe and further afield want this damn endless Brexit Procession Done!

How many supposedly nice, normal, officious, studious, well-meaning, serious, organised and non-pompous individuals have made an absolute bollix of it so far?
Why not try the Churchillian bumbling, tossled-haired, shirt-tails-showing Boris?  The endlessly appeasing Peace in our Time was tried.  It has failed.

Fly, if you haven't yet, watch the interview Johnson gave with Laura Kuenssberg yesterday. On Brexit, it's substance-free.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Fly, if you haven't yet, watch the interview Johnson gave with Laura Kuenssberg yesterday. On Brexit, it's substance-free.

I haven't had time to watch it but have skimmed through the BBC laura Kuenssberg article on the BBC website.  

It is not substance free.  

Furthermore politics is often about trying to get the best deal between different parties.  

It is very easy for an individual to demand exactly what the future is going to hold but reality doesn't work like that.  

Does anyone here have first hand experiences of negotiating deals?  Has anyone here had first hand experiences of negotiating with hard bargainers?  

Some of you may contribute to the football or boxing forum and have some notion of what happens when teams negotiate to bring in new players or when teams negotiate to try to bring about a fight between two boxers.  That is childs play compared to negotiating between nations or multinations.

Of course your perspective also changes depending on your political partisanship or politics.  For example some of you may "hate" England and want an independent Scotland.   Others may hate "Brexit" and want the EU to screw Britain so that you can have the Schadenfreude to say I told you so to someone in the pub or on the internet who supports Brexit.

No name Bertie wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Fly, if you haven't yet, watch the interview Johnson gave with Laura Kuenssberg yesterday. On Brexit, it's substance-free.

I haven't had time to watch it but have skimmed through the BBC laura Kuenssberg article on the BBC website.  

It is not substance free.  

Furthermore politics is often about trying to get the best deal between different parties.  

It is very easy for an individual to demand exactly what the future is going to hold but reality doesn't work like that.  

Does anyone here have first hand experiences of negotiating deals?  Has anyone here had first hand experiences of negotiating with hard bargainers?

Some of you may contribute to the football or boxing forum and have some notion of what happens when teams negotiate to bring in new players or when teams negotiate to try to bring about a fight between two boxers.  That is childs play compared to negotiating between nations or multinations.

Of course your perspective also changes depending on your political partisanship or politics.  For example some of you may "hate" England and want an independent Scotland.   Others may hate "Brexit" and want the EU to screw Britain so that you can have the Schadenfreude to say I told you so to someone in the pub or on the internet who supports Brexit.

I'm not sure you need to have taken part in negotiations to know that there has to be (at least) two parties in order to negotiate anything. There's no more negotiation to be had. The new commission doesn't convene until 1st November.

SecretFly wrote:Well it might - might - just finally solve Brexit.
And Lord knows, most sane people in Europe and further afield want this damn endless Brexit Procession Done!

How many supposedly nice, normal, officious, studious, well-meaning, serious, organised and non-pompous individuals have made an absolute bollix of it so far?
Why not try the Churchillian bumbling, tossled-haired, shirt-tails-showing Boris?  The endlessly appeasing Peace in our Time was tried.  It has failed.

None.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

there have to be (at least) two parties in order to negotiate anything. There's no more negotiation to be had.

The EU negotiators have said this often enough...in clear blunt language. 'There will be no re-negotiations'.

Yes it takes two to tango, so where is/will be the intransigence with any next PM? The word is 'negotiation'. And it takes two. Maybe British people should get behind their own Leader for a change, instead of slapping the EU 'negotiators' on the back each time they say 'no renegotiating'.

superflyweight wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Well it might - might - just finally solve Brexit.
And Lord knows, most sane people in Europe and further afield want this damn endless Brexit Procession Done!

