Slam chase

noleisthebest wrote:

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I never said Fed was passion-less. He was the king of passion once.

I thought you might say something like this.  But I do not see his passion diminishing.  He is almost 38, obviously he is no longer the top dog.  But passion is not just about winning.  He is playing about as well as 38yo can, and I see no sign that he is not giving it his best, just like in the past.  How and why would you say passion is not there?

I can see that maybe you can no longer watch him with the same passion as when he was the top dog.  But that is a different story.

I’d like to believe this was a troll attempt, but deep down I know it wasn’t.

Read what I said again, and take your stone throwing gloves off before that.

And if you still want to throw a stone, pick up the biggest one you can manage.

No not trolling just trying to find an explanation for what you said.  You say passion is gone and he is half dead.  I do not think you just mean he is no longer the player he was - we could all agree there.  I think you are suggesting that in some sense he no longer burns with the same fire he used to.  But I do not see it that way at all.  So I present an alternative:

Maybe it is not about him but about you.  But rather than saying the mundane thing ("this nobody in London called nitb is more interested in watching Nole vs Rafa than Fed") you give it a "deeper" sounding - albeit untrue - slant.

But I also allow that maybe my interpretation is wrong.  But then I would want to know what is it that you really mean.  Hence my question - why do you say the passion is gone if not for the reason I suggest?

Emancipator wrote:it seems there are certain disagreeable characteristics that seem to be shared by people of that nation.

You guys in UK are still allowed to think things like these?

I'm not sure you can question Federer's passion so far in 2019.
Sometimes his form has been inconsistent, but he's fought well to win Dubai, Miami, and now Halle. Even during the clay season he could have not bothered but tried so hard and got some tough wins against Stan, Monfils, Coric.

summerblues wrote:

Emancipator wrote:it seems there are certain disagreeable characteristics that seem to be shared by people of that nation.

You guys in UK are still allowed to think things like these?

Right, you think Emancipator's observation on different cultures crosses the line, but you're a massive Trump fan. So you're happy with his comments 'why don't we let in immigrants from norway rather than shithole countries in Africa'?

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I never said Fed was passion-less. He was the king of passion once.

I thought you might say something like this.  But I do not see his passion diminishing.  He is almost 38, obviously he is no longer the top dog.  But passion is not just about winning.  He is playing about as well as 38yo can, and I see no sign that he is not giving it his best, just like in the past.  How and why would you say passion is not there?

I can see that maybe you can no longer watch him with the same passion as when he was the top dog.  But that is a different story.

I’d like to believe this was a troll attempt, but deep down I know it wasn’t.

Read what I said again, and take your stone throwing gloves off before that.

And if you still want to throw a stone, pick up the biggest one you can manage.

No not trolling just trying to find an explanation for what you said.  You say passion is gone and he is half dead.  I do not think you just mean he is no longer the player he was - we could all agree there.  I think you are suggesting that in some sense he no longer burns with the same fire he used to.  But I do not see it that way at all.  So I present an alternative:

Maybe it is not about him but about you.  But rather than saying the mundane thing ("this nobody in London called nitb is more interested in watching Nole vs Rafa than Fed") you give it a "deeper" sounding - albeit untrue - slant.

But I also allow that maybe my interpretation is wrong.  But then I would want to know what is it that you really mean.  Hence my question - why do you say the passion is gone if not for the reason I suggest?

On the first ball I’d disagree.
Bu for the sake of all the years you’ve been posting I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask: what makes you think so?

DEC1M8 wrote:

summerblues wrote:

Emancipator wrote:it seems there are certain disagreeable characteristics that seem to be shared by people of that nation.

You guys in UK are still allowed to think things like these?

Right, you think Emancipator's observation on different cultures crosses the line, but you're a massive Trump fan. So you're happy with his comments 'why don't we let in immigrants from norway rather than shithole countries in Africa'?

Do you realise that isn’t racist?

So choosing who you let in your country is a crime? Should be open for all like a whore house, anyone welcome hahaha

bogbrush wrote:
Do you realise that isn’t racist?

I was just pointing out the dichotomy of SB's surprise that Eman is 'allowed to think things like this'- i.e. generalisations of cultures within some counties in Eastern Europe, but then is a big fan of Trump who also tends to generalise negative characteristics in a group of people. It's just double standards.

DEC1M8 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
Do you realise that isn’t racist?

I was just pointing out the dichotomy of SB's surprise that Eman is 'allowed to think things like this'- i.e. generalisations of cultures within some counties in Eastern Europe, but then is a big fan of Trump who also tends to generalise negative characteristics in a group of people. It's just double standards.

But saying some African countries are shitholes it isn’t a generalisation about people.

I mean, most are aren’t they? It’s just fact. Nothing racist about saying a country is a shithole. China has a dreadful regime that systematically forces people into conformity but that isn’t racist either. Islam is a nutcase religion (they are all nutcase ones, that’s just a special case) but that isn’t racist.

