Westminstenders: 30 days to save us all!

[RedToothBrush]

It's quite remarkable to watch the British press atm.

It's like it doesn't understand English. Well only if its English spoken by foreigners.

Merkel made the observation that the UK had spent two years looking at the Irish border but had failed to come up with a workable solution, and now Johnson has waltzed in and made statements about how the backstop must go, and only has 30 days in which this can be achieved.

The British press writes this up as Merkel giving the UK a deadline to come up with a new solution.

Which is nonsense. The UK have a deadline to save itself, from itself and that's 31st October. This is a self imposed deadline.

Meanwhile comes out with the Brexiteer smack down that he didn't think the UK wS leaving the EU to regain its sovereignty only to become a vassalage or junior partner to the US.

Both these ideas being the result of leaving the EU have long been key issues. From before the ref. Both have been the UK's to solve in order to get the terms the UK wants from a deal.

The referendum was about choosing to align with the EU or to ditch that and rights and align closely with the US. Then Trump happened and the sell on this got harder, but still essentially the same. And it continues.

And then there was the Irish border. The magic solution to Brexit that doesn't break the GFA. I personally think there isn't one as long as the DUP have their red lines about the Irish sea.

So here we are. More than 3 years after the ref.

Leavers still have no plan. Apart for charge headlong over the cliff. Remains still have their heads wedged up their own backsides and also, after spending months criticising every one else on social media anyway who makes a stand again this bull shit.

Yet the newspapers fail to report what Merkel said or why the UK has this issue in the first place. Its an ongoing exercise in national delusion and self denial.

A GNU, PV and then GE makes more sense to me because if leave wins the PV then the manifestos can state what brexit each party will go for. We can all vote accordingly which would break the deadlock

I agree with Hazard

I'm also struggling to understand how the EU will be to blame for No deal brexit when 26% of the population want it. Why are they blaming the EU for giving them what they want? Shouldn't they be thanking them for holding firm? How does the cognitive dissonance not make their heads explode?

Also - why in that poll, if the numbers were correct (and I assume they were because they added up to 100) was no deal brexit at the top as if it had 'won' - when ref and remain was 9% more popular?

If I'm to be nice, I think it is the fear of failing in learning a language (I'm not nice ). Judging by the 'you are probably not British judging by your language' encountered even on MN. Those people would think you have to be perfect before opening their mouth and believe me trying is the only way forward . Either those people haven't been forced to make do with what you can or it is simply superiority and patronizing.

I'm from a very small language, we are taught English, German or French and if in high school, Latin. We are definitely not perfect but we try atleast.

In my son's dorm there have been several brits and us students, sad to say the majority are not very interested in the local language.

Expats here on the other hand complain they will never learn since people always speak English. You just cannot win.

But I think it is too deeply rooted that you are always understood, atleast if you shout.

DGR that’s made me feel sick with worry. Just seen bbc interview with BJ in which he says getting a deal is now touch and go...we are f*cked.

I don't want to be the cause of anyones worry. But at the same time, I'm still smarting a tad from suggestions only a few days ago that I was being overly pessimistic. If anything, I wasn't being dark enough.

We are supposed to have an elected parliament to stop this shit. It's part of the social contract whereby we agree not to riot on the streets and to be bound by decisions we may not agree with on the understanding they've been arrived at via a level playing field.

If people want to dick around with that, and play fast and loose with it for a quick buck, they are more than welcome to. But they need to understand there will come a point at which some people will consider themselves to be no longer bound by that contract.

I can only speak for myself, but cumulatively, over ... what 40 or so years ? I've put up with a lot of crap about our "constitution" because I was told it guaranteed this and that and the other. Well now it seems it doesn't, and I'm wondering how much longer I - and others - are going to sit on our hands waiting for that magic moment to prevent the chaos we have been told time and time again "can't happen here".

Re language learning.

Of course it's true that starting younger is better. But in the real world, and especially in the U.K., there are never going to be enough language teachers to provide quality tuition in primary schools.

Here in France a MFL is obligatory in primary school, but it's taught by ordinary primary school teachers who are almost never bilingual (and remember that almost all French primary teachers will have French bac which requires 2 MFL to age 18). To make things more complicated, primary schools offer whatever language their teachers are "qualified" to teach, and this is often not the same as the languages offered at the local secondary schools. So in practice what happens is that everyone starts from scratch again in Y7.

