Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Westministenders. Boris needs to learn from Yoda. Brexit Episode IV: A New Hope?

999 replies

RedToothBrush · 04/11/2016 18:05

"It is a period of civil unharmony. Rebels, striking from the High Court, have won their first victory against the evil Wannabe Empire. During the battle, rebel civilians managed to foil plans to the Empire’s ultimate weapon, the Royal Prerogative; a tool of the executive with enough power to destroy an entire country.

Pursued by the Wannbe Empire’s sinister agents, Keir Starmer, Mark Carney and Phillip Hammond race back to the office after the a50 judgement, custodians of the questions and authority that can save the people from economic disaster and restore sovereignty to the UK parliament…."

The start of this thread is deliberate to play up to the Remain v Leave thing but also to point out just how crackers it all is really and is increasingly being made out

Yoda once said: “Control. Control. You must learn control”. This is kind of important to the concept of taking it back. It seems the government might just be learning that ‘Taking Back Control’ means parliament and the courts get that control under the rules and law of the land rather than the executive being free to run away and go crazy about what it can – and can not - control.

Lets not get carried away by the ruling though. It does not stop Brexit. Nor does it save us from disaster. And the question of whether it really does give us a New Hope is still an open one.

That its worth remembering that Star Wars was still about a war and fight for freedom and Brexit is stacking up this way. And that the whole good versus bad thing is part of the problem.

In some ways its easier make it out as black and white and say Remain this and Leave that. Its wrong. Its not a fucking fairy tale. Its real life where things are much less black and white.

The ruling has provoked outrage from the right wing press. We are all very aware of this. And yet there are also key voices from Leave who regard it as nothing more than a tactical setback and see it as a positive thing for democracy and sovereignty. Voices not mentioned by the people plastering photos of judges over their covers. Today there has been the resignation of a Tory MP who voted leave who could no longer support the government and the way they were handling Brexit. He has been wrongly labelled by more than a few angry Leavers as being a Remain supporter.

We must not lose sight of this.

What the ruling does, if it stands, is change how Brexit will play out, not stop it play out. It does not remove the biggest barriers to Brexit. It merely forces those who have been trying to avoid many of these barriers and refuse to acknowledge them to tackle them head on. It limits the worst excesses of the right wing agenda by simply stopping abuses of power, not removing their power.

In essence it has forced the Brexit debate has been forced to shuffle a little towards the centre ground which is what May should have done from the off in order to build a consensus and win over support from BOTH Remain and Leave campaign.

So what has changed exactly?

Firstly, and crucially the ruling is pretty comprehensive and seems strong against appeal. That’s not to say that the government can’t win on appeal. It is just that they would need something pretty big to change it.
There is a strong argument to be made about why they are even thinking of appealing. Pressure has already mounted about the need for parliamentary scrutiny. If the government were true to their word then they don’t need the royal prerogative to invoke a50 for this reason.

It begs the question loudly about whether the use of the prerogative is primarily a political decision to benefit the Conservatives rather than in the best interests of the country. Using the prerogative is a shield and prevents people from seeing what is going on. The government claim it’s the EU they are trying to stop from seeing what is going on. Its not. The room the government has to negotiate and the cards they hold is so narrow and so few that the EU know every move the government can possibly make and can plan and act accordingly.

The stark truth is the cloak is to prevent the eyes of the UK from seeing what is planned and asking questions of it. The government are aware that they can not deliver on several of their problems. They are trying to spin it, exploit and manipulate the situation for their own political ambitions rather in good faith and in respect of the EU referendum decision. Which is quite incredible given the accusations levelled at those who voted Remain.

The principle of restoring the sovereignty of the country to parliament and British courts has been shown up as fallacy No1 and a shame.
So, can they reverse the decision of the court. Perhaps. Several constitutional lawyers say the government argued very poorly first time round. But it will now take something even more convincing to persuade the Supreme court that the High Court decision was flawed. May seems confident of a victory in the Supreme Court and has told Juncker in a phone call that’s what she thinks.