Racism is where you hold against a person a generalisation based in their race. Not their country, or their religion. It’s particular rottenness is that it condemns people for something they cannot affect. Belief isn’t the same, belief is a choice.

Too many people try to find racism where there is only truth. I know many people in the media and society are trying, with some success, to conflate these things so they can shut down free discussion of beliefs and attitudes but hopefully right minded people won’t have it.

Yeah, its more of how those countries are run and corrupted, than about how the normal population is, at least how I see it.

All countries are corrupt, aren;t they? The more archaic countries have the more archaic corruptions while the more complex and evolved countries have the more complex and evolved corruption.

BTW, isn't it dead obvious the BBC is running for Hunt and would do their best to destroy Boris? I believe in the past the BBC was a lot more clever in their way to polarise opinion but nowadays they are as subtle as a banana republic propaganda.

noleisthebest wrote:

summerblues wrote:Maybe it is not about him but about you.

On the first ball I’d disagree.
Bu for the sake of all the years you’ve been posting I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask: what makes you think so?

I am just guessing.  I did not mean it as aggressive as you seem to have read it.  Try to see it from my perspective:

I am watching 2019 Fed and I am impressed how much fire there is still in him.  Not only the results (IW final, Miami title, other titles) but also the attitude.  He must know there is not much time left yet he seems to be as enthusiastic as ever.  After RG he said something like "I made a SF here which is better than I have managed in slams in over a year".  That he, with 20 slams, is still able to find encouragement in a semifinal appearance (and I felt he was being honest) struck me as so positive.

Anyway, here I am happily enjoying how alive he still is and how much passion he exudes when you come and throw cold water on it with your no passion half-dead comment.  But you do not elaborate on why feel that way.

So I am now left wondering.  How come we see it so differently?  Surely we cannot be both right?  Are we even talking about the same thing?  The suggestion I gave was just one among a number of possibilities:  that you - subconsciously or otherwise - are really talking about how you react to Federer this year.

But I did not see it as an attack on you a la stone casting exercise.  I was just trying to figure out what you had in mind.  I still do not really know.

Tenez wrote:All countries are corrupt, aren;t they? The more archaic countries have the more archaic corruptions while the more complex and evolved countries have the more complex and evolved corruption.

BTW, isn't it dead obvious the BBC is running for Hunt and would do their best to destroy Boris? I believe in the past the BBC was a lot more clever in their way to polarise opinion but nowadays they are as subtle as a banana republic propaganda.

The BBC is now an overtly left-wing, pro-EU entity. They've been in meltdown since 2016 and are desperate to derail Johnson to prevent Brexit.

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:All countries are corrupt, aren;t they? The more archaic countries have the more archaic corruptions while the more complex and evolved countries have the more complex and evolved corruption.

BTW, isn't it dead obvious the BBC is running for Hunt and would do their best to destroy Boris? I believe in the past the BBC was a lot more clever in their way to polarise opinion but nowadays they are as subtle as a banana republic propaganda.

The BBC is now an overtly left-wing, pro-EU entity. They've been in meltdown since 2016 and are desperate to derail Johnson to prevent Brexit.

The BBC have been poor, it's true, but Boris as PM?  Believe in the bin as Rory Stewart would say.

Emancipator wrote:NITB you’re basically the typical Djokovic fan. A Serbian. And that’s the only reason. Your ‘passion’ is your jingoism. As long as he wins and brings glory to your nation (and religion) you’re happy and pretty obnoxious. 

I don’t know too much about that part of the world but it seems there are certain disagreeable characteristics that seem to be shared by people of that nation. Too much pride, a desire to seen as superior whilst simultaneously suffering from an inferiority complex, and this awful insidious tribalism.

And the mask always slips very quickly.

I have to say I've never encountered what I call a typical 'Djokovic Fan' because tennis fans as I've known have been in the substance and style kind of camps. 

I think it's somewhat trivial to call out someone for being a tribal fan when (I am assuming) that we are countrymen to a country that has been the epitome of that for centuries. 

For as long as I can remember with NITB I think her passion for Djokovic has stemmed out of his beginnings. I know your not his biggest fan, however I can't help but have admiration for what he grew up around and to achieve the success he has had. When you consider what he and many others grew up around, I think he has done massively well not to be totally defined by his nationality. 

I know she has flirted with being a Federer fan in more recent time, but I have to say I did miss the old NITB who was Djokovic's staunchest fan. 

All we need now is Caledonian Craig on here to re-ignite his F1 feud with BB. Outside the tennis forum on 606V2, that was an entertaining read. :P

barrystar wrote:
The BBC have been poor, it's true, but Boris as PM?  Believe in the bin as Rory Stewart would say.

I don;t like Boris but that's not the point. People have voted for Brexit....why can;t they have it? They did not want those wars in the Middle East....yet they got them all through Blair and Cameron or Bush and Obama. Why?

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:
The BBC have been poor, it's true, but Boris as PM?  Believe in the bin as Rory Stewart would say.

