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.
Conclusion: France is not a friendly nation.
Well you know what they say about nations and friends. I think France is a friendly nation AAMOF but they are I suspect pursuing a strategy to further their own interests. As should we be. What we shouldn't be doing is expecting other countries to treat us nicely just because we are Brits damnit.
It is beyond my comprehension how anyone could think NATO was the aggressor when Russia has already illegally invaded Ukraine twice in the last 8 years and has 150k troops on their border....
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.
It's their right to do so. Seems counter-productive to me but there you go. I have better things to worry about than what some other country does with its postal service. If indeed they are doing anything - I only have @moonshine's word for 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.
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?)
Please let that be the correct answer. The reverse is just too awful to contemplate.
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.
But only one side doesn’t want a debate and has a government that only consults with supporters of their policy and has a First Minister who dismisses concerns as “not valid”.
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.
There is something simple and obvious that gets missed in the debate about how the UK is treated by countries like France.
We are now a 3rd country to France. They have both free trade within the EEA and trade deals with the biggest economies in the world.
We find ourselves as one of their biggest trading markets with no trade deal of any substance. 3rd country arrangements which aren't problematic for small quantities of trade with Uzbekistan are massively problematic for huge quantities of trade with the GB.
They aren't being any more obsequious than usual. Its just that being a 3rd country makes for lots of work which when multiplied with lots of trade means huge backlogs and costs and hassle.
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.
Conclusion: France is not a friendly nation.
Always has seemed pretty friendly when I have been there. This is in spite of the fact that many Brits seem to like to give them the middle finger on a regular basis.
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?)
Please let that be the correct answer. The reverse is just too awful to contemplate.
The correct answer is in any event only a closest approximation, given the very small but non zero chance of the coin landing on its rim.
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.
I got like that with the blood donor form - you tick almost all the same box all the way down and one time I ticked a box saying I might be pregnant (or something similar). The person who checks the forms chuckled and asked me if I was feeling alert today...
Pointed comment on Boris' Russian comments... It would be even better if Germany got tough on Russian energy dependence and Britain on stolen Russian money. Not the other way round. https://twitter.com/radeksikorski/status/1493206088744849418
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.
Given that France's actions are in breach of Article 10 of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU failing to tell France to co-operate has to be taken as tacit approval.
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...
My maths teacher described the mode as being like the number 1 record on the charts this week. That’s a good way of describing the single most popular value in the data set.
I even half remember who was at number 1 that week. It was Depeche something or other…
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.
It suprises me the 2019ers did so poorly, as I would assume that is a youngish cohort and so a little more likely to remember the basic mathematics they must have been taught.
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. .
I've just been chatting with our partner in Ireland. We are trying to send samples from GB which had originated from the Romanian factory. Inbound EU to GB imports are zero tariff on their commodity code and zero VAT payable on food. Export GB to EU means using 3rd country tariffs as the TCA tariff was used inbound and only counts once.
3rd country tariff on their commodity code is zero and also zero VAT in Ireland on most food. So why is the Dublin customs agent insistent that tariff is payable (and applied on to a similar previous import)?
This isn't their customs being awkward or stupid. This isn't us trying to be outrageously complicated - the UK is a long-standing distribution hub to ROI. This is a system that was designed by our government to not even consider how UK to ROI distribution would function despite it being a big reason why the UK logistics industry is as big as it is...
UKLabour has too often been on the wrong side of international issues. Young Labour calls on the leadership to stop backing NATO aggression, call wholeheartedly for peace, commit to constructive engagement with activists and deliver international policy around peace and cooperation
This isn't some random group of nutters, they are actually part of the Labour Party (all party members aged 14 to 26). God help us: a choice between Boris and a party with supporters of Vladimir Putin.
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. .
I've just been chatting with our partner in Ireland. We are trying to send samples from GB which had originated from the Romanian factory. Inbound EU to GB imports are zero tariff on their commodity code and zero VAT payable on food. Export GB to EU means using 3rd country tariffs as the TCA tariff was used inbound and only counts once.
3rd country tariff on their commodity code is zero and also zero VAT in Ireland on most food. So why is the Dublin customs agent insistent that tariff is payable (and applied on to a similar previous import)?
This isn't their customs being awkward or stupid. This isn't us trying to be outrageously complicated - the UK is a long-standing distribution hub to ROI. This is a system that was designed by our government to not even consider how UK to ROI distribution would function despite it being a big reason why the UK logistics industry is as big as it is...
Mr. Nabavi, that kind of nonsense is why, though I won't vote Conservative with the incumbent leader (unless Labour get led by a Corbyn again) I don't plan on voting Labour.
Starmer's not great, but he's not a lunatic. There are still plenty of damned fools on his side, though.
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.
Given that France's actions are in breach of Article 10 of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU failing to tell France to co-operate has to be taken as tacit approval.
Sovereignty can be a bitch can't it. And I don't think we can infer anything about the EU from France's treatment of parcels from the UK. @RochdalePioneers' point seems sensible. .
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...
My maths teacher described the mode as being like the number 1 record on the charts this week. That’s a good way of describing the single most popular value in the data set.
I even half remember who was at number 1 that week. It was Depeche something or other…
That must explain why music has become more average.
Mr. Nabavi, that kind of nonsense is why, though I won't vote Conservative with the incumbent leader (unless Labour get led by a Corbyn again) I don't plan on voting Labour.
Starmer's not great, but he's not a lunatic. There are still plenty of damned fools on his side, though.
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.
I don't think that follows. I think they're still confused about why anyone would want to leave. No particular strategy involved.
UKLabour has too often been on the wrong side of international issues. Young Labour calls on the leadership to stop backing NATO aggression, call wholeheartedly for peace, commit to constructive engagement with activists and deliver international policy around peace and cooperation
This isn't some random group of nutters, they are actually part of the Labour Party (all party members aged 14 to 26). God help us: a choice between Boris and a party with supporters of Vladimir Putin.
From 2015-20, they wouldn't have needed to pass that sort of motion, becuase the partly leadership agreed with them. That the nutters are reduced to passing Young Labour motions is a sign of their weakness, not their strength.
And youth wings of political parties are even less representative of their parties than the paid membership 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?
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. .
I've just been chatting with our partner in Ireland. We are trying to send samples from GB which had originated from the Romanian factory. Inbound EU to GB imports are zero tariff on their commodity code and zero VAT payable on food. Export GB to EU means using 3rd country tariffs as the TCA tariff was used inbound and only counts once.
3rd country tariff on their commodity code is zero and also zero VAT in Ireland on most food. So why is the Dublin customs agent insistent that tariff is payable (and applied on to a similar previous import)?
This isn't their customs being awkward or stupid. This isn't us trying to be outrageously complicated - the UK is a long-standing distribution hub to ROI. This is a system that was designed by our government to not even consider how UK to ROI distribution would function despite it being a big reason why the UK logistics industry is as big as it is...
So the Dublin customs agent is wrong?
Probably. Possibly. Nobody seems to know. My point was that once you start trying to apply lengthy and complex rules - 3rd country status - to large quantities of goods it takes *ages*.
The French are pathologically awkward when it comes to customs - certainly were before we had the single market. And we have demanded that they treat us the same way they treat the small countries with whom they don't have a substantive trade deal. And they are. And people are trying to blame them 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?
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.
And also that membership of the EU protected us from this sort of behaviour.
