UK - Politika i društvo

Share
avatar

Posts : 6084
Join date : 2015-11-26
Location : Location, Location

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Kinder Lad on Sun Jul 02, 2017 11:06 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/02/uk-shortcut-free-trade-post-brexit



_____
alt-lib
avatar

Posts : 9680
Join date : 2012-02-12
Location : ултраљубичица

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by паће on Sun Jul 02, 2017 11:31 pm

Anduril wrote:
UK je veoma volatilno drustvo

Наредних неколико година намеравам да седим и гледам како испаравају.


_____
чим кажу да бројке не лажу, тачно знам да баш онда лажу
pirates are guys with one eye, one leg, or both.
avatar

Posts : 16063
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by ostap bender on Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:09 pm

prilicno ocekivano

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/04/lib-dems-may-back-government-on-case-by-case-basis-say-sources?CMP=fb_gu


_____
navijao bih protiv zvezde i da igra protiv tima od 12 radulovica
avatar

Posts : 9746
Join date : 2014-12-01

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Filipenko on Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:50 pm

avatar

Posts : 16063
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by ostap bender on Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:44 pm

uberte, ks, ks


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/05/jacob-rees-mogg-announces-birth-of-his-sixth-child-sixtus?CMP=fb_gu


_____
navijao bih protiv zvezde i da igra protiv tima od 12 radulovica
avatar

Posts : 6084
Join date : 2015-11-26
Location : Location, Location

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Kinder Lad on Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:55 pm



_____
alt-lib
avatar

Posts : 2937
Join date : 2012-02-10
Location : Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Hubert de Montmirail on Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:57 pm

Hteo sam juce da okacim, ali rekoh sebi hajd da ne trolujem.

Inace, sestra mu se zove Annunziata i bas je slatkica.


_____
Veteran of two wars.
Father of nine children.
Drowned in the Caspian Sea.
avatar

Posts : 6084
Join date : 2015-11-26
Location : Location, Location

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Kinder Lad on Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:37 pm

Sam Coates Times‏Verified account @SamCoatesTimes 35m35 minutes ago
More

Exclusive: 8 point lead for Labour in first YouGov / Times poll since election..
Lab 46
Con 38


_____
alt-lib
avatar

Posts : 945
Join date : 2016-06-09
Location : Business Factory

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by  on Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:45 pm

#NoMandate je do jaja materijal za lokalnu kampanju u Beogradu, takoreći zicer za iskopirati gotovo u potpunosti.
avatar

Posts : 3748
Join date : 2015-11-22

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Gargantua on Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:44 pm

Reasons for Corbyn
William Davies

When the internet first became part of everyday life in the late 1990s, it was celebrated as a wondrous new publishing machine, an amalgam of printing press and broadcaster that would radically democratise the means of communication at virtually zero cost. As any blogger or YouTube star can confirm, this dream didn’t die altogether, but neither did it capture what would turn out to be a more distinctive characteristic of the emerging technology. Twenty years on, it has become clear that the internet is less significant as a means of publishing than a means of archiving. More and more of our behaviour is being captured and stored, from the trace we leave in online searches, the photos we share and ‘like’ on social media platforms to the vast archive of emails and tweets to which we contribute day after day. This massive quantity of information sits there, ready to be interpreted, if only something coherent can be extracted from the fog. It makes possible a new, panoramic way to assess people, now that evidence of their character can be retrieved from the past – a fact that hasn’t escaped consumer credit-rating firms or government border agencies.

YouTube, Spotify, Google Books and so on put decades’ worth, sometimes centuries’ worth, of ‘content’ at our fingertips. One effect of this is the compression of historical time. ‘Is it really fifty years since Sergeant Pepper?’ you may ask. But the time lapse feels immaterial. The internet turns up a perpetual series of anniversaries, disparate moments from disparate epochs, and presents them all as equivalent and accessible in the here and now. ‘In 1981,’ the late cultural theorist Mark Fisher wrote in Ghosts of My Life (2014), ‘the 1960s seemed much further away than they do today.’ Facebook extends this logic to people’s own personal history, informing them of what banal activity they were engaged in this time last year, or eight years ago. The archive isn’t merely available to us; it actively pursues us.