I don;t like Boris but that's not the point. People have voted for Brexit....why can;t they have it? They did not want those wars in the Middle East....yet they got them all through Blair and Cameron or Bush and Obama. Why?

People did vote to Leave, and they must have it, but they must accept that a 52-48 vote when none of the campaigns suggested that we'd leave without a deal requires a degree of compromise.  I suspect that most sentient people accept that - but unfortunately the 'Leave' side of life have been radicalised by the likes of Rees-Mogg, Francois, Baker,and May with her asinine 'No Deal is better than a bad deal' slogan when the more accurate expression would have been 'No deal is the best way to get a bad deal'.  We also have some ill-informed people believing that the Irish Backstop is not the inevitable result of legal and practical reality, but due to inflexibility or a desire for revenge.

It's sad, but these absolute f*ckers have let down people who voted to Leave, and the sense of betrayal when voters realise that No Deal is no different to where we are now except our position is weaker will be appalling - but will Rees-Mogg, Farage, Francois et al take responsibility?  No, they never have done, and never will.

barrystar wrote:May with her asinine 'No Deal is better than a bad deal' slogan

Why is that asinine?  First, it strikes me as almost tautologically true.  And second, it would seem to be the only way to go into any meaningful negotiation.  If you lead off with "no deal is a no-no" why would your negotiating partner even consider a compromise?

summerblues wrote:

barrystar wrote:May with her asinine 'No Deal is better than a bad deal' slogan

Why is that asinine?  First, it strikes me as almost tautologically true.  And second, it would seem to be the only way to go into any meaningful negotiation.  If you lead off with "no deal is a no-no" why would your negotiating partner even consider a compromise?

I initially thought that too, but if you read into it in more detail, our leverage under No Deal WTO rules is so bad that even as a negotiating tactic/bluff it's pointless.

DEC1M8 wrote:

summerblues wrote:

barrystar wrote:May with her asinine 'No Deal is better than a bad deal' slogan

Why is that asinine?  First, it strikes me as almost tautologically true.  And second, it would seem to be the only way to go into any meaningful negotiation.  If you lead off with "no deal is a no-no" why would your negotiating partner even consider a compromise?

I initially thought that too, but if you read into it in more detail, our leverage under No Deal WTO rules is so bad that even as a negotiating tactic/bluff it's pointless.

Quite - the point is that even complete idiots like Rees-Mogg think ultimately we need deals with the EU and elsewhere, and the question is whether it is better to make a new deal from where we are now or from a position of having no binding legal relations with them.  And it's the former I am afraid.  If we put ourselves in the position of No Deal the EU will set up arrangements which suit them and will prevent much of the chaos that we have been warned about - Leadsom will call that a 'managed no deal', but they will only last for as long as it suits the EU and we'll have no control over how we comply with their arrangements and they can pull the plug any time they like.   Several businesses will decide to have offices, personnel, and investment elsewhere.   If not dramatic, the effect will be slow damage to the economy and our prestige as a nation to be taken seriously by others (China will be very interested to see if we have the ability to hold them off, as will the US).  In the meantime the government will be fire-fighting without being able to focus on governing the UK and trying to do a deal with the EU, who will say that they want their money and the Irish Backstop as per the Withdrawal Agreement before they sit down.  We'll see if we are in a better position to avoid either than we are now, and I think we won't be - so Baker and Rees-Mogg et al will have contributed towards serious harm simply because they do not understand how free trade, the EU, the Irish Border, the WTO, or indeed many other things work.  That is because they are a mixture of stupid, dishonest, and unwilling to hear bad news.  Most other countries will want to see if we have a deal with the EU before dealing with us, except perhaps for the US, who have an entirely different consumer protection set up which we'll have to consider aligning with if we are to do any trade deal worth having with them.  Golden rule - if a politician talks about tariffs they don't know the half of it.  Free trade is about aligning regulations hence the single market which attempts to replicate as closely as possible the ability to trade between, say, Nottingham and Manchester with Rome.  That involves doing more than reducing tarrifs.  Johnson is still lying about GATT Art 24 and an implementation period if we have No Deal - neither will be true.  As the US ambassador put it a couple of years ago, we are not involved in a what most business people would think of as a negotiation as such, we are leaving a club and they are saying, 'tell us the rules you wish to abide by and we'll tell you the privileges you can continue to enjoy'.  The  so-called 'No Deal' bargaining point is a bit like negotiating for a car, being told your price isn't good enough, and telling the seller you'll be back the next day without your trousers on.  They know we need the car.  They will hurt whilst we refuse to offer a sensible price, but they know we are hurting just as much, if not more in the meantime.

I have seen 35 or so years on and off of the elaborate audience-pleasing self-publicizing acts of both Rees-Mogg and Johnson.  Not much has changed with either of them as far as I can see.  We didn't take them seriously then, and I only hope that the public can wise up in time before they gain any more power or influence to screw our lives up.

The Irish are a distraction and should be ignored. 