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. .
I've just been chatting with our partner in Ireland. We are trying to send samples from GB which had originated from the Romanian factory. Inbound EU to GB imports are zero tariff on their commodity code and zero VAT payable on food. Export GB to EU means using 3rd country tariffs as the TCA tariff was used inbound and only counts once.
3rd country tariff on their commodity code is zero and also zero VAT in Ireland on most food. So why is the Dublin customs agent insistent that tariff is payable (and applied on to a similar previous import)?
This isn't their customs being awkward or stupid. This isn't us trying to be outrageously complicated - the UK is a long-standing distribution hub to ROI. This is a system that was designed by our government to not even consider how UK to ROI distribution would function despite it being a big reason why the UK logistics industry is as big as it is...
So the Dublin customs agent is wrong?
Probably. Possibly. Nobody seems to know. My point was that once you start trying to apply lengthy and complex rules - 3rd country status - to large quantities of goods it takes *ages*.
The French are pathologically awkward when it comes to customs - certainly were before we had the single market. And we have demanded that they treat us the same way they treat the small countries with whom they don't have a substantive trade deal. And they are. And people are trying to blame them for it.
We did this, not them.
No we didn't. We're a relatively big country, and we do have a substantive trade deal with them.
Pointed comment on Boris' Russian comments... It would be even better if Germany got tough on Russian energy dependence and Britain on stolen Russian money. Not the other way round. https://twitter.com/radeksikorski/status/1493206088744849418
Both countries pointing out what each other could do vs Russia and ignoring what they can do themselves is simply another win for Russia.
UKLabour has too often been on the wrong side of international issues. Young Labour calls on the leadership to stop backing NATO aggression, call wholeheartedly for peace, commit to constructive engagement with activists and deliver international policy around peace and cooperation
This isn't some random group of nutters, they are actually part of the Labour Party (all party members aged 14 to 26). God help us: a choice between Boris and a party with supporters of Vladimir Putin.
From 2015-20, they wouldn't have needed to pass that sort of motion, becuase the partly leadership agreed with them. That the nutters are reduced to passing Young Labour motions is a sign of their weakness, not their strength.
And youth wings of political parties are even less representative of their parties than the paid membership is.
Well, yes, but they are still activists in the party. Of course Starmer won't take any notice, but he won't expel them either.
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.
Given that France's actions are in breach of Article 10 of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU failing to tell France to co-operate has to be taken as tacit approval.
Sovereignty can be a bitch can't it. And I don't think we can infer anything about the EU from France's treatment of parcels from the UK. @RochdalePioneers' point seems sensible. .
We have another thread conversation going on about statistics. GCSE maths as CHB put it. Yet when the same is suggested for the GB - EU border it was pooh-poohed away. Remoaning. Project Fear. But if it took 2 minutes to clear customs before and its now taking at best 20 minutes and at worst hours it doesn't take Carol Vorderman to realise that you will process very few vehicles in an hour and those uncleared vehicles will need to be held in a queue.
The whole point in free trade deals is to remove barriers. We have erected them, and wazzocks say "just trade with somewhere else" as if we can replace our local to us EU trade with trade from half the world away. Its the Elphickian refusal to yield to simple things like mathematics, logic and reason that get us hear saying that the nasty French are being Bad.
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. .
I've just been chatting with our partner in Ireland. We are trying to send samples from GB which had originated from the Romanian factory. Inbound EU to GB imports are zero tariff on their commodity code and zero VAT payable on food. Export GB to EU means using 3rd country tariffs as the TCA tariff was used inbound and only counts once.
3rd country tariff on their commodity code is zero and also zero VAT in Ireland on most food. So why is the Dublin customs agent insistent that tariff is payable (and applied on to a similar previous import)?
This isn't their customs being awkward or stupid. This isn't us trying to be outrageously complicated - the UK is a long-standing distribution hub to ROI. This is a system that was designed by our government to not even consider how UK to ROI distribution would function despite it being a big reason why the UK logistics industry is as big as it is...
So the Dublin customs agent is wrong?
Probably. Possibly. Nobody seems to know. My point was that once you start trying to apply lengthy and complex rules - 3rd country status - to large quantities of goods it takes *ages*.
The French are pathologically awkward when it comes to customs - certainly were before we had the single market. And we have demanded that they treat us the same way they treat the small countries with whom they don't have a substantive trade deal. And they are. And people are trying to blame them for it.
We did this, not them.
No we didn't. We're a relatively big country, and we do have a substantive trade deal with them.
Let's not forget that the "trade deal" we negotiated with the EU post-Brexit was noted by all at the time as being unique in seeking to agree worse terms of trade than already existed. And we seem to have achieved that.
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. .
I've just been chatting with our partner in Ireland. We are trying to send samples from GB which had originated from the Romanian factory. Inbound EU to GB imports are zero tariff on their commodity code and zero VAT payable on food. Export GB to EU means using 3rd country tariffs as the TCA tariff was used inbound and only counts once.
3rd country tariff on their commodity code is zero and also zero VAT in Ireland on most food. So why is the Dublin customs agent insistent that tariff is payable (and applied on to a similar previous import)?
This isn't their customs being awkward or stupid. This isn't us trying to be outrageously complicated - the UK is a long-standing distribution hub to ROI. This is a system that was designed by our government to not even consider how UK to ROI distribution would function despite it being a big reason why the UK logistics industry is as big as it is...
So the Dublin customs agent is wrong?
Probably. Possibly. Nobody seems to know. My point was that once you start trying to apply lengthy and complex rules - 3rd country status - to large quantities of goods it takes *ages*.
The French are pathologically awkward when it comes to customs - certainly were before we had the single market. And we have demanded that they treat us the same way they treat the small countries with whom they don't have a substantive trade deal. And they are. And people are trying to blame them for it.
We did this, not them.
No we didn't. We're a relatively big country, and we do have a substantive trade deal with them.
I do love posts like this. "we do have a substantive trade deal" he says in response to factual posts demonstrating how the TCA is made from tissue paper and barely covers the letters TCA.
If we had a substantive trade deal then there would be no blizzard of red tape for the beastly French to mess us about with, would there?
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...
My maths teacher described the mode as being like the number 1 record on the charts this week. That’s a good way of describing the single most popular value in the data set.
I even half remember who was at number 1 that week. It was Depeche something or other…
That must explain why music has become more average.
My friend's daughter's tutor gave her a rhyme to remember them by: Hey Diddle Diddle, the median's the middle, You add and divide for the mean, The mode is the one that you see the most of and the range is the distance between.
I find this strangely satisfying, as I do any joke or rhyme about maths, no matter how weak.
Putin also practices table distancing with his own ministers.
They're clearly not going to hear each other at the kind of distance, without shouting, or microphones. An interesting kind of metaphor for Putin to have chosen to show off.
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.
Given that France's actions are in breach of Article 10 of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU failing to tell France to co-operate has to be taken as tacit approval.
Sovereignty can be a bitch can't it. And I don't think we can infer anything about the EU from France's treatment of parcels from the UK. @RochdalePioneers' point seems sensible. .
We have another thread conversation going on about statistics. GCSE maths as CHB put it. Yet when the same is suggested for the GB - EU border it was pooh-poohed away. Remoaning. Project Fear. But if it took 2 minutes to clear customs before and its now taking at best 20 minutes and at worst hours it doesn't take Carol Vorderman to realise that you will process very few vehicles in an hour and those uncleared vehicles will need to be held in a queue.