These phenomena have extended well beyond the limits of any particular digital platform, producing a more diffuse cultural logic. This is manifest in the novels of Karl Ove Knausgaard, or Richard Linklater’s film Boyhood, where the ‘big data’ mentality of capturing every biographical detail over time is elevated to an artform. This cultural epoch introduces a distinct set of problems. Which event from the past will pop up next? How can a clear narrative be extracted from the deluge of messages and numbers? What does my data trail say about me? Can past judgments of oneself or others be revised or revoked? It can seem as if there are only two options: to immerse oneself entirely, or to not give a damn. The figures who succeed in today’s populist politics are the ones who don’t give a damn. Politicians in the past may have sought ‘authenticity’, but that use of the term was always oxymoronic. If you’re trying too hard, you’re not authentic. When politics was still oriented around analogue television and newspapers, there were specific audiences for politicians’ performances and well-defined opportunities for them to exercise their charm: the TV debate, the interview, the press conference, their relationships with newspaper editors. But now that politicians (like the rest of us) are subject to ceaseless, wide-ranging monitoring, and leave a mountainous archive of evidence behind them, focal points of the traditional sort don’t matter so much. It will all come out anyway.

It is also telling that these successful populists are significantly older than your average 1990s ‘third way’ politician. Where the latter was a man in his early forties (now re-enacted by the even younger Emmanuel Macron), in the last two years we have witnessed the unforeseen rise of Bernie Sanders (75), Jeremy Corbyn (68) and Donald Trump (71), the oldest man ever to become president. These men have lurked on the margins of public life for decades, and a stockpile of images and stories has accumulated around them. Both Corbyn and Sanders have an impressive archive, appearing in photographs as young men being manhandled by police as they protested against racial segregation. It isn’t just their words that persuade people they offer a break from the status quo, their biographies do too. They have accrued the political equivalent of rich credit histories.

One event that did a great deal to push the ‘big data’ sensibility into UK politics, yet had little to do with the internet (it was triggered by a newspaper freedom of information request), was the MPs’ expenses scandal of 2009. Its significance for our subsequent democratic upheavals hasn’t been fully appreciated. The capacity to peer into our representatives’ lives, find out what curtains they bought, whether they take taxis or the tube, where they go for lunch, circumvented the staged performances on which politicians prefer to be judged. It revealed differences of character and taste, the sort of thing we’re now used to glimpsing via Facebook or Instagram.

Thanks to the tabloids, we have long been accustomed to the interruption of politics by scandal, including stories designed to cause the greatest possible personal embarrassment. But here was something different. In place of the revelation of David Mellor’s bedroom attire came a drip-drip of inane yet telling details of purchases from John Lewis, which didn’t interrupt politics as usual so much as reconfigure it altogether. That Ed Miliband was revealed as the most frugal member of the cabinet, and his brother one of the most extravagant, spoke of something more important than their views on fiscal policy, and whatever it was seeped into the Labour leadership contest the following year.

One of the striking results of this new media ecology is that traditional smears no longer seem to work as effectively as they did. Both Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Theresa May in 2017 sought to do down their opponents by drawing attention to their past behaviour. A tape of Trump bragging about grabbing women ‘by the pussy’ was leaked, presumably on the assumption that it would finish off his campaign once and for all. Corbyn was hammered over and over again for his past sympathies with the IRA, with the effect that Labour’s manifesto (and its vulnerabilities on Brexit) went relatively untouched.