The EU is a political project but the Countries behind it are more nuanced.

Alignment is done between trading partners, not between governments. When I sell to the US I do so by designing products that meet US requirements. I didn’t need the UK government to sort that for me.

Governments don’t make trade, people do. Governments spend the proceeds of trade.

I have just signed the biggest deal to sell into the EU I’ve ever done, by miles, and it’s no-deal proof. Why? Because the products are compliant with their market rules. Tariffs are irrelevant.

It’s balls barry, seriously balls. The EU couldn’t stop me complying with their rules, that’s my choice. They make me do it now whether or not I export to the EU so what’s the difference, I can just choose not to if I’m supplying another market.

Independence makes you strong. Protectionism is weak and kills you in the end. The EU is protectionist.

Oh, and the purpose of a Country isn’t GDP, it’s self-determination. Reducing this decision to a few points of GDP as most media commentators do is stupid.

barrystar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:
The BBC have been poor, it's true, but Boris as PM?  Believe in the bin as Rory Stewart would say.

I don;t like Boris but that's not the point. People have voted for Brexit....why can;t they have it? They did not want those wars in the Middle East....yet they got them all through Blair and Cameron or Bush and Obama. Why?

People did vote to Leave, and they must have it, but they must accept that a 52-48 vote when none of the campaigns suggested that we'd leave without a deal requires a degree of compromise.  I suspect that most sentient people accept that - but unfortunately the 'Leave' side of life have been radicalised by the likes of Rees-Mogg, Francois, Baker,and May with her asinine 'No Deal is better than a bad deal' slogan when the more accurate expression would have been 'No deal is the best way to get a bad deal'.  We also have some ill-informed people believing that the Irish Backstop is not the inevitable result of legal and practical reality, but due to inflexibility or a desire for revenge.

It's sad, but these absolute f*ckers have let down people who voted to Leave, and the sense of betrayal when voters realise that No Deal is no different to where we are now except our position is weaker will be appalling - but will Rees-Mogg, Farage, Francois et al take responsibility?  No, they never have done, and never will.

Don't want to derail the thread.

However, with this. Should they take responsibility though barry? 

The people were given a choice and they made it. Time will tell whether the decision was the correct one, so I am not going to pass judgment on it. The biggest issue I had with the vote was the sheer naivety and stupidity of Cameron when not talking with businesses to establish exactly the impact on their supply chains. The biggest impact was always going to be labour and if anything for those bemoaning about their jobs being taken should see this as an opportunity to get those jobs 'back'

For me what was infuriated me the most is MP's using the backstop as an excuse to delay our withdrawal from the EU. They didn't understand it, but used it for a self-serving agenda. That lack of understanding has been symptomatic of the whole process. Voters not having a full understanding of the implications (the majority I would add) and politicians themselves not fully understanding the implications either. 

I am with BB on the supply and demand principle. Regardless of the UK's status, it isn't going to prevent suppliers trading with each other. The single market isn't the only market. The EU impose the silo mentality. 

Farrage and el tel are just soundbites. They confuse the matter by creating a perception that the EU are the 'enemy' when they aren't and then take a begging position of "oh but we still want to be friends". Which is why you don't want them anywhere near establishing the boundaries of relations with the very union. 

It's a real missed opportunity.

I don't disagree with much of what BB says, but it doesn't address my main point, which is that No Deal will not give us 'freedom' of any sort.  In many respects we will be in exactly the same place as we are now.  Even the ERG acknowledge that we need to do an FTA with the EU, but the EU will impose the same pre-conditions of money and the Backstop as are set out in the Withdrawal Agreement, except we will be watching damage occurring to those businesses which, unlike bb's, will not fare so well outside the Single Market (e.g. services & agricultural exports &c).

LK - people voted to Leave, they did not specify how, that was going to be left to politicians and all leave campaigns said that there would be an attractive deal.  None of the campaigns said we'd leave without a deal.  However, the ERG have neither the courage nor the intellectual capacity or staying power to swallow what is needed for a deal and to sell it.  Their preference for 'No Deal' is based largely on intellectual laziness.  Any MP who has bought the No Deal is better than a bad deal line and voted down May's deal on the premise that No Deal is a preferable route to freedom from the Backstop and payment should take responsibility if, as I believe, that premise is proven to be wrong.  If I'm wrong and bb is right about the Irish Border I'll admit it and be delighted to shut up and get on without worrying - but I think he's wrong.

They may have not stated that we wouldn't leave without a deal, but that had to be considered a possibility as it was one. You also have to factor in that even the voters wouldn't have understood the particulars of having a deal as opposed to not and what the implications are with those scenario's.

I don't think BB was eluding to a No Deal brings 'Freedom' I saw it his point was that no scenario's would prevent trade occurring. You either pay tariffs or adhere to quotas or you don't. That's a choice between businesses and not politicians. Now I am not saying the UK are going to fare massively well with imposed trade conditions, however is it really in the EU's interest to cause harm to the UK economy without causing harm to their own? 