The big rabbit they do have, is to request a referral to the European Court of Justice to establish that a50 is reversible. Of course doing this seems unfeasible for a number of reasons – not least because of the irony of having to go to the EU because the UK courts didn’t come up with the ruling they wanted. But more because it changes the political dynamic of the next GE and sets it up to be about Europe alone and because it changes diplomacy with the EU. It also ramps up the stakes in terms of the threat of rebellions and no confidence votes being more likely. Nothing is beyond the rules of Brexit Farce and Hypocrisy though.

Secondly May’s personal authority, in particular, has taken a huge knock. She said that Article 50 would be triggered by the end of March. This is improbable now, especially if the judgment stands. The decision to even think about using the Royal Prerogative over Parliament raises questions about her judgement. And it is raised again by the decision to appeal as this may loose her even more time.

Not to mention its rather embarrassing to have to admit this to the EU. May has already phoned Juncker to say the UK is still on track for article 50 to be triggered in March which is a bold move. It could mean she has an even bigger climb down to make if the judgement does stand.

Her reaction to the ruling seems almost as if its personal and no10 has apparently come down hard on the attorney general for 'cocking it up'.

Thirdly if a50 does have to go through the Commons and Lords, it is unlikely to be invoked before late 2017 at the very earliest. It is far more likely to be in early 2018.

This also shifts the earliest date we will leave the EU until after the next round of EU elections in June 2019 and within months of the next planned GE in 2020. It also means the window in which May might be able to have an early GE (if she can get round the Fixed Term Act) is smaller and shifts to early 2018. Alternatively a forced early GE, as the result of a vote of no confidence, could lead to a proxy EU referendum 2 situation. Which is frankly, a bit of a mess and a headache for the Tories now.

It also means Heathrow is screwed as its going to clash with the a50 bill and potentially is going to face more legal problems as the most likely way to oppose it is likely to be through the courts using EU law on environmental issues, that ideally perhaps Heathrow advocates would like to repeal post Brexit to ensure it goes ahead. Especially since the government appears to ignored a report which says Gatwick was better for other reasons, and only a 1% increase in costs would wipe out the economic case for Heathrow.

Basically it would just mucks up May’s entire timetable.

Four, the ruling could well have implications for the ‘Great’ Repeal Bill. It could make it even more difficult to pass because of the constitutional implications with regard to the power of the executive and those pesky Henry VIII clauses. The a50 ruling is about the Royal Prerogative which is a separate instrument but some of the same principles about the role of parliament still stand.

Five, the ruling did not address the constitutional issues with Scotland. This is still a hurdle the government are likely to have to get over. The Scottish Government are now exploring this and whether to enter their own legal case.

Six, the ruling stated that the NI a50 case was ‘too broad’. This is fair comment. Their ruling also potentially gives strength to the arguments re: The Good Friday agreement with the difference between the power of the Crown with regard to international treaties but having no power over them in domestic law and the need for ratification via parliament. (And vice versa with their removal).

Seven, Mark Carney is going in Mid 2019. Which is now, very potentially, BEFORE Brexit. This is potentially a Very Bad Thing.

Eight, the right wing press reaction once again like May, questions the rule of law. This is concerning. And this position is being supported by the governments refusal to condemn it or acknowledge properly that they are appealing not because they believe the judges are biased but because they don’t think their case was presented well enough.

Nine, watch the NHS and how its handled. Two select committee chairs have now written to May on her not being honest about finances. The fate of the NHS is ultimately what public opinion will turn on. Don’t be surprised by a sudden bag on cash being handed out of nowhere.

And finally and once again in the words of the great Yoda.

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering”.

I wish Yoda were real. Somehow I think life would feel much simpler.

(The Supreme Court will hear the government’s article 50 appeal in early December (I believe the 7th has been mentioned). In an unprecedented move, it is believed all 11 Supreme Court judges will sit, reflecting the importance of the case. Judgment may not be handed down until the new year.)

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
RedToothBrush · 10/11/2016 17:32

Jared Kushner has been at the White House with his father in law today.
Rumours that he might be part of Trump's White House Team.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Kushner

Are we going to get a new political dynasty like the Kennedys, the Bushes and the Clintons?

Hardly a new anti elite thing is it?