The strategy failed because in this new environment, there is something worse than to err, and that is to be two-faced. Trump’s behaviour was shocking but scarcely out of character. Aggression and an overturning of ‘political correctness’ were what fuelled his campaign in the first place. As for Corbyn, his entire political career has been spent challenging Western imperialism and military rule. These smears didn’t tell the public much that they hadn’t already sensed – and could find out by Googling – about the candidates’ characters and priorities. By contrast, ‘liberal elites’ are vulnerable to the charge that their public and private lives don’t match up: they preach public service and altruism, while having two kitchens (Ed Miliband), making $675,000 from speeches to Goldman Sachs (Clinton) or not knowing exactly how many properties they own (David Cameron).

Hannah Arendt remarked in On Violence that rage is less commonly provoked by injustice than by hypocrisy. The difficulty is that politics must involve some degree of hypocrisy, if public and private life aren’t to dissolve into each other. ‘Be the change you wish to see in the world’ is a useful ethical heuristic, but it doesn’t help judges, civil servants or ministers in taking decisions on behalf of the public. It won’t help Corbyn either if he becomes prime minister, despite his protestations that he would continue to maintain his allotment from Downing Street. Yet in many ways digital media serve to dissolve the division between public and private, allowing a relentless, unforgiving gaze to be cast on every discrepancy between words and actions, words past and words present. In the gladiatorial world of Twitter, the greatest mistake one can make isn’t to be offensive (that can be a virtue) but to contradict an earlier tweet, sometimes even from years ago, which can then be gleefully dug up again by trolls. Under these conditions, public credibility depends on boundless sincerity and obsessive consistency, as well as a disregard for the way one is seen by others. Trump’s archive does him few favours here: his back catalogue of tweets provides a constant source of entertainment in exposing the hypocrisy of his behaviour as president, though primarily for those who never believed him in the first place. This flies in the face of Machiavellian tenets concerning political prowess, which helps explain why non-politicians, marginal politicians and non-parties (En Marche!) are now reaping the electoral benefits.

Given the degree to which conventional notions of leadership had become shaped to suit television and newspapers, the challenge to these notions is long overdue. Silly staged performances of normality must be finished for the time being. What was heartening about the general election was that it suggested a new symbolic status for policy of the sort that technocratic politics was unable to manufacture. Amid all the noise, slogans and smears of the campaign, it seems that Labour’s simple, eye-catching policies (free university tuition, more bank holidays, free school meals for all, more NHS funding, no tax rises for 95 per cent of earners) had the ability to cut through. These policies were crafted to produce a left-populist platform, with the idea in mind that policies can influence voters, but only if they are sufficiently straightforward to be able to hold their shape as they travel around an increasingly complex, chaotic public sphere. New Labour had two sets of experts: one to run its technocratic policy-making machine, the other to handle the media, which it believed could be tamed. But once editorial bottlenecks no longer determine the flow of news, and neurotic control of image is no longer realistic, policies must be designed to spread of their own accord, like internet memes. Trump’s ‘Build a wall!’ did this. Less propitiously, once the phrase ‘dementia tax’ had attached itself to the Tory campaign, it couldn’t be dislodged.

This isn’t to say that Corbyn himself wasn’t instrumental. Given the surge in youth turnout, ‘free university tuition’ may have been decisive in ruining May’s hopes of a majority, especially given Corbyn’s promise to explore ways of alleviating existing debt burdens. But not just any leader could credibly have made this promise: Nick Clegg famously reneged on it in 2010, and no Clegg-alike could have got away with making it in 2017. Centrist Labour figures and their friends in the press continue to believe it is a bad policy, on the grounds that it uses general taxation to subsidise middle-class privileges. Corbyn is different, not because he has a different view of the economics, but because he has a different political biography. What’s more, he has become a valuable asset in the ‘attention economy’ of the digital landscape, as eyes are drawn inexorably towards personal and emotional quirks. As with Trump during his election campaign, Corbyn converts weaknesses into strength. The combination of his avuncular demeanour and the earnest policy-heavy document of the Labour manifesto proved an unexpected hit.