The campaigns were always going to promote the best deal scenario. I mean imagine them suggesting huge concessions or even a no deal scenario. Would never win the voters who may have been somewhat torn on the subject. The ERG were recklessly lazy. Bluffed it essentially with no real understanding of the UK outside the union. You have to bear in mind the whole chain of events were born out of the Tories wanting to limit numbers of freedom of movement of migrants and restrict their access to benefits. Which on reflection if you are looking to either enhance influence on policy making in the EU or leaving it, the argument needed to be much more stronger. 

The MP's (majority for sure) didn't vote May's deal down because of the premise of a No Deal situation is better. They voted against it to run the clock down and force a 2nd referendum in the hope that Remain was the outcome. They said the deal had to be better, but never explicitly stated how it could be better which is why I admire May for pushing her deal through as she clearly saw through the weak as piss bottlejobs. The backstop was an opportunity the Remainer MP's were looking for to block the deal and the withdrawal. 

Now the backstop for me is something that has become much more complicated by it's legal precedence rather than it's practicality. It has some importance, however it's been made much trickier.

legendkillar wrote:

The MP's (majority for sure) didn't vote May's deal down because of the premise of a No Deal situation is better. They voted against it to run the clock down and force a 2nd referendum in the hope that Remain was the outcome. They said the deal had to be better, but never explicitly stated how it could be better which is why I admire May for pushing her deal through as she clearly saw through the weak as piss bottlejobs. The backstop was an opportunity the Remainer MP's were looking for to block the deal and the withdrawal. 

I think that there were a number of motivations for voting against between MP's, and these are the three most prominent:

(a) ERG hated backstop and/or wanted No Deal

(b) Remainers wanted to overturn EURef and achieve Revocation via EURef II

(c) The disaster socialists running Labour will not support a Tory PM, and want a GE and don't give a toss what happens to the UK over Brexit so long as the hated Tories are blamed and they get power, in fact, the worse No Deal is for the Country the better for their critique of capitalism and the more exhausted the institutions which might normally resist them a bit and which they want to crush will be

If ERG had voted with HMG more Lexiters from Labour would have voted in favour and the deal would probably have passed.  Labour MP's were not going to destroy their status in the party in large numbers on a losing vote, but quite a few more would have taken that risk if they had thought it would be a winning vote.

I am most critical of the ERG primarily for voting against what they had campaigned for in 2016 because they wanted a game of chicken with EURef II merchants - the thing about the game of chicken is that one side was bound to lose and the stakes are hideously high having jettisoned something they'd have taken before the EURef.  I do, however, fear that, bone-headed though I think they are, the ERG have a decent chance of winning out in the end and that if I am forced to express a view I think we are headed for No Deal via one of two routes: (a) a September/October GE in which Johnson pitches Tories on the side of No Deal and wins; (b) Tories don't win that GE, but whatever complexion of Parliament can get together a majority of sorts - variants of Lab/Lib/SNP - legislates for a referendum between No Deal vs. Remain because Parliament won't pass any Withdrawal Agreement acceptable to the EU27 for the purposes of being an option in a referendum, and accepts anyway that Withdrawal Agreement vs. Remain will be viewed as illegitimate by too many Leavers to be politically acceptable, even Blair has been accepting this recently, then No Deal wins.   Cummings's slogan will be a variant of the devastating, "We told them once, they refused to listen we'd better tell them again".

Parliament has given up on the middle and on compromise.  I think all three reasons I cite above are a disgrace for elected politicians.  I'd love to be proved wrong and for us to get out without too much disruption, but I think that this generation of MP's and the dunderheads in the media who have failed to hold them to account will be reviled by historians with very few exceptions.

barrystar wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

The MP's (majority for sure) didn't vote May's deal down because of the premise of a No Deal situation is better. They voted against it to run the clock down and force a 2nd referendum in the hope that Remain was the outcome. They said the deal had to be better, but never explicitly stated how it could be better which is why I admire May for pushing her deal through as she clearly saw through the weak as piss bottlejobs. The backstop was an opportunity the Remainer MP's were looking for to block the deal and the withdrawal. 

I think that there were a number of motivations for voting against between MP's, and these are the three most prominent:

(a) ERG hated backstop and/or wanted No Deal

(b) Remainers wanted to overturn EURef and achieve Revocation via EURef II

(c) The disaster socialists running Labour will not support a Tory PM, and want a GE and don't give a toss what happens to the UK over Brexit so long as the hated Tories are blamed and they get power, in fact, the worse No Deal is for the Country the better for their critique of capitalism and the more exhausted the institutions which might normally resist them a bit and which they want to crush will be

If ERG had voted with HMG more Lexiters from Labour would have voted in favour and the deal would probably have passed.  Labour MP's were not going to destroy their status in the party in large numbers on a losing vote, but quite a few more would have taken that risk if they had thought it would be a winning vote.

