An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Remainers and 2nd voters care so little about sovereignty they were prepared to override our sovereign will to exit the EU as expressed in 17.4 million votes, in a referendum we were solemnly told was a "once-in-a-generation" chance, to "make a decision that WILL be respected"
There can be no greater expression of LOST sovereignty, than having your winning democratic vote ignored. And we came perilously close to that.
The hypocrisy of these Remainy people is bewildering, and they seem entirely unselfaware, at the same time
Boris slapping down Macron on Ukraine's "right to join NATO". Manny went off on his own, negotiated away the kitchen sink and now everyone's fucked. Well done to him.
Well, he's not wrong. Ukraine aren't going to be joining NATO as they have an ongoing territorial dispute and would contribute nothing except aggravation.
Yes, I don't fully understand this 'joining NATO' business. AIUI, if Ukraine was in NATO the US would have to fight if Russia invaded. But clearly, as we see, the US isn't up for fighting Russia in the event Russia invades Ukraine. They just want to do sanctions and supply. Ergo surely it's not just Russia that doesn't want Ukraine in NATA, the US doesn't either. So making a big deal of this aspect, for it to be some sort of deal maker or breaker, is not really scanning for me.
A long standing principle of NATO is that there is no pressure to join, stay or leave. In any direction. Hence why the spending stuff is a commitment with no penalties.
When a sample of MPs were asked “If you toss a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”, an astonishing 48% managed to get it wrong.
Only 38% of 2019ers gave the right answer. 53% of Labour MPs got it right, versus 50% of Tories. Just two Welsh MPs answered correctly. 60% of female MPs answered correctly versus just 48% of males – a statistically significant difference.
Turns out you can't run a script, host a teams meeting and track a USAF Drone at the same time. Nearly burnt a hole in my desk.
Couple of private jets fleeing the Ukraine, over the border, as we chat
Course it could be coincidence
If I was in Ukraine and had the means to get out, I'd be doing so. It wouldn't necessarily mean that the situation was any worse than yetserday, but that's still a pretty parlous situation for a country to be in.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Remainers and 2nd voters care so little about sovereignty they were prepared to override our sovereign will to exit the EU as expressed in 17.4 million votes, in a referendum we were solemnly told was a "once-in-a-generation" chance, to "make a decision that WILL be respected"
There can be no greater expression of LOST sovereignty, than having your winning democratic vote ignored. And we came perilously close to that.
The hypocrisy of these Remainy people is bewildering, and they seem entirely unselfaware, at the same time
You are conflating a concern over democracy with one over sovereignty. They are distinct. An absolute monarchy can exercise sovereignty. Indeed, look at the root of the word “sovereignty”. It’s “sovereign”, not “demos”.
Meanwhile, you continue to complain about something that didn’t happen. Maybe it would be more useful to focus on things that did happen?
I am not sure it has, but it does seem that the polls are narrowing, Starmer has stunned many remainers by ruling out rejoining the EU which begs the question who are they to vote for now, and Boris has just given a wide ranging interview from Scotland to the media and he really does not look like he is ready to say goodbye
It is also good that HMG and the Scottish government have agreed for 2 Scottish Freeports, despite fierce opposition from the Greens, the SNP's partners in government
If Remainers are 'stunned' then they haven't been listening: Starmer made it clear he saw no case for rejoining when he took over the leadership,
He has made it certain today and that means in practical terms a change in government will not see an attempt to rejoin and that will be a positive for Starmer in some areas but a big no no in other
While we accept difference in policy positions to the current leadership of our party, we are especially concerned in this instance to see Keir Starmer pushing not only for further engagement with NATO, but celebrating it while attacking Stop The War and other pro-peace activists"
So what? Labour has always had that strand of opinion. It's part of what you expect from our main party of the left. It's healthy. No need for people to choke on their frosties about it.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
Boris slapping down Macron on Ukraine's "right to join NATO". Manny went off on his own, negotiated away the kitchen sink and now everyone's fucked. Well done to him.
Well, he's not wrong. Ukraine aren't going to be joining NATO as they have an ongoing territorial dispute and would contribute nothing except aggravation.
I don't fully understand this 'joining NATO' business. AIUI, if Ukraine was in NATO the US would have to fight if Russia invaded. But clearly, as we see, the US isn't up for fighting Russia in the event Russia invades. They just want to do sanctions and supply. Ergo surely it's not just Russia that doesn't want Ukraine in NATO, the US doesn't either. So making a big deal of this aspect, for it to be some sort of deal maker or breaker, is not really scanning for me.
It's quite possible NATO don't want Ukraine. But NATO also don't want Russia to be able - or to be seen to be able to - dictate who can and cannot be in NATO.
Does that mean the Police Federation is going to resign?
Actually, I think this is a bit a of a problem for Khan.
Think 'backs turned' when he attends parades etc.
Did they make a similar announcement when Boris withdrew his confidence in Sir Ian Blair all those years ago? If not why not?
I recall a policeman at a social thing, who was startled, when he bragged that if any armed policeman ended up in court all of them would hand in their firearms tickets*, at the response.
The response from a group of middle class types who would normally be expected to back the police was - That would prove they were guilty. All the policemen who turned in their tickets should be fired from the police for insubordination and black listed for re-employment in the police.
*Armed police service used to be a voluntary job on top of the regular job.
All fine and dandy but if you sack all the miners, who will dig the coal? If you make it too risky to be an armed copper, who will volunteer if an honest mistake can see them in the dock?
Turns out you can't run a script, host a teams meeting and track a USAF Drone at the same time. Nearly burnt a hole in my desk.
Couple of private jets fleeing the Ukraine, over the border, as we chat
Course it could be coincidence
If I was in Ukraine and had the means to get out, I'd be doing so. It wouldn't necessarily mean that the situation was any worse than yetserday, but that's still a pretty parlous situation for a country to be in.
That US drone that’s flown all the way from Sicily is interesting - no military manned flights through fear of an attack, so easier to send drones? Who knows
Boris slapping down Macron on Ukraine's "right to join NATO". Manny went off on his own, negotiated away the kitchen sink and now everyone's fucked. Well done to him.
Well, he's not wrong. Ukraine aren't going to be joining NATO as they have an ongoing territorial dispute and would contribute nothing except aggravation.
I don't fully understand this 'joining NATO' business. AIUI, if Ukraine was in NATO the US would have to fight if Russia invaded. But clearly, as we see, the US isn't up for fighting Russia in the event Russia invades. They just want to do sanctions and supply. Ergo surely it's not just Russia that doesn't want Ukraine in NATO, the US doesn't either. So making a big deal of this aspect, for it to be some sort of deal maker or breaker, is not really scanning for me.
It's quite possible NATO don't want Ukraine. But NATO also don't want Russia to be able - or to be seen to be able to - dictate who can and cannot be in NATO.
Indeed. Whether Ukraine joins NATO is up Ukraine and NATO, no one else.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Remainers and 2nd voters care so little about sovereignty they were prepared to override our sovereign will to exit the EU as expressed in 17.4 million votes, in a referendum we were solemnly told was a "once-in-a-generation" chance, to "make a decision that WILL be respected"
There can be no greater expression of LOST sovereignty, than having your winning democratic vote ignored. And we came perilously close to that.
The hypocrisy of these Remainy people is bewildering, and they seem entirely unselfaware, at the same time
You are conflating a concern over democracy with one over sovereignty. They are distinct. An absolute monarchy can exercise sovereignty. Indeed, look at the root of the word “sovereignty”. It’s “sovereign”, not “demos”.
Meanwhile, you continue to complain about something that didn’t happen. Maybe it would be more useful to focus on things that did happen?
In a democracy you have "sovereignty of the people". Ultimately, the people decide. If that right is taken away, you have no popular sovereignty al all
Labour seem to have a lost 2% of the vote to the Greens on the YouGov poll, which is probably linked with Starmer bashing the 'Stop the War Coalition'. Long-term, Starmer bashing them is a good move, but in the short-term it might well lead to Corbynites switching to the Greens. When you also factor in Partygate being out of news because of Ukraine, as well as 'rally around the government during a time of crisis' effect, that Labour's lead is a bit down probably isn't that surprising.
It happens every time, and is stupid politics. It sounds like Mandelson is back again with the advice,; it got no coverage whatsoever in it outlets like the Mail, where it might have been effective, and plenty in the Guardian.
Starmer has to be very careful he doesn''t go back to some of the theatrical and publicised conflicts with the left of last year, when his trend was generally downwards, otherwise it could start to eat further into his lead and momentum ( no pun intended).
Its a very difficult line to first map and then walk.
On one hand you have mainstream voters who tend to be pro-our boys / patriotism. On the other hand you have idealised anti-war people who tend to be younger or embittered middle class older people.
You can't balance off both at a time like this. When political idiots like Diane Abbott is going onto zoom meetings saying NATO is the aggressor I don't think Starmer and his team have much choice other than to stamp that approach down and hard.
I think this was more retrospective, though, trying to distance himself from the Corbyn years with a very pointed statement of difference, rather than by implication, or general political tone. Every time he's done that so far, it hasn't worked out terribly well for him.
He needs to be a lot clearer - "Jeremy holds a long-standing position with the Stop the War coalition and whilst I respect his commitment I do not share their worldview. It is simply wrong to automatically side with Russia or China or whoever is a threat to our interests."
That kind of thing. The embittered middle class activists will trot off to one of the myriad "left unity" splinter cells if they haven't already. The young will flirt with the Greens but when push comes to shove and they're faced with 5 more years of the Tories they will swing late to Labour as they did in 2017.
I don' t really agree here. I think this will just result in the "splits" headlines that the press so love, and then the general trend away from Labour of last year up to and including the party conference season ; until Paterson, sleaze and then Partygate, where his due-process, prosecutorial stance has brought him support from both wings of the party.
I can understand your position, but I am looking at the apparent hard shift in the polls and looking at what has changed in the news to drive it. If not Ukraine then what?
I’m certainly biased but trying to set that aside, afaics Lab leads are almost entirely due to how salient is the awfulness of BJ and the Tories; that goes on the backburner and the Lab lead goes down.
No harm to the bloke but Starmer isn’t exactly an inspirer, he’s just not Johnson. It’s like Lab 1992-97 was lead by Michael Meacher rather than Smith and Blair (an inexact comparison but you know what I mean).
It's not just Starmer. It's all the rest of his rabble. I find the current Labour Party a bit like the scene from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe where the Witch takes Alsan to be executed, and all the gouls, hags and werewolves etc troop along after her...a fairly presentable leader, in front of the massed ranks of horrors.
At the end of the day, much as I dislike Johnson, I'm simply not going to vote for the unreconsitiuted trot who is the Labour candidate in my marginal constituency.
Interesting discussion (who is the trot by the way, Prole?). There's a danger that Labour gets the worst of both worlds by alienating the left by the very explicit distancing while failing to convince centrists because we've not yet expelled (enter leftie hate figure of their choice). A lot of former Conservative voters are so used to seeing Labour as wild-eyed loonies that it doesn't take much to deter them from switching, even when the entire leadership are centrist.
It's not just Starmer. Steve Reed, the shadow Justice Secretary says today in LabourList, "Labour under the last leadership cared more about the criminals than about their victims, but those days are well and truly over...". Now this alienates me in the same way that I wouldn't buy something from Ratner if he told me that he'd fooled me with crap but he now had the genuine article for me. I simply don't accept the premise that we cared more about criminals than victims, but is he thereby convincing e.g. The Prole? It seems not, as The Prole still thinks he's rabble.
All that said, I don't think we've seen an "apparent hard shift" in the polls. We've seen one poll with a big shift. The Opinium poll doesn't show a shift at all (10-point lead on comparable methodology).
One point Starmer may be watching (not sure how significant it is) is that the Socialist Campaign Group with 35 current members * is on its own within just a few of the 40 MPs needed to mount a leadership challenge - 20% of 198. If the wheels come off, the buffer is quite thin.
Then it would be 5% of Constituency Parties, or 5% of affiliates, to trigger it.
Would be mad to do so, but then they are arguably a little mad around the edges.
Boris slapping down Macron on Ukraine's "right to join NATO". Manny went off on his own, negotiated away the kitchen sink and now everyone's fucked. Well done to him.
Well, he's not wrong. Ukraine aren't going to be joining NATO as they have an ongoing territorial dispute and would contribute nothing except aggravation.
I don't fully understand this 'joining NATO' business. AIUI, if Ukraine was in NATO the US would have to fight if Russia invaded. But clearly, as we see, the US isn't up for fighting Russia in the event Russia invades. They just want to do sanctions and supply. Ergo surely it's not just Russia that doesn't want Ukraine in NATO, the US doesn't either. So making a big deal of this aspect, for it to be some sort of deal maker or breaker, is not really scanning for me.