Blairites complain that Corbyn offers simple solutions to complex problems. (They used to complain that he had some plausible policies but was unelectable: it seems that the charge-sheet has now been inverted.) But one of Corbyn’s solutions is difficult to argue with – namely, the resurrection of fiscal policy as a central tool of social and economic transformation, following 25 years in which both parties were paranoid about being tagged as ‘tax and spend’ fanatics. For the last ten years central bankers have pleaded with politicians to use fiscal policy more liberally in order to relieve the macroeconomic burden on monetary policy, but their call has fallen on deaf ears, especially in Europe. Coming in the wake of quantitative easing, one of the most technically obscure economic policies ever devised, the return of fiscal policy is welcome, both economically and politically. Corbyn has forced the Conservatives’ hand on this, turning austerity into a toxic political issue.

*

During the 1980s and 1990s, theorists such as Fredric Jameson argued that capitalism had brought about a fundamental change in the way cultural and political history are experienced. The distinctively modern sense of chronology, which emerged in the second half of the 19th century, viewed the past as unfolding progressively into the present, and the future as a space of new political and cultural possibilities to be seized by whichever artist, planner or political movement was bold enough. Postmodernity, by contrast, involved a collapse of historical progress into a perpetual present, a constant rehashing and recombining of existing styles and ideas, which put an end to any hope (or fear) that the future might be radically different.

The economic corollary of this was the entrenching of a neoliberal order in which liberal capitalism was treated as the final stage of human history: the only plausible plans were business plans, the only source of innovation was entrepreneurship. This vision still held onto some notion of progress, but it was now tightly bound to improvements in economic efficiency and consumer experiences. When Tony Blair used the word ‘modernisation’, he meant driving competition into public services. The idea of the ‘modern’ was shorn of its utopian or politically disruptive implications, provoking the suggestion that the future no longer existed, at least not as something different from the present.

The years of austerity since the global financial crisis have followed the postmodern script, but with one crucial difference. Postmodernity is typically conceived as repetitive, but playfully so. By contrast, austerity has come to be experienced as an endless, pointless repetition of pain (Yanis Varoufakis described Greece’s bailout conditions as ‘fiscal waterboarding’). With each announcement that austerity will have to be extended because spending cuts have failed once more to reduce the government deficit (just as most economists warned all along they would), the sense of disbelief has grown. In the worst cases, such as Greece, deficit-reduction schemes extend decades into the future. Precarity and rising housing costs trap young people in a state of perpetual pre-adulthood, unable to separate themselves from their parents. The need to escape this loop is ever more pressing, yet all that governments have been promising is more and more of it.

In these circumstances, hope is found in a form of historical revisionism. The successes of Corbyn and Sanders (and, in a different way, Trump) allow us to feel it might be possible to restore and re-evaluate elements of a past which predates neoliberalism. Where the modernist’s view of history would treat the march of Reagan, Thatcher, Blair and Clinton as a necessary stage en route to something better, the current sense seems to be that theirs was a path taken in error. Instead, we must go back to go forward. In the case of Trump, the perceived error goes back much further, to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and before. What is notable about Trump’s brand of conservatism is that it shows little devotion to Reagan or recent conservative history, seeking instead to imagine away much of postwar US history in favour of a hologram of a nation where men manufacture the world’s goods and women iron their shirts.



A large part of the reason Corbyn causes Blairites so much distress – whether or not they dislike his policies or style of leadership – is that he threatens to destroy their narrative of the 1980s and 1990s. In that version of history, the hard left was heroically defeated by Neil Kinnock, setting the stage for the most successful Labour government ever. What if Corbyn were to win a general election? How would that recast the significance of those battles? The coincidence of the Corbyn surge with the horror of Grenfell Tower has created the conditions – and the demand – for a kind of truth and reconciliation commission on forty years of neoliberalism. It is too simple to cast Corbyn as a throwback, but it is undeniable that his appeal and his authority derive partly from his willingness to cast a different, less forgiving light on recent history, so that we don’t have to carry on repeating it.