I am most critical of the ERG primarily for voting against what they had campaigned for in 2016 because they wanted a game of chicken with EURef II merchants - the thing about the game of chicken is that one side was bound to lose and the stakes are hideously high having jettisoned something they'd have taken before the EURef.  I do, however, fear that, bone-headed though I think they are, the ERG have a decent chance of winning out in the end and that if I am forced to express a view I think we are headed for No Deal via one of two routes: (a) a September/October GE in which Johnson pitches Tories on the side of No Deal and wins; (b) Tories don't win that GE, but whatever complexion of Parliament can get together a majority of sorts - variants of Lab/Lib/SNP - legislates for a referendum between No Deal vs. Remain because Parliament won't pass any Withdrawal Agreement acceptable to the EU27 for the purposes of being an option in a referendum, and accepts anyway that Withdrawal Agreement vs. Remain will be viewed as illegitimate by too many Leavers to be politically acceptable, even Blair has been accepting this recently, then No Deal wins.   Cummings's slogan will be a variant of the devastating, "We told them once, they refused to listen we'd better tell them again".

Parliament has given up on the middle and on compromise.  I think all three reasons I cite above are a disgrace for elected politicians.  I'd love to be proved wrong and for us to get out without too much disruption, but I think that this generation of MP's and the dunderheads in the media who have failed to hold them to account will be reviled by historians with very few exceptions.

I don't think any expectations. I think this merry band of MP's will not be remembered fondly by historians in the slightest. They will be seen to be very un-intelligent and illogical. With you I agree on the disruption side. More so because I think the uncertainty and stalemate reached on a deal just further played into the EU hands as if they hadn't already. 

I have to say when Blair left, it took a few years for him to be truly vilified mainly for the war in Iraq. Cameron I think we are just now starting to see how f*cking awful he was as PM. A recent documentary on the EU showed how clueless and ineffective he and Gideon were as a duo as well as others in the party and the impacts of those decisions are starting to be felt across the country. I look on this Tory Government in the 10's as the worst I have endured. Economically and Socially inept. 

I can only imagine that political reform won't be too far around the corner.

I can't wait for Boris to get elected and Britain to leave EU on the 31st of October.
Best thing this country has done in a very long time is to choose brexit, and I am proud my vote contributed.

Emancipator wrote:NITB you’re basically the typical Djokovic fan. A Serbian. And that’s the only reason. Your ‘passion’ is your jingoism. As long as he wins and brings glory to your nation (and religion) you’re happy and pretty obnoxious. 

I don’t know too much about that part of the world but it seems there are certain disagreeable characteristics that seem to be shared by people of that nation. Too much pride, a desire to seen as superior whilst simultaneously suffering from an inferiority complex, and this awful insidious tribalism.

And the mask always slips very quickly.

Fair enough.

But you are wrong in just about everything you said.

barrystar wrote:

summerblues wrote:

barrystar wrote:May with her asinine 'No Deal is better than a bad deal' slogan

Why is that asinine?  First, it strikes me as almost tautologically true.  And second, it would seem to be the only way to go into any meaningful negotiation.  If you lead off with "no deal is a no-no" why would your negotiating partner even consider a compromise?

[…] the question is whether it is better to make a new deal from where we are now or from a position of having no binding legal relations with them.  And it's the former I am afraid.  If we put ourselves in the position of No Deal the EU will set up arrangements which suit them and will prevent much of the chaos that we have been warned about - Leadsom will call that a 'managed no deal', but they will only last for as long as it suits the EU and we'll have no control over how we comply with their arrangements and they can pull the plug any time they like. […]

I agree UK would want a deal, and that the negotiating position is likely better before Brexit.

But no-deal has to be the default backstop position simply because that is the only way UK can guarantee it will honor the results of the referendum without having to rely on EU's agreement.

What is the alternative to "no deal is better than a bad deal"?  Surely not "bad deal is better than a no deal?".  Surely that is the asinine version?  I suppose remainers may mean something like "if we can only get a bad deal, we should remain instead of exit".  But that surely smells like a backdoor attempt to gain something they were unable to gain upfront.

Suggestions that people did not know what they were voting for because Brexiteers' campaign was dishonest about what was possible are from the same "sore loser" bucket.  That is how referenda always work.  A question is asked, and during the campaign supporters of each side lie to you to make their case as appealing as possible.  But in the end, it is the question that was asked that matters.  You do not get to say "well, winning side's propaganda lied so we should take that into account".

And the question itself was simple enough.  Should we stay or should we go?  And the answer was to go.  And no-deal is the only way UK can go without asking anyone's approval.  A government that would promise not to go without a deal would be a government that is admitting it may be willing to betray the referendum result.

barrystar wrote:legislates for a referendum between No Deal vs. Remain because Parliament won't pass any Withdrawal Agreement acceptable to the EU27 for the purposes of being an option in a referendum, and accepts anyway that Withdrawal Agreement vs. Remain will be viewed as illegitimate by too many Leavers

Would Remainers view it as legitimate?  Why?  Because it works in their favor?