It's quite possible NATO don't want Ukraine. But NATO also don't want Russia to be able - or to be seen to be able to - dictate who can and cannot be in NATO.
Indeed. Whether Ukraine joins NATO is up Ukraine and NATO, no one else.
It's not really up to "NATO". New members lodge their instruments of accession with the United States government.
When a sample of MPs were asked “If you toss a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”, an astonishing 48% managed to get it wrong.
Only 38% of 2019ers gave the right answer. 53% of Labour MPs got it right, versus 50% of Tories. Just two Welsh MPs answered correctly. 60% of female MPs answered correctly versus just 48% of males – a statistically significant difference.
Now, what's the probability that if you ask two MPs the coin toss question, they both get it right?
I wonder if any of those are statistically significant differences. Sampled ~100 in total, I think, so subsample kalxons for Welsh MPs (maybe they only asked two?) and the 2019ers split. I'm not sure the 2019ers are different to others, sure there's nothing between Lab and Con on that size sample. Might be something on female versus male.
I've got my own dubious track record on probability calcs, so I'm not going to mock too much
Edit: nor on reading ability, clearly - the quote states the female/male split is statistically significant so presumably the others, where not mentioned, were not
Turns out you can't run a script, host a teams meeting and track a USAF Drone at the same time. Nearly burnt a hole in my desk.
Couple of private jets fleeing the Ukraine, over the border, as we chat
Course it could be coincidence
There’s a lot of small planes, private jets and even one of those massive Antonov transport planes, all heading West out of Kiev at the moment. People and expensive machines all getting out while they still can.
Very interesting to see what in the big Antonov. A big bitcoin mining factory, perhaps.
It's going to Germany so unlikely to pick up anything useful over there.
It left from the Antonov base, so it’s probably positioning empty to Leipzig to collect something big and German, that’s been sold somewhere around the world.
Usually it’s stuff like generators and industrial plant, which are indivisible loads that won’t fit in a 747-F. Wind turbine blades are another common cargo, they’re the wrong shape for any other transport option.
Boris slapping down Macron on Ukraine's "right to join NATO". Manny went off on his own, negotiated away the kitchen sink and now everyone's fucked. Well done to him.
Well, he's not wrong. Ukraine aren't going to be joining NATO as they have an ongoing territorial dispute and would contribute nothing except aggravation.
No doubt about it, yet putting it on the table will make Putin bolder and ask for more.
Turns out you can't run a script, host a teams meeting and track a USAF Drone at the same time. Nearly burnt a hole in my desk.
Couple of private jets fleeing the Ukraine, over the border, as we chat
Course it could be coincidence
If I was in Ukraine and had the means to get out, I'd be doing so. It wouldn't necessarily mean that the situation was any worse than yetserday, but that's still a pretty parlous situation for a country to be in.
That US drone that’s flown all the way from Sicily is interesting - no military manned flights through fear of an attack, so easier to send drones? Who knows
The unmanned ascot also allows for very, very long loiter times. U2 pilots used to joke they "ran out of ass before they ran out of gas"
You are conflating a concern over democracy with one over sovereignty. They are distinct. An absolute monarchy can exercise sovereignty. Indeed, look at the root of the word “sovereignty”. It’s “sovereign”, not “demos”.
Meanwhile, you continue to complain about something that didn’t happen. Maybe it would be more useful to focus on things that did happen?
There must be a name for the psychological state of being so deeply unhappy with the outcome of events for which one devoutly wished that one distracts oneself with hypothetical outcomes of hypothetical events hypothetically brought about by one's opponents. Maybe the Germans have a word for it..
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
When a sample of MPs were asked “If you toss a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”, an astonishing 48% managed to get it wrong.
Only 38% of 2019ers gave the right answer. 53% of Labour MPs got it right, versus 50% of Tories. Just two Welsh MPs answered correctly. 60% of female MPs answered correctly versus just 48% of males – a statistically significant difference.
What? What were they possibly answering apart from 25%? It is 25%, right? It's not a trick question that I'm not spotting? This is (unless I'm falling into the same trap that I'm not spotting) pretty much bar-them-from-any-job-which-involves-having-to-think territory. It's like miscounting your feet.
Labour seem to have a lost 2% of the vote to the Greens on the YouGov poll, which is probably linked with Starmer bashing the 'Stop the War Coalition'. Long-term, Starmer bashing them is a good move, but in the short-term it might well lead to Corbynites switching to the Greens. When you also factor in Partygate being out of news because of Ukraine, as well as 'rally around the government during a time of crisis' effect, that Labour's lead is a bit down probably isn't that surprising.
It happens every time, and is stupid politics. It sounds like Mandelson is back again with the advice,; it got no coverage whatsoever in it outlets like the Mail, where it might have been effective, and plenty in the Guardian.
Starmer has to be very careful he doesn''t go back to some of the theatrical and publicised conflicts with the left of last year, when his trend was generally downwards, otherwise it could start to eat further into his lead and momentum ( no pun intended).
Its a very difficult line to first map and then walk.
On one hand you have mainstream voters who tend to be pro-our boys / patriotism. On the other hand you have idealised anti-war people who tend to be younger or embittered middle class older people.
You can't balance off both at a time like this. When political idiots like Diane Abbott is going onto zoom meetings saying NATO is the aggressor I don't think Starmer and his team have much choice other than to stamp that approach down and hard.
I think this was more retrospective, though, trying to distance himself from the Corbyn years with a very pointed statement of difference, rather than by implication, or general political tone. Every time he's done that so far, it hasn't worked out terribly well for him.
He needs to be a lot clearer - "Jeremy holds a long-standing position with the Stop the War coalition and whilst I respect his commitment I do not share their worldview. It is simply wrong to automatically side with Russia or China or whoever is a threat to our interests."
That kind of thing. The embittered middle class activists will trot off to one of the myriad "left unity" splinter cells if they haven't already. The young will flirt with the Greens but when push comes to shove and they're faced with 5 more years of the Tories they will swing late to Labour as they did in 2017.
I don' t really agree here. I think this will just result in the "splits" headlines that the press so love, and then the general trend away from Labour of last year up to and including the party conference season ; until Paterson, sleaze and then Partygate, where his due-process, prosecutorial stance has brought him support from both wings of the party.
I can understand your position, but I am looking at the apparent hard shift in the polls and looking at what has changed in the news to drive it. If not Ukraine then what?
I’m certainly biased but trying to set that aside, afaics Lab leads are almost entirely due to how salient is the awfulness of BJ and the Tories; that goes on the backburner and the Lab lead goes down.
No harm to the bloke but Starmer isn’t exactly an inspirer, he’s just not Johnson. It’s like Lab 1992-97 was lead by Michael Meacher rather than Smith and Blair (an inexact comparison but you know what I mean).
It's not just Starmer. It's all the rest of his rabble. I find the current Labour Party a bit like the scene from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe where the Witch takes Alsan to be executed, and all the gouls, hags and werewolves etc troop along after her...a fairly presentable leader, in front of the massed ranks of horrors.
At the end of the day, much as I dislike Johnson, I'm simply not going to vote for the unreconsitiuted trot who is the Labour candidate in my marginal constituency.
Interesting discussion (who is the trot by the way, Prole?). There's a danger that Labour gets the worst of both worlds by alienating the left by the very explicit distancing while failing to convince centrists because we've not yet expelled (enter leftie hate figure of their choice). A lot of former Conservative voters are so used to seeing Labour as wild-eyed loonies that it doesn't take much to deter them from switching, even when the entire leadership are centrist.
It's not just Starmer. Steve Reed, the shadow Justice Secretary says today in LabourList, "Labour under the last leadership cared more about the criminals than about their victims, but those days are well and truly over...". Now this alienates me in the same way that I wouldn't buy something from Ratner if he told me that he'd fooled me with crap but he now had the genuine article for me. I simply don't accept the premise that we cared more about criminals than victims, but is he thereby convincing e.g. The Prole? It seems not, as The Prole still thinks he's rabble.
All that said, I don't think we've seen an "apparent hard shift" in the polls. We've seen one poll with a big shift. The Opinium poll doesn't show a shift at all (10-point lead on comparable methodology).
One point Starmer may be watching (not sure how significant it is) is that the Socialist Campaign Group with 35 current members * is on its own within just a few of the 40 MPs needed to mount a leadership challenge - 20% of 198. If the wheels come off, the buffer is quite thin.
Then it would be 5% of Constituency Parties, or 5% of affiliates, to trigger it.
Would be mad to do so, but then they are arguably a little mad around the edges.
* 2 of whom are Jeremy and Claudia.
Starmers is leading in the polls and on best PM and the economic head winds are poor then why on earth would they. I cannot see the reason.
When a sample of MPs were asked “If you toss a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”, an astonishing 48% managed to get it wrong.
Only 38% of 2019ers gave the right answer. 53% of Labour MPs got it right, versus 50% of Tories. Just two Welsh MPs answered correctly. 60% of female MPs answered correctly versus just 48% of males – a statistically significant difference.
That was the Cummings test, wasn't it?
Once again, he identified a problem, but (if I'm reading it right that new-in-2019 MPs are scoring lower than the returning), his intervention has made the problem worse.
Completely off topic but nice Cyclefree family news.
Youngest son has been offered a starting graduate job as a project manager in the nuclear industry. He had a day long assessment last week by Zoom about which he was very nervous and for which he prepared hard. And it has all paid off. Really pleased for him.
It's his first proper job since graduating, though he has been doing lots of jobs in the interim. And after a tough two years - Covid, not much of a social life and feeling despondent about career prospects etc - it's great that finally opportunities are arriving.
There is also the possibility of secondments abroad which would be fantastic.
What has he done to deserve expelling ? He’s being removed for spurious reasons.
See? Doesn't work. People who in their hearts don't want to vote Labour (because they're accustomed to thinking of us as alien rabble) will find a reason not to, in the same way that I wouldn't vote RefUK even if I agreed with everything they said for a year.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
Those who drafted it got a nasty shock - we weren't supposed to be able to achieve escape velocity.
The head of Putin's puppet people's republic in the Donbas has already announced on Moscow TV that Russia "must be asked for help" if the Ukrainian army "invades". This is how the Russians are "informed".
Completely off topic but nice Cyclefree family news.
Youngest son has been offered a starting graduate job as a project manager in the nuclear industry. He had a day long assessment last week by Zoom about which he was very nervous and for which he prepared hard. And it has all paid off. Really pleased for him.
It's his first proper job since graduating, though he has been doing lots of jobs in the interim. And after a tough two years - Covid, not much of a social life and feeling despondent about career prospects etc - it's great that finally opportunities are arriving.
There is also the possibility of secondments abroad which would be fantastic.
Turns out you can't run a script, host a teams meeting and track a USAF Drone at the same time. Nearly burnt a hole in my desk.
Couple of private jets fleeing the Ukraine, over the border, as we chat
Course it could be coincidence
If I was in Ukraine and had the means to get out, I'd be doing so. It wouldn't necessarily mean that the situation was any worse than yetserday, but that's still a pretty parlous situation for a country to be in.
That US drone that’s flown all the way from Sicily is interesting - no military manned flights through fear of an attack, so easier to send drones? Who knows
The unmanned ascot also allows for very, very long loiter times. U2 pilots used to joke they "ran out of ass before they ran out of gas"
They’ve got 32 hours’ endurance those drones, it could be there for a while. I wonder where it’s based, it was already at more than 50,000’ when it started skwarking near Sicily this morning?
There was a rumour that the USAF were developing a drone that could be refuelled air-to-air, by linking the autopilots of the two aircraft together. It’s totally nuts, but means they could keep it airbourne indefinitely.
Turns out you can't run a script, host a teams meeting and track a USAF Drone at the same time. Nearly burnt a hole in my desk.
Couple of private jets fleeing the Ukraine, over the border, as we chat
Course it could be coincidence
If I was in Ukraine and had the means to get out, I'd be doing so. It wouldn't necessarily mean that the situation was any worse than yetserday, but that's still a pretty parlous situation for a country to be in.
That US drone that’s flown all the way from Sicily is interesting - no military manned flights through fear of an attack, so easier to send drones? Who knows
The unmanned ascot also allows for very, very long loiter times. U2 pilots used to joke they "ran out of ass before they ran out of gas"
What’s the deal with a military asset like that being shown on a public website? Presumably the Americans could have kept it off there if they wanted to. Which means it’s there as a deterrent. Deterrent against a false flag operation perhaps?
The Police Federation need to be told to get stuffed.
The police are there to serve the public. Not themselves. And they plainly haven't been serving the public in the way the public have a right to expect.