On the other hand, with good teaching and sufficient hours, secondary school students can acquire very good language skills. My DD started Spanish as a MFL in Y7 and joined a specialist bilingual programme in Y11 in which she was taught Spanish language, Spanish literature, history and geography entirely in Spanish by native speakers. She had 9 hours of Spanish class a week for 3 years and obtained a Spanish bachillerato alongside her French bac.

I'm very much in favour of (a) at least one compulsory MFL to age 18 though not necessarily to A level standard (there are other certifications that could be done, for eg to European B1 standard) and (b) offering specialist language programmes which involve teaching at least one non-language subject entirely in the MFL (here it is usually history-geography but I have heard of schools offering maths and biology taught by bilingual subject specialists).

@Icantreachthepretzels because the EU should have given the UK tgeUnicorn it wanted.
The underlying message being that they are entitled to have their cake and eat it. A digit does t happen, aka leave with the least disruption AND no ties at all with the EU, then it has to be the EU fault. Not theirs to want to leave the EU

I tend to agree with 95% of what DG posts...

I don't think remainers are being pessimistic enough!!

Of course practice is needed but do you really think people abroad have more chances to practice than Brits do??

Friend of my DFs was bought up in Turin, and was exposed to enough French and German to be pretty fluent.

Which makes the curious lack of any hint of bilingualism from people near the Welsh border all the more curious ...

I think the idea of having subjects taught in a MFL is only possible with the brightest pupils. The ones who already struggle with their own mother tongue wouldn’t cope.

The reality is that it’s possible to learn a MFL with 3 hours each week. That’s what I did and what all my contemporaries did

As fir teaching a MFL early, it only makes a real difference if you start before the child is 2yo as they can learn the sounds of the language. After 6~7yo, learning a language is the same as a 6yo than as 11yo or a 20yo. With the same sort of difficulties.

I do agree that having ONE MFL compulsory until A levels forces people to learn rather than being able to ditch it in Y9

But DG that’s not the case for most people regardless of whether they are in the UK or in other EU countries. The international environment you describe is unusual, not the rule.

If just being in the right environment was enough, I do wonder why people in London aren’t all at least bilingual...,

I was incredibly lucky in my schooling - just local schools in Harrow. But we all started French at 8 and it was compulsory until 14. And at 12 we started another language (again, all standard) until 14 too. No choice. Plus Italian at home.

I wanted to do a special German-for-Latin-students option for O Level, but a timetable clash meant it was that or chemistry and I wanted chemistry more.

DGR that’s made me feel sick with worry. Just seen bbc interview with BJ in which he says getting a deal is now touch and go...we are fcked.*

I think everyone needs to understand that BJ has never had any intention of getting a deal.
That's what pisses me off with the so-called Tory remainers. They know that full well and are fully complicit with the upcoming shit show if they delay the opposition even a minute more.

If just being in the right environment was enough, I do wonder why people in London aren’t all at least bilingual...

It's hard not to be snippy about the English then.

My DF picked up some bits of Hindi or whatever blend of Gujerati, Urdu and goodness-knows what that was spoken around him when he first started work in the UK (immigrants tend to get lumped together, doncha'know ?). Enough that he could make Indians uneasy if they tried the old "let's have a discussion in our own tongue" trick when he was selling cars later on. And he'd already picked up some German from the occupation.

I learned enough Swahili (don't ask) to be enchanted by "Mziwi lala" ("Sleepy milk") for a yoghurty drink when I learned it.

And I am utterly shite at languages. It's a burning regret really.

*I think the idea of having subjects taught in a MFL is only possible with the brightest pupils. The ones who already struggle with their own mother tongue wouldn’t cope.

The reality is that it’s possible to learn a MFL with 3 hours each week. That’s what I did and what all my contemporaries did*

I agree with that. DD's specialist language class was selective (though not extremely selective: you just had to be capable of taking a general baccalauréat which is accessible to roughly the top 60% of students, and be keen).

However, I don't think 3 hours a week is enough to become fluent or even relatively functional in a language unless its small group, intensive teaching by properly qualified teachers. Here kids have 3 hours of their first MFL and 2 hours of their second right to age 18 and although they are supposed to be B1/B2 when they leave school this is of course a massive overestimate for most kids. Class sizes are just too big for effective language teaching, and a lot of the teachers aren't that good.

I just watched the BBC video of Johnson talking about a deal being touch and go.
That man is such an arrogant arse!!

Sadly, ds1 is severely dyslexic and so MFL was never going to be for him english was hard enough for him!

Ds2 seems to enjoy it more and is more academically able generally than ds1 was at the same age.

He doesn't have ds1s work ethic though!