I think the option you present is quite realistic though disappointing.  I would imagine that if there were another referendum, and for that referendum not to be farcical, the question should be Withdrawal Agreement vs No Deal.  Is that not more reasonable given the results of the first referendum?

Don't worry Barry. Soon there won't be a EU...and you will be pleased you have pulled out of it first.

summerblues wrote:

barrystar wrote:legislates for a referendum between No Deal vs. Remain because Parliament won't pass any Withdrawal Agreement acceptable to the EU27 for the purposes of being an option in a referendum, and accepts anyway that Withdrawal Agreement vs. Remain will be viewed as illegitimate by too many Leavers

Would Remainers view it as legitimate?  Why?  Because it works in their favor?

I think the option you present is quite realistic though disappointing.  I would imagine that if there were another referendum, and for that referendum not to be farcical, the question should be Withdrawal Agreement vs No Deal.  Is that not more reasonable given the results of the first referendum?

That's a fair point.  Personally I don't think we should be having a Referendum.  I think Parliament should have done its job, accepted that we must leave, and voted through a deal even if it made people at both extremes feel a bit queasy.

I don't think No Deal vs. Remain will be shown to have favoured Remainers because I think it will end up with No Deal.  I would much prefer No Deal vs. Withdrawal Agreement because: (i) I'd find that a very easy choice - Withdrawal Agreement; and, (ii) it genuinely does respect the original referendum.  The political reality, though, is that those putting forward a referendum will have Remain on the paper whatever else goes down.

If we do have No Deal vs. Remain it would be a personal nightmare because I would not want to vote for either of them.  I think we are way too far gone for us to try and Remain - we will not have begun to scratch the itch that led to the Leave vote and a very large proportion of the electorate would lose what little trust they have in our system.  In a way, not having civil unrest in such a situation would be more dangerous since it would encourage our myopic political class to ignore what would be wide-scale corrosive cynicism and loss of consent to governance.  I have been married to a Belgian for 16 years now.  When I first became acquainted with her family and friends there was obviously a different approach to rules and governance - in the UK, generally speaking, we want to feel that we have bought into rules we must obey and once they have been passed people will get on with it - the British aversion to queue-jumping is an example of this, and writ large so is our Common Law system.  However,  during the period I have been married I think I have detected a shift in the UK towards the more Continental approach of accepting that rules will be handed down and people will decide which they obey and how they will work the system (perhaps because of my prejudices, but I also associate these sorts of attitudes with Socialism and Roman Catholicism). For me a sense of discomfort with this reaction to unaccountable governance is one of the entirely honourable reasons behind the Leave vote.  Without wishing to over-stretch the point, I think that aspects of the driving forces behind the break with Rome in Henry VIII's reign can be cited as an early example of discomfort with dirigism.  Not honouring the 2016 Referendum will turbo-boost such cynicism in the UK.

On the other hand, I also think that No Deal is a massively irresponsible choice that no country should take - and that if we are forced to choose it, that will be down to intransigent, arrogant, risk-taking politicians who lack the courage to compromise.

There is not much I would disagree on here.

Not being British, Brexit is really none of my business but I was nonetheless rooting very strongly for the Brexit side of the referendum.  However, I am not in principle opposed to EU at all.  In fact, I am not a huge fan of nation states so I find the concept of unified Europe quite appealing in theory.  But not in current practice.  Your line below also serves as a pretty good justification for my pro-Brexit feelings:

barrystar wrote:it would encourage our myopic political class to ignore what would be wide-scale corrosive cynicism and loss of consent to governance.

You apply it to post-referendum Britain, but my impression is there has been growing disconnect between the government and the governed in much of the western world at least the last 20-30 years.

I think it is probably most pronounced in the EU, so I viewed Brexit as an appropriate reaction to that.  Also, within Britain itself, it seemed to me that similar thing was playing out on a smaller scale - population was evenly divided between Remainers and Brexiters, but one would not know it based on the output of mainstream media outlets.  What I viewed as their unfair treatment in media coverage, made me root for Brexiteers even more.

After the referendum, I thought May was doing a reasonably good job (though not with the election, obviously ).  She struck me as less self-serving than most politicians (though I could be wrong) and she seemed to have genuinely tried to deliver as much of a Brexit as was realistically possible.

My impression was that her agreement by and large delivered Brexit (though I have to admit I was not paying close enough attention and it may be possible that it contained provisions that were tying UK too closely to EU).

I was thinking that Brexiteers should have taken that agreement because I think otherwise they are running a big risk of ultimately not getting any Brexit.  But again, I do not know enough about the agreement.  It may be possible that a genuine Brexiteer was justified in feeling the agreement effectively failed to deliver Brexit.

So, I mostly agree with what you say above.  Perhaps except that (maybe due to my Roman Catholic prejudices) I see much more prosaic reasons for Britain's break with Rome.