Not just in London. But in Greater Manchester too. The GMP is quite as much of a shitshow as the Met.
Completely off topic but nice Cyclefree family news.
Youngest son has been offered a starting graduate job as a project manager in the nuclear industry. He had a day long assessment last week by Zoom about which he was very nervous and for which he prepared hard. And it has all paid off. Really pleased for him.
It's his first proper job since graduating, though he has been doing lots of jobs in the interim. And after a tough two years - Covid, not much of a social life and feeling despondent about career prospects etc - it's great that finally opportunities are arriving.
There is also the possibility of secondments abroad which would be fantastic.
Woo hoo!!! Congratulations to him, after what must have been a terrrible couple of years. Great news for him.
4 weeks ago Johnson was going tomorrow 2 weeks ago is was next week now it's this year
The amount of time left is growing exponentially, like so many Covid cases. Does someone have a vaccine?
I still think it will be next week. My hair shirt of ridicule is available in the (highly possible) event that I have read all the signs wrong
Its interesting. You are not alone in predicting a rapid demise - @MoonRabbit seems similarly convinced. What signs are you seeing that suggest it? From my limited attention span, no more conservative MP's have gone public, its half term so no Parliament, and Ukraine vs Russia is taking the attention.
MoonRabbit here herself - doubling down on this position.
Because Something has fundamentally changed in the Boris Johnson situation. Unlike up to the last few weeks there is now NO possibility he can survive this - NO possibility he can recover - that’s the change in perception, including his own mind by accounts, that is different than a few weeks ago.
Johnson’s abysmal parliamentary reply to the limited release of Gray report was the likely tipping point in the game, after which it had become only a moment of when.
But we can now read the history book, we know enough not to wait for it to be written.
The history books will explain he couldn’t break not just any law like a speeding ticket, but special laws he wrote as PM that came with his leadership wrapped around the messaging, to follow his lead and do the hardest things like limit attendance at funerals, cancel weddings, not see loved ones, not be there when they are ill, not be there when they die - and avoid his authority and credibility destroyed by his mistakes in breaking that law, and messaging, over and over.
For months Boris so obviously spun lies to Parliament to cover up the truth he knew, but in the end he was reduced to pleading because he won a majority in a general election that must matter more to his MPs and voters - this has always been leading to a hated lame duck PM, a massive electoral millstone around the neck of his party, and a vote of no confidence. He has no excuses left.
It is now just a question of when he runs out of road. Hence Mike Smithson in header said he hadn’t had a bet, presumably not sure of when.
I am sure of when the guillotine falls on his filibuster. The guillotine is that moment his MPs smell the coffee and realise they have no option but to replace him. And that moment comes when Johnson cannot avoid answering with the truth any longer, he has to admit the truth that he did the wrong thing and lied about it. And that moment is now. His questionnaire has to be read by investigators and prosecutors by Friday. He really can’t remain silent about the truth any longer than this week, he really can’t avoid the truth coming out beyond this week.
Also, I now appreciate there is nothing coordinated or calculating about the letters going in. It’s just random, 54 individuals reaching that place in their mind, they don’t even have to go public.
I also now appreciate it only takes 54 letter quota to be reached to get rid of Boris. Because the vote of no confidence is not a vote to get rid of him, but a vote whether or not to keep him.
The Ukraine Crisis doesn’t save him. If/when specifically canvassed on this, the majority of both public and Conservative MPs would rather someone else taking lead on this crisis than the self serving Liar with his interfering entourage.
When a sample of MPs were asked “If you toss a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”, an astonishing 48% managed to get it wrong.
Only 38% of 2019ers gave the right answer. 53% of Labour MPs got it right, versus 50% of Tories. Just two Welsh MPs answered correctly. 60% of female MPs answered correctly versus just 48% of males – a statistically significant difference.
What? What were they possibly answering apart from 25%? It is 25%, right? It's not a trick question that I'm not spotting? This is (unless I'm falling into the same trap that I'm not spotting) pretty much bar-them-from-any-job-which-involves-having-to-think territory. It's like miscounting your feet.
I suspect most of the incorrect answers were just 'don't know'. I can believe ~50% just wouldn't have an idea how to do it.
Turns out you can't run a script, host a teams meeting and track a USAF Drone at the same time. Nearly burnt a hole in my desk.
Couple of private jets fleeing the Ukraine, over the border, as we chat
Course it could be coincidence
If I was in Ukraine and had the means to get out, I'd be doing so. It wouldn't necessarily mean that the situation was any worse than yetserday, but that's still a pretty parlous situation for a country to be in.
That US drone that’s flown all the way from Sicily is interesting - no military manned flights through fear of an attack, so easier to send drones? Who knows
The unmanned ascot also allows for very, very long loiter times. U2 pilots used to joke they "ran out of ass before they ran out of gas"
That;s exactly the sort of thing the Americans - and especially the American military like to say. If you miss Ascension, your wife will get a pension. Drive for show, putt for dough. Etc. Sometimes however rhyming comes at the expense of making any sort of sense. What exactly does 'running out of ass' mean?
Labour seem to have a lost 2% of the vote to the Greens on the YouGov poll, which is probably linked with Starmer bashing the 'Stop the War Coalition'. Long-term, Starmer bashing them is a good move, but in the short-term it might well lead to Corbynites switching to the Greens. When you also factor in Partygate being out of news because of Ukraine, as well as 'rally around the government during a time of crisis' effect, that Labour's lead is a bit down probably isn't that surprising.
It happens every time, and is stupid politics. It sounds like Mandelson is back again with the advice,; it got no coverage whatsoever in it outlets like the Mail, where it might have been effective, and plenty in the Guardian.
Starmer has to be very careful he doesn''t go back to some of the theatrical and publicised conflicts with the left of last year, when his trend was generally downwards, otherwise it could start to eat further into his lead and momentum ( no pun intended).
Its a very difficult line to first map and then walk.
On one hand you have mainstream voters who tend to be pro-our boys / patriotism. On the other hand you have idealised anti-war people who tend to be younger or embittered middle class older people.
You can't balance off both at a time like this. When political idiots like Diane Abbott is going onto zoom meetings saying NATO is the aggressor I don't think Starmer and his team have much choice other than to stamp that approach down and hard.
I think this was more retrospective, though, trying to distance himself from the Corbyn years with a very pointed statement of difference, rather than by implication, or general political tone. Every time he's done that so far, it hasn't worked out terribly well for him.
He needs to be a lot clearer - "Jeremy holds a long-standing position with the Stop the War coalition and whilst I respect his commitment I do not share their worldview. It is simply wrong to automatically side with Russia or China or whoever is a threat to our interests."
That kind of thing. The embittered middle class activists will trot off to one of the myriad "left unity" splinter cells if they haven't already. The young will flirt with the Greens but when push comes to shove and they're faced with 5 more years of the Tories they will swing late to Labour as they did in 2017.
I don' t really agree here. I think this will just result in the "splits" headlines that the press so love, and then the general trend away from Labour of last year up to and including the party conference season ; until Paterson, sleaze and then Partygate, where his due-process, prosecutorial stance has brought him support from both wings of the party.
I can understand your position, but I am looking at the apparent hard shift in the polls and looking at what has changed in the news to drive it. If not Ukraine then what?
I’m certainly biased but trying to set that aside, afaics Lab leads are almost entirely due to how salient is the awfulness of BJ and the Tories; that goes on the backburner and the Lab lead goes down.
No harm to the bloke but Starmer isn’t exactly an inspirer, he’s just not Johnson. It’s like Lab 1992-97 was lead by Michael Meacher rather than Smith and Blair (an inexact comparison but you know what I mean).
It's not just Starmer. It's all the rest of his rabble. I find the current Labour Party a bit like the scene from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe where the Witch takes Alsan to be executed, and all the gouls, hags and werewolves etc troop along after her...a fairly presentable leader, in front of the massed ranks of horrors.
At the end of the day, much as I dislike Johnson, I'm simply not going to vote for the unreconsitiuted trot who is the Labour candidate in my marginal constituency.
Interesting discussion (who is the trot by the way, Prole?). There's a danger that Labour gets the worst of both worlds by alienating the left by the very explicit distancing while failing to convince centrists because we've not yet expelled (enter leftie hate figure of their choice). A lot of former Conservative voters are so used to seeing Labour as wild-eyed loonies that it doesn't take much to deter them from switching, even when the entire leadership are centrist.
Expelling Corbyn will help.
What has he done to deserve expelling ? He’s being removed for spurious reasons.
Turns out you can't run a script, host a teams meeting and track a USAF Drone at the same time. Nearly burnt a hole in my desk.
Couple of private jets fleeing the Ukraine, over the border, as we chat
Course it could be coincidence
If I was in Ukraine and had the means to get out, I'd be doing so. It wouldn't necessarily mean that the situation was any worse than yetserday, but that's still a pretty parlous situation for a country to be in.
That US drone that’s flown all the way from Sicily is interesting - no military manned flights through fear of an attack, so easier to send drones? Who knows
The unmanned ascot also allows for very, very long loiter times. U2 pilots used to joke they "ran out of ass before they ran out of gas"
They’ve got 32 hours’ endurance those drones, it could be there for a while. I wonder where it’s based, it was already at more than 50,000’ when it started skwarking near Sicily this morning?
There was a rumour that the USAF were developing a drone that could be refuelled air-to-air, by linking the autopilots of the two aircraft together. It’s totally nuts, but means they could keep it airbourne indefinitely.
Almost all military jet engines run total loss lubrication systems so no.
That’s why Buccaneer was never considered for Black Buck. That and the fact that a 15 hour mission in an ejection seat wasn't considered feasible. Although a 391st Strike Eagle crew did 15h 30m over Afghan including 10 AAR brackets.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
Those who drafted it got a nasty shock - we weren't supposed to be able to achieve escape velocity.
As we have subsequently discovered to our delight, we could then and can now renege on any international agreement we want. Because we're sovereign.
Despite @Richard_Tyndall's belief that we were under the oppressive yoke of the EU preventing us achieving our own destiny. .
4 weeks ago Johnson was going tomorrow 2 weeks ago is was next week now it's this year
The amount of time left is growing exponentially, like so many Covid cases. Does someone have a vaccine?
I still think it will be next week. My hair shirt of ridicule is available in the (highly possible) event that I have read all the signs wrong
Its interesting. You are not alone in predicting a rapid demise - @MoonRabbit seems similarly convinced. What signs are you seeing that suggest it? From my limited attention span, no more conservative MP's have gone public, its half term so no Parliament, and Ukraine vs Russia is taking the attention.
MoonRabbit here herself - doubling down on this position.
Because Something has fundamentally changed in the Boris Johnson situation. Unlike up to the last few weeks there is now NO possibility he can survive this - NO possibility he can recover - that’s the change in perception, including his own mind by accounts, that is different than a few weeks ago.
Johnson’s abysmal parliamentary reply to the limited release of Gray report was the likely tipping point in the game, after which it had become only a moment of when.
But we can now read the history book, we know enough not to wait for it to be written.
The history books will explain he couldn’t break not just any law like a speeding ticket, but special laws he wrote as PM that came with his leadership wrapped around the messaging, to follow his lead and do the hardest things like limit attendance at funerals, cancel weddings, not see loved ones, not be there when they are ill, not be there when they die - and avoid his authority and credibility destroyed by his mistakes in breaking that law and messaging over and over.
For month Boris so obviously spun lies to Parliament to cover up the truth he knew, but in the end he was reduced to pleading because he won a majority in a general election that must matter more to his MPs and voters - this has always been leading to a hated lame duck PM, a massive electoral millstone around the neck of his party, and a vote of no confidence. He has no excuses left.
It is now just a question of when he runs out of road. Hence Mike Smithson in header said he hadn’t had a bet, presumably not sure of when.
I am sure of when the guillotine falls on his filibuster. The guillotine is that moment his MPs smell the coffee and realise they have no option but to replace him. And that moment comes when Johnson cannot avoid answering with the truth any longer, he has to admit the truth that he did the wrong thing and lied about it. And that moment is now. His questionnaire has to be read by investigators and prosecutors by Friday. He really can’t remain silent about the truth any longer than this week, he really can’t avoid the truth coming out beyond this week.
Also, I now appreciate there is nothing coordinated or calculating about the letters going in. It’s just random, 54 individuals reaching that place in their mind, they don’t even have to go public.
I also now appreciate it only takes 54 letter quota to be reached to get rid of Boris. Because the vote of no confidence is not a vote to get rid of him, but a vote whether or not to keep him.
The Ukraine Crisis doesn’t save him. If/when specifically canvassed on this, the majority of both public and Conservative MPs would rather someone else taking lead on this crisis than the self serving Liar with his interfering entourage.