Reacting to the breakdown of the vote on 8 June, business leaders and conservative commentators have expressed their disquiet at the fact that young people are so enthusiastic about an apparently retrograde left-wing programme. ‘Memo to anyone under 45,’ Digby Jones, the former director general of the CBI, tweeted: ‘You can’t remember last time socialists got control of the cookie jar: everything nationalised & nothing worked.’ To which the rebuke might be made: and you don’t remember how good things were compared to today. Speak to my undergraduate students (many of them born during Blair’s first term) about the 1970s and early 1980s, and you’ll see the wistful look on their faces as they imagine a society in which artists, writers and recent graduates could live independently in Central London, unharassed by student loan companies, workfare contractors or debt collectors. This may be a partial historical view, but it responds to what younger generations are currently cheated of: the opportunity to grow into adulthood without having their entire future mapped out as a financial strategy. A leader who can build a bridge to that past offers the hope of a different future.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n14/william-davies/reasons-for-corbyn
avatar

Posts : 37946
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by William Murderface on Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:44 pm

Odlican.


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 3748
Join date : 2015-11-22

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Gargantua on Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:24 pm

https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/884474494512975872

kakva lajna
avatar

Posts : 1955
Join date : 2014-10-28

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Daï Djakman Faré on Tue Jul 11, 2017 10:39 am

Gargantua wrote:The coincidence of the Corbyn surge with the horror of Grenfell Tower has created the conditions – and the demand – for a kind of truth and reconciliation commission on forty years of neoliberalism.
#Istina, odgovornost i pomirenje


_____
is the body not billow in veil of light ?
is it not a vast beast comprised of atomic christs ?
avatar

Posts : 3748
Join date : 2015-11-22

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Gargantua on Wed Jul 12, 2017 10:09 am

EU leaders can “go whistle” if they expect the UK to pay a large Brexit divorce bill, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said on Tuesday (July 11).
The EU wants an agreement on how the “Brexit bill” to be reached before launching talks on a free trade agreement. It puts Britain’s  financial settlement at tens of billions of euros, in part to cover a share of future EU budget commitments made while the country had no plans to leave the bloc.
“The sums that I have seen that they (European Union) propose to demand from this country seem to me to be extortionate and I think ‘go whistle’ is an entirely appropriate expression,” Johnson told MPs.

avatar

Posts : 742
Join date : 2016-01-07

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Djamolidine Abdoujaparov on Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:28 am

Jezza i Naomi Klajn
avatar

Posts : 4524
Join date : 2014-10-27
Location : kraljevski vinogradi

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by otto katz on Sat Jul 15, 2017 2:55 pm

Brexit: the day the whistling ended

Spoiler:



The humiliation came in three stages, spread over three days. The first stage was on Tuesday 11 July 2017, on the floor of the House of Commons. During a debate on exiting the EU, the UK foreign secretary Boris Johnson was asked:

“Since we joined the Common Market on 1 January 1973 until the date we leave, we will have given the EU and its predecessors, in today’s money in real terms, a total of £209 billion. Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the EU that if it wants a penny piece more, it can go whistle?”

Johnson’s answer was:

“I am sure that my hon. Friend’s words will have broken like a thunderclap over Brussels and they will pay attention to what he has said. He makes a very valid point; the sums that I have seen that they propose to demand from this country seem to me to be extortionate, and I think that to “go whistle” is an entirely appropriate expression.”

Brussels could go and whistle over any financial payment in the exit agreement. Here the foreign secretary was doing little more than repeating what was said at that infamous dinner at Downing Street, where (according to Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung):

“The subject of money came up in conversation. The EU estimates costs of 60-65 billion Euros for London. May argued that her country didn’t owe the European Union one penny; after all, there’s nothing in the treaty about a final tally due in the event of an exit.”

The second step of the humiliation came the day after, on Wednesday, at a press conference given by the EU chief negotiator on Brexit, Michael Barnier. He was asked about the “whistle” comment. With the air of a headteacher telling the pupils that it is only their own time they are wasting, he responded:

“I am not hearing any whistling, just the clock ticking.”