Perhaps we have arrived at a juncture from which we can address more relevant matters, and the significance that the next fortnight may have for the final male slam tally.....

noleisthebest wrote:

Emancipator wrote:NITB you’re basically the typical Djokovic fan. A Serbian. And that’s the only reason. Your ‘passion’ is your jingoism. As long as he wins and brings glory to your nation (and religion) you’re happy and pretty obnoxious. 

I don’t know too much about that part of the world but it seems there are certain disagreeable characteristics that seem to be shared by people of that nation. Too much pride, a desire to seen as superior whilst simultaneously suffering from an inferiority complex, and this awful insidious tribalism.

And the mask always slips very quickly.

Fair enough.

But you are wrong in just about everything you said.

Sorry NITB,

That was uncalled for and I take it all back. There are good and bad everywhere. It was a gross, ugly and unfair generalisation. 

But it was true, no worries 

summerblues wrote:

Emancipator wrote:it seems there are certain disagreeable characteristics that seem to be shared by people of that nation.

You guys in UK are still allowed to think things like these?

Or maybe not.

this thread stinks far-right ideology

So, now it's nice, round, neat numbers: 20/18/16

This week suggests that Nadal needs to rely on RG so long as at least one of the other two are fit, which may mean he falls agonisingly short...?

Djoko looks good at the top for another year or so, which means he has a chance to get mighty close if he stays fit.

I've always thought it's absurd to 'bank' multiple slams in favour of any player, however great, because winning just one slam is far from easy and there are so many potentially thwarting contingencies as have happened in the careers of all three in recent years.  That said, these three have a habit of confounding my caution - I never dreamed that any of them would get to 20, let alone that the back-marker would reach 16.

naxroy wrote:this thread stinks far-right ideology

I always enjoy this concept.

What defines right and left? Economically we might crudely say left is the State, right is the individual. That is a bit too simplistic but I'll use it for now.

Now how does this correlate with  racism?

If I look at the most racist political movements over the years of course Nazi Germany stands out; but this wasn't right wing by our first definition. It was left wing, and far left at that. Hence their name "National Socialists".
The most overtly racist major party at the moment appears to be the left wing one, at least that what it's members seem to think.
The classically racist movement in Britain was the BNP; again, a socially left wing party.

My point is this; why as a persons economic outlook becomes more toward the individual over the State and they get characterised as more "right wing" than a mixed economy fan do they find themselves with the same label as racists? Somewhere along the line the term right got applied to Hitler and ever since this gross mischaracterisation takes place.


So, naxroy, if you think this conversation has become racist then better to say so and to leave right wing out because whatever Hitler, the BNP and so on were, they certainly weren't right wing in any economic way.

noleisthebest wrote:I can't wait for Boris to get elected and Britain to leave EU on the 31st of October.
Best thing this country has done in a very long time is to choose brexit, and I am proud my vote contributed.

Well done NITB! I too have voted for Boris only.

Anyways on the slam chase, I would love to see surpassing Nadal, not so sure if he will be able to go beyond as he isn't Federer. His standards will drop quite hastily unlike Fed's.

naxroy wrote:this thread stinks far-right ideology

Whereas yours is just a typical "progressive" leftist mentality of adding nothing of substance and, like a retard, simply attacking people's opinions rather than debating them.
You're a fascist.  If we lived in your world, free speech would be history.  We've seen what your kind do in China, in Soviet Russia, in Eastern Germany, in North Korea.

barrystar wrote:So, now it's nice, round, neat numbers: 20/18/16

True. Does not stop me from thinking that 21/18/15 would have been just as nice, round and neat, but a lot happier. But it is what it is.

naxroy wrote:in 1 month we will have a good answer to the slam chase question

and we have it now

Novak is in my opinion the real threat for Roger

naxroy wrote:

naxroy wrote:in 1 month we will have a good answer to the slam chase question

and we have it now

Novak is in my opinion the real threat for Roger

All things being equal I agree with that, but: (i) 4-5 slams is a lot, even for Djoko and (ii) Nadal's closeness means that he only needs the stars to align once away from RG and to have one good RG and he's there with Federer.  One good RG is within his grasp, and away from RG it's worth remembering that in the last 12 months it's only been Djokovic who got between Nadal and winning Wimbledon 2018 and Aus Open 2019. 

All the Big three have had physical problems and ups and downs these last three years, they each have a helluva mileage, a lot of what happens over the next year or two has the potential to turn on fitness.

Slam chase, live updated at Ultimate Tennis Statistics

Full URL: https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/resultsChart?players=Roger%20Federer,%20Rafael%20Nadal,%20Novak%20Djokovic&result=W&level=G&byAge=true

The beauty of those graphs is that Federer himself prevented Nadal to surpass his slams number so far.

For now Nadal needs more than the French to add a slam he need to be lucky in his draws....unfortunately we know how ridiculously lucky this player is.

20 - 19 - 16

The race is still alive, and interesting

naxroy wrote:20 - 19 - 16

The race is still alive, and interesting

20 - 20 - 17