Only 8 days of Boris left to go.
Thanks for the answer, but we'll see on day 9... If not already, why now? I think we have a pretty good idea what when on. Despite the glorious attempts to portray No 10 as a new Versailles, or as Whitehall under Charles II in the 1660's, the 'parties' were pathetic gatherings of people working together all day, having some drinks and nibbles. Yes, they shouldn't have done this, as the laws enacted by those same people forbade it for the rest of us. But that's priced in. Johnson is a fool and should have been more open on this. Buts that's priced in. I can see FPN's etc being issued to some in No 10 and I imagine at least one 10K fine. But it won't be Johnson, who was at work the whole time.
When a sample of MPs were asked “If you toss a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”, an astonishing 48% managed to get it wrong.
Only 38% of 2019ers gave the right answer. 53% of Labour MPs got it right, versus 50% of Tories. Just two Welsh MPs answered correctly. 60% of female MPs answered correctly versus just 48% of males – a statistically significant difference.
What? What were they possibly answering apart from 25%? It is 25%, right? It's not a trick question that I'm not spotting? This is (unless I'm falling into the same trap that I'm not spotting) pretty much bar-them-from-any-job-which-involves-having-to-think territory. It's like miscounting your feet.
I suspect most of the incorrect answers were just 'don't know'. I can believe ~50% just wouldn't have an idea how to do it.
Surely, if you were to sample all adults - surely? - the success rate in answering that question would be considerably higher than 50%. I can't believe the success rate on this board would be much below 100% (you always get the odd mis-think or not-paying-attention, even among clever people). And while this board might be better at this sort of thing than the population at large, youwould have thought the same would be true of MPs.
This really needs digging into, because if this is true it's absolutely astonishing.
EDIT: Ooh, just spotted: 'a sample'. That might be an explanatory factor. Not a massively encouraging one though.
When a sample of MPs were asked “If you toss a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”, an astonishing 48% managed to get it wrong.
Only 38% of 2019ers gave the right answer. 53% of Labour MPs got it right, versus 50% of Tories. Just two Welsh MPs answered correctly. 60% of female MPs answered correctly versus just 48% of males – a statistically significant difference.
What? What were they possibly answering apart from 25%? It is 25%, right? It's not a trick question that I'm not spotting? This is (unless I'm falling into the same trap that I'm not spotting) pretty much bar-them-from-any-job-which-involves-having-to-think territory. It's like miscounting your feet.
I suspect most of the incorrect answers were just 'don't know'. I can believe ~50% just wouldn't have an idea how to do it.
When a sample of MPs were asked “If you toss a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”, an astonishing 48% managed to get it wrong.
Only 38% of 2019ers gave the right answer. 53% of Labour MPs got it right, versus 50% of Tories. Just two Welsh MPs answered correctly. 60% of female MPs answered correctly versus just 48% of males – a statistically significant difference.
Now, what's the probability that if you ask two MPs the coin toss question, they both get it right?
I wonder if any of those are statistically significant differences. Sampled ~100 in total, I think, so subsample kalxons for Welsh MPs (maybe they only asked two?) and the 2019ers split. I'm not sure the 2019ers are different to others, sure there's nothing between Lab and Con on that size sample. Might be something on female versus male.
I've got my own dubious track record on probability calcs, so I'm not going to mock too much
Edit: nor on reading ability, clearly - the quote states the female/male split is statistically significant so presumably the others, where not mentioned, were not
Another result I find surprising, is:
"MPs were also asked: if you roll a six-sided die, if the rolls are 1,3,4,1 and 6, what are the mean and mode values? Around two-thirds, 64 per cent, of respondents were able to identify that the mean value was three, while 63 per cent gave the correct answer of one for the mode."
Would have expected more people to get that one wrong than two heads results in a row...
Boris slapping down Macron on Ukraine's "right to join NATO". Manny went off on his own, negotiated away the kitchen sink and now everyone's fucked. Well done to him.
Well, he's not wrong. Ukraine aren't going to be joining NATO as they have an ongoing territorial dispute and would contribute nothing except aggravation.
I don't fully understand this 'joining NATO' business. AIUI, if Ukraine was in NATO the US would have to fight if Russia invaded. But clearly, as we see, the US isn't up for fighting Russia in the event Russia invades. They just want to do sanctions and supply. Ergo surely it's not just Russia that doesn't want Ukraine in NATO, the US doesn't either. So making a big deal of this aspect, for it to be some sort of deal maker or breaker, is not really scanning for me.
It's quite possible NATO don't want Ukraine. But NATO also don't want Russia to be able - or to be seen to be able to - dictate who can and cannot be in NATO.
Indeed. Whether Ukraine joins NATO is up Ukraine and NATO, no one else.
It's not really up to "NATO". New members lodge their instruments of accession with the United States government.
It's up to each member individually.
Offering an invitation to join requires unanimous agreement amongst the members. Says article 10 of the NATO Treaty.
Article 10 The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
Boris slapping down Macron on Ukraine's "right to join NATO". Manny went off on his own, negotiated away the kitchen sink and now everyone's fucked. Well done to him.
Well, he's not wrong. Ukraine aren't going to be joining NATO as they have an ongoing territorial dispute and would contribute nothing except aggravation.
I don't fully understand this 'joining NATO' business. AIUI, if Ukraine was in NATO the US would have to fight if Russia invaded. But clearly, as we see, the US isn't up for fighting Russia in the event Russia invades. They just want to do sanctions and supply. Ergo surely it's not just Russia that doesn't want Ukraine in NATO, the US doesn't either. So making a big deal of this aspect, for it to be some sort of deal maker or breaker, is not really scanning for me.
It's not a coincidence that it's a non-NATO, non-nuclear country that may be invaded.
It's tricky for Putin and the West to understand how far each side will go. At best this causes economic uncertainty. At worst a war.
Estonia and Belarus have both taken sides and neither is likely to see any conflict on their territories. Ukraine is caught in the middle, and demonstrates further that the relative peace Europe had enjoyed since WW2 basically comes down to opposing nuclear alliances.
Turns out you can't run a script, host a teams meeting and track a USAF Drone at the same time. Nearly burnt a hole in my desk.
Couple of private jets fleeing the Ukraine, over the border, as we chat
Course it could be coincidence
If I was in Ukraine and had the means to get out, I'd be doing so. It wouldn't necessarily mean that the situation was any worse than yetserday, but that's still a pretty parlous situation for a country to be in.
That US drone that’s flown all the way from Sicily is interesting - no military manned flights through fear of an attack, so easier to send drones? Who knows
The unmanned ascot also allows for very, very long loiter times. U2 pilots used to joke they "ran out of ass before they ran out of gas"
They’ve got 32 hours’ endurance those drones, it could be there for a while. I wonder where it’s based, it was already at more than 50,000’ when it started skwarking near Sicily this morning?
There was a rumour that the USAF were developing a drone that could be refuelled air-to-air, by linking the autopilots of the two aircraft together. It’s totally nuts, but means they could keep it airbourne indefinitely.
Almost all military jet engines run total loss lubrication systems so no.
That’s why Buccaneer was never considered for Black Buck. That and the fact that a 15 hour mission in an ejection seat wasn't considered feasible. Although a 391st Strike Eagle crew did 15h 30m over Afghan including 10 AAR brackets.
IIRC there was a line item in R&D for the USAF to look at limitations other than fuel for drone endurance - which included lubrication issues.
Wasn't there a 16 hour U2 mission, using the aerial refuelling capability?
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Remainers and 2nd voters care so little about sovereignty they were prepared to override our sovereign will to exit the EU as expressed in 17.4 million votes, in a referendum we were solemnly told was a "once-in-a-generation" chance, to "make a decision that WILL be respected"
There can be no greater expression of LOST sovereignty, than having your winning democratic vote ignored. And we came perilously close to that.
The hypocrisy of these Remainy people is bewildering, and they seem entirely unselfaware, at the same time
You are conflating a concern over democracy with one over sovereignty. They are distinct. An absolute monarchy can exercise sovereignty. Indeed, look at the root of the word “sovereignty”. It’s “sovereign”, not “demos”.
Meanwhile, you continue to complain about something that didn’t happen. Maybe it would be more useful to focus on things that did happen?
The four-plus year long campaign to overturn the result had a direct impact on where we are now...
Turns out you can't run a script, host a teams meeting and track a USAF Drone at the same time. Nearly burnt a hole in my desk.
Couple of private jets fleeing the Ukraine, over the border, as we chat
Course it could be coincidence
If I was in Ukraine and had the means to get out, I'd be doing so. It wouldn't necessarily mean that the situation was any worse than yetserday, but that's still a pretty parlous situation for a country to be in.
That US drone that’s flown all the way from Sicily is interesting - no military manned flights through fear of an attack, so easier to send drones? Who knows
The unmanned ascot also allows for very, very long loiter times. U2 pilots used to joke they "ran out of ass before they ran out of gas"
That;s exactly the sort of thing the Americans - and especially the American military like to say. If you miss Ascension, your wife will get a pension. Drive for show, putt for dough. Etc. Sometimes however rhyming comes at the expense of making any sort of sense. What exactly does 'running out of ass' mean?
I'd assumed it meant you get shot down if you hang about for too long. Your ass is grass, to use another construction.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Before swatting aside the comparison of the EU as a hostile power, you should consider that it is currently more difficult, time consuming and expensive to have a UK origin package clear customs into France than to most places on earth. There is a malignancy towards the Uk from certain EU powers that is quite unbecoming.
When a sample of MPs were asked “If you toss a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”, an astonishing 48% managed to get it wrong.
Only 38% of 2019ers gave the right answer. 53% of Labour MPs got it right, versus 50% of Tories. Just two Welsh MPs answered correctly. 60% of female MPs answered correctly versus just 48% of males – a statistically significant difference.
What? What were they possibly answering apart from 25%? It is 25%, right? It's not a trick question that I'm not spotting? This is (unless I'm falling into the same trap that I'm not spotting) pretty much bar-them-from-any-job-which-involves-having-to-think territory. It's like miscounting your feet.
I suspect most of the incorrect answers were just 'don't know'. I can believe ~50% just wouldn't have an idea how to do it.
Turns out you can't run a script, host a teams meeting and track a USAF Drone at the same time. Nearly burnt a hole in my desk.
Couple of private jets fleeing the Ukraine, over the border, as we chat
Course it could be coincidence
If I was in Ukraine and had the means to get out, I'd be doing so. It wouldn't necessarily mean that the situation was any worse than yetserday, but that's still a pretty parlous situation for a country to be in.
That US drone that’s flown all the way from Sicily is interesting - no military manned flights through fear of an attack, so easier to send drones? Who knows
The unmanned ascot also allows for very, very long loiter times. U2 pilots used to joke they "ran out of ass before they ran out of gas"
That;s exactly the sort of thing the Americans - and especially the American military like to say. If you miss Ascension, your wife will get a pension. Drive for show, putt for dough. Etc. Sometimes however rhyming comes at the expense of making any sort of sense. What exactly does 'running out of ass' mean?
Getting so exhausted by sitting in an ejection seat for X hours that you are unable to function. There are stories that U2 pilots had to be lifted out of their cockpits after ultra long flights. There was an aerial refuelling capability, but it was almost never used, because of issues with crew exhaustion.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Before swatting aside the comparison of the EU as a hostile power, you should consider that it is currently more difficult, time consuming and expensive to have a UK origin package clear customs into France than to most places on earth. There is a malignancy towards the Uk from certain EU powers that is quite unbecoming.
As we voted for that arrangement we should rejoice, right?
When a sample of MPs were asked “If you toss a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”, an astonishing 48% managed to get it wrong.
Only 38% of 2019ers gave the right answer. 53% of Labour MPs got it right, versus 50% of Tories. Just two Welsh MPs answered correctly. 60% of female MPs answered correctly versus just 48% of males – a statistically significant difference.
Now, what's the probability that if you ask two MPs the coin toss question, they both get it right?
I wonder if any of those are statistically significant differences. Sampled ~100 in total, I think, so subsample kalxons for Welsh MPs (maybe they only asked two?) and the 2019ers split. I'm not sure the 2019ers are different to others, sure there's nothing between Lab and Con on that size sample. Might be something on female versus male.
I've got my own dubious track record on probability calcs, so I'm not going to mock too much
Edit: nor on reading ability, clearly - the quote states the female/male split is statistically significant so presumably the others, where not mentioned, were not
I'd be interested in seeing an age breakdown, which might have a material impact on the sex breakdown.
When a sample of MPs were asked “If you toss a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”, an astonishing 48% managed to get it wrong.