The third stage was the admission by the UK government on Thursday that it was, in fact, accepting that it was to pay an amount to the EU on departure. This was spotted by the FT’s bureau chief in Brussels Alex Barker as a written answer to a parliamentary question. The relevant portion of the answer was:

“On the financial settlement, as set out in the Prime Minister’s letter to President Tusk, the Government has been clear that we will work with the EU to determine a fair settlement of the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, in accordance with the law and in the spirit of our continuing partnership. The Government recognises that the UK has obligations to the EU, and the EU obligations to the UK, that will survive the UK’s withdrawal — and that these need to be resolved.”

This went subtly beyond what was said in the Article 50 letter of 29 March 2017, which had stated:

“We will need to discuss how we determine a fair settlement of the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, in accordance with the law and in the spirit of the United Kingdom’s continuing partnership with the EU.”

As Alex Barker reported, EU diplomats said the wording “goes further” than Theresa May’s previous reference to Britain being willing to reach a “fair settlement” of unspecified (not necessarily financial) obligations.

In effect, Thursday was the day the whistling ended. This, of course, is no surprise. Unless something unexpected happens, the story of the Brexit negotiations will be one of the UK giving way on each contested point. Britain promised the “row of the summer” over the sequencing of the negotiations before quietly capitulating. The UK appears to be now accepting the principle of some payment to the EU on exit.

There are two main reason for these setbacks. The first, which was set out in a trilogy of posts on this blog (here, here and here), is that the EU has prepared properly and practically for these negotiations. The EU knows what it wants, can justify what it wants and has worked out how to achieve it. Britain is instead saddled with a prime minister whose idea of “getting on with the job” includes calling and then losing unnecessary general elections.

The second reason is that UK ministers are, in fact, negotiating with the wrong people (as set in on this blog in November). Ministers are engaged in attempting to win over, as much as possible, their own backbenchers and the tabloid newspapers. A martian looking down on these ministers would assume that the EU exit negotiations were of secondary importance to winning political and press support. The Brexit agreement has an auxiliary role to the need to say the right things to the right people domestically.

Such is the closeness of Westminster political and media worlds that the foreign secretary and others do not realise there is anything about international agreements beyond joking with backbenchers and political correspondents. For Mr Johnson and those laughing along with him, Mr Barnier and his team are no closer than Alfred T. Mahan’s far distant, storm-beaten ships.

As pro-Brexit ministers attempt to bluster or chuckle their way through any form of scrutiny, the EU negotiating team is there waiting patiently, knowing the clock is ticking away. There will be attempts by ministers and their supporters at avoidance, evasion and diversion. There will be name-calling and strident demands for patriotism. There will be blame-mongering and jockeying for succession. But what there will not be is any relevant minister taking this as seriously as the EU is doing.

This week may have seen the day when the whistling stopped. But far more important is what Britain will have to show for itself when the ticking of the clock stops in just over 20 months’ time, and is replaced by the sound of silence. Even Mr Johnson may fail to raise a smile then.





_____
Разгромили атаманов
Разогнали воевод
avatar

Posts : 3748
Join date : 2015-11-22

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Gargantua on Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:01 pm

avatar

Posts : 2937
Join date : 2012-02-10
Location : Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Hubert de Montmirail on Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:07 pm

Težak je to slom mozga. Neki dan u Telegraphu ide članak kako je Brexit prava prilika da UK i Afrika ponovo uspostave ekonomske odnose kao nekada, sada kada su konačno slobodni od briselskog neokolonijalizma. Baš tim rečima.


_____
Veteran of two wars.
Father of nine children.
Drowned in the Caspian Sea.
avatar

Posts : 6084
Join date : 2015-11-26
Location : Location, Location

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Kinder Lad on Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:13 pm

 

Ili misle na Kongo? 