My mistake was swopping french (which I'd done for 4 years) for german (which I did for gcse)

A line I recall from 2001:A space odyssey is that it's possible to design safety systems against accidents and equally impossible to design them against deliberate malice.

Team Boris, and his UKIP fluffers have, and are, slowly breaking all the safeguards we thought we had against accidental tyranny, because theirs isn't accidental. It's been planned and plotted and every safeguard has been quietly neutered.

That's what happens when you rely in trust for your constitution.

I know the US is equally chaotic at the moment, but their constitution was deliberately designed to prevent the power grab we are seeing in the UK. That's not to say it's perfect. But it doesn't rely on conventions that can be circumvented without challenge. Trump can't do whatever he wants, and the pendulum is pulling back.

I'm concerned that Remainers & Soft Leave MPs have given up trying to compromise on a strategy to avoid No Deal

• if any of them ever were genuinely trying

So it is now about avoiding blame
For Remainer Tories, the priority seems to be avoiding Corbyn as PM, even for a few days: it's also about avoiding blame from BJ for the EU not giving in and giving him his unicorn.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/no-deal-brexit-tribes-brexiteers-remainers-boris-johnson-merkel-macron-hammond-a9075991.html

With less than 70 days to go until 31 October, Downing Street is fixated on delivering Brexit,
while pro-EU factions are working tirelessly to thwart the looming possibility of a no-deal departure.

But behind the scenes, each side is laying the groundwork to blame someone else if (or when) things fail to go to plan.

The US has far more dangerous politicians - and has had for at least 20 years - but I agree with DG that the US Constitution is far more robust than ours in protecting the country from them

I'm concerned that Remainers & Soft Leave MPs have given up trying to compromise on a strategy to avoid No Deal

This has been the case for a long time. Deep down a lot of remainers don't really want a compromise, or if they do want one, it's not on offer anyway.

Never forget that the WA isn't a compromise in any way, shape or form - it's what we would have called the hardest of hard Brexits back in 2016. So I think remain opposition to it is pretty understandable (even if not necessarily very strategic).

Plus, the May and Johnson governments have been so useless (and so needlessly confrontational) that people are still reluctant to give up the big prize.

but I agree with DG that the US Constitution is far more robust than ours in protecting the country from them

Really? It's been pretty easy to stack the Supreme Court, and extremely difficult to bring to book a president who has broken a number of laws.

I have GC in Spain and the eldest who is in secondary school in a town which is not in the least bit affluent and is a long way from tourist areas learns science and music exclusively in English. This applies to the whole cohort, not just those who want to learn in English.

No system can protect a country forever, if the voters keep electing the authoritarian hard & far right

The USA have had - except for the Obama Interegnum - far right batshit politicians in power for many years now, rigging the Supreme Court & trying to purge other institutions too
and Trump still is subject to some legal constraints - which infuriates him

Much easier with our constitution for the hard right to take power,
because the UK PM has more absolute power over their own country than the POTUS, or head of any democratic country I can think of.

In contrast to the US, what in the Uk Constitution would stop a UK PM - at least with a working majority - from replacing the UK Supreme Court in one fell swoop ?

What constraints, given "national security" considerations, to stop a UK PM heavily restricting the media and even some social media ?

The US 1st Amendment is far more robust

Unlike POTUS, the PM can pack or even abolish the upper chamber

• the HoL needs replacement, but only with cross-party consensus, not unilaterally by any UK PM with a working majority

I used to teach Japanese undergrads and I knew, from when my son went out on an English teaching scheme there, that English had been taught in schools for some time and the aim was to have a native English speaker in every classroom.
When I visited him, in a provincial town, I didn’t find one person who spoke English, even very young people. It made things like buying train tickets extremely difficult and in a two week visit I really couldn’t pick up any of the language.
I asked one of my students why this was and he told me that many people could speak English but they didn’t speak it as they didn’t want to lose face by speaking it badly.

It is very difficult to unpick the spin that is undoubtedly going on from all sides.
I am seeing many posts saying 'we're f***d cos Boris or the EU or Trump said XYZ'. I don't think we should be taking these at face value. We're told that Downing St are taking legal advice on prorogueing Parliament, a deal is likely/unlikely, a million to one chance, Trump accepts (yeah right) that the NHS and food standards/animal rights aren't on the table'.
Why tell us if they are seeking legal advice - just do it. Don't spin it to a moribund docile media. Electioneering is the most likely reason for that.
I just think that the tribes are doing more spinning than a troupe of whirling dervishes and we need to step back and view some of this shite with a shovel of salt.
We are not being told the real story. We will have to wait for the documentary film makers in about 5 years time for that.