How many supposedly nice, normal, officious, studious, well-meaning, serious, organised and non-pompous individuals have made an absolute bollix of it so far?
Why not try the Churchillian bumbling, tossled-haired, shirt-tails-showing Boris?  The endlessly appeasing Peace in our Time was tried.  It has failed.

None.  

You should take some maths classes from Julius. Wrong answer. Thought the EU power halls was full of them?

No name Bertie wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Fly, if you haven't yet, watch the interview Johnson gave with Laura Kuenssberg yesterday. On Brexit, it's substance-free.

I haven't had time to watch it but have skimmed through the BBC laura Kuenssberg article on the BBC website.  

It is not substance free.  

Furthermore politics is often about trying to get the best deal between different parties.  

It is very easy for an individual to demand exactly what the future is going to hold but reality doesn't work like that.  

Does anyone here have first hand experiences of negotiating deals?  Has anyone here had first hand experiences of negotiating with hard bargainers?  

Some of you may contribute to the football or boxing forum and have some notion of what happens when teams negotiate to bring in new players or when teams negotiate to try to bring about a fight between two boxers.  That is childs play compared to negotiating between nations or multinations.

Of course your perspective also changes depending on your political partisanship or politics.  For example some of you may "hate" England and want an independent Scotland.   Others may hate "Brexit" and want the EU to screw Britain so that you can have the Schadenfreude to say I told you so to someone in the pub or on the internet who supports Brexit.

Yes, on a daily basis. Not between states but between very large organisations and involving large amounts of money and complex contractual arrangements.

Every single thing that the UK has done in relation to these negotiations runs counter to what it should have done to maximise its negotiating position and to get a suitable deal .

It all started when they served the Article 50 notification before they had any idea of what kind of deal they wanted and what would happen if they couldn't get that deal. They should have been clear as to their preferred negotiated position, their acceptable fall-back negotiated position and what they would do in the event that they couldn't get to an acceptable negotiated position (i.e. they should have had a fully rounded contingency plan in the event of no-deal).

Only with that planning in place could they have hoped to go into that negotiation with any kind of real bargaining power.

SecretFly wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Well it might - might - just finally solve Brexit.
And Lord knows, most sane people in Europe and further afield want this damn endless Brexit Procession Done!

How many supposedly nice, normal, officious, studious, well-meaning, serious, organised and non-pompous individuals have made an absolute bollix of it so far?
Why not try the Churchillian bumbling, tossled-haired, shirt-tails-showing Boris?  The endlessly appeasing Peace in our Time was tried.  It has failed.

None.  

You should take some maths classes from Julius.  Wrong answer.  Thought the EU power halls was full of them?

So it's the EU that's f*cked it up?

SecretFly wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

there have to be (at least) two parties in order to negotiate anything. There's no more negotiation to be had.

The EU negotiators have said this often enough...in clear blunt language.  'There will be no re-negotiations'.

Yes it takes two to tango, so where is/will be the intransigence with any next PM?  The word is 'negotiation'.  And it takes two.  Maybe British people should get behind their own Leader for a change, instead of slapping the EU 'negotiators' on the back each time they say 'no renegotiating'.

It does indeed take two, Fly, that's my point. There won't be an EU commission until 1st November. Who does Johnson, or indeed Hunt, intend to negotiate with?

'Getting behind' the new prime minister won't make a blind bit of difference. We have a deal, not enough MPs support it. He should be trying to win support for that.

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:But none of the play stuff matters at all. Their political leanings don’t matter. If a woman is screaming “get off me” while pouring banging can be heard during a domestic dispute in her own home, that’s a matter of public responsibility. The fact that it involved the prospective future PM makes it in the public interest.

No, it does not.

Sorry mate, but it absolutely does. If there is a chance that the next PM is a domestic abuser, it's in the public interest. Madness to claim otherwise.

Fine. We're entitled to differing opinions, but in my view this just reflects modern society i.e. we have a 'right' to know others' business. We don't and given there's no, you know, evidence, of any abuse etc here, it's just a row isn't it? Move along, nothing to see here...