Only 38% of 2019ers gave the right answer. 53% of Labour MPs got it right, versus 50% of Tories. Just two Welsh MPs answered correctly. 60% of female MPs answered correctly versus just 48% of males – a statistically significant difference.
What? What were they possibly answering apart from 25%? It is 25%, right? It's not a trick question that I'm not spotting? This is (unless I'm falling into the same trap that I'm not spotting) pretty much bar-them-from-any-job-which-involves-having-to-think territory. It's like miscounting your feet.
I suspect most of the incorrect answers were just 'don't know'. I can believe ~50% just wouldn't have an idea how to do it.
Those are quite bizarre. I can see how you get to 1 in 3 cocking it up in head if you don't know the multiplication rule and instead try to do outcomes (HH, HT, TT - neglecting TH as a distinct outcome) and I can see the 50% answer from just not understanding the question/mishearing/not thinking. But I've no idea how you get to 15% or 40%.
When a sample of MPs were asked “If you toss a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”, an astonishing 48% managed to get it wrong.
Only 38% of 2019ers gave the right answer. 53% of Labour MPs got it right, versus 50% of Tories. Just two Welsh MPs answered correctly. 60% of female MPs answered correctly versus just 48% of males – a statistically significant difference.
When a sample of MPs were asked “If you toss a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”, an astonishing 48% managed to get it wrong.
Only 38% of 2019ers gave the right answer. 53% of Labour MPs got it right, versus 50% of Tories. Just two Welsh MPs answered correctly. 60% of female MPs answered correctly versus just 48% of males – a statistically significant difference.
Now, what's the probability that if you ask two MPs the coin toss question, they both get it right?
I wonder if any of those are statistically significant differences. Sampled ~100 in total, I think, so subsample kalxons for Welsh MPs (maybe they only asked two?) and the 2019ers split. I'm not sure the 2019ers are different to others, sure there's nothing between Lab and Con on that size sample. Might be something on female versus male.
I've got my own dubious track record on probability calcs, so I'm not going to mock too much
Edit: nor on reading ability, clearly - the quote states the female/male split is statistically significant so presumably the others, where not mentioned, were not
Another result I find surprising, is:
"MPs were also asked: if you roll a six-sided die, if the rolls are 1,3,4,1 and 6, what are the mean and mode values? Around two-thirds, 64 per cent, of respondents were able to identify that the mean value was three, while 63 per cent gave the correct answer of one for the mode."
Would have expected more people to get that one wrong than two heads results in a row...
It doesn't even require much imagination, since very similar comments were made about her predecessor, Dominic Raab.
Her main achievement as FS has been to rehabilitate the reputation of her immediate predecessors
Ignorance of Russian geography is marginally more forgivable than ignorance of British geography, even for a Foreign Secretary.
I agree but I think @Dura_Ace criticism of her over it was as fair and balanced and I’ve seen. Her ignorance isn’t the issue, her handling of the question is.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Before swatting aside the comparison of the EU as a hostile power, you should consider that it is currently more difficult, time consuming and expensive to have a UK origin package clear customs into France than to most places on earth. There is a malignancy towards the Uk from certain EU powers that is quite unbecoming.
As we voted for that arrangement we should rejoice, right?
Well no, this is where you are being either obtuse or a bit thick. There is no reason why friendly nations should deliberately obstruct trade in this way and the delays are not primarily because we are not members of the EU customs union. We are not members of a customs union with the US or Thailand either and yet can it’s now the norm for parcels to make those intercontinental journeys and clear customs days before the same can be achieved into France. It’s malignancy.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Before swatting aside the comparison of the EU as a hostile power, you should consider that it is currently more difficult, time consuming and expensive to have a UK origin package clear customs into France than to most places on earth. There is a malignancy towards the Uk from certain EU powers that is quite unbecoming.
As we voted for that arrangement we should rejoice, right?
If it's reasonable to argue that the EU has its flaws, but it's better to be inside than outside, then it's also reasonable to say that no, the flaws are not worth tolerating and we should have the self-confidence to stand for something different.
When a sample of MPs were asked “If you toss a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”, an astonishing 48% managed to get it wrong.
Only 38% of 2019ers gave the right answer. 53% of Labour MPs got it right, versus 50% of Tories. Just two Welsh MPs answered correctly. 60% of female MPs answered correctly versus just 48% of males – a statistically significant difference.
What? What were they possibly answering apart from 25%? It is 25%, right? It's not a trick question that I'm not spotting? This is (unless I'm falling into the same trap that I'm not spotting) pretty much bar-them-from-any-job-which-involves-having-to-think territory. It's like miscounting your feet.
I suspect most of the incorrect answers were just 'don't know'. I can believe ~50% just wouldn't have an idea how to do it.
Interesting. That suggests many are answering a different question (A toss of a coin comes up heads. What is the probability of a coin coming up heads the next time?)
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Before swatting aside the comparison of the EU as a hostile power, you should consider that it is currently more difficult, time consuming and expensive to have a UK origin package clear customs into France than to most places on earth. There is a malignancy towards the Uk from certain EU powers that is quite unbecoming.
As we voted for that arrangement we should rejoice, right?
Well no, this is where you are being either obtuse or a bit thick. There is no reason why friendly nations should deliberately obstruct trade in this way and the delays are not primarily because we are not members of the EU customs union. We are not members of a customs union with the US or Thailand either and yet can it’s now the norm for parcels to make those intercontinental journeys and clear customs days before the same can be achieved into France. It’s malignancy.
We voted for a particular relationship with the EU that of Third Country. They have therefore implemented Third Country status for us. It's literally what the (UK) nation voted for.
I'm sure that if they waved our parcels through they might expect reciprocity in which case our Sovereignty or Death posters might have a conniption fit.
No idea on the background of our postal arrangements with other countries. I've got to believe for the US they are quite onerous.
When a sample of MPs were asked “If you toss a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”, an astonishing 48% managed to get it wrong.
Only 38% of 2019ers gave the right answer. 53% of Labour MPs got it right, versus 50% of Tories. Just two Welsh MPs answered correctly. 60% of female MPs answered correctly versus just 48% of males – a statistically significant difference.
What? What were they possibly answering apart from 25%? It is 25%, right? It's not a trick question that I'm not spotting? This is (unless I'm falling into the same trap that I'm not spotting) pretty much bar-them-from-any-job-which-involves-having-to-think territory. It's like miscounting your feet.
I suspect most of the incorrect answers were just 'don't know'. I can believe ~50% just wouldn't have an idea how to do it.
Surely, if you were to sample all adults - surely? - the success rate in answering that question would be considerably higher than 50%. I can't believe the success rate on this board would be much below 100% (you always get the odd mis-think or not-paying-attention, even among clever people). And while this board might be better at this sort of thing than the population at large, youwould have thought the same would be true of MPs.
This really needs digging into, because if this is true it's absolutely astonishing.
EDIT: Ooh, just spotted: 'a sample'. That might be an explanatory factor. Not a massively encouraging one though.
I think it's easy for those of us in jobs with any kind of numerical aspect (or an interest in betting) to massively overestimate casual numeracy in the population. I've come across plenty of people who just have no idea how to do what many would regard as simple maths. There are a lot of jobs where you simply don't need it any more, at all, including retail where it used to matter more. So for some we're looking back to dimly remembered GCSE lessons.
Boris slapping down Macron on Ukraine's "right to join NATO". Manny went off on his own, negotiated away the kitchen sink and now everyone's fucked. Well done to him.
Well, he's not wrong. Ukraine aren't going to be joining NATO as they have an ongoing territorial dispute and would contribute nothing except aggravation.
I don't fully understand this 'joining NATO' business. AIUI, if Ukraine was in NATO the US would have to fight if Russia invaded. But clearly, as we see, the US isn't up for fighting Russia in the event Russia invades. They just want to do sanctions and supply. Ergo surely it's not just Russia that doesn't want Ukraine in NATO, the US doesn't either. So making a big deal of this aspect, for it to be some sort of deal maker or breaker, is not really scanning for me.
It's quite possible NATO don't want Ukraine. But NATO also don't want Russia to be able - or to be seen to be able to - dictate who can and cannot be in NATO.
Indeed. Whether Ukraine joins NATO is up Ukraine and NATO, no one else.
It's not really up to "NATO". New members lodge their instruments of accession with the United States government.
No, there's an effective veto. The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Before swatting aside the comparison of the EU as a hostile power, you should consider that it is currently more difficult, time consuming and expensive to have a UK origin package clear customs into France than to most places on earth. There is a malignancy towards the Uk from certain EU powers that is quite unbecoming.
As we voted for that arrangement we should rejoice, right?
If it's reasonable to argue that the EU has its flaws, but it's better to be inside than outside, then it's also reasonable to say that no, the flaws are not worth tolerating and we should have the self-confidence to stand for something different.
Absolutely. That is exactly what the country did. But then don't complain when we aren't allowed to indulge in cakeism.
Oh marvellous, tropes about trans people from Mumsnet aka Prosecco Stormfront.
Also, tropes about feminists, from The Green Party motion:
The Green Party accepts that the “Gender Critical” movements in most UK political parties have been infiltrated by hard-line extremists, who advocate for the wholesale removal of virtually all trans rights as currently enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, and routinely share platforms with those who advocate for extremist positions such as the mass sterilization of trans people. These extremists have also been linked with attacks on women’s abortion rights, misinformation designed to provoke hatred towards trans people, and have benefitted from funding from the far-right.
That is exactly what the GC side do too - seek to associate support for reforming the GRA (which is a respectable and rational position) with the most extreme minority views of some of those who also support it.
Thanks for mansplaining it.
What extreme minority views are you referring to on the GC side. If they are minority, then by nature they are not held by the majority of GC feminists.
Oh do fuck off with the 'mansplaining'. Do you have to be female to have a view on this? No. And do females all have the same view on it? No. They are split or agnostic, just like males are. Eg 2 of our regular female posters, Cyclefree and Beverley, hold opposing views.
What I'm talking about is the tendency (both sides) to frame the opposite side by its most extreme proponents. Eg what Carlotta posted - the 'pro' side making out the 'anti' side is full of bigots who want to obliterate trans people, sterilize them, all of that. Yes, there are such nasties and they make a lot of noise but that isn't the essence of the case against reforming the GRA.
Likewise - and my balancing point in response - you get the 'anti' side making out that if it becomes easier to change gender (base it on self-Id) then as night follows day it's the end of sex as a legal concept and thus the end of all women's rights and protections. Again, yes there are crazies who argue sex is nothing, gender is everything, and yes they make a lot of noise, but this is not the essence of the case for reforming the GRA.
Several countries have self-Id. Germany is about to. The May government were going to do this reform. The relevant HoC select committee looked at it again recently and (again) came down in favour.
This reform is NOT some sort of ultrawoke outre postmodern absudity. It's objective is to improve (at no cost) the lives of this minority. It has controls in there. There is a solid case for it. People don't have to agree - there's a case against it too - but what I'm sick and tired of is the ignorant illogical half-baked crap I hear on here about it.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Ridiculous. Also surprised, because Richard is a "sensible" Leaver. We had sovereignty before we left. We have it now. We do not have more or less. We had the ability to leave, make war etc. Being part of the EU was a treaty relationship between sovereign powers. The argument that the EU could make laws that we could not veto is bollox because we could always veto by leaving. The whole sovereignty argument was a pack of lies designed to fool the gullible. We were no less sovereign when we were part of EU, and no less sovereign being part of NATO or the UN.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Before swatting aside the comparison of the EU as a hostile power, you should consider that it is currently more difficult, time consuming and expensive to have a UK origin package clear customs into France than to most places on earth. There is a malignancy towards the Uk from certain EU powers that is quite unbecoming.
As we voted for that arrangement we should rejoice, right?
Well no, this is where you are being either obtuse or a bit thick. There is no reason why friendly nations should deliberately obstruct trade in this way and the delays are not primarily because we are not members of the EU customs union. We are not members of a customs union with the US or Thailand either and yet can it’s now the norm for parcels to make those intercontinental journeys and clear customs days before the same can be achieved into France. It’s malignancy.
We voted for a particular relationship with the EU that of Third Country. They have therefore implemented Third Country status for us. It's literally what the (UK) nation voted for.
I'm sure that if they waved our parcels through they might expect reciprocity in which case our Sovereignty or Death posters might have a conniption fit.
No idea on the background of our postal arrangements with other countries. I've got to believe for the US they are quite onerous.
Believe what you want. The truth is that France is systematically using customs protectionism to deliberately obstruct economic activity with what is supposed to be one of its staunchest allies. In a way that UK traders are not experiencing almost anywhere else in the world.
You are conflating a concern over democracy with one over sovereignty. They are distinct. An absolute monarchy can exercise sovereignty. Indeed, look at the root of the word “sovereignty”. It’s “sovereign”, not “demos”.
