Verbal

Bad news for you and all dreary misogynists: Dr Who's a woman. Register your outrage here: https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/886612431786692608

And thirdly, the Labour party is led by equally clueless gimps. Here's the supposedly bright new thing Rebecca Long-Bailey, aping BoJo's much-discredited line 'having our cake and eat it.' In the same interview she even uses the phrase 'Brexit means Brexit' https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/886535987572031489 The ignorance emanating from the two main parties - more than a year on from the referendum and while negotiations are running down the clock - is utterly mind-blowing. No wonder the EU negotiators are reduced to open-mouthed amazement, forced to ask 'What do you want?' of British negotiators. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/15/indecision-brexit-eu-negotiations-diplomats-no-compromise

The facts might amount to 'zero' if you bury your head deep and long enough that you refuse to face them. Here's Corbyn consorting happily with Greek 'journalist' Marcus Papadopoulos, who maintains that the Srebrenica massacre of Muslim men and boys by Serbians was a hoax. This scumbag also insists that the siege of Sarajevo didn't happen. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/srebrenica-genocide-denier-marcus-papadopoulos-dines-with-corbyn-bqc2mvzlh The reason Corbyn cosies up to him is clear enough. Papadooulos is also an Assadist, and this appeals immensely to St Jeremy's knee-jerk anti-Western outlook. The fact that he's also a revolting apologist for genocidal Islamophobic psychopaths is neither here nor there. Still, everyone needs 'friends', right fanboy? And just to highlight the cretinism of your second sentence, are you really so so dim as to be unable to distinguish between an argument and an individual? What exactly is wrong with Blair's argument that Brexit + Corbyn government would be a disaster? You may think you have an answer - so why don't you give one, instead of resorting to pathetic ad hominems? Oh, and 'blood on my hands'? That's rich. I'm no Blairite, and never have been, and like the majority of the country I was vehemently against the war (somewhat informed by knowing the place). What I have been all these years is (mostly) a Labour voter - you know, the kind of person you're going to have to convince to vote Labour again in the future. Not going well so far, is it?

But get off the damned bus now if you're Jewish, right fanboy? Or if you voice any dissent aimed at St Jeremy, even if you've been a Labour member or supporter or voter for years. Corbyn meanwhile sails on in his usual cynical, unprincipled way. It used to be said that Blair was about as far right as anyone could imagine the left could be, until Corbyn came along and adopted UKIP's policy on Brexit. It used to be said that no one in the Labour party would be seen dead snuggling up to Islamophobes, until Corbyn happily has dinner and poses for selfies with a prominent conspiracy loon who says the Srebrenica massacre in 1995 never happened, despite the overwhelming evidence that 8,000 Muslim-Bosnian men and boys were systematically slaughtered by Serbian paramilitaries. Etc, ad ****ing nauseum. There actually was a pretty good article by Blair today, pointing out that Brexit followed by Corbyn would bring this country to its knees. It's striking how so many Corbynistas have reacted with white-eyed fury, denouncing Blair as the voice of purest evil. I haven't read one response yet, arguing that Blair is actually wrong.

The May government has finally chickened out of publishing the names of countries involved in funding of violent Islamist extremism for fear of offending the no 1 source of that funding - Saudi Arabia. Taking sides with the chief state sponsor of Jihadism is the natural outcome for those with a hard Brexit Caliphate in mind. If the cap fits... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/12/uk-terror-funding-report-will-not-be-published-for-national-security-reasons

Brexit Jihadist convicted for offering money to have a Remainer murdered: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-gina-miller-viscount-guilty-rhodri-colwyn-philipps-calls-violence-run-over-a7836011.html

Interesting detail about the Article 50 letter May sent along to Tusk in March - it included specifically that the UK would withdraw from Euratom. The Labour party manifesto equally makes specific reference to Euratom - saying that retaining full membership of it would be an essential part of any Labour-influenced Brexit. Given her careless mislaying of her majority, May now faces the possibility of having to cave to get Labour support, and of having to go back to Tusk to drop a key proposal in the Article 50 announcement. He may or may not agree to accede. With that, the Brexit Caliphate will take one small but significant step away from becoming reality...

BJ for short. Better?

Even some of the right wingers are waking up to the lunacy and gross incompetence of the May government's approach - such as it is - to Brexit. Dominic Cummings, a true Brexit Jihadist, has described the May regime as 'morons' for wanting to pull out of Euratom because it depends on recognition of the European Court of Justice for adjudication of disputes. The fact that this crosses May's so-called 'red line' against the ECJ jurisdiction is taken by said morons to trump the fact that the British nuclear industry would quickly run out of fuel without Euratom membership. So as before - Lord Pony and other ill-informed jihadists should start applying more critical thought to their unquestioning support of May et al. Leave it to May - and associated fools like Davis, Johnson and Fox - and the turmoil will result in no Brexit at all. What we'll end up with on the current trajectory is two+ years of chaos causing huge damage to the UK economy, followed by an inevitable belly flop back into the EU.

Beat me to it. This has always been one of David Davis's aces - that German industry, and carmakers in particular, would not allow Merkel to do a bad deal on Brexit. Pure Panglossian fantasy. On the one side of this negotiation are 27 states who've rarely united on anything yet speak as one voice. On the other side, the May government has laid out long lines of typewriters, put out an emergency call for monkeys, and are still awaiting something resembling a plan. So for the umpteenth time: Brexiteers should be terrified that the present (what counts for) Tory government is negotiating all this, because it sure as hell isn't going to lead to the sunny uplands.