This is the thing. It became everyone's business the minute they started arguing so loudly that multiple neighbours could hear.

Are you seriously suggesting that, unless hard, physical evidence of physical abuse can be produced, that nobody should have known about this domestic dispute? This is the future PM we're talking about here.

So what? It's not your business, or anyone elses either. Never mind.

You're right, it's not my business. I'm not a voting member of the British public.

But those that are deserve to know what kind of person will be in Number 10.

What? A man who can raise his voice in a blazing row like most of the rest of us? Wow. As I said, never mind.

*Sigh*

No, not because he raised his voice. Because he was involved in a domestic dispute during which a woman could be heard screaming "get off me". I don't know how many more times I have to repeat this.

Unless you're being deliberately obtuse, which I'm sure you're not.

And I ask you, again, what do you think 'get off me' meant here? What are you suggesting that Johnson was up to?

He was cheating at Twister.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:But none of the play stuff matters at all. Their political leanings don’t matter. If a woman is screaming “get off me” while pouring banging can be heard during a domestic dispute in her own home, that’s a matter of public responsibility. The fact that it involved the prospective future PM makes it in the public interest.

No, it does not.

Sorry mate, but it absolutely does. If there is a chance that the next PM is a domestic abuser, it's in the public interest. Madness to claim otherwise.

Fine. We're entitled to differing opinions, but in my view this just reflects modern society i.e. we have a 'right' to know others' business. We don't and given there's no, you know, evidence, of any abuse etc here, it's just a row isn't it? Move along, nothing to see here...

This is the thing. It became everyone's business the minute they started arguing so loudly that multiple neighbours could hear.

Are you seriously suggesting that, unless hard, physical evidence of physical abuse can be produced, that nobody should have known about this domestic dispute? This is the future PM we're talking about here.

So what? It's not your business, or anyone elses either. Never mind.

You're right, it's not my business. I'm not a voting member of the British public.

But those that are deserve to know what kind of person will be in Number 10.

What? A man who can raise his voice in a blazing row like most of the rest of us? Wow. As I said, never mind.

*Sigh*

No, not because he raised his voice. Because he was involved in a domestic dispute during which a woman could be heard screaming "get off me". I don't know how many more times I have to repeat this.

Unless you're being deliberately obtuse, which I'm sure you're not.

And I ask you, again, what do you think 'get off me' meant here? What are you suggesting that Johnson was up to?

Who knows? He's refusing to discuss it. For some reason.

superflyweight wrote:

No name Bertie wrote: Does anyone here have first hand experiences of negotiating deals?  Has anyone here had first hand experiences of negotiating with hard bargainers?

Yes, on a daily basis.  Not between states but between very large organisations and involving large amounts of money and complex contractual arrangements.  

Every single thing that the UK has done in relation to these negotiations runs counter to what it should have done to maximise its negotiating position and to get a suitable deal .  

It all started when they served the Article 50 notification before they had any idea of what kind of deal they wanted and what would happen if they couldn't get that deal.  They should have been clear as to their preferred negotiated position, their acceptable fall-back negotiated position and what they would do in the event that they couldn't get to an acceptable negotiated position (i.e. they should have had a fully rounded contingency plan in the event of no-deal).  

Only with that planning in place could they have hoped to go into that negotiation with any kind of real bargaining power.    

This was my concern about Brexit - I wasn't convinced we had the politicians in Parliament or in Government competent enough to handle the Brexit negotiations and process.  

I blame David Cameron's handling of the Brexit Referendum - the run-up to it when he said he would recommend Brexit if Juncker was elected President of the EU - something Cameron and his supporters where strongly against.  When Juncker was elected President of the EU he then reneged on that position by saying he was going to renegotiate a deal with the EU.  

He came back with something that he claimed resolved all concerns and strongly recommended it.  It was not well recieved by the British Media and experts - with many claiming he only received minor concessions and only delayed by a few years implementation of certain new EU Directorates into British statutory Law.  