Meanwhile, you continue to complain about something that didn’t happen. Maybe it would be more useful to focus on things that did happen?
There must be a name for the psychological state of being so deeply unhappy with the outcome of events for which one devoutly wished that one distracts oneself with hypothetical outcomes of hypothetical events hypothetically brought about by one's opponents. Maybe the Germans have a word for it..
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Before swatting aside the comparison of the EU as a hostile power, you should consider that it is currently more difficult, time consuming and expensive to have a UK origin package clear customs into France than to most places on earth. There is a malignancy towards the Uk from certain EU powers that is quite unbecoming.
As we voted for that arrangement we should rejoice, right?
If it's reasonable to argue that the EU has its flaws, but it's better to be inside than outside, then it's also reasonable to say that no, the flaws are not worth tolerating and we should have the self-confidence to stand for something different.
Absolutely. That is exactly what the country did. But then don't complain when we aren't allowed to indulge in cakeism.
You think that because we were once members of the EU, we have no right to criticise any aspect of the way the EU operates?
As someone who made a career of teaching key skills to adults, the only surprise is the level of surprise. The vast majority of the population has the English and Maths skills they need for their job and no more. A really interesting thing when dealing with employees was to take forms they regularly filled in at work. And move the boxes around and change the question wording. Employers were as one astonished that longstanding staff simply didn't understand what information they were supplying. Just doing it by rote.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Ridiculous. Also surprised, because Richard is a "sensible" Leaver. We had sovereignty before we left. We have it now. We do not have more or less. We had the ability to leave, make war etc. Being part of the EU was a treaty relationship between sovereign powers. The argument that the EU could make laws that we could not veto is bollox because we could always veto by leaving. The whole sovereignty argument was a pack of lies designed to fool the gullible. We were no less sovereign when we were part of EU, and no less sovereign being part of NATO or the UN.
Yes I was quite surprised by Richard's response. Perhaps he is in a playful mood.
As to the sovereignty then again absolutely. While we were in the EU we couldn't however do certain things (posterchild: VAT on domestic fuel supplies) and I perfectly understand that people will have voted to leave on the basis that not being able to change our domestic tax rate is intolerable.
For many others, however, there was a confusion between sovereignty and the normal give and take of being part of a trading bloc.
When a sample of MPs were asked “If you toss a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”, an astonishing 48% managed to get it wrong.
Only 38% of 2019ers gave the right answer. 53% of Labour MPs got it right, versus 50% of Tories. Just two Welsh MPs answered correctly. 60% of female MPs answered correctly versus just 48% of males – a statistically significant difference.
Now, what's the probability that if you ask two MPs the coin toss question, they both get it right?
I wonder if any of those are statistically significant differences. Sampled ~100 in total, I think, so subsample kalxons for Welsh MPs (maybe they only asked two?) and the 2019ers split. I'm not sure the 2019ers are different to others, sure there's nothing between Lab and Con on that size sample. Might be something on female versus male.
I've got my own dubious track record on probability calcs, so I'm not going to mock too much
Edit: nor on reading ability, clearly - the quote states the female/male split is statistically significant so presumably the others, where not mentioned, were not
Another result I find surprising, is:
"MPs were also asked: if you roll a six-sided die, if the rolls are 1,3,4,1 and 6, what are the mean and mode values? Around two-thirds, 64 per cent, of respondents were able to identify that the mean value was three, while 63 per cent gave the correct answer of one for the mode."
Would have expected more people to get that one wrong than two heads results in a row...
Yep, me too. Plenty of scope for cocking up the mean which requires adding and division.
The other question was pretty tough. Suppose there was a diagnostic test for a virus. The false-positive rate (the proportion of people without the virus who get a positive result) is one in 1,000. You have taken the test and tested positive. What is the probability that you have the virus? Of the politicians surveyed, 16 per cent gave the correct answer that there was not enough information to know.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Before swatting aside the comparison of the EU as a hostile power, you should consider that it is currently more difficult, time consuming and expensive to have a UK origin package clear customs into France than to most places on earth. There is a malignancy towards the Uk from certain EU powers that is quite unbecoming.
As we voted for that arrangement we should rejoice, right?
Well no, this is where you are being either obtuse or a bit thick. There is no reason why friendly nations should deliberately obstruct trade in this way and the delays are not primarily because we are not members of the EU customs union. We are not members of a customs union with the US or Thailand either and yet can it’s now the norm for parcels to make those intercontinental journeys and clear customs days before the same can be achieved into France. It’s malignancy.
We voted for a particular relationship with the EU that of Third Country. They have therefore implemented Third Country status for us. It's literally what the (UK) nation voted for.
I'm sure that if they waved our parcels through they might expect reciprocity in which case our Sovereignty or Death posters might have a conniption fit.
No idea on the background of our postal arrangements with other countries. I've got to believe for the US they are quite onerous.
Believe what you want. The truth is that France is systematically using customs protectionism to deliberately obstruct economic activity with what is supposed to be one of its staunchest allies. In a way that UK traders are not experiencing almost anywhere else in the world.
That's France for you.
Unfortunately BJ and chums have not taken adequate action to deal with the issue, and have educated Macaron and the Ant Hill Mob into believing that it will continue to work.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Before swatting aside the comparison of the EU as a hostile power, you should consider that it is currently more difficult, time consuming and expensive to have a UK origin package clear customs into France than to most places on earth. There is a malignancy towards the Uk from certain EU powers that is quite unbecoming.
As we voted for that arrangement we should rejoice, right?
Well no, this is where you are being either obtuse or a bit thick. There is no reason why friendly nations should deliberately obstruct trade in this way and the delays are not primarily because we are not members of the EU customs union. We are not members of a customs union with the US or Thailand either and yet can it’s now the norm for parcels to make those intercontinental journeys and clear customs days before the same can be achieved into France. It’s malignancy.
We voted for a particular relationship with the EU that of Third Country. They have therefore implemented Third Country status for us. It's literally what the (UK) nation voted for.
I'm sure that if they waved our parcels through they might expect reciprocity in which case our Sovereignty or Death posters might have a conniption fit.
No idea on the background of our postal arrangements with other countries. I've got to believe for the US they are quite onerous.
Then why is it more troublesome sending packages to France than the Netherlands?
The Post Office spent 15 years prosecuting people because they couldn't accept that there might have been bugs in the computer program of their Horizon system. Difficult to believe. Anyone who's ever written computer code knows it's almost impossible to eliminate bugs.
Turns out you can't run a script, host a teams meeting and track a USAF Drone at the same time. Nearly burnt a hole in my desk.
Couple of private jets fleeing the Ukraine, over the border, as we chat
Course it could be coincidence
If I was in Ukraine and had the means to get out, I'd be doing so. It wouldn't necessarily mean that the situation was any worse than yetserday, but that's still a pretty parlous situation for a country to be in.
That US drone that’s flown all the way from Sicily is interesting - no military manned flights through fear of an attack, so easier to send drones? Who knows
The unmanned ascot also allows for very, very long loiter times. U2 pilots used to joke they "ran out of ass before they ran out of gas"
They’ve got 32 hours’ endurance those drones, it could be there for a while. I wonder where it’s based, it was already at more than 50,000’ when it started skwarking near Sicily this morning?
There was a rumour that the USAF were developing a drone that could be refuelled air-to-air, by linking the autopilots of the two aircraft together. It’s totally nuts, but means they could keep it airbourne indefinitely.
This is a vid of the first time it was done. In 2015.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
I'm genuinely surprised that you would make such a comparison. The Soviets sent the tanks into Hungary in 1956. When did that happen over Brexit?
Eastern Europe regained its sovereignty only because the USSR no longer had the will, and perhaps the means, to enforce their rule. There is no parallel to be drawn between the two situations.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
It's an interesting debate and largely down to personal view point, I think. Depends on whether you see the EU as an outside organisation dictating out laws or as a group of countries deciding and aligning (some of) their laws between themselves.
But yes, for me, we were always sovereign. We chose to align our laws with those of other member states. We could choose to stop doing that any time, by a well defined process (A50, before that a bit more vague, but essentially we just withdrew from the treaty). At any point we could have ignored EU laws and the ultimate EU sanction could only have been to expel us. Soviet states could not, of course, just withdraw. The ultimate USSR sanction was tanks in the capital. They became sovereign only when they left the USSR.
To take a topical example, we are within NATO and so have ceded some soverignty over our foreign policy (at least in theory - if a NATO country is attacked, we are supposed to help). But in practice we can withraw at any time and, of course, we could choose not to help with no greater sanction than, perhaps - and this is far from certain - being expelled ourselves.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Before swatting aside the comparison of the EU as a hostile power, you should consider that it is currently more difficult, time consuming and expensive to have a UK origin package clear customs into France than to most places on earth. There is a malignancy towards the Uk from certain EU powers that is quite unbecoming.
As we voted for that arrangement we should rejoice, right?
If it's reasonable to argue that the EU has its flaws, but it's better to be inside than outside, then it's also reasonable to say that no, the flaws are not worth tolerating and we should have the self-confidence to stand for something different.
Absolutely. That is exactly what the country did. But then don't complain when we aren't allowed to indulge in cakeism.
You think that because we were once members of the EU, we have no right to criticise any aspect of the way the EU operates?
I think we should criticise everything and anything. What @moonshine was complaining about was the way they are treating us as a Third Country over the mail. When to be a Third Country is precisely what we voted for. Not you, obvs. .
Turns out you can't run a script, host a teams meeting and track a USAF Drone at the same time. Nearly burnt a hole in my desk.
Couple of private jets fleeing the Ukraine, over the border, as we chat
Course it could be coincidence
If I was in Ukraine and had the means to get out, I'd be doing so. It wouldn't necessarily mean that the situation was any worse than yetserday, but that's still a pretty parlous situation for a country to be in.
That US drone that’s flown all the way from Sicily is interesting - no military manned flights through fear of an attack, so easier to send drones? Who knows
The unmanned ascot also allows for very, very long loiter times. U2 pilots used to joke they "ran out of ass before they ran out of gas"
That;s exactly the sort of thing the Americans - and especially the American military like to say. If you miss Ascension, your wife will get a pension. Drive for show, putt for dough. Etc. Sometimes however rhyming comes at the expense of making any sort of sense. What exactly does 'running out of ass' mean?
That is fairly clear, I think. Pilot goes to sleep or loses ability to control a U2 - very complex task - through fatigue before it runs out of fuel.
A direct analogy is a driver falling asleep at the wheel through fatigue.
The most tortured similar expression I met was from an up-himself sales manager:
"You're ass will be grass, and I'm the lawnmower."
When a sample of MPs were asked “If you toss a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”, an astonishing 48% managed to get it wrong.
Only 38% of 2019ers gave the right answer. 53% of Labour MPs got it right, versus 50% of Tories. Just two Welsh MPs answered correctly. 60% of female MPs answered correctly versus just 48% of males – a statistically significant difference.
What? What were they possibly answering apart from 25%? It is 25%, right? It's not a trick question that I'm not spotting? This is (unless I'm falling into the same trap that I'm not spotting) pretty much bar-them-from-any-job-which-involves-having-to-think territory. It's like miscounting your feet.
I suspect most of the incorrect answers were just 'don't know'. I can believe ~50% just wouldn't have an idea how to do it.
Interesting. That suggests many are answering a different question (A toss of a coin comes up heads. What is the probability of a coin coming up heads the next time?)
I doubt it. They probably just thought that heads comes up half the time and didnt think through the scenarios
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Before swatting aside the comparison of the EU as a hostile power, you should consider that it is currently more difficult, time consuming and expensive to have a UK origin package clear customs into France than to most places on earth. There is a malignancy towards the Uk from certain EU powers that is quite unbecoming.
As we voted for that arrangement we should rejoice, right?
Well no, this is where you are being either obtuse or a bit thick. There is no reason why friendly nations should deliberately obstruct trade in this way and the delays are not primarily because we are not members of the EU customs union. We are not members of a customs union with the US or Thailand either and yet can it’s now the norm for parcels to make those intercontinental journeys and clear customs days before the same can be achieved into France. It’s malignancy.
We voted for a particular relationship with the EU that of Third Country. They have therefore implemented Third Country status for us. It's literally what the (UK) nation voted for.
I'm sure that if they waved our parcels through they might expect reciprocity in which case our Sovereignty or Death posters might have a conniption fit.
No idea on the background of our postal arrangements with other countries. I've got to believe for the US they are quite onerous.
Believe what you want. The truth is that France is systematically using customs protectionism to deliberately obstruct economic activity with what is supposed to be one of its staunchest allies. In a way that UK traders are not experiencing almost anywhere else in the world.