OP posts:
Unicornsarelovely · 10/11/2016 17:34

It's ok, Nigel said he'd chaperone Teresa may as the Donald can't be trusted.

amaravatti · 10/11/2016 18:51

www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/11/five-practical-things-you-can-do-fight-donald-trump-if-you-live-uk

How we could fight back here and to help all the lovely scared americans.

GloriaGaynor · 10/11/2016 19:18

Was Trump's son in law the evil genius all along?

StripeyMonkey1 · 10/11/2016 19:36

Trumpton Grin

RedToothBrush · 10/11/2016 19:43

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/10/theresa-may-nissan-intervention-remarkable-says-japanese-ambassador?CMP=share_btn_tw
Theresa May's Nissan intervention was remarkable gesture, says ambassador

That Nissan deal? Commitment to Sunderland might not be as secure as its been made out

Theresa May’s “remarkable” intervention to personally reassure Nissan that Britain would remain a competitive market helped secure new investment at the firm’s Sunderland plant, the Japanese ambassador in London has said.

Koji Tsuruoka said, however, that Nissan would not necessarily stay in the north-east of England if it were unable to make a profit. Any tariffs imposed on imported car parts and exported finished models as a result of Brexit could affect car manufacturers’ bottom line very severely, he said.

Appearing before the Lords EU external affairs sub-committee on Wednesday, Tsuruoka said Nissan saw the prime minister’s decision to invite the firm’s boss, Carlos Ghosn, to Downing Street for talks last month as a “strong commitment of goodwill”.

OP posts:
amaravatti · 10/11/2016 19:43

www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2016/11/age-reaction-neo-fascist-has-taken-white-house
Some good links here on historical background to 'America First'.

www.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/us/politics/donald-trump-portrayed-as-an-heir-to-richard-nixon.
This movement, like similar in this country, have been brewing for years and this article outlines its links to the Nixon presidency, meanwhile we had Enoch Powell and others.

Trump, like Farage, did not appear out of the blue, this has been a long time coming, waiting for the perfect economic and political storm to make hay, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor.

amaravatti · 10/11/2016 19:52

www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/donald-trump-law-and-order-richard-nixon-crime-race-21406

Nixon called it a 'law and order' push, but really it was a thinly veiled racist policy.

Republicans have racist form.

And please could we stop calling fascism 'populism' makes it sound all cuddly and biscuity. It ain't and JC and TM should be ashamed of themselves Mitfording about Mr Fart.

RedToothBrush · 10/11/2016 19:58

Gloria that is 'enlightening'.

A propaganda genius to go with Trump. Another Banks with Leave.Eu to Farage.

This paragraph caught my eye.

Nearly a year ago, according to Businessweek, Kushner laid the groundwork for a social-media juggernaut and fundraising operation that could later be mined for all sorts of useful, profitable personal information. Tapping a network of Trump-friendly technologists in Silicon Valley, Kushner enlisted Brad Parscale, a San Antonio marketing strategist who sports Trump ties and Zegna suits, to run the campaign’s digital task force, dubbed “Project Alamo.” Parscale’s 100-person crack team reportedly spends $70 million a month to take people who are leaning toward Trump and turn them into the candidate’s most ardent fans. At the same time, Parscale’s San Antonio-based team is engaged in a wide-ranging effort to discourage Democrats from supporting Hillary Clinton. “We have three major voter suppression operations under way,” a senior official told Businessweek. Specifically, the campaign is aiming to turn off young women, African Americans, and millennials, using targeted campaigns designed to make them too disillusioned to vote.

That is pretty much dark ops. Very difficult to work against.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 10/11/2016 20:00

waiting for the perfect economic and political storm to make hay, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor.

Or technology change

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 10/11/2016 20:04

Data analyse has taken over from polls. Far more accurate and in depth.

OP posts:
amaravatti · 10/11/2016 20:07

Oh, and the misogyny from those types; that's fascism: it's part of the deal.

“Kinder, Küche, Kirche” (children, kitchen, church)
bobhistory.wikispaces.com/Treatment+of+Women+in+Fascist+Italy+and+Nazi+Germany
How they did it then.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/09/alpha-males-run-politics-donald-trump-misogyny
And we know how they do it now.

Nothing new, but part of the same old same old.