The whole point in free trade deals is to remove barriers. We have erected them, and wazzocks say "just trade with somewhere else" as if we can replace our local to us EU trade with trade from half the world away. Its the Elphickian refusal to yield to simple things like mathematics, logic and reason that get us hear saying that the nasty French are being Bad.
But the new UK controls and regs aren't even fully implemented yet, are they?
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?)
Please let that be the correct answer. The reverse is just too awful to contemplate.
The correct answer is in any event only a closest approximation, given the very small but non zero chance of the coin landing on its rim.
Or being snapped up by the dog who thinks you are playing a game with it, and you give up rather than wait 48 hours with a toothbrush and rubber gloves.
He has a point that Johnson's policy decision seemed to be about nothing more than saving his skin and blindsided all established authorities. Will also seems keen to get back to normal. 'Like most I relish life opening up.' Or does he?
'while the new normal could never be the normal of pre-pandemic, it was still normal enough..... This dream is where the vast majority would love us to be. Personally, I delight in the escalating return to normality – dinners, lunches with colleagues, getting out and about much more freely – but I am watchful. On buses, trains and tubes, I take care to wear a mask and make sure, if I can, that I sit with others wearing them. I willingly wear a mask in shops, cinema, theatre or going around galleries. I keep my social distance. I enjoy the possibilities of Zoom, a working life organised around online slots, but saving time on travelling. If asked to take a lateral flow test before a large gathering, I happily comply. I live a life as normally as possible – but remain vigilant about the danger of contracting Covid. It’s how I expect to continue.'
Now he isn't clear if ontinue means indefinite future and it isn't clear whether he sees restrictions applying to men in their 70s like him or if we should all be doing this for ever and eternity. I wonder how Will would have felt in his youth if he had to comply with these impositions on a permanent basis? Over Christmas I was with with my brother and sister in law who have three young children. They aren't overly political people but like many are sick to death of covid. They worry about the impact on their children who've obviously been negatively affected by the pandemic. They were angry at the way those in authority seemed desperate to deny omicron was milder than delta in spite of the evidence to the contrary.
A few days ago I went to see a friend and his partner, both in their early 30s with no kids. I was quite taken aback that my friend had decided against travelling to London due to covid and had been urging his (70ish) mother to only go out once a week, citing no higher authority than Chris Whitty for his concern. His partner's 92 year old grandmother is also part of their close circle and the idea of passing covid on to her horrifies him.
I do get that. But what are we going to do? Live the rest of our lives as semi hermits at the behest of the very old and clinically vulnerable? It isn't entirely obvious that would be a very healthy strategy either. Getting infected with a mild variant of covid might help protect you against a nastier one that comes along later. People's general immunity could be weakening significantly.
When the mask mandate gets dropped I suspect we will see rather a lot of people continuing to wear then in certain circumstances - 2 years gets you used to things.
The mask debate has become so polarised but I think they should still be worn indoors because not to do so puts others at risk at harm. I have avoided covid so far and would really rather not catch it. I know it will damage me mentally and I am wary of the longterm effects of covid. I will continue to wear a mask for the foreseeable and I know many others who do.
Life will not return to how it was for a long time. In some parts of the world it will not do so in our lifetimes and 50 years from now the children of today will still be scarred by the experience.
Some good has come from this pandemic: a recalibration of life's priorities and the marvel of realising that commuting is a stupid way to live the only life you have. Work from home as much as you can and reconnect with nature and the green planet.
The only place I've been to recently where people were still wearing masks was the blood donating centre.
Let's not forget that the "trade deal" we negotiated with the EU post-Brexit was noted by all at the time as being unique in seeking to agree worse terms of trade than already existed. And we seem to have achieved that.
It's not fully achieved yet. The next big step in Operation Clog Trade is the July 2022 introduction of some physical SPS checks, and we'll move into more world-beating bureaucratic insanity in September (dairy produce), and the final triumph will come in November when pizzas, ready meals and fish products become fully subject to our glorious gumming-up of trade.
Even that won't be the end of it, Jacob Rees-Mogg's Brexit opportunities to come include billions to be wasted on duplicating REACH and CE marks, and having to get and pay for a visa waiver to go on your summer hols in the Med.
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.
Indeed more fool them, all that it's done is drive UK companies into routing around France completely.
UKLabour has too often been on the wrong side of international issues. Young Labour calls on the leadership to stop backing NATO aggression, call wholeheartedly for peace, commit to constructive engagement with activists and deliver international policy around peace and cooperation
This isn't some random group of nutters, they are actually part of the Labour Party (all party members aged 14 to 26). God help us: a choice between Boris and a party with supporters of Vladimir Putin.
Some of these Young Labour people should be sent to Ukraine to explain to the people there how they are being threatened by NATO and that Russia is the real victim.
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.
Indeed more fool them, all that it's done is drive UK companies into routing around France completely.
As was noted on here to general approval, routing transit trade away from the UK was seem as a big win. The same presumably applies to France.
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.
Given that France's actions are in breach of Article 10 of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU failing to tell France to co-operate has to be taken as tacit approval.
Sovereignty can be a bitch can't it. And I don't think we can infer anything about the EU from France's treatment of parcels from the UK. @RochdalePioneers' point seems sensible. .
We have another thread conversation going on about statistics. GCSE maths as CHB put it. Yet when the same is suggested for the GB - EU border it was pooh-poohed away. Remoaning. Project Fear. But if it took 2 minutes to clear customs before and its now taking at best 20 minutes and at worst hours it doesn't take Carol Vorderman to realise that you will process very few vehicles in an hour and those uncleared vehicles will need to be held in a queue.
The whole point in free trade deals is to remove barriers. We have erected them, and wazzocks say "just trade with somewhere else" as if we can replace our local to us EU trade with trade from half the world away. Its the Elphickian refusal to yield to simple things like mathematics, logic and reason that get us hear saying that the nasty French are being Bad.
But the new UK controls and regs aren't even fully implemented yet, are they?
Hell no. It gets much worse in April and then much much worse in September.
On a different note - why do the teams in curling each have 73 minutes? Seems a curiously unround number. Why not 70 or 75? I know one number is no better than another for this, but it's unusual for a sports-related number not to be a multiple of 5. If anyone knows, surely it will be pb.com.
UKLabour has too often been on the wrong side of international issues. Young Labour calls on the leadership to stop backing NATO aggression, call wholeheartedly for peace, commit to constructive engagement with activists and deliver international policy around peace and cooperation
This isn't some random group of nutters, they are actually part of the Labour Party (all party members aged 14 to 26). God help us: a choice between Boris and a party with supporters of Vladimir Putin.
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?)
Please let that be the correct answer. The reverse is just too awful to contemplate.
The correct answer is in any event only a closest approximation, given the very small but non zero chance of the coin landing on its rim.
Or being snapped up by the dog who thinks you are playing a game with it, and you give up rather than wait 48 hours with a toothbrush and rubber gloves.
Presumably in that scenario it comes out, as it were, tails?
(I suppose for the dog with the less robust stomach it could in fact come out heads...)
On a different note - why do the teams in curling each have 73 minutes? Seems a curiously unround number. Why not 70 or 75? I know one number is no better than another for this, but it's unusual for a sports-related number not to be a multiple of 5. If anyone knows, surely it will be pb.com.
They were aiming for 75 but curled slightly too far?
Putin also practices table distancing with his own ministers.
I half expect them to talk to each other on the telephone given the distance between them.
Putin is KGB. He knows that Lavrov has been seeing foreigners, any of whom's spy service could have attempted to get him to catch covid. After all, it's something his lot would try. But yes does say very little by Sputnik vax.
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.
Indeed more fool them, all that it's done is drive UK companies into routing around France completely.
As was noted on here to general approval, routing transit trade away from the UK was seem as a big win. The same presumably applies to France.
Depends on the perspective, I guess. Losing market share to the Belgians and Dutch may not be what they're after, handing them additional economies of scale and a major new client is also probably not what they're after. I guess it comes down to how many French jobs depend on the UK using France as the main destination for its exports to Europe vs how many UK jobs depended on the Europe -> Ireland land bridge. My sense is that the first is a fairly large number while the latter was very small.
UKLabour has too often been on the wrong side of international issues. Young Labour calls on the leadership to stop backing NATO aggression, call wholeheartedly for peace, commit to constructive engagement with activists and deliver international policy around peace and cooperation
This isn't some random group of nutters, they are actually part of the Labour Party (all party members aged 14 to 26). God help us: a choice between Boris and a party with supporters of Vladimir Putin.
Boris Johnson will not meet senior figures from his own party or the SNP during his visit to Scotland, despite attempts at a charm offensive to save his premiership.
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?)
Please let that be the correct answer. The reverse is just too awful to contemplate.
The correct answer is in any event only a closest approximation, given the very small but non zero chance of the coin landing on its rim.
Or being snapped up by the dog who thinks you are playing a game with it, and you give up rather than wait 48 hours with a toothbrush and rubber gloves.
Presumably in that scenario it comes out, as it were, tails?
(I suppose for the dog with the less robust stomach it could in fact come out heads...)
On checking, actually, there is a third outcome - the dog might die. Apparently a particular problem with current US money, not sure about the UK.
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.
Indeed more fool them, all that it's done is drive UK companies into routing around France completely.
Remember that there are various flows we are talking about. Dover - Calais remains the primary route into GB from mainland Europe. "just avoid France" isn't something that is a universal fix as amazingly enough there is lower capacity on smaller routes.
The suggestion that there are no issues going to (say) Belgium isn't what the trade says, and remember that however obsequious we may claim French customs officials to be there is a volume issue - lower volume makes for speedier flow. Divert too much traffic into a non-French port and even if their customs guys are slightly less arsey it still gums up.
And thats only export. Import is similarly gummed, and we don't employ french customs people to clear inbound imports into the GB.
Rumours swirling, but seems like the Kremlin is looking like they want to take the "Ukraine won´t join NATO" statement as their exit route.
However, there has been considerable damage done to the Kremlin and it is expected that Putin will need to bare his teeth to some of the regime factions to try and calm things down. The ongoing disputes between the various contending mafias are not going away and there are now real questions about what the Russian political scene will look like by mid summer. Guesses and rumours about who is in and who out.
Informal sanctions are already causing big trouble and this has been such a scare for NATO that the alliance might even get serious about dealing with Russia across the board. Deciding not to attack a peaceful neighbour is not exactly 10 points to Slytherin and the thuggish diplomacy has been a PR catastrophe, since it has woken up the general public in the West to the vicious and criminal nature of the entire Putin racket.
So, I think that there will be continuing push-back on the regime and amongst other things I dont think the Tories will be able to get so much Russian connected money as they have in the past, though Alex Salmond will probably continue to work for the Russia Today Kremlin propaganda channel and shifty lawyers and bankers can look forward to a continuing pay day, but all of them under increasing disapproval, not to say contempt, from everyone else.
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?)
Please let that be the correct answer. The reverse is just too awful to contemplate.
The correct answer is in any event only a closest approximation, given the very small but non zero chance of the coin landing on its rim.
Or being snapped up by the dog who thinks you are playing a game with it, and you give up rather than wait 48 hours with a toothbrush and rubber gloves.
Presumably in that scenario it comes out, as it were, tails?
(I suppose for the dog with the less robust stomach it could in fact come out heads...)
On checking, actually, there is a third outcome - the dog might die. Apparently a particular problem with current US money, not sure about the UK.
Is there not a fourth - the dog might Winalot! I know I'm barking up the wrong tree - before Yodethur gets going!
Rumours swirling, but seems like the Kremlin is looking like they want to take the "Ukraine won´t join NATO" statement as their exit route.
However, there has been considerable damage done to the Kremlin and it is expected that Putin will need to bare his teeth to some of the regime factions to try and calm things down. The ongoing disputes between the various contending mafias are not going away and there are now real questions about what the Russian political scene will look like by mid summer. Guesses and rumours about who is in and who out.
Informal sanctions are already causing big trouble and this has been such a scare for NATO that the alliance might even get serious about dealing with Russia across the board. Deciding not to attack a peaceful neighbour is not exactly 10 points to Slytherin and the thuggish diplomacy has been a PR catastrophe, since it has woken up the general public in the West to the vicious and criminal nature of the entire Putin racket.
So, I think that there will be continuing push-back on the regime and amongst other things I dont think the Tories will be able to get so much Russian connected money as they have in the past, though Alex Salmond will probably continue to work for the Russia Today Kremlin propaganda channel and shifty lawyers and bankers can look forward to a continuing pay day, but all of them under increasing disapproval, not to say contempt, from everyone else.
Anyone would think that bags of Russki cash was influencing the way the government were doing a go-slow on threatening the assets of the same Russians handing over bags of cash. Naah. That would be corruption. This government are above that.
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.
Given that France's actions are in breach of Article 10 of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU failing to tell France to co-operate has to be taken as tacit approval.
Sovereignty can be a bitch can't it. And I don't think we can infer anything about the EU from France's treatment of parcels from the UK. @RochdalePioneers' point seems sensible. .
We have another thread conversation going on about statistics. GCSE maths as CHB put it. Yet when the same is suggested for the GB - EU border it was pooh-poohed away. Remoaning. Project Fear. But if it took 2 minutes to clear customs before and its now taking at best 20 minutes and at worst hours it doesn't take Carol Vorderman to realise that you will process very few vehicles in an hour and those uncleared vehicles will need to be held in a queue.
The whole point in free trade deals is to remove barriers. We have erected them, and wazzocks say "just trade with somewhere else" as if we can replace our local to us EU trade with trade from half the world away. Its the Elphickian refusal to yield to simple things like mathematics, logic and reason that get us hear saying that the nasty French are being Bad.
But the new UK controls and regs aren't even fully implemented yet, are they?
Hell no. It gets much worse in April and then much much worse in September.
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.
Given that France's actions are in breach of Article 10 of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU failing to tell France to co-operate has to be taken as tacit approval.
Sovereignty can be a bitch can't it. And I don't think we can infer anything about the EU from France's treatment of parcels from the UK. @RochdalePioneers' point seems sensible. .
We have another thread conversation going on about statistics. GCSE maths as CHB put it. Yet when the same is suggested for the GB - EU border it was pooh-poohed away. Remoaning. Project Fear. But if it took 2 minutes to clear customs before and its now taking at best 20 minutes and at worst hours it doesn't take Carol Vorderman to realise that you will process very few vehicles in an hour and those uncleared vehicles will need to be held in a queue.
The whole point in free trade deals is to remove barriers. We have erected them, and wazzocks say "just trade with somewhere else" as if we can replace our local to us EU trade with trade from half the world away. Its the Elphickian refusal to yield to simple things like mathematics, logic and reason that get us hear saying that the nasty French are being Bad.
But the new UK controls and regs aren't even fully implemented yet, are they?
Hell no. It gets much worse in April and then much much worse in September.
When we match the EU controls?
Yes, believe so. Though if the new customs computer (which HMRC told the government would be needed back in 2016...) is delayed further I expect we will add yet more delays.
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.
Given that France's actions are in breach of Article 10 of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU failing to tell France to co-operate has to be taken as tacit approval.
Sovereignty can be a bitch can't it. And I don't think we can infer anything about the EU from France's treatment of parcels from the UK. @RochdalePioneers' point seems sensible. .
We have another thread conversation going on about statistics. GCSE maths as CHB put it. Yet when the same is suggested for the GB - EU border it was pooh-poohed away. Remoaning. Project Fear. But if it took 2 minutes to clear customs before and its now taking at best 20 minutes and at worst hours it doesn't take Carol Vorderman to realise that you will process very few vehicles in an hour and those uncleared vehicles will need to be held in a queue.
The whole point in free trade deals is to remove barriers. We have erected them, and wazzocks say "just trade with somewhere else" as if we can replace our local to us EU trade with trade from half the world away. Its the Elphickian refusal to yield to simple things like mathematics, logic and reason that get us hear saying that the nasty French are being Bad.
But the new UK controls and regs aren't even fully implemented yet, are they?
Hell no. It gets much worse in April and then much much worse in September.
When we match the EU controls?
Yes, believe so. Though if the new customs computer (which HMRC told the government would be needed back in 2016...) is delayed further I expect we will add yet more delays.
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?)
Please let that be the correct answer. The reverse is just too awful to contemplate.
The correct answer is in any event only a closest approximation, given the very small but non zero chance of the coin landing on its rim.
Or being snapped up by the dog who thinks you are playing a game with it, and you give up rather than wait 48 hours with a toothbrush and rubber gloves.
Presumably in that scenario it comes out, as it were, tails?
(I suppose for the dog with the less robust stomach it could in fact come out heads...)
On checking, actually, there is a third outcome - the dog might die. Apparently a particular problem with current US money, not sure about the UK.
Is there not a fourth - the dog might Winalot! I know I'm barking up the wrong tree - before Yodethur gets going!
Putin also practices table distancing with his own ministers.
Supping with the devil....
Isn't he sitting on the side so no one can blame him for the 007 assassin gun?
I prefer the Macron one. When supping with the devil, use a long table.
Bond films put KGB in massive offices.
The third series of The Great to have a massive table in it, with no man land in the middle and armed skirmishes to steal a couple of yards of it. Second series not nearly as good as the first imo
Have been watching Tom Baker Dr Who on Brit Box. Not seen much Tom Baker before but he is brilliant at it. 👏🏻
Currently watching excellent one where Davros builds the first Daleks.
UKLabour has too often been on the wrong side of international issues. Young Labour calls on the leadership to stop backing NATO aggression, call wholeheartedly for peace, commit to constructive engagement with activists and deliver international policy around peace and cooperation
This isn't some random group of nutters, they are actually part of the Labour Party (all party members aged 14 to 26). God help us: a choice between Boris and a party with supporters of Vladimir Putin.
The Young Conservatives too have often been extreme eg on South Africa in the 1980s.
However neither represent the Leader or Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet nor the majority of MPs and they are the ones who are most relevant
You make a good point. I remember the days when the Young Conservatives were an embarrassment to the Tory Party even under Thatcher. They used to pass motions approving of apartheid, saying Mandela should remain in prison for ever, and various other lunatic, far-right notions. But, as you say, they had no more sway than Young Labour do now.
Tories on here seeking reasons not to vote Labour will find them easily. But they would also have found them easily in 1997 when Blair won his landslide - lots of loony lefties lurked in the shadows of the party back then. Let's face it, there's a whole load of people here and elsewhere who would just never vote Labour because they judge it to be against their (financial) interests to do so. No need to find imaginary excuses, really.
UKLabour has too often been on the wrong side of international issues. Young Labour calls on the leadership to stop backing NATO aggression, call wholeheartedly for peace, commit to constructive engagement with activists and deliver international policy around peace and cooperation
This isn't some random group of nutters, they are actually part of the Labour Party (all party members aged 14 to 26). God help us: a choice between Boris and a party with supporters of Vladimir Putin.
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.
This post is a little silly and coming from you quite surprising. It's exactly the same nonsense that some of the more excitable Scottish nationalists come out with when they claim Scotland is a colony. You're better than this.
Nope read what I wrote rather than what you want it to say. If the mere fact you left a bloc means you were always sovereign - which is the idiotic claim made by Topping - then all those former Eastern bloc countries were always sovereign and so is Scotland right now. A claim which is so obviously ludicrous that I am amazed you can even contemplate it.
He has a point that Johnson's policy decision seemed to be about nothing more than saving his skin and blindsided all established authorities. Will also seems keen to get back to normal. 'Like most I relish life opening up.' Or does he?
'while the new normal could never be the normal of pre-pandemic, it was still normal enough..... This dream is where the vast majority would love us to be. Personally, I delight in the escalating return to normality – dinners, lunches with colleagues, getting out and about much more freely – but I am watchful. On buses, trains and tubes, I take care to wear a mask and make sure, if I can, that I sit with others wearing them. I willingly wear a mask in shops, cinema, theatre or going around galleries. I keep my social distance. I enjoy the possibilities of Zoom, a working life organised around online slots, but saving time on travelling. If asked to take a lateral flow test before a large gathering, I happily comply. I live a life as normally as possible – but remain vigilant about the danger of contracting Covid. It’s how I expect to continue.'
Now he isn't clear if ontinue means indefinite future and it isn't clear whether he sees restrictions applying to men in their 70s like him or if we should all be doing this for ever and eternity. I wonder how Will would have felt in his youth if he had to comply with these impositions on a permanent basis? Over Christmas I was with with my brother and sister in law who have three young children. They aren't overly political people but like many are sick to death of covid. They worry about the impact on their children who've obviously been negatively affected by the pandemic. They were angry at the way those in authority seemed desperate to deny omicron was milder than delta in spite of the evidence to the contrary.
A few days ago I went to see a friend and his partner, both in their early 30s with no kids. I was quite taken aback that my friend had decided against travelling to London due to covid and had been urging his (70ish) mother to only go out once a week, citing no higher authority than Chris Whitty for his concern. His partner's 92 year old grandmother is also part of their close circle and the idea of passing covid on to her horrifies him.
I do get that. But what are we going to do? Live the rest of our lives as semi hermits at the behest of the very old and clinically vulnerable? It isn't entirely obvious that would be a very healthy strategy either. Getting infected with a mild variant of covid might help protect you against a nastier one that comes along later. People's general immunity could be weakening significantly.
When the mask mandate gets dropped I suspect we will see rather a lot of people continuing to wear then in certain circumstances - 2 years gets you used to things.
The mask debate has become so polarised but I think they should still be worn indoors because not to do so puts others at risk at harm. I have avoided covid so far and would really rather not catch it. I know it will damage me mentally and I am wary of the longterm effects of covid. I will continue to wear a mask for the foreseeable and I know many others who do.
Life will not return to how it was for a long time. In some parts of the world it will not do so in our lifetimes and 50 years from now the children of today will still be scarred by the experience.
Some good has come from this pandemic: a recalibration of life's priorities and the marvel of realising that commuting is a stupid way to live the only life you have. Work from home as much as you can and reconnect with nature and the green planet.
The only place I've been to recently where people were still wearing masks was the blood donating centre.
How weird. Everywhere I go, including outdoors in my high st, most people are still wearing masks.
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.
Indeed more fool them, all that it's done is drive UK companies into routing around France completely.
As was noted on here to general approval, routing transit trade away from the UK was seem as a big win. The same presumably applies to France.
Depends on the perspective, I guess. Losing market share to the Belgians and Dutch may not be what they're after, handing them additional economies of scale and a major new client is also probably not what they're after. I guess it comes down to how many French jobs depend on the UK using France as the main destination for its exports to Europe vs how many UK jobs depended on the Europe -> Ireland land bridge. My sense is that the first is a fairly large number while the latter was very small.
Apropos of that, just had a chat with the Laithwaite's Rep, and he said that he has a quite a few customers who are no longer buying French wine.
Significcant? I guess it depends how they set up their reps. Is he East Midlands or national?
Personally I think that all those tens of thousands of Ireland-bound lorrys no longer thundering across the country is perhaps a good thing. Except perhaps for Holyhead.
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.
Nope the comparison with NATO is plain wrong. NATO operates by unanimity. It cannot unilaterally pass laws affecting its members without the explicit consent of all members. Without that veto there is no sovereignty.
UKLabour has too often been on the wrong side of international issues. Young Labour calls on the leadership to stop backing NATO aggression, call wholeheartedly for peace, commit to constructive engagement with activists and deliver international policy around peace and cooperation
This isn't some random group of nutters, they are actually part of the Labour Party (all party members aged 14 to 26). God help us: a choice between Boris and a party with supporters of Vladimir Putin.
Putin also practices table distancing with his own ministers.
Supping with the devil....
Isn't he sitting on the side so no one can blame him for the 007 assassin gun?
I prefer the Macron one. When supping with the devil, use a long table.
Bond films put KGB in massive offices.
The third series of The Great to have a massive table in it, with no man land in the middle and armed skirmishes to steal a couple of yards of it. Second series not nearly as good as the first imo
Have been watching Tom Baker Dr Who on Brit Box. Not seen much Tom Baker before but he is brilliant at it. 👏🏻
Currently watching excellent one where Davros builds the first Daleks.
As it happens, I just bought a Chilean wine called Riversong.
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.
Ok, makes sense. But that's a bit meta and muffled to be the massive deal I've seen it presented as.
He has a point that Johnson's policy decision seemed to be about nothing more than saving his skin and blindsided all established authorities. Will also seems keen to get back to normal. 'Like most I relish life opening up.' Or does he?
'while the new normal could never be the normal of pre-pandemic, it was still normal enough..... This dream is where the vast majority would love us to be. Personally, I delight in the escalating return to normality – dinners, lunches with colleagues, getting out and about much more freely – but I am watchful. On buses, trains and tubes, I take care to wear a mask and make sure, if I can, that I sit with others wearing them. I willingly wear a mask in shops, cinema, theatre or going around galleries. I keep my social distance. I enjoy the possibilities of Zoom, a working life organised around online slots, but saving time on travelling. If asked to take a lateral flow test before a large gathering, I happily comply. I live a life as normally as possible – but remain vigilant about the danger of contracting Covid. It’s how I expect to continue.'
Now he isn't clear if ontinue means indefinite future and it isn't clear whether he sees restrictions applying to men in their 70s like him or if we should all be doing this for ever and eternity. I wonder how Will would have felt in his youth if he had to comply with these impositions on a permanent basis? Over Christmas I was with with my brother and sister in law who have three young children. They aren't overly political people but like many are sick to death of covid. They worry about the impact on their children who've obviously been negatively affected by the pandemic. They were angry at the way those in authority seemed desperate to deny omicron was milder than delta in spite of the evidence to the contrary.
A few days ago I went to see a friend and his partner, both in their early 30s with no kids. I was quite taken aback that my friend had decided against travelling to London due to covid and had been urging his (70ish) mother to only go out once a week, citing no higher authority than Chris Whitty for his concern. His partner's 92 year old grandmother is also part of their close circle and the idea of passing covid on to her horrifies him.
I do get that. But what are we going to do? Live the rest of our lives as semi hermits at the behest of the very old and clinically vulnerable? It isn't entirely obvious that would be a very healthy strategy either. Getting infected with a mild variant of covid might help protect you against a nastier one that comes along later. People's general immunity could be weakening significantly.
When the mask mandate gets dropped I suspect we will see rather a lot of people continuing to wear then in certain circumstances - 2 years gets you used to things.
The mask debate has become so polarised but I think they should still be worn indoors because not to do so puts others at risk at harm. I have avoided covid so far and would really rather not catch it. I know it will damage me mentally and I am wary of the longterm effects of covid. I will continue to wear a mask for the foreseeable and I know many others who do.
Life will not return to how it was for a long time. In some parts of the world it will not do so in our lifetimes and 50 years from now the children of today will still be scarred by the experience.
Some good has come from this pandemic: a recalibration of life's priorities and the marvel of realising that commuting is a stupid way to live the only life you have. Work from home as much as you can and reconnect with nature and the green planet.
The only place I've been to recently where people were still wearing masks was the blood donating centre.
How weird. Everywhere I go, including outdoors in my high st, most people are still wearing masks.
Thankfully.
Really? Where do you live? Outdoor masking has always been a very minority pursuit in suburban Manchester, even at the height of the panic and pre-vaccines.
I am equally thankful that masking anywhere its not specifically mandated seems to be dying out. My view is that the sense of anxiety they engender outweighs any protection they may give.
UKLabour has too often been on the wrong side of international issues. Young Labour calls on the leadership to stop backing NATO aggression, call wholeheartedly for peace, commit to constructive engagement with activists and deliver international policy around peace and cooperation
This isn't some random group of nutters, they are actually part of the Labour Party (all party members aged 14 to 26). God help us: a choice between Boris and a party with supporters of Vladimir Putin.
He has a point that Johnson's policy decision seemed to be about nothing more than saving his skin and blindsided all established authorities. Will also seems keen to get back to normal. 'Like most I relish life opening up.' Or does he?
'while the new normal could never be the normal of pre-pandemic, it was still normal enough..... This dream is where the vast majority would love us to be. Personally, I delight in the escalating return to normality – dinners, lunches with colleagues, getting out and about much more freely – but I am watchful. On buses, trains and tubes, I take care to wear a mask and make sure, if I can, that I sit with others wearing them. I willingly wear a mask in shops, cinema, theatre or going around galleries. I keep my social distance. I enjoy the possibilities of Zoom, a working life organised around online slots, but saving time on travelling. If asked to take a lateral flow test before a large gathering, I happily comply. I live a life as normally as possible – but remain vigilant about the danger of contracting Covid. It’s how I expect to continue.'
Now he isn't clear if ontinue means indefinite future and it isn't clear whether he sees restrictions applying to men in their 70s like him or if we should all be doing this for ever and eternity. I wonder how Will would have felt in his youth if he had to comply with these impositions on a permanent basis? Over Christmas I was with with my brother and sister in law who have three young children. They aren't overly political people but like many are sick to death of covid. They worry about the impact on their children who've obviously been negatively affected by the pandemic. They were angry at the way those in authority seemed desperate to deny omicron was milder than delta in spite of the evidence to the contrary.
A few days ago I went to see a friend and his partner, both in their early 30s with no kids. I was quite taken aback that my friend had decided against travelling to London due to covid and had been urging his (70ish) mother to only go out once a week, citing no higher authority than Chris Whitty for his concern. His partner's 92 year old grandmother is also part of their close circle and the idea of passing covid on to her horrifies him.
I do get that. But what are we going to do? Live the rest of our lives as semi hermits at the behest of the very old and clinically vulnerable? It isn't entirely obvious that would be a very healthy strategy either. Getting infected with a mild variant of covid might help protect you against a nastier one that comes along later. People's general immunity could be weakening significantly.
When the mask mandate gets dropped I suspect we will see rather a lot of people continuing to wear then in certain circumstances - 2 years gets you used to things.
The mask debate has become so polarised but I think they should still be worn indoors because not to do so puts others at risk at harm. I have avoided covid so far and would really rather not catch it. I know it will damage me mentally and I am wary of the longterm effects of covid. I will continue to wear a mask for the foreseeable and I know many others who do.
Life will not return to how it was for a long time. In some parts of the world it will not do so in our lifetimes and 50 years from now the children of today will still be scarred by the experience.
Some good has come from this pandemic: a recalibration of life's priorities and the marvel of realising that commuting is a stupid way to live the only life you have. Work from home as much as you can and reconnect with nature and the green planet.
The only place I've been to recently where people were still wearing masks was the blood donating centre.
How weird. Everywhere I go, including outdoors in my high st, most people are still wearing masks.
Russia’s ambassador to the EU has said Moscow would be within its rights to launch a “counterattack” if it felt it needed to protect Russian citizens living in eastern Ukraine.
The comments in an interview with the Guardian will do little to calm fears of a major Russian assault on Ukraine, given one of the key scenarios suggested by western intelligence was Russia launching a “false-flag” operation to provide a pretext for invasion.
Rumours swirling, but seems like the Kremlin is looking like they want to take the "Ukraine won´t join NATO" statement as their exit route.
However, there has been considerable damage done to the Kremlin and it is expected that Putin will need to bare his teeth to some of the regime factions to try and calm things down. The ongoing disputes between the various contending mafias are not going away and there are now real questions about what the Russian political scene will look like by mid summer. Guesses and rumours about who is in and who out.
Informal sanctions are already causing big trouble and this has been such a scare for NATO that the alliance might even get serious about dealing with Russia across the board. Deciding not to attack a peaceful neighbour is not exactly 10 points to Slytherin and the thuggish diplomacy has been a PR catastrophe, since it has woken up the general public in the West to the vicious and criminal nature of the entire Putin racket.
So, I think that there will be continuing push-back on the regime and amongst other things I dont think the Tories will be able to get so much Russian connected money as they have in the past, though Alex Salmond will probably continue to work for the Russia Today Kremlin propaganda channel and shifty lawyers and bankers can look forward to a continuing pay day, but all of them under increasing disapproval, not to say contempt, from everyone else.
I really hope you're right. The mood music is not encouraging, however.
He has a point that Johnson's policy decision seemed to be about nothing more than saving his skin and blindsided all established authorities. Will also seems keen to get back to normal. 'Like most I relish life opening up.' Or does he?
'while the new normal could never be the normal of pre-pandemic, it was still normal enough..... This dream is where the vast majority would love us to be. Personally, I delight in the escalating return to normality – dinners, lunches with colleagues, getting out and about much more freely – but I am watchful. On buses, trains and tubes, I take care to wear a mask and make sure, if I can, that I sit with others wearing them. I willingly wear a mask in shops, cinema, theatre or going around galleries. I keep my social distance. I enjoy the possibilities of Zoom, a working life organised around online slots, but saving time on travelling. If asked to take a lateral flow test before a large gathering, I happily comply. I live a life as normally as possible – but remain vigilant about the danger of contracting Covid. It’s how I expect to continue.'
Now he isn't clear if ontinue means indefinite future and it isn't clear whether he sees restrictions applying to men in their 70s like him or if we should all be doing this for ever and eternity. I wonder how Will would have felt in his youth if he had to comply with these impositions on a permanent basis? Over Christmas I was with with my brother and sister in law who have three young children. They aren't overly political people but like many are sick to death of covid. They worry about the impact on their children who've obviously been negatively affected by the pandemic. They were angry at the way those in authority seemed desperate to deny omicron was milder than delta in spite of the evidence to the contrary.
A few days ago I went to see a friend and his partner, both in their early 30s with no kids. I was quite taken aback that my friend had decided against travelling to London due to covid and had been urging his (70ish) mother to only go out once a week, citing no higher authority than Chris Whitty for his concern. His partner's 92 year old grandmother is also part of their close circle and the idea of passing covid on to her horrifies him.
I do get that. But what are we going to do? Live the rest of our lives as semi hermits at the behest of the very old and clinically vulnerable? It isn't entirely obvious that would be a very healthy strategy either. Getting infected with a mild variant of covid might help protect you against a nastier one that comes along later. People's general immunity could be weakening significantly.
When the mask mandate gets dropped I suspect we will see rather a lot of people continuing to wear then in certain circumstances - 2 years gets you used to things.
The mask debate has become so polarised but I think they should still be worn indoors because not to do so puts others at risk at harm. I have avoided covid so far and would really rather not catch it. I know it will damage me mentally and I am wary of the longterm effects of covid. I will continue to wear a mask for the foreseeable and I know many others who do.
Life will not return to how it was for a long time. In some parts of the world it will not do so in our lifetimes and 50 years from now the children of today will still be scarred by the experience.
Some good has come from this pandemic: a recalibration of life's priorities and the marvel of realising that commuting is a stupid way to live the only life you have. Work from home as much as you can and reconnect with nature and the green planet.
The only place I've been to recently where people were still wearing masks was the blood donating centre.
How weird. Everywhere I go, including outdoors in my high st, most people are still wearing masks.
Thankfully.
Outdoors? How silly.
I see no wearing of masks outdoors even in Drakeford's Wales and indeed much less in shops also
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.
Ok, makes sense. But that's a bit meta and muffled to be the massive deal I've seen it presented as.
Wars have been started for far less. FWIW, I think we'll avoid war. My guess is that Putin's objectives are to be able to claim a victory, rather than to actually win any fighting. But I'm far less sure of this than I'd like to be!
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.
Fab and you must be not just pleased but relieved. My son took 2 years to get a good job after uni. He didn't seem worried but I was. Had a constant low level hum of anxiety about it until he got a break.
Johnson still thinks this is a winning strategy. Unlike many on here, I am still not sure he is wrong. It has Steven Yaxley- Lennon amongst others triggered.
Comments
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1493223086489063426?s=20
.
We are now a 3rd country to France. They have both free trade within the EEA and trade deals with the biggest economies in the world.
We find ourselves as one of their biggest trading markets with no trade deal of any substance. 3rd country arrangements which aren't problematic for small quantities of trade with Uzbekistan are massively problematic for huge quantities of trade with the GB.
They aren't being any more obsequious than usual. Its just that being a 3rd country makes for lots of work which when multiplied with lots of trade means huge backlogs and costs and hassle.
Zelenskiy: "For us, NATO membership is not the absolute goal"
Scholz: Membership "not really at issue" now. "Strange that Russia makes this the subject of major political problems."
https://twitter.com/vonderburchard/status/1493229780153638914?s=20
The problem is “NATO membership” isn’t the issue. Ukrainian democracy is.
H H
H T
T H
T T
It would be even better if Germany got tough on Russian energy dependence and Britain on stolen Russian money.
Not the other way round.
https://twitter.com/radeksikorski/status/1493206088744849418
https://twitter.com/supertanskiii/status/1493211703135322113
I even half remember who was at number 1 that week. It was Depeche something or other…
3rd country tariff on their commodity code is zero and also zero VAT in Ireland on most food. So why is the Dublin customs agent insistent that tariff is payable (and applied on to a similar previous import)?
This isn't their customs being awkward or stupid. This isn't us trying to be outrageously complicated - the UK is a long-standing distribution hub to ROI. This is a system that was designed by our government to not even consider how UK to ROI distribution would function despite it being a big reason why the UK logistics industry is as big as it is...
Young Labour @YoungLabour
UKLabour has too often been on the wrong side of international issues. Young Labour calls on the leadership to stop backing NATO aggression, call wholeheartedly for peace, commit to constructive engagement with activists and deliver international policy around peace and cooperation
This isn't some random group of nutters, they are actually part of the Labour Party (all party members aged 14 to 26). God help us: a choice between Boris and a party with supporters of Vladimir Putin.
The full thread is if anything even worse:
https://twitter.com/YoungLabourUK/status/1493209452698296321
Starmer's not great, but he's not a lunatic. There are still plenty of damned fools on his side, though.
.
From 2015-20, they wouldn't have needed to pass that sort of motion, becuase the partly leadership agreed with them. That the nutters are reduced to passing Young Labour motions is a sign of their weakness, not their strength.
And youth wings of political parties are even less representative of their parties than the paid membership is.
The French are pathologically awkward when it comes to customs - certainly were before we had the single market. And we have demanded that they treat us the same way they treat the small countries with whom they don't have a substantive trade deal. And they are. And people are trying to blame them for it.
We did this, not them.
The whole point in free trade deals is to remove barriers. We have erected them, and wazzocks say "just trade with somewhere else" as if we can replace our local to us EU trade with trade from half the world away. Its the Elphickian refusal to yield to simple things like mathematics, logic and reason that get us hear saying that the nasty French are being Bad.
If we had a substantive trade deal then there would be no blizzard of red tape for the beastly French to mess us about with, would there?
Hey Diddle Diddle, the median's the middle,
You add and divide for the mean,
The mode is the one that you see the most of
and the range is the distance between.
I find this strangely satisfying, as I do any joke or rhyme about maths, no matter how weak.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-premiers-cabinet-1.6350734
Even that won't be the end of it, Jacob Rees-Mogg's Brexit opportunities to come include billions to be wasted on duplicating REACH and CE marks, and having to get and pay for a visa waiver to go on your summer hols in the Med.
Really great this sovereignty malarkey, isn't it?
The late motion being questioned by Mumsnet looks like a classic attempted institutional mugging of the Green Party by trans activists.
The text of the proposed motion is at the link provided. It's quite a nasty motion imo.
The text of the Declaration the motion seeks to caricature and demonise but does not (for some reason
https://womensdeclaration.com/en/declaration-womens-sex-based-rights-summary/
Perhaps more @Cyclefree country, than me.
(I suppose for the dog with the less robust stomach it could in fact come out heads...)
However neither represent the Leader or Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet nor the majority of MPs and they are the ones who are most relevant
The suggestion that there are no issues going to (say) Belgium isn't what the trade says, and remember that however obsequious we may claim French customs officials to be there is a volume issue - lower volume makes for speedier flow. Divert too much traffic into a non-French port and even if their customs guys are slightly less arsey it still gums up.
And thats only export. Import is similarly gummed, and we don't employ french customs people to clear inbound imports into the GB.
However, there has been considerable damage done to the Kremlin and it is expected that Putin will need to bare his teeth to some of the regime factions to try and calm things down. The ongoing disputes between the various contending mafias are not going away and there are now real questions about what the Russian political scene will look like by mid summer. Guesses and rumours about who is in and who out.
Informal sanctions are already causing big trouble and this has been such a scare for NATO that the alliance might even get serious about dealing with Russia across the board. Deciding not to attack a peaceful neighbour is not exactly 10 points to Slytherin and the thuggish diplomacy has been a PR catastrophe, since it has woken up the general public in the West to the vicious and criminal nature of the entire Putin racket.
So, I think that there will be continuing push-back on the regime and amongst other things I dont think the Tories will be able to get so much Russian connected money as they have in the past, though Alex Salmond will probably continue to work for the Russia Today Kremlin propaganda channel and shifty lawyers and bankers can look forward to a continuing pay day, but all of them under increasing disapproval, not to say contempt, from everyone else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgmqdw_I3Hs
https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk
I prefer the Macron one. When supping with the devil, use a long table.
Perhaps he's compensating for something small
The third series of The Great to have a massive table in it, with no man land in the middle and armed skirmishes to steal a couple of yards of it. Second series not nearly as good as the first imo
Have been watching Tom Baker Dr Who on Brit Box. Not seen much Tom Baker before but he is brilliant at it. 👏🏻
Currently watching excellent one where Davros builds the first Daleks.
Tories on here seeking reasons not to vote Labour will find them easily. But they would also have found them easily in 1997 when Blair won his landslide - lots of loony lefties lurked in the shadows of the party back then. Let's face it, there's a whole load of people here and elsewhere who would just never vote Labour because they judge it to be against their (financial) interests to do so. No need to find imaginary excuses, really.
The youth movements of most parties are full of wild extremes. As it happens this one from Young Labour was pretty mild stuff.
Thankfully.
Significcant? I guess it depends how they set up their reps. Is he East Midlands or national?
Personally I think that all those tens of thousands of Ireland-bound lorrys no longer thundering across the country is perhaps a good thing. Except perhaps for Holyhead.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20961650
I am equally thankful that masking anywhere its not specifically mandated seems to be dying out. My view is that the sense of anxiety they engender outweighs any protection they may give.
eg do the Tories only give votes to over-55s
The comments in an interview with the Guardian will do little to calm fears of a major Russian assault on Ukraine, given one of the key scenarios suggested by western intelligence was Russia launching a “false-flag” operation to provide a pretext for invasion.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/14/russian-envoy-warns-of-right-to-counterattack-in-eastern-ukraine
FWIW, I think we'll avoid war. My guess is that Putin's objectives are to be able to claim a victory, rather than to actually win any fighting. But I'm far less sure of this than I'd like to be!
"Analysis: Boris Johnson's latest 'tour' is another carefully managed PR job for the hi vis PM."
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/analysis-boris-johnson-latest-tour-carefully-managed-pr-job-hi-vis-pm_uk_620a1cf5e4b083bd1cc15ed8?utm_campaign=share_twitter&ncid=engmodushpmg00000004