More fool them then. Perhaps they have a different aim in mind by doing this. Perhaps they see it as part of a larger and imminent or ongoing trade negotiation with us. Who knows. Having voted for the UK to be "sovereign" (I presume) you seem to be complaining that other countries are employing their own sovereignty.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
I'm genuinely surprised that you would make such a comparison. The Soviets sent the tanks into Hungary in 1956. When did that happen over Brexit?
Eastern Europe regained its sovereignty only because the USSR no longer had the will, and perhaps the means, to enforce their rule. There is no parallel to be drawn between the two situations.
The EuCo strategy was different. Just don't have an exit procedure.
Then when you do, try and make it impossible to follow.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Before swatting aside the comparison of the EU as a hostile power, you should consider that it is currently more difficult, time consuming and expensive to have a UK origin package clear customs into France than to most places on earth. There is a malignancy towards the Uk from certain EU powers that is quite unbecoming.
As we voted for that arrangement we should rejoice, right?
If it's reasonable to argue that the EU has its flaws, but it's better to be inside than outside, then it's also reasonable to say that no, the flaws are not worth tolerating and we should have the self-confidence to stand for something different.
Absolutely. That is exactly what the country did. But then don't complain when we aren't allowed to indulge in cakeism.
You think that because we were once members of the EU, we have no right to criticise any aspect of the way the EU operates?
I think we should criticise everything and anything. What @moonshine was complaining about was the way they are treating us as a Third Country over the mail. When to be a Third Country is precisely what we voted for. Not you, obvs. .
Do you not think it revealing that France is treating the UK differently to how any other state (EU or otherwise) is treating the Uk, or indeed how France is treating other third countries?
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Before swatting aside the comparison of the EU as a hostile power, you should consider that it is currently more difficult, time consuming and expensive to have a UK origin package clear customs into France than to most places on earth. There is a malignancy towards the Uk from certain EU powers that is quite unbecoming.
As we voted for that arrangement we should rejoice, right?
Well no, this is where you are being either obtuse or a bit thick. There is no reason why friendly nations should deliberately obstruct trade in this way and the delays are not primarily because we are not members of the EU customs union. We are not members of a customs union with the US or Thailand either and yet can it’s now the norm for parcels to make those intercontinental journeys and clear customs days before the same can be achieved into France. It’s malignancy.
We voted for a particular relationship with the EU that of Third Country. They have therefore implemented Third Country status for us. It's literally what the (UK) nation voted for.
I'm sure that if they waved our parcels through they might expect reciprocity in which case our Sovereignty or Death posters might have a conniption fit.
No idea on the background of our postal arrangements with other countries. I've got to believe for the US they are quite onerous.
Then why is it more troublesome sending packages to France than the Netherlands?
Because France is a sovereign nation and has decided to make it complicated. By your own post you accept that it is not an "EU" thing. So what's the problem.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Before swatting aside the comparison of the EU as a hostile power, you should consider that it is currently more difficult, time consuming and expensive to have a UK origin package clear customs into France than to most places on earth. There is a malignancy towards the Uk from certain EU powers that is quite unbecoming.
As we voted for that arrangement we should rejoice, right?
If it's reasonable to argue that the EU has its flaws, but it's better to be inside than outside, then it's also reasonable to say that no, the flaws are not worth tolerating and we should have the self-confidence to stand for something different.
Absolutely. That is exactly what the country did. But then don't complain when we aren't allowed to indulge in cakeism.
You think that because we were once members of the EU, we have no right to criticise any aspect of the way the EU operates?
Ah, Mr Weathervane speaks on the subject of Brexit! I wasn't ever in favour of Brexit, and think it was the biggest pointless waste of time, but in spite of being a "remainer" there has always been plenty to criticise the EU for. That said, if you think you can point to a perfect system of government, whether local, sovereign, bilateral or multilateral by treaty that is anything less than flawed then you are a fool. I think it is also fair to say that the UK, in spite of it's long history of quasi-democracy is probably one of the least democratic of all the EU/ex-EU states.
Oh marvellous, tropes about trans people from Mumsnet aka Prosecco Stormfront.
Also, tropes about feminists, from The Green Party motion:
The Green Party accepts that the “Gender Critical” movements in most UK political parties have been infiltrated by hard-line extremists, who advocate for the wholesale removal of virtually all trans rights as currently enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, and routinely share platforms with those who advocate for extremist positions such as the mass sterilization of trans people. These extremists have also been linked with attacks on women’s abortion rights, misinformation designed to provoke hatred towards trans people, and have benefitted from funding from the far-right.
That is exactly what the GC side do too - seek to associate support for reforming the GRA (which is a respectable and rational position) with the most extreme minority views of some of those who also support it.
Got a link?
Evidence of Trans-rights supporters being expelled from a political party?
I didn't mean a specific exact and opposite instance of the story you posted! I meant as a general point - what both sides do is hunt for the most extreme nonsense from the other side and seek to paint this as being what supporting/opposing (delete to taste) the reform of the GRA is all about. It's a sad sack of a debate it really is. It's become almost impossible to strip all that out and consider the actual proposed reform, what it would entail, what the likely consequences would be in the real world rather than in some lurid dystopia.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Before swatting aside the comparison of the EU as a hostile power, you should consider that it is currently more difficult, time consuming and expensive to have a UK origin package clear customs into France than to most places on earth. There is a malignancy towards the Uk from certain EU powers that is quite unbecoming.
As we voted for that arrangement we should rejoice, right?
Well no, this is where you are being either obtuse or a bit thick. There is no reason why friendly nations should deliberately obstruct trade in this way and the delays are not primarily because we are not members of the EU customs union. We are not members of a customs union with the US or Thailand either and yet can it’s now the norm for parcels to make those intercontinental journeys and clear customs days before the same can be achieved into France. It’s malignancy.
We voted for a particular relationship with the EU that of Third Country. They have therefore implemented Third Country status for us. It's literally what the (UK) nation voted for.
I'm sure that if they waved our parcels through they might expect reciprocity in which case our Sovereignty or Death posters might have a conniption fit.
No idea on the background of our postal arrangements with other countries. I've got to believe for the US they are quite onerous.
Then why is it more troublesome sending packages to France than the Netherlands?
Because France is a sovereign nation and has decided to make it complicated. By your own post you accept that it is not an "EU" thing. So what's the problem.
Which is exactly what @moonshine said - There is no reason why friendly nations should deliberately obstruct trade in this way and the delays are not primarily because we are not members of the EU customs union.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Before swatting aside the comparison of the EU as a hostile power, you should consider that it is currently more difficult, time consuming and expensive to have a UK origin package clear customs into France than to most places on earth. There is a malignancy towards the Uk from certain EU powers that is quite unbecoming.
As we voted for that arrangement we should rejoice, right?
Well no, this is where you are being either obtuse or a bit thick. There is no reason why friendly nations should deliberately obstruct trade in this way and the delays are not primarily because we are not members of the EU customs union. We are not members of a customs union with the US or Thailand either and yet can it’s now the norm for parcels to make those intercontinental journeys and clear customs days before the same can be achieved into France. It’s malignancy.
We voted for a particular relationship with the EU that of Third Country. They have therefore implemented Third Country status for us. It's literally what the (UK) nation voted for.
I'm sure that if they waved our parcels through they might expect reciprocity in which case our Sovereignty or Death posters might have a conniption fit.
No idea on the background of our postal arrangements with other countries. I've got to believe for the US they are quite onerous.
Believe what you want. The truth is that France is systematically using customs protectionism to deliberately obstruct economic activity with what is supposed to be one of its staunchest allies. In a way that UK traders are not experiencing almost anywhere else in the world.
More fool them then. Perhaps they have a different aim in mind by doing this. Perhaps they see it as part of a larger and imminent or ongoing trade negotiation with us. Who knows. Having voted for the UK to be "sovereign" (I presume) you seem to be complaining that other countries are employing their own sovereignty.
Surely that is just a continuation of the theme that the bastard leaver country must be seen to be punished.
One of the French politicians lets it slip out occasionally, and then 'corrects' themselves.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Before swatting aside the comparison of the EU as a hostile power, you should consider that it is currently more difficult, time consuming and expensive to have a UK origin package clear customs into France than to most places on earth. There is a malignancy towards the Uk from certain EU powers that is quite unbecoming.
As we voted for that arrangement we should rejoice, right?
If it's reasonable to argue that the EU has its flaws, but it's better to be inside than outside, then it's also reasonable to say that no, the flaws are not worth tolerating and we should have the self-confidence to stand for something different.
Absolutely. That is exactly what the country did. But then don't complain when we aren't allowed to indulge in cakeism.
You think that because we were once members of the EU, we have no right to criticise any aspect of the way the EU operates?
I think we should criticise everything and anything. What @moonshine was complaining about was the way they are treating us as a Third Country over the mail. When to be a Third Country is precisely what we voted for. Not you, obvs. .
Do you not think it revealing that France is treating the UK differently to how any other state (EU or otherwise) is treating the Uk, or indeed how France is treating other third countries?
By persisting with this line of argument you are proving that the EU is not being obstructive; it's just France. Hence you are making two of my points for me. The first that it is possible to be a sovereign nation in the EU (as France is showing us) and that the EU is not forcing its Member States to do anything; and also secondly that the EU "itself" is not being obstreperous.
Thanks for the explanations of 'running out of ass'. I see what they're getting at, though I think I was perfectly justified in not understanding what was implied. It just doesn't work that well as a phrase. but to be fair it's the sort of phrase intended primarily as an aphorism for those who already know what you're talking about.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
Dear god you are actually comparing the UK in the EU with the former Soviet states.
Before swatting aside the comparison of the EU as a hostile power, you should consider that it is currently more difficult, time consuming and expensive to have a UK origin package clear customs into France than to most places on earth. There is a malignancy towards the Uk from certain EU powers that is quite unbecoming.
As we voted for that arrangement we should rejoice, right?
Well no, this is where you are being either obtuse or a bit thick. There is no reason why friendly nations should deliberately obstruct trade in this way and the delays are not primarily because we are not members of the EU customs union. We are not members of a customs union with the US or Thailand either and yet can it’s now the norm for parcels to make those intercontinental journeys and clear customs days before the same can be achieved into France. It’s malignancy.
We voted for a particular relationship with the EU that of Third Country. They have therefore implemented Third Country status for us. It's literally what the (UK) nation voted for.
I'm sure that if they waved our parcels through they might expect reciprocity in which case our Sovereignty or Death posters might have a conniption fit.
No idea on the background of our postal arrangements with other countries. I've got to believe for the US they are quite onerous.
Believe what you want. The truth is that France is systematically using customs protectionism to deliberately obstruct economic activity with what is supposed to be one of its staunchest allies. In a way that UK traders are not experiencing almost anywhere else in the world.
More fool them then. Perhaps they have a different aim in mind by doing this. Perhaps they see it as part of a larger and imminent or ongoing trade negotiation with us. Who knows. Having voted for the UK to be "sovereign" (I presume) you seem to be complaining that other countries are employing their own sovereignty.
Surely that is just a continuation of the theme that the bastard leaver country must be seen to be punished.
One of the French politicians lets it slip out occasionally, and then 'corrects' themselves.
Quel surprise! There are plenty of twatty politicians in France. Ours, of course are absolute models of decorum, decency and international diplomacy.
Oh marvellous, tropes about trans people from Mumsnet aka Prosecco Stormfront.
Also, tropes about feminists, from The Green Party motion:
The Green Party accepts that the “Gender Critical” movements in most UK political parties have been infiltrated by hard-line extremists, who advocate for the wholesale removal of virtually all trans rights as currently enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, and routinely share platforms with those who advocate for extremist positions such as the mass sterilization of trans people. These extremists have also been linked with attacks on women’s abortion rights, misinformation designed to provoke hatred towards trans people, and have benefitted from funding from the far-right.
That is exactly what the GC side do too - seek to associate support for reforming the GRA (which is a respectable and rational position) with the most extreme minority views of some of those who also support it.
Thanks for mansplaining it.
What extreme minority views are you referring to on the GC side. If they are minority, then by nature they are not held by the majority of GC feminists.
Oh do fuck off with the 'mansplaining'. Do you have to be female to have a view on this? No. And do females all have the same view on it? No. They are split or agnostic, just like males are. Eg 2 of our regular female posters, Cyclefree and Beverley, hold opposing views.
What I'm talking about is the tendency (both sides) to frame the opposite side by its most extreme proponents. Eg what Carlotta posted - the 'pro' side making out the 'anti' side is full of bigots who want to obliterate trans people, sterilize them, all of that. Yes, there are such nasties and they make a lot of noise but that isn't the essence of the case against reforming the GRA.