RedToothBrush · 10/11/2016 20:23

Just to point out we have a PM who stopped the announcements via twitter that Cameron did and has switched back to an old skool way of working in No 10 communications all round.

The Conservative Party do not have a central database of their own members, never mind the electorate as a whole. Individual constituency parties hold membership lists (which is why they thought the Tory election would take that long if it went to the membership). The Labour Party and Liberal Democrats are better but they are still way behind UKIP and Leave.Eu

Strangely though its the most social media savvy - in the young - who seem to have been the ones who have not been supporters of both Trump and Leave.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 10/11/2016 20:26

Dan Arel ‏@danarel
Trump won Wisconsin by 27,000 votes.

300,000 voters were turned away by the states strict Voter ID law.

There is your "rigged" election.

OP posts:
amaravatti · 10/11/2016 20:28

Or technology change
I agree there, RTB, but Farage did a brilliant old fashioned town hall campaign in his target areas to shore up UKIP for years. He comes over so well in TV interviews. He got where he is with quite a lot of analogue campaigning; he is just good at it.
The other one, won in some ways on his 'speeches' and certainly his 'charisma', which a lot of those types have.
I remember asking an American friend in 1981 how the country could have voted for Reagan( whose election scared the bejesus out of a lot of us), and she said it was 'charisma'.
Another thing that's struck me about the fart is that he's like an awful boss I had in America. I think a lot of people treated the election like a wild job application, hoping this one would bring them the work they do so desperately need.

But, yes, it's a perfect time for technology totalitarianism.

The bile visited on poor Hillary , who is after all a fellow human, was exacerbated by the 1984ish isolation and lack of fellow feeling manipulated by algorithmic 'reaction' on the very un 'social media'.
Who would want to put them self through that now? Gorgeous Michelle Obama seems too wise to do so, even if there are already rumours about asking her to run in 2020.
If FDR was up for election now, would his disability, domestic arrangements, all manner of personal data have made him so completely vilified? He'd have lost and so would we.
But we are where we is.

RedToothBrush · 10/11/2016 20:30

www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/
The GOP’s Attack on Voting Rights Was the Most Under-Covered Story of 2016

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 10/11/2016 21:03

Anyway stepping away from the rabbit hole...

QT tonight:
Dominic Raab CON, Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh SNP, Sarah Churchwell Profession of American Literature at University of London, Jan Halper-Hayes Republicans oversea, Yvette Cooper LAB

By-Elections tonight:
Eltham North, Greenwich, London
LAB
Lab/Con marginal. This one could be v interesting to see where vote goes. There is a large UKIP following here, so the expectation would be it will go Tory, but by how much?

Queenstown, Wandworth, London
LAB
Another Lab/Con marginal. Not the same UKIP following. Half populated educated to degree level. Difficult to call, therefore worth keeping an eye on.

Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex
CON
Con and difficult to see it changing, though wouldn't be surprised at LD progress here.

Hitchin Oughton, North Hertfordshire
LAB

OP posts:
merrymouse · 10/11/2016 21:15

Trump won Wisconsin by 27,000 votes.

300,000 voters were turned away by the states strict Voter ID law.

There is your "rigged" election.

I know I keep going on and on about this, but I really, really want to know about the people who didn't vote.

SwedishEdith · 10/11/2016 21:18

"Dan Arel ‏@danarel
Trump won Wisconsin by 27,000 votes.

300,000 voters were turned away by the states strict Voter ID law.

There is your "rigged" election."

Doesn't mean they would have voted for Hillary though.

RedToothBrush · 10/11/2016 21:29

House of Commons Library
Briefing Paper

Brexit Unknowns
researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7761/CBP-7761.pdf
Full Paper

This is the summary. It might as well read "Oh fuck we know NOTHING"

The referendum and article 50

Article 50 unknowns
^Article 50 has never been used before. Its meaning and how it will be used are not entirely clear. The exit negotiations will last two years, or longer if all the other EU Member States agree an extension.

Negotiation unknowns
Almost all policy questions depend on the outcome of the exit negotiations and the kind of agreement(s) reached. Most Brexit ‘unknowns’ are therefore predicated on this main ‘unknown’.