_____
alt-lib
avatar

Posts : 2937
Join date : 2012-02-10
Location : Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Hubert de Montmirail on Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:26 pm

Pardon, nisam lepo preneo

Britain and Africa will prosper together if we ditch the EU's economic colonialism


_____
Veteran of two wars.
Father of nine children.
Drowned in the Caspian Sea.
avatar

Posts : 3748
Join date : 2015-11-22

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Gargantua on Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:49 pm


Philip Hammond is trying to **** up Brexit, Cabinet minister says

   Agnes Chambre

Posted On:
17th July 2017



In the latest salvo in the civil war between Tory leadership contenders, a Cabinet minister told the Daily Telegraph that that the Chancellor and the Treasury are the “establishment" and that without the Prime Minister in place the “the whole thing will fall apart”.

The comments are the latest attack on the Chancellor after five ministers told the Sunday Times he had told last week's Cabinet meeting that public sector workers are "overpaid".

A separate story in The Sun claimed Mr Hammond told the same meeting that modern trains are so easy to drive that "even women can do it".

“What's really going on is that the Establishment, the Treasury, is trying to **** it up. They want to frustrate Brexit,” the minister told the Telegraph.

"This is a critical moment. That's why we have to keep Theresa there. Otherwise the whole thing will fall apart."  


The minister claimed Mr Hammond views Brexiteers as "a bunch of smarmy pirates" who have "taken the Establishment prisoner".

Iain Duncan Smith yesterday told the plotters to “shut up, for goodness sake”, while International Trade Secretary Liam Fox said they should “be very quiet” and “drink less prosecco”.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reported this morning that Theresa May now has the support of her backbenchers to fire her warring Cabinet colleagues.

She reportedly received a message from the backbench 1922 committee saying she has their support to remain in place to deliver Brexit in early 2019.

One senior Conservative told the paper: “The PM has the strong support of Tory MPs — she can enforce cabinet discipline however she thinks is appropriate...We will be cheering her on.”

Transport Secretry Chris Grayling denied the Cabinet was at war.

He told the Today programme: "What I was reading over the weekend was about rows in the Cabinet which simply didn't happen.

"I don't see these great divisions that I was reading about the Sunday newspapers and I have to say I think all of this is somewhat overplayed.

"What I know is that we are not a group of clones, we have discussions around the Cabinet table and outside Cabinet, we debate issues, we decide what's right and we get on with it. I'm very clear that the Cabinet and the party are united behind Theresa May, united in determination to get the right deal for the country in Brexit negotiations and to continue the economic progress we have made."

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/news/87578/philip-hammond-trying-brexit-cabinet
avatar

Posts : 9746
Join date : 2014-12-01

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Filipenko on Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:02 pm

Kinder Lad wrote: 

Ili misle na Kongo? 


Upravo takav scenario im želim. A i Belgiji 
avatar

Posts : 6084
Join date : 2015-11-26
Location : Location, Location

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Kinder Lad on Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:29 pm

Hubert de Montmirail wrote:Pardon, nisam lepo preneo

Britain and Africa will prosper together  if we ditch the EU's economic colonialism

Pa da, zasto da neko u radnji kupuje beztarifne francuske cokolade, kad je bolje da kupuje, ne znam, kenijske? O robnim markama da ne pricam sta ce da bude. Cela ideja je napraviti da deo stanovnistva prakticno kupuje kao da je u trecem svetu, ekstra profit od toga d'uzmu oni koji ce zivetu u nultom svetu. I za to glasa, na primer, Sunderland. Imbecili.


_____
alt-lib
avatar

Posts : 2937
Join date : 2012-02-10
Location : Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Hubert de Montmirail on Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:14 pm

uh, ovo mora da je spektakl, idem da nakokam kokice i otvorim pivu...



_____
Veteran of two wars.
Father of nine children.
Drowned in the Caspian Sea.
avatar

Posts : 2937
Join date : 2012-02-10
Location : Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Hubert de Montmirail on Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:33 pm

jao, otvorio je twitter i instagram nalog



_____
Veteran of two wars.
Father of nine children.
Drowned in the Caspian Sea.

Re: UK - Politika i društvo

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Sat Aug 19, 2017 1:47 am