Then when the Referendum date was announced and Cameron started campaigning for the Remain position - his use of Project Fear made him seem distrustful.  Basically Tory remainers were claiming it would be economic armagheddon to vote leave - yet several months earlier they had been saying they might recommend Leave if Juncker was elected President - and he was.

What should have happened: a) Camerons new EU deal maybe could have been better explained.  b) If Cameron had used the argument the Government (and Parliament) basically lacked the competence to negotiate a deal with the EU or the competence to create new deals with the rest of the world - then maybe that would have been more believable.

Instead the "project fear" campaign led to what now seems to be an irreconciliable polarisation within British society.  With for example many Remainers considering it a moral issue - hence all Brexiters are immoral (or stupid or racist).   Then you get a backlash amongst Brexiters and the polarisation deepens.

And that division creates an impasse - a type of stasis - where nothing gets done. Just internal division and squabbling.

@Bertie: Agree that Cameron could have explained his new 'deal' bit better to electorate, but would argue that it was holding the referendum itself in the 1st place that led to the polarisation of UK politics, not 'Project Fear' or anything else associated with the Remain side.  Agreeing to hold the referendum was a smart move...in the short-term politically (it won the Tories the 2015 election), but disastrous in every other respect - its triggered a polarisation of UK politics and potential constitutional crisis.

Back onto Johnson, the lovey-dovey PR pic of him (is it pre-haircut?  is it his double?  is it even Ed Sheeran?!!) and his partner may have backfired - lots of questions this morning on when and where the pic was taken, which he dodged, adding further to the intrigue.  Whilst I do think this story ought to have run its course his team's handling of it has been clumsy to say the least.  

Johnson is still favourite to become PM but his stock has fallen during this campaign and whilst I'm sure he's still a v effective campaigner in elections, he's not quite the electoral asset the Tories thought he was - a charismatic character but politically toxic amongst many parts of the electorate and prone to errors of judgement.

I think many Remainers (at least those I have seen over the internet) are pinning their hopes on some sort of imminent implosion of the Tories and are now jumping at the smallest of things in the hope to discredit Boris Johnson (and this includes in the media including the BBC).

Maybe Labour missed a trick in the 2017 General Election by not having some sort of confirmatory referendum and they still seem to be dithering.  

David Cameron when he announced the referendum said it would be a one off irrevocable decision - and whatever the result he would support it and get it through - but he ran away - which was a huge sign that he and his supporters in the Tory party were incompetent (and that he was taking a massive political gamble and he was found out to be a bluffer).

Unfortunately the polarisation and the fact that many now consider this a moral issue means it is difficult to get some sort of rational and acceptable argument out there for a pause and reflect in this whole process.

And there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. The best solution would have been for MPs to approve the deal negotiated with the EU, which is the best that could have been and can be done given the government's red lines, and we'd have left the EU in March. Remainers wouldn't be happy, and Brexit hardliners wouldn't be happy, but we'd no longer a member state of the EU, thus we'd have honoured the result of the referendum. That deal is still available.

I've said this before, but there was broad acceptance of that referendum result in 2016. Had the government taken parliament with them, been clear about what kind of deal it was seeking instead of doing this sh!t 'not revealing our hand' thing and actually antagonising the very MPs whose support they were always going to need in order for the deal to be approved, we'd have left the EU by now.

Every MP who voted against the deal, regardless of their reasons, has jeopardised Brexit happening at all.

I met a Jeannie on the weekend. Thanks for your like, Lucky.

Never mind that, how are you enjoying the cricket?

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:But none of the play stuff matters at all. Their political leanings don’t matter. If a woman is screaming “get off me” while pouring banging can be heard during a domestic dispute in her own home, that’s a matter of public responsibility. The fact that it involved the prospective future PM makes it in the public interest.

No, it does not.

Sorry mate, but it absolutely does. If there is a chance that the next PM is a domestic abuser, it's in the public interest. Madness to claim otherwise.