We don’t know how long the process will take or even when it will start.

We can’t calculate the economic impact or say for sure how the Devolved Nations will be affected.

We don’t know what the withdrawal agreement will look like or what other agreements the UK will negotiate with the EU to settle future relations.

Can an Article 50 notification be withdrawn?
Article 50 TEU does not say, and there is disagreement among lawyers. It might be for the EU Court, if asked, to rule on this question.

Will there be a referendum on the terms of Brexit?
Legally possible if Parliament legislates for one, but politically unlikely.
The Prime Minister has insisted there will be no second referendum on the terms of the withdrawal agreement or for any other reason in connection with Brexit.

UK Parliament and the Devolved Legislatures
The UK Parliament’s role in triggering Article 50
^The High Court ruled on 3 November 2016 that the Government could not trigger the Article 50 process without parliamentary approval. The Government will challenge this judgment at the Supreme Court.
The UK Parliament’s role in scrutinising the negotiations and exit agreement^

Treaty negotiations are undertaken by the Government under the Royal Prerogative. The UK Parliament has no formal role in scrutinising the negotiation of treaties (although it can delay or even – in the case of the House of Commons – block ratification).

The Government has made some commitments to share information on the negotiations with Parliament, and the Commons has set up a new Select Committee on Exiting the EU.

A role for the Devolved Legislatures?
The Brexit Secretary, David Davis, said the new Department was “fully engaged” with the devolved legislatures, and that he and ministerial colleagues had “discussed the next steps with a range of organisations”, including with the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, key business groups, representatives of the universities and the charitable sector, and farming and fisheries organisations.

What will happen to EU law in the UK?
The Government intends to introduce a ‘Great Repeal Bill’ in 2017 to convert the EU acquis into UK law but without an EU basis. The Government (and Parliament?) will decide what to keep, repeal or amend.

We don’t know:
to what extent legislation currently in force that gives effect to EU law will be repealed or amended
how much European Union law will be transposed into domestic law after the UK leaves the European Union
whether the UK will seek to remove to all references to EU institutions from the domestic law
where EU legislation is transposed into domestic law, whether the law will be updated in line with any changes made by the EU
the extent to which changes to legislation to give effect to Brexit will be set out in primary legislation
the extent to which the Government will rely on Henry VIII powers to make changes to legislation to give effect to Brexit?
whether the ‘Great Repeal Bill’ will simply transpose EU law into domestic law or include substantive changes to the law to come into force after Brexit
whether the Great Repeal Bill will contain powers to facilitate transposition, to ensure that individuals’ legal position is maintained or whether it will contain powers to enable changes to be made so as to remove those elements of EU law that the Government wishes to change post Brexit
whether the UK courts will continue to rely upon the jurisprudence of the CJEU when interpreting EU law after it has been transposed into domestic law.

Will any repatriated powers go directly to the Devolved Administrations?
The argument would be that the ‘reserved powers’ model reserves only specific powers to Westminster, whilst any other powers are devolved by default. The SNP believes that this would happen.

The legislation isn’t clear – arguments could be made both ways and the outcome will likely be politically influenced.

The ‘Great Reform Bill’ and the Devolved Administrations
The proposed Bill may have to make changes to the Devolution Acts, which will probably require a Legislative Consent Motion (under which it is recognised that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the devolved legislature).

Impact on UK and EU citizens
Will UK and EU citizens have any ‘acquired rights’ other than those contained in Brexit agreements? General principles of certainty, stability, non-retrospectivity and mutual interest suggest some kind of continuing protection.

But it is far from certain that after the UK leaves the EU, individuals would be able to rely in the courts on an ‘acquired right’ to stay under EU law, the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties or customary international law.

UK expats and EU citizens
The position of British citizens in other EU Member States and of EU citizens in the UK remains uncertain.

What will happen to EU and UK students?
EU membership provides support to EU students studying in the UK and access to European research funding. EU membership also gives UK students access to European student mobility schemes such as Erasmus+.

The UK has signed the Bologna Declaration, which started a process to create a European higher education area through the harmonisation of systems across the EU in matters such as comparability of degrees, and by promoting academic mobility.