Likewise - and my balancing point in response - you get the 'anti' side making out that if it becomes easier to change gender (base it on self-Id) then as night follows day it's the end of sex as a legal concept and thus the end of all women's rights and protections. Again, yes there are crazies who argue sex is nothing, gender is everything, and yes they make a lot of noise, but this is not the essence of the case for reforming the GRA.
Several countries have self-Id. Germany is about to. The May government were going to do this reform. The relevant HoC select committee looked at it again recently and (again) came down in favour.
This reform is NOT some sort of ultrawoke outre postmodern absudity. It's objective is to improve (at no cost) the lives of this minority. It has controls in there. There is a solid case for it. People don't have to agree - there's a case against it too - but what I'm sick and tired of is the ignorant illogical half-baked crap I hear on here about it.
I don’t use the word woke so I don’t know why you are throwing that at me but it’s always good to see a man telling women what to think and feel.
Comments
There can be no greater expression of LOST sovereignty, than having your winning democratic vote ignored. And we came perilously close to that.
The hypocrisy of these Remainy people is bewildering, and they seem entirely unselfaware, at the same time
When a sample of MPs were asked “If you toss a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”, an astonishing 48% managed to get it wrong.
Only 38% of 2019ers gave the right answer.
53% of Labour MPs got it right, versus 50% of Tories.
Just two Welsh MPs answered correctly.
60% of female MPs answered correctly versus just 48% of males – a statistically significant difference.
Meanwhile, you continue to complain about something that didn’t happen. Maybe it would be more useful to focus on things that did happen?
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
Then it would be 5% of Constituency Parties, or 5% of affiliates, to trigger it.
Would be mad to do so, but then they are arguably a little mad around the edges.
* 2 of whom are Jeremy and Claudia.
I wonder if any of those are statistically significant differences. Sampled ~100 in total, I think, so subsample kalxons for Welsh MPs (maybe they only asked two?) and the 2019ers split. I'm not sure the 2019ers are different to others, sure there's nothing between Lab and Con on that size sample. Might be something on female versus male.
I've got my own dubious track record on probability calcs, so I'm not going to mock too much
Edit: nor on reading ability, clearly - the quote states the female/male split is statistically significant so presumably the others, where not mentioned, were not
Usually it’s stuff like generators and industrial plant, which are indivisible loads that won’t fit in a 747-F. Wind turbine blades are another common cargo, they’re the wrong shape for any other transport option.
This is (unless I'm falling into the same trap that I'm not spotting) pretty much bar-them-from-any-job-which-involves-having-to-think territory. It's like miscounting your feet.
Once again, he identified a problem, but (if I'm reading it right that new-in-2019 MPs are scoring lower than the returning), his intervention has made the problem worse.
Youngest son has been offered a starting graduate job as a project manager in the nuclear industry. He had a day long assessment last week by Zoom about which he was very nervous and for which he prepared hard. And it has all paid off. Really pleased for him.
It's his first proper job since graduating, though he has been doing lots of jobs in the interim. And after a tough two years - Covid, not much of a social life and feeling despondent about career prospects etc - it's great that finally opportunities are arriving.
There is also the possibility of secondments abroad which would be fantastic.
On the other hand this seems positive? Putin making noises about Peace?
Дмитрий Смирнов@dimsmirnov175Резюме встречи Путина с Шойгу: учения заканчиваются, все по домам, Россия на войну с Украиной снова не придет
Translated from Russian
Summary of Putin's meeting with Shoigu: the exercises are over, everyone is going home, Russia will not come to war with Ukraine again
The whole thread seems positive
https://twitter.com/dimsmirnov175/status/1493202582092791810?s=20&t=9caRzinOMEYqox08WKdPZQ
https://twitter.com/BerndZiesemer/status/1493220851545694217?s=20
There was a rumour that the USAF were developing a drone that could be refuelled air-to-air, by linking the autopilots of the two aircraft together. It’s totally nuts, but means they could keep it airbourne indefinitely.
The police are there to serve the public. Not themselves. And they plainly haven't been serving the public in the way the public have a right to expect.
Not just in London. But in Greater Manchester too. The GMP is quite as much of a shitshow as the Met.
Because Something has fundamentally changed in the Boris Johnson situation. Unlike up to the last few weeks there is now NO possibility he can survive this - NO possibility he can recover - that’s the change in perception, including his own mind by accounts, that is different than a few weeks ago.
Johnson’s abysmal parliamentary reply to the limited release of Gray report was the likely tipping point in the game, after which it had become only a moment of when.
But we can now read the history book, we know enough not to wait for it to be written.
The history books will explain he couldn’t break not just any law like a speeding ticket, but special laws he wrote as PM that came with his leadership wrapped around the messaging, to follow his lead and do the hardest things like limit attendance at funerals, cancel weddings, not see loved ones, not be there when they are ill, not be there when they die - and avoid his authority and credibility destroyed by his mistakes in breaking that law, and messaging, over and over.
For months Boris so obviously spun lies to Parliament to cover up the truth he knew, but in the end he was reduced to pleading because he won a majority in a general election that must matter more to his MPs and voters - this has always been leading to a hated lame duck PM, a massive electoral millstone around the neck of his party, and a vote of no confidence. He has no excuses left.
It is now just a question of when he runs out of road. Hence Mike Smithson in header said he hadn’t had a bet, presumably not sure of when.
I am sure of when the guillotine falls on his filibuster. The guillotine is that moment his MPs smell the coffee and realise they have no option but to replace him. And that moment comes when Johnson cannot avoid answering with the truth any longer, he has to admit the truth that he did the wrong thing and lied about it. And that moment is now. His questionnaire has to be read by investigators and prosecutors by Friday. He really can’t remain silent about the truth any longer than this week, he really can’t avoid the truth coming out beyond this week.
Also, I now appreciate there is nothing coordinated or calculating about the letters going in. It’s just random, 54 individuals reaching that place in their mind, they don’t even have to go public.
I also now appreciate it only takes 54 letter quota to be reached to get rid of Boris. Because the vote of no confidence is not a vote to get rid of him, but a vote whether or not to keep him.
The Ukraine Crisis doesn’t save him. If/when specifically canvassed on this, the majority of both public and Conservative MPs would rather someone else taking lead on this crisis than the self serving Liar with his interfering entourage.
Only 8 days of Boris left to go.
That’s why Buccaneer was never considered for Black Buck. That and the fact that a 15 hour mission in an ejection seat wasn't considered feasible. Although a 391st Strike Eagle crew did 15h 30m over Afghan including 10 AAR brackets.
Despite @Richard_Tyndall's belief that we were under the oppressive yoke of the EU preventing us achieving our own destiny.
.
I can see FPN's etc being issued to some in No 10 and I imagine at least one 10K fine. But it won't be Johnson, who was at work the whole time.
I can't believe the success rate on this board would be much below 100% (you always get the odd mis-think or not-paying-attention, even among clever people). And while this board might be better at this sort of thing than the population at large, youwould have thought the same would be true of MPs.
This really needs digging into, because if this is true it's absolutely astonishing.
EDIT: Ooh, just spotted: 'a sample'. That might be an explanatory factor. Not a massively encouraging one though.
15% - 1 MP
40% - 4 MPs
50% - 33 MPs
Other - 2 MPs
Don't know - 10 MPs
"MPs were also asked: if you roll a six-sided die, if the rolls are 1,3,4,1 and 6, what are the mean and mode values? Around two-thirds, 64 per cent, of respondents were able to identify that the mean value was three, while 63 per cent gave the correct answer of one for the mode."
Would have expected more people to get that one wrong than two heads results in a row...
https://comresglobal.com/polls/royal-statistical-society-mps-polling/
Offering an invitation to join requires unanimous agreement amongst the members. Says article 10 of the NATO Treaty.
Article 10
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
It's tricky for Putin and the West to understand how far each side will go. At best this causes economic uncertainty. At worst a war.
Estonia and Belarus have both taken sides and neither is likely to see any conflict on their territories. Ukraine is caught in the middle, and demonstrates further that the relative peace Europe had enjoyed since WW2 basically comes down to opposing nuclear alliances.
Wasn't there a 16 hour U2 mission, using the aerial refuelling capability?
Your ass is grass, to use another construction.
Those are quite bizarre. I can see how you get to 1 in 3 cocking it up in head if you don't know the multiplication rule and instead try to do outcomes (HH, HT, TT - neglecting TH as a distinct outcome) and I can see the 50% answer from just not understanding the question/mishearing/not thinking. But I've no idea how you get to 15% or 40%.
I'm sure that if they waved our parcels through they might expect reciprocity in which case our Sovereignty or Death posters might have a conniption fit.
No idea on the background of our postal arrangements with other countries. I've got to believe for the US they are quite onerous.
Probably applies to many MPs, too.
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
What I'm talking about is the tendency (both sides) to frame the opposite side by its most extreme proponents. Eg what Carlotta posted - the 'pro' side making out the 'anti' side is full of bigots who want to obliterate trans people, sterilize them, all of that. Yes, there are such nasties and they make a lot of noise but that isn't the essence of the case against reforming the GRA.
Likewise - and my balancing point in response - you get the 'anti' side making out that if it becomes easier to change gender (base it on self-Id) then as night follows day it's the end of sex as a legal concept and thus the end of all women's rights and protections. Again, yes there are crazies who argue sex is nothing, gender is everything, and yes they make a lot of noise, but this is not the essence of the case for reforming the GRA.
Several countries have self-Id. Germany is about to. The May government were going to do this reform. The relevant HoC select committee looked at it again recently and (again) came down in favour.
This reform is NOT some sort of ultrawoke outre postmodern absudity. It's objective is to improve (at no cost) the lives of this minority. It has controls in there. There is a solid case for it. People don't have to agree - there's a case against it too - but what I'm sick and tired of is the ignorant illogical half-baked crap I hear on here about it.
The vast majority of the population has the English and Maths skills they need for their job and no more.
A really interesting thing when dealing with employees was to take forms they regularly filled in at work.
And move the boxes around and change the question wording.
Employers were as one astonished that longstanding staff simply didn't understand what information they were supplying. Just doing it by rote.
As to the sovereignty then again absolutely. While we were in the EU we couldn't however do certain things (posterchild: VAT on domestic fuel supplies) and I perfectly understand that people will have voted to leave on the basis that not being able to change our domestic tax rate is intolerable.
For many others, however, there was a confusion between sovereignty and the normal give and take of being part of a trading bloc.
https://rss.org.uk/news-publication/news-publications/2022/general-news/new-rss-survey-tests-statistical-skills-of-mps/
Unfortunately BJ and chums have not taken adequate action to deal with the issue, and have educated Macaron and the Ant Hill Mob into believing that it will continue to work.
Probability of a head = 1/2
Probability of a head = 1/2
(the assumption is that these are independent events)
Probability of getting a head twice = 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4 = 0.25 = 25%
GCSE Maths
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60374182
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNZGEljK9X8
They can now refuel planes from drones too.
Not sure whether any of this is in service.
Eastern Europe regained its sovereignty only because the USSR no longer had the will, and perhaps the means, to enforce their rule. There is no parallel to be drawn between the two situations.
But yes, for me, we were always sovereign. We chose to align our laws with those of other member states. We could choose to stop doing that any time, by a well defined process (A50, before that a bit more vague, but essentially we just withdrew from the treaty). At any point we could have ignored EU laws and the ultimate EU sanction could only have been to expel us. Soviet states could not, of course, just withdraw. The ultimate USSR sanction was tanks in the capital. They became sovereign only when they left the USSR.
To take a topical example, we are within NATO and so have ceded some soverignty over our foreign policy (at least in theory - if a NATO country is attacked, we are supposed to help). But in practice we can withraw at any time and, of course, we could choose not to help with no greater sanction than, perhaps - and this is far from certain - being expelled ourselves.
.
A direct analogy is a driver falling asleep at the wheel through fatigue.
The most tortured similar expression I met was from an up-himself sales manager:
"You're ass will be grass, and I'm the lawnmower."
Then when you do, try and make it impossible to follow.
Boris Johnson will argue that he attended a series of lockdown-breaching parties in Downing Street as part of his working day https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lockdown-parties-are-part-of-work-boris-johnson-will-tell-police-chwdtms7g?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1644846237
Conclusion: France is not a friendly nation.
One of the French politicians lets it slip out occasionally, and then 'corrects' themselves.
Following on from Wallace's scent of Munich...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/14/ukraine-russia-europe-closer-to-war-than-at-any-point-in-70-years-fears-uk-minister
...The armed forces minister James Heappey told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme he feared “we are closer than we’ve been on this continent” to war “for 70 years”...
No need to swear either 👍
Talking of nasties www.terfisaslur.com