Fine. We're entitled to differing opinions, but in my view this just reflects modern society i.e. we have a 'right' to know others' business. We don't and given there's no, you know, evidence, of any abuse etc here, it's just a row isn't it? Move along, nothing to see here...

This is the thing. It became everyone's business the minute they started arguing so loudly that multiple neighbours could hear.

Are you seriously suggesting that, unless hard, physical evidence of physical abuse can be produced, that nobody should have known about this domestic dispute? This is the future PM we're talking about here.

So what? It's not your business, or anyone elses either. Never mind.

You're right, it's not my business. I'm not a voting member of the British public.

But those that are deserve to know what kind of person will be in Number 10.

What? A man who can raise his voice in a blazing row like most of the rest of us? Wow. As I said, never mind.

*Sigh*

No, not because he raised his voice. Because he was involved in a domestic dispute during which a woman could be heard screaming "get off me". I don't know how many more times I have to repeat this.

Unless you're being deliberately obtuse, which I'm sure you're not.

And I ask you, again, what do you think 'get off me' meant here? What are you suggesting that Johnson was up to?

Who knows? He's refusing to discuss it. For some reason.

Yes, but you clearly think it's significant. So, what was it he was doing, in your mind?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:...

Every MP who voted against the deal, regardless of their reasons, has jeopardised Brexit happening at all.

You say it like that is a bad thing.

The people who jeopardised the country let alone Brexit are the people who activated article 50 without a plan or a feckin clue. That some MP's are stll buying into no deal brexit like it is some kind of religious faith is a cause of deep shame to this country, but the lack of clarity, of any kind of plan to back up the promises of the referendum campaign have left us with a situation where there is no agreement on what it should be, and no time to do anything about it.

There is now no Brexit that can actually work. I am not sure there ever was. But there is also little sign of any end to the hopeless actions of our politicians as they do anything they can to avoid this simple truth.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:But none of the play stuff matters at all. Their political leanings don’t matter. If a woman is screaming “get off me” while pouring banging can be heard during a domestic dispute in her own home, that’s a matter of public responsibility. The fact that it involved the prospective future PM makes it in the public interest.

No, it does not.

Sorry mate, but it absolutely does. If there is a chance that the next PM is a domestic abuser, it's in the public interest. Madness to claim otherwise.

Fine. We're entitled to differing opinions, but in my view this just reflects modern society i.e. we have a 'right' to know others' business. We don't and given there's no, you know, evidence, of any abuse etc here, it's just a row isn't it? Move along, nothing to see here...

This is the thing. It became everyone's business the minute they started arguing so loudly that multiple neighbours could hear.

Are you seriously suggesting that, unless hard, physical evidence of physical abuse can be produced, that nobody should have known about this domestic dispute? This is the future PM we're talking about here.

So what? It's not your business, or anyone elses either. Never mind.

You're right, it's not my business. I'm not a voting member of the British public.

But those that are deserve to know what kind of person will be in Number 10.

What? A man who can raise his voice in a blazing row like most of the rest of us? Wow. As I said, never mind.

*Sigh*

No, not because he raised his voice. Because he was involved in a domestic dispute during which a woman could be heard screaming "get off me". I don't know how many more times I have to repeat this.

Unless you're being deliberately obtuse, which I'm sure you're not.

And I ask you, again, what do you think 'get off me' meant here? What are you suggesting that Johnson was up to?

Who knows? He's refusing to discuss it. For some reason.

Yes, but you clearly think it's significant. So, what was it he was doing, in your mind?

That's for him to explain. Which he's refusing to do. He did, however, arrange for some old photo of him and his partner being all loving to be release in selected newspapers. Purely a coincidence, though.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Never mind that, how are you enjoying the cricket?

It's going very well for us at the moment.

Talk here of of possible hard Crexit for England but they are still in with a chance if they can win on Sunday.