Universities are mainly concerned about the impact of Brexit on students and research.

The Government has said that successful bids for EU research funding made while the UK is still an EU Member would be guaranteed by the Treasury.

The Government has also confirmed that qualifying EU students applying to HE or FE institutions in the UK for the 2017-18 academic year would still be eligible for home student fees and tuition fee support for the duration of their courses.

But the longer term outlook for UK students abroad and EU students in the UK is uncertain.

Finance and trade
When will the UK stop contributing to the EU budget?
The UK will remain a Member of the EU until its departure and will continue to contribute to the EU budget at least until this point.
Following a negotiated departure, the UK may still make contributions to the EU Budget.

Any future contributions will depend on the arrangements agreed for the UK’s future relationship with the EU. If there is a ‘hard Brexit’ it is unlikely that there would be a UK contribution.

The economic impact of the referendum result and Brexit
As of early October 2016, according to the Office for National Statistics, the referendum result appears not to have had a major effect on the UK economy.

Most economists expect GDP growth to slow in 2017 due to a reduction in business investment and slowing consumer spending. The decline in the value of the pound makes imports more expensive which might feed through to higher inflation and a decline in the purchasing power of consumers.

In the longer term, the UK’s new trading and investment relationships with the EU and rest of the world will be important in determining Brexit’s impact on the economy.

Most economists believe that the final post-Brexit settlement will leave the UK economy less open and therefore with lower long-term growth rates compared to the UK staying in the EU.

What will happen to the UK’s structural funds?
^The UK stands to lose the funding that it receives from the EU. The Treasury has guaranteed full funding for structural and investment fund projects signed before the 2016 Autumn Statement and has urged British businesses and universities to continue to bid for competitive EU funds.
There have been mixed messages from local government as to whether regions and devolution deals will be compensated in full for any loss of funding in the 2014-20 round following Brexit.^

Agriculture funding
More information is expected in the Autumn Statement on support for Pillar 2 grants for this current Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) period, as some of these span long time frames, e.g. five years.

Trade relations
We do not yet know what the trade arrangements with the EU will be after Brexit. The Government has ruled out some options, rejecting the Norway model (membership of the European Economic Area) and the Swiss model (lots of bilateral agreements with the EU).

The UK and Ireland
Brexit will mean a geographical EU border between the UK and Ireland, but whether there would be a physical border is not known.

UK staff in the EU institutions
The fate of UK staff in the EU institutions after Brexit is not clear. Once the UK is not an EU Member State, there should be no UK representatives in the EU institutions, although UK nationals might work in the institutions as scientific experts working on EU projects, for example.

The European Parliament will not support seconded national experts from non-EU States.

2019 European Parliament elections
If the UK Government triggers Article 50 by the end of March 2017, in theory the two years of negotiations should end by the end of March 2019.

EP elections will be held in May or June 2019, so the UK would no longer be a member of the EU if the two-year deadline is maintained.

But if the negotiations continue beyond March 2019, the UK might still be in the EU at the time of the elections, and eligible, if not required, to participate in them. It seems unlikely that the UK would be expected to participate if it was on the verge of leaving the EU, but the EU would have to agree a different arrangement for the UK.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 10/11/2016 21:34

Doesn't mean they would have voted for Hillary though.

No it doesn't. But ID laws disproportionately affect the black and hispanic vote and the lowest income bracket vote.

The GOP voting rights link above reveals a lot about it.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 10/11/2016 21:48

Meanwhile back in Richmond Park Independent Zac Goldsmith is out campaigning with friends...

James Chalmers ‏@ProfChalmers
Jacob Rees Mogg, who called Heathrow's 3rd runway "essential to the nation", campaigning for Zac Goldsmith in his "Heathrow referendum".

Westministenders. Boris needs to learn from Yoda. Brexit Episode IV: A New Hope?
OP posts:
TuckersBadLuck · 10/11/2016 21:48

Oh my word. I was just thinking how great Red is for trawling through a detailed document and boiling it down into a concise post as usual.

That's the whole thing!!

Speechless.

TuckersBadLuck · 10/11/2016 21:50

I don't often get chance to use this one any more: "There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know." Grin