Je ne comprend pas. http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/business/new-lab-hopes-to-export-to-europe-and-earn-15m-1-5215035

How will you escape it exactly? Remember, my question was how you'd avoid these regulations in any bilateral trade deal with the EU. The EU will simply insist that its regulations still apply if you want to export into the EU - as it does with pretty much everything else.

What tangible regulatory burdens imposed by the EU will we escape from when - or more accurately, given events to date, if - we have Brexit with a fully agreed bilateral trade deal with the EU?

That must account for the UK prior to 1973 being labelled, for very good reason, the 'sick man of Europe'. But all of this is a dead-wood argument - there will (should) come a time when you have to stop fighting them on the beaches. Regardless of one's view, pro or anti, the UK is in an awful mess with these negotiations, and I repeat yet again - if I were a Brexiteer, I'd be scared ****less that May, Davis et al are the ones responsible for getting this done. Because whatever it is they're doing, it isn't going to result in Brexit.

Barnier has said bluntly today that the UK's position is 'impossible'. There will be no 'frictionless' borders without freedom of movement; there will be no 'sector by sector' negotiation (i.e. financial services, motor manufacturing, etc); and there will be no compromise on ECJ jurisdiction. So much for having your cake and eating it - this is not having any cake and starving. Which means the next set of EU/UK meetings are going to be interesting. I wonder when the penny will finally drop with May, Davis, et al.? Or are they playing this out like a whole season of House of Cards, and waiting for the public mood to catch up with a reality they understand all too well but dare not mention? Either way, the choice between hard, economy-trashing Brexit and the not-really-Brexit-at-all of single market and customs union membership couldn't be starker.

While the government refuses to publish its report on the funding of Islamist extremism in the UK - which reportedly says that most of those funds come from Saudi Arabia - the Henry Jackson Society has released its own analysis. This confirms not only that most of the money to fund Wahhabi-Salafist loons comes from Saudi, but that almost all of it comes from the Saudi government itself. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/05/report-calls-for-public-inquiry-into-gulf-funding-of-british-extremism May is clearly fearful that in the UK's heavily Brexit-induced weakened state, it can't afford to alienate a huge market for British goods (mostly arms). Even if that market is the financial source of murder on British streets.

Now this sounds like something, but I can't quite find the word. Begins with a T and ends with...SM. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/02/gunmen-open-fire-outside-avignon-mosque-france-eight-injured/

So you went to one of the major donors of the Leave campaign to get a balanced view as to why motor manufacturing investment in the UK has crashed since June 2016?

Everyone has access to the single market. If Kim Jong-un has access to the single market, why won't we? On the broader point, I'm not sure what's so obvious. We have a hung parliament rather than the one that was going to gallop into the EU negotiations with a thumping majority and demand the earth. We have a department, Dexeu, and its head, who are regarded within Whitehall as wildly dysfunctional (it even lost half its ministerial team in the wake of the election, one of whom resigned because of the rampant incompetence in the department). And we have continuing frustration from the EU side that the UK seems incapable of spelling out its position coherently on anything. And we have serious splits in the two main parties between soft Brexiters/remainers and Brexit Jihadists. So the only thing that's obvious right now is nothing.

When things are 'hard to reconcile' it's usually - and in this case - because someone is trying to have it both ways, appealing to leavers and remainers. Again, that's the point; I wasn't quoting the manifesto to show how clear things are, but actually how messy they are. There are contradictions in virtually every iteration of soft Brexit. It's likely in practice that the only way a soft Brexit can be done is with no Brexit at all - even the Norway version is fraught with contradictions for the UK. The Swiss model with 10,000 or more individual bilateral agreements is also troublesome, given that the Swiss have just lost a huge battle with the EU on FoM. As for the suggestion that I've said Labour is 'mimicking' anything the Tories are saying, I've no idea where you get this. What's certainly the case - and I hope this is clearer - is that there are soft-Brexit/remain factions in the Tory party who are waiting for the political tide to turn, just as there are in Labour. The tide may just keep going out, of course, and the UK might fall out of the EU in just the way the BJs hope. The fun - if that's what it is - is in watching it all unfold.

So tell me, Pony, how 'retaining the benefits' is actually incompatible with retaining membership. That's the point - it's a very deliberate fudge. You read it as hard Brexit because you've been Pavlov-conditioned by Ukippery to see everything that way. So Labour have suckered Brexit Jihadists (aka BJs) like you and they've suckered remainers into thinking they're on their side. That's politics. Most careful politicians in Westminster are watching the political tide and will be watching it closely over the next two years - two years in which the EU will repeatedly trounce the woeful Davis, but more importantly two years (or less) in which the impact on the economy and especially jobs - Labour's red line - will be laid bare. And it's not only Labour who's playing this game. Large sections of the Tories are doing the same thing. As I've said many times now, you BJs should be very worried that May, Davis et al are the ones tasked with delivering Brexit.

Utter pony, Lord Pony. You seem to be confused by politics. Here's the Labour manifesto commitment. Read carefully: We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. Labour will always put jobs and the economy first.

Honestly, do you think that that wage rises only occur in stagnant economies?

Dear me, Nick. Do you really think this is how economies work?

Gosh, what a surprise. The racist scumbag is a ****ing liar. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/820888/EDL-London-London-Bridge-Police-Presence-Monument-St-Pauls-Latest-News https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/24/far-right-activists-detained-at-uk-border-before-britain-first-rally http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-protest-idUKKBN19F0IQ?il=0 http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/624845/EDL-march-Trafalgar-Square-ant-fascist-terror-London-Bridge-Westminster-attack-ISIS