Monday, 7 January 2019

In today's Daily Telegraph

SHARE
The result with the best chance of helping Labour win the next general election is probably a very bad Brexit. That is what Mrs May’s deal is offering. If he can, therefore, Mr Corbyn will find a way to let her have it.

Charles Moore 



We escaped membership of the euro by the skin of our teeth. We now need to grit those teeth to escape fully and finally from the very entity that conceived of the euro monstrosity in the first place. In case you were in any doubt, Mrs May’s capitulation of a “deal” would bring not a full and final escape, but rather a further entrapment.

Roger Bootle

8 comments:

  1. He has two other reasons for what his critics call “sitting on the fence”. The first is that he is personally pro-Brexit. He dare not say it outright these days, but that is what he learnt at the knee of his guru Tony Benn, and what he still believes. He takes the traditional Left-wing view (not 100 per cent wrong, by the way) that the EU is a club of central bankers; so he is against it.

    The second, related reason is that Mr Corbyn’s chief opponents in his own party are passionate Remainers. They are Blairites. They are the heirs of the people who marginalised Mr Corbyn and his like from about 1987 onwards.

    They long to turn Labour into an unambiguously Remain party, ignoring the fact that this did no good at all to the Liberal Democrats at the last election. They include Tony Blair himself, struggling to grab centre-stage once again. If they got their way – through a second referendum, perhaps, or rescinding Article 50 – that would be the end of Jeremy Corbyn. So it is blindingly obvious why Mr Corbyn is not straining himself to stop Brexit.

    Charles Moore
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/07/jeremy-corbyns-brexit-position-not-contemptible-might-appear/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes I was tempted to add those next two paragraphs but I quote too much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As an exception to British copyright law, fair dealing is governed by Sections 29 and 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which outlines three instance where fair dealing is a legitimate defence:

      If the use is for the purposes of research or private study;
      If it is used for the purposes of criticism, review or quotation;
      Where it is utilised for the purposes of reporting current events (this does not apply to photographs)

      A statutory definition for fair dealing does not exist; it will always be a matter of fact, degree and interpretation in every fair use case. Nor is there a percentage or quantitative measure to determine fair dealing. The Intellectual Property Office lists the key factors used to determine the validity of whether a particular dealing with a work is fair as follows:

      Has the use of the work impacted negatively on the market for the original work? If the creator or owner has lost potential revenue through the re-use of their work, it is not likely to be fair.
      Was it reasonable and necessary to use the amount of work that was taken?

      https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-use-copyright-explained

      Delete
    2. Thank you, Toma. I knew much but not all of of this. I see some sites copy entire newspaper articles.

      Delete
  3. It is wonderful to venture forth to 
engage with a different culture and 
an alien environment, to be brave enough to encounter and enjoy life far from home. But it can help 
greatly when you do this if you have an inner confidence in the culture that bred you – an idea, in your heart, of home.

    Charles Moore
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/07/jeremy-corbyns-brexit-position-not-contemptible-might-appear/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This line struck home to me. It is very true.

      Delete
  4. Motivational poster for your office:

    http://media.englishrussia.com/newpictures/Fishing_in_the_North//104321/4248/tolko_u_nas_09_full.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Christopher Booker's curious story in Sunday Telegraph"

    According to this story at least, far from being fooled by Hitler, Chamberlain had become just as aware of his true intentions as Churchill. By pretending otherwise, he bought another year for Britain to step up preparations for a war he now realised was inevitable.’

    Well, that’s the way Christopher Booker puts it. I would go further. If Mr Lance-Watkins recollection was accurate, and if Home’s account is true, it tends to confirm my view, expressed in my book ‘The Phoney Victory’, that Chamberlain planned for and in fact sought war with Germany, and that our promise to come to Poland’s aid was a deliberate trigger to bring such a war about, and a device to prevent Poland from making a deal with Hitler over Danzig.

    What it completely explodes is the view commonly held (and one which I used to hold myself) that Chamberlain was fooled by Hitler at Munich. Though of course it makes perfect sense, if Chamberlain (rightly) grasped that Britain was in no state to fight any sort of war in September 1938, and nor was France, that he would be wise to keep his warlike ambitions as secret as possible.

    Peter Hitchens DM

    ReplyDelete