Also, on the indy front, in 1956 Malta voted to become part of the UK with 3 seats in the UK Parliament. Yes won 77-23 but only 60% turnout as the nationalists boycotted so it never went ahead. Thats probably the closest UK related example. The UK wasnt keen on it either as it would have set a precedent they didnt want - i.e. losing control of the Commons to blocs from integrated colonies
That's fascinating. India should have done a reverse takeover.
That was the concern. India had already gone but Nigeria for example had they demanded the same would now have way over half the seats. I think nigeria would have voted to be rid of us anyway of course but the point is there.
Well. Approximately 3 in 10 think Boris is wonderful. You hear them on phone ins. I disagree it is particularly class or region based, though it seems far more prevalent amongst men. Being phenomenally credulous seems to be the thing they have in common.
The Roman theatre of Philippopolis in Plovdiv. Built in the 1st Century AD it is still in use today.
Tonight, they are showing an opera and have sold 4,000 tickets.
If you ever get the chance (if you haven’t already) go and watch the opera at the Verona Arena - it’s an amazing experience watching the opera in a Roman Ampitheatre that’s still in incredibly good nick.
Watched Carmen there one fantastic warm evening there - it’s not just the quality of the opera but the weird sensation of sitting on stairs/seats (I was a backpacking student so wasn’t in the black tie section on the floor) that people watched god knows what 2,000 years ago.
Took a picnic and it was one of the most enjoyable stage experiences I’ve had.
Morning all! With respect to the Brexit making people's lives better / worse and what does it matter now - it matters.
Quite simply comments like "nobody voted to make their daily lives better" are utterly ignorant of what so many red wall voters expected.
So it is a serious problem for the government that things have got worse and not better for many of these voters. Yes Covid and Ukraine etc etc but we are talking voters barely engaged with politics. They don't know or care about such details.
Brexit has failed because the NHS has got worse and prices have gone up and wages haven't. It's that simple. That we can't rejoin any time soon doesn't matter, people won't forget about it and move on. What they will do is hold their new Tory MPs to account...
Brexit is pretty special in that it hasn’t yet realised any benefit promised or otherwise. The rewriting of history to say that Brexit was never intended to yield benefits doesn’t really wash.
That simply isn't true.
We have a more sustainable agricultural and marine conservation policy now, public concern about immigration has a major issue has been killed off, we had a much better Covid vaccine programme, we've been able to adopt a more agile and flexible foreign policy on Ukraine with a firmer line, we've avoided any further drives to political union from Juncker or Von Der Leyen, or directives from Brussels that might target the City.
Personally, I take it as a huge relief that I don't have to worry about what nonsense comes out of the mouths of the EU Commission, or the integrationist political agenda for the European Council every 6 months, because it doesn't affect me anymore.
Agriculture is a mess. Immigration is not settled. The Poles and other Eastern European countries would argue they’ve shown robust support for Ukraine within the EU. UK Vaccine policy could have happened inside the EU There has been no further political union.
But I’m glad you feel better.
Agriculture is not a mess. Public concern about immigration has fallen drastically. We were able to put in place sanctions much earlier and adopt a robust line that influenced the EU in conjunction with Poland within. No it couldn't, this is pure "in theory" stuff whereas in political practice we'd absolutely have signed up to the same EU scheme Yes, us leaving has given them reason to pause (not in all areas, I hasten to add) and it would have continued had we stayed.
You need to get over your simplistic Brexit obsession and ridiculous partisanship.
Is that the best you have? Good grief, it's worse than I thought.
Remainers have never been able to answer the simplest questions despite maintaining frequently that we retained sovereignty while we were in the EU.
Like: If the UK is a democratic sovereign nation within the EU describe (omitting all whataboutery) by what process, involving only voting and democratic and democratically elected parliamentary processes the people of the UK could effect a change in how EU rules on FoM or VAT worked in the UK, or repeal any part of EU legislation insofar as it touches the interests of the UK.
Ooh me sir me sir pick me sir please.
Ans: because the UK voted to join the club and the club has rules. Like if I wanted to go to the Royal Meeting at Ascot in the Royal Enclosure and tried to wear jeans and a t-shirt when the requirement is for formal dress. I can unilaterally decide that I will accept those rules or not. As regards the EU it was the latter.
All the actions of a perfectly "democratic sovereign nation".
Your welcome.
The infantile nature of the response reveals that there is, of course, no sensible answer to @algakirk’s question that does not admit his point
The EU is horribly and painfully undemocratic, it was designed that way. You can accept that this corrosion of our democracy is worth it in return for the benefits - single market, free movement, etc - but you cannot deny it, as many Remainers once tried to do
@algakirk’s question FPT is a reasonable one. But if I can briefly indulge in some forbidden whataboutery, let's take NATO. As a NATO member our obligation to go to war on behalf of other members is absolute; there is zero democratic accountability about it. By contrast the EU doesn't make such absolute demands on its members and it does have a degree of democratic accountability, albeit constrained by member state governments. So why are we in NATO?
So maybe the perceived benefit of NATO is greater than that of the EU. But this is an opinion, not a principle.
The point is, you enter into international alliances to obtain benefits that aren't otherwise available and in doing so you submit yourself to the collective decision. The principle is the same whether it's EU, NATO or another treaty.
This isn't a hypothetical point. While people voted Brexit "to take control", they actually voted to have less of the things they presumably want - prosperity, trade, freedoms, good relations with neighbours, influence etc. And what do we do if we decide at some point we want some of those benefits back again? The Brexit problem lies there
Yes, two points to team FF43 in the endless debate. Why did the people of Britain ignore such impeccable logic and vote to Leave?
Putting to one side a whole bunch of mundane reasons - being lied to, dissatisfaction following austerity, etc - the fundamental reasons were that there was a feeling that Europe was something that was being done to people, and they weren't involved in it, and this was only reinforced by the basic message from Remain being, "to Leave would be such an economic calamity that we have no choice but to Remain," which hardly does much to foster a sense of consent.
Remainers/Rejoiners clearly still don't understand this because the tenor of their argument is unchanged. It's still the same argument that Britain is unable to survive on its own. Regardless of what economic stats you can point to in support of this case it is a losing argument, because it only conceives of Britain rejoining the EU reluctantly as a weak supplicant.
I believe that any future Union between Britain and the EU can only be successful if Britain decides to seek such a Union from a position of self-confidence and optimism. This is sadly completely lacking from everything I see from Rejoiners.
Boris Johnson is a metastasing tumour to the Conservative Party and the only solution to save the patient is radical radiotherapy.
Funnily enough, my Dad and I agreed lunchtime the best description is that he is a cancer on the Tory party and they need to act preferably with the aid of time travel. Pa Woolie has already written them off for next times vote. Possible he will vote Labour reading his runes but he wouldnt admit that to me knowing how 'fond' i am of them. He does have the luxury of not being in Clive Lewis' fiefdom though.
I thought you voted for Lewis yourself in '17. Sure I remember that revelation. To be fair, I think he would be a great option for Labour leader and I say that as a habitual Lib Dem voter.
Hmmmm dont remind me. I had a bit of a weird year in 2017. I tend to pretend it didnt exist. I made a lot of very weird life choices and that carried over into the election. Having said that, my engagement was falling apart and i think my vote was partly sabotage as she was a headbanging blue. My 'memories' pages on facebook from 2016 and 2017 are complete cringe/clusterfuck. So when i say ive never voted Labour we all have to pretend 2017 didnt happen and say yes Woolie youre a die hard Labour hater who would never vote for them and everyone respects your unwavering conviction. TM really annoyed me calling that election!
To be fair I've voted in every GE since 87 and 2017 is the only time I voted Labour. I've always lived in rural seats though. Harrogate, Perth and North Perthshire, Norfolk North, Ludlow.......
Posted this to @Cookie on the old thread, re wokeness and schools.
On the transgender thing, which is where my woke tendencies kind of start to reach their limits, I think it is a generational thing. I really don't think it is coming from the schools, they are simply trying to accommodate the choices that teenagers are making around their identity. What is the alternative? That they start insisting that kids conform to their biological sex? That would invite a whole load of trouble from the kids' parents, and would risk pushing kids out of school, ruining their education. And if they accommodate these kids, as I think they have to, then they need to make sure there is no bullying. And so they have to communicate a message of acceptance clearly to all the kids in the school. I probably come from a place of being rather suspicious of it all, especially the sudden huge increase in numbers. There really are a lot of kids in my daughter's cohort who are going down that route. We have been schooled by my daughter in terms of our attitudes. I don't honestly know if it is a good thing or a bad thing. But like I say, the schools are simply responding to changing attitudes, I really, like 100%, don't believe they are the motive force here at all. I should add, this is a very difficult environment for schools, they are doing a very good job navigating it and that's why I get really fucking furious when they are the victims of ill informed hatchet jobs from politically motivated hacks who simply want to open a new front in their tedious culture wars.
I think society/electors/medical practitioners/politicians need to pause and reflect and slow or resist the social changes being pushed through on the Trans issue. I admit to doubts but the apparent sudden upsurge in Trans identity among teenagers looks more like a social psychology phenomena than the revealing of what was already there but repressed by social norms. In other words, what would have been called hysteria amplified by social media. Some is probably the result of residual anti-gay prejudice. Transitioning fully involves profound, irreversible and risky medical procedures. Why should scientifically based research and evaluation of medical interventions be abandoned in the face of ideological fervour? I doubt there is one cause but rather several different conditions. The new dogma of gender identities is incoherent and not a sound basis for medical practice or legislation.
Well. Approximately 3 in 10 think Boris is wonderful. You hear them on phone ins. I disagree it is particularly class or region based, though it seems far more prevalent amongst men. Being phenomenally credulous seems to be the thing they have in common.
Yep, this is very true. I mean you can see it in the polling, something is keeping them treading water at low 30s
Conservatism is in an ideological trough globally, as it’s allowed itself to be nothing more than a platform for culture-war-mongering behind which rapacious rentiers, monopolists and unearned privilege can hide.
More the natural pendulum, it dominated most of the last decade
On the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.
Now it’s even given up that.
As you’ve often suggested yourself, there’s nothing left now except a fetishistic, bordering on malevolent, desire to protect wealth - esp. the unearned kind.
Johnson and Morrison in 2019, Trump in 2016, even Merkel in 2013 and 2017, did not win on 'the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.'
Plus on current polls for the Spanish and Italian elections next year the right is ahead in both nations, on a populist platform in the latter particularly
I was working with a woman today who was eulogising Johnson. A young (circa 30) blueish white collar type West Midlander.
I agree with you that for some bizarre reason Johnson personally holds sway over RedWall voters. They love him irrespective of what the polls say. The question in, by holding on to them is he sacrificing the Blue Wall?
Did you ask her what on earth the attraction is?
I suspect it is anti-puritanism. Thing is, the more you follow Johnson in detail the less you like him.
Conservatism is in an ideological trough globally, as it’s allowed itself to be nothing more than a platform for culture-war-mongering behind which rapacious rentiers, monopolists and unearned privilege can hide.
More the natural pendulum, it dominated most of the last decade
On the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.
Now it’s even given up that.
As you’ve often suggested yourself, there’s nothing left now except a fetishistic, bordering on malevolent, desire to protect wealth - esp. the unearned kind.
Johnson and Morrison in 2019, Trump in 2016, even Merkel in 2013 and 2017, did not win on 'the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.'
Plus on current polls for the Spanish and Italian elections next year the right is ahead in both nations, on a populist platform in the latter particularly
I was working with a woman today who was eulogising Johnson. A young (circa 30) blueish white collar type West Midlander.
I agree with you that for some bizarre reason Johnson personally holds sway over RedWall voters. They love him irrespective of what the polls say. The question in, by holding on to them is he sacrificing the Blue Wall?
Did you ask her what on earth the attraction is?
I suspect it is anti-puritanism. Thing is, the more you follow Johnson in detail the less you like him.
There is summat in that I concur. The innate Cavalier in me finds him more appealing than most Tories.
Morning all! With respect to the Brexit making people's lives better / worse and what does it matter now - it matters.
Quite simply comments like "nobody voted to make their daily lives better" are utterly ignorant of what so many red wall voters expected.
So it is a serious problem for the government that things have got worse and not better for many of these voters. Yes Covid and Ukraine etc etc but we are talking voters barely engaged with politics. They don't know or care about such details.
Brexit has failed because the NHS has got worse and prices have gone up and wages haven't. It's that simple. That we can't rejoin any time soon doesn't matter, people won't forget about it and move on. What they will do is hold their new Tory MPs to account...
Brexit is pretty special in that it hasn’t yet realised any benefit promised or otherwise. The rewriting of history to say that Brexit was never intended to yield benefits doesn’t really wash.
That simply isn't true.
We have a more sustainable agricultural and marine conservation policy now, public concern about immigration has a major issue has been killed off, we had a much better Covid vaccine programme, we've been able to adopt a more agile and flexible foreign policy on Ukraine with a firmer line, we've avoided any further drives to political union from Juncker or Von Der Leyen, or directives from Brussels that might target the City.
Personally, I take it as a huge relief that I don't have to worry about what nonsense comes out of the mouths of the EU Commission, or the integrationist political agenda for the European Council every 6 months, because it doesn't affect me anymore.
Agriculture is a mess. Immigration is not settled. The Poles and other Eastern European countries would argue they’ve shown robust support for Ukraine within the EU. UK Vaccine policy could have happened inside the EU There has been no further political union.
But I’m glad you feel better.
Agriculture is not a mess. Public concern about immigration has fallen drastically. We were able to put in place sanctions much earlier and adopt a robust line that influenced the EU in conjunction with Poland within. No it couldn't, this is pure "in theory" stuff whereas in political practice we'd absolutely have signed up to the same EU scheme Yes, us leaving has given them reason to pause (not in all areas, I hasten to add) and it would have continued had we stayed.
You need to get over your simplistic Brexit obsession and ridiculous partisanship.
Is that the best you have? Good grief, it's worse than I thought.
Remainers have never been able to answer the simplest questions despite maintaining frequently that we retained sovereignty while we were in the EU.
Like: If the UK is a democratic sovereign nation within the EU describe (omitting all whataboutery) by what process, involving only voting and democratic and democratically elected parliamentary processes the people of the UK could effect a change in how EU rules on FoM or VAT worked in the UK, or repeal any part of EU legislation insofar as it touches the interests of the UK.
Ooh me sir me sir pick me sir please.
Ans: because the UK voted to join the club and the club has rules. Like if I wanted to go to the Royal Meeting at Ascot in the Royal Enclosure and tried to wear jeans and a t-shirt when the requirement is for formal dress. I can unilaterally decide that I will accept those rules or not. As regards the EU it was the latter.
All the actions of a perfectly "democratic sovereign nation".
Your welcome.
The infantile nature of the response reveals that there is, of course, no sensible answer to @algakirk’s question that does not admit his point
The EU is horribly and painfully undemocratic, it was designed that way. You can accept that this corrosion of our democracy is worth it in return for the benefits - single market, free movement, etc - but you cannot deny it, as many Remainers once tried to do
@algakirk’s question FPT is a reasonable one. But if I can briefly indulge in some forbidden whataboutery, let's take NATO. As a NATO member our obligation to go to war on behalf of other members is absolute; there is zero democratic accountability about it. By contrast the EU doesn't make such absolute demands on its members and it does have a degree of democratic accountability, albeit constrained by member state governments. So why are we in NATO?
So maybe the perceived benefit of NATO is greater than that of the EU. But this is an opinion, not a principle.
The point is, you enter into international alliances to obtain benefits that aren't otherwise available and in doing so you submit yourself to the collective decision. The principle is the same whether it's EU, NATO or another treaty.
This isn't a hypothetical point. While people voted Brexit "to take control", they actually voted to have less of the things they presumably want - prosperity, trade, freedoms, good relations with neighbours, influence etc. And what do we do if we decide at some point we want some of those benefits back again? The Brexit problem lies there
Except this is totally false. NATO doesn't require us to go to war, and it doesn't remove our sovereignty. The EU could unilaterally without UK agreement change the law within Britain and enforce that via court action, that is not the case with NATO, and there is no NATO court AFAIK that can legally compel us to act.
NATO is a promise to co-operate and a principle that an attack on one is an attack on all, and that's about it. Nothing in Article 5 says that we must go to war in response. It very deliberately does not say what you are claiming it says.
Article 5 instead says that if it is invoked each NATO member must take whatever actions it deems appropriate, to assist restore security. It is thus still the sovereign responsibility of the UK to determine what those actions are. We are not compelled by NATO to take actions we don't wish to take.
This is even literally explained on NATO's very own website, so the fact that you have either misrepresented or misunderstood NATO merely reflects your own misunderstanding and not that Leavers are somehow inconsistent.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm The principle of providing assistance With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances.
This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.
At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.
Posted this to @Cookie on the old thread, re wokeness and schools.
On the transgender thing, which is where my woke tendencies kind of start to reach their limits, I think it is a generational thing. I really don't think it is coming from the schools, they are simply trying to accommodate the choices that teenagers are making around their identity. What is the alternative? That they start insisting that kids conform to their biological sex? That would invite a whole load of trouble from the kids' parents, and would risk pushing kids out of school, ruining their education. And if they accommodate these kids, as I think they have to, then they need to make sure there is no bullying. And so they have to communicate a message of acceptance clearly to all the kids in the school. I probably come from a place of being rather suspicious of it all, especially the sudden huge increase in numbers. There really are a lot of kids in my daughter's cohort who are going down that route. We have been schooled by my daughter in terms of our attitudes. I don't honestly know if it is a good thing or a bad thing. But like I say, the schools are simply responding to changing attitudes, I really, like 100%, don't believe they are the motive force here at all. I should add, this is a very difficult environment for schools, they are doing a very good job navigating it and that's why I get really fucking furious when they are the victims of ill informed hatchet jobs from politically motivated hacks who simply want to open a new front in their tedious culture wars.
As a parent of a trans kid who went through school around a decade back, all I can say is that whatever its faults, the current dispensation is an improvement on what prevailed back then.
Boris Johnson is a metastasing tumour to the Conservative Party and the only solution to save the patient is radical radiotherapy.
Funnily enough, my Dad and I agreed lunchtime the best description is that he is a cancer on the Tory party and they need to act preferably with the aid of time travel. Pa Woolie has already written them off for next times vote. Possible he will vote Labour reading his runes but he wouldnt admit that to me knowing how 'fond' i am of them. He does have the luxury of not being in Clive Lewis' fiefdom though.
I thought you voted for Lewis yourself in '17. Sure I remember that revelation. To be fair, I think he would be a great option for Labour leader and I say that as a habitual Lib Dem voter.
Hmmmm dont remind me. I had a bit of a weird year in 2017. I tend to pretend it didnt exist. I made a lot of very weird life choices and that carried over into the election. Having said that, my engagement was falling apart and i think my vote was partly sabotage as she was a headbanging blue. My 'memories' pages on facebook from 2016 and 2017 are complete cringe/clusterfuck. So when i say ive never voted Labour we all have to pretend 2017 didnt happen and say yes Woolie youre a die hard Labour hater who would never vote for them and everyone respects your unwavering conviction. TM really annoyed me calling that election!
To be fair I've voted in every GE since 87 and 2017 is the only time I voted Labour. I've always lived in rural seats though. Harrogate, Perth and North Perthshire, Norfolk North, Ludlow.......
92 was my first, Southampton Itchen, then Norfolk South, Witham, Mid Norfolk x2, Broadland, Norwich South x2
The Roman theatre of Philippopolis in Plovdiv. Built in the 1st Century AD it is still in use today.
Tonight, they are showing an opera and have sold 4,000 tickets.
If you ever get the chance (if you haven’t already) go and watch the opera at the Verona Arena - it’s an amazing experience watching the opera in a Roman Ampitheatre that’s still in incredibly good nick.
Watched Carmen there one fantastic warm evening there - it’s not just the quality of the opera but the weird sensation of sitting on stairs/seats (I was a backpacking student so wasn’t in the black tie section on the floor) that people watched god knows what 2,000 years ago.
Took a picnic and it was one of the most enjoyable stage experiences I’ve had.
Plovdiv place is pure kitsch, there was virtually nothing there before the "reconstruction" of the 1960s. That multi storey shit was never going to last millennia in an earthquake zone
Morning all! With respect to the Brexit making people's lives better / worse and what does it matter now - it matters.
Quite simply comments like "nobody voted to make their daily lives better" are utterly ignorant of what so many red wall voters expected.
So it is a serious problem for the government that things have got worse and not better for many of these voters. Yes Covid and Ukraine etc etc but we are talking voters barely engaged with politics. They don't know or care about such details.
Brexit has failed because the NHS has got worse and prices have gone up and wages haven't. It's that simple. That we can't rejoin any time soon doesn't matter, people won't forget about it and move on. What they will do is hold their new Tory MPs to account...
Brexit is pretty special in that it hasn’t yet realised any benefit promised or otherwise. The rewriting of history to say that Brexit was never intended to yield benefits doesn’t really wash.
That simply isn't true.
We have a more sustainable agricultural and marine conservation policy now, public concern about immigration has a major issue has been killed off, we had a much better Covid vaccine programme, we've been able to adopt a more agile and flexible foreign policy on Ukraine with a firmer line, we've avoided any further drives to political union from Juncker or Von Der Leyen, or directives from Brussels that might target the City.
Personally, I take it as a huge relief that I don't have to worry about what nonsense comes out of the mouths of the EU Commission, or the integrationist political agenda for the European Council every 6 months, because it doesn't affect me anymore.
Agriculture is a mess. Immigration is not settled. The Poles and other Eastern European countries would argue they’ve shown robust support for Ukraine within the EU. UK Vaccine policy could have happened inside the EU There has been no further political union.
But I’m glad you feel better.
Agriculture is not a mess. Public concern about immigration has fallen drastically. We were able to put in place sanctions much earlier and adopt a robust line that influenced the EU in conjunction with Poland within. No it couldn't, this is pure "in theory" stuff whereas in political practice we'd absolutely have signed up to the same EU scheme Yes, us leaving has given them reason to pause (not in all areas, I hasten to add) and it would have continued had we stayed.
You need to get over your simplistic Brexit obsession and ridiculous partisanship.
Is that the best you have? Good grief, it's worse than I thought.
Remainers have never been able to answer the simplest questions despite maintaining frequently that we retained sovereignty while we were in the EU.
Like: If the UK is a democratic sovereign nation within the EU describe (omitting all whataboutery) by what process, involving only voting and democratic and democratically elected parliamentary processes the people of the UK could effect a change in how EU rules on FoM or VAT worked in the UK, or repeal any part of EU legislation insofar as it touches the interests of the UK.
Ooh me sir me sir pick me sir please.
Ans: because the UK voted to join the club and the club has rules. Like if I wanted to go to the Royal Meeting at Ascot in the Royal Enclosure and tried to wear jeans and a t-shirt when the requirement is for formal dress. I can unilaterally decide that I will accept those rules or not. As regards the EU it was the latter.
All the actions of a perfectly "democratic sovereign nation".
Your welcome.
The infantile nature of the response reveals that there is, of course, no sensible answer to @algakirk’s question that does not admit his point
The EU is horribly and painfully undemocratic, it was designed that way. You can accept that this corrosion of our democracy is worth it in return for the benefits - single market, free movement, etc - but you cannot deny it, as many Remainers once tried to do
@algakirk’s question FPT is a reasonable one. But if I can briefly indulge in some forbidden whataboutery, let's take NATO. As a NATO member our obligation to go to war on behalf of other members is absolute; there is zero democratic accountability about it. By contrast the EU doesn't make such absolute demands on its members and it does have a degree of democratic accountability, albeit constrained by member state governments. So why are we in NATO?
So maybe the perceived benefit of NATO is greater than that of the EU. But this is an opinion, not a principle.
The point is, you enter into international alliances to obtain benefits that aren't otherwise available and in doing so you submit yourself to the collective decision. The principle is the same whether it's EU, NATO or another treaty.
This isn't a hypothetical point. While people voted Brexit "to take control", they actually voted to have less of the things they presumably want - prosperity, trade, freedoms, good relations with neighbours, influence etc. And what do we do if we decide at some point we want some of those benefits back again? The Brexit problem lies there
Yes, two points to team FF43 in the endless debate. Why did the people of Britain ignore such impeccable logic and vote to Leave?
Putting to one side a whole bunch of mundane reasons - being lied to, dissatisfaction following austerity, etc - the fundamental reasons were that there was a feeling that Europe was something that was being done to people, and they weren't involved in it, and this was only reinforced by the basic message from Remain being, "to Leave would be such an economic calamity that we have no choice but to Remain," which hardly does much to foster a sense of consent.
Remainers/Rejoiners clearly still don't understand this because the tenor of their argument is unchanged. It's still the same argument that Britain is unable to survive on its own. Regardless of what economic stats you can point to in support of this case it is a losing argument, because it only conceives of Britain rejoining the EU reluctantly as a weak supplicant.
I believe that any future Union between Britain and the EU can only be successful if Britain decides to seek such a Union from a position of self-confidence and optimism. This is sadly completely lacking from everything I see from Rejoiners.
I am simply challenging the premise of @algarkirk's question that the UK's multilateral engagements have to be (or indeed ever are) subject to direct democratic control. If there ever will be a deeper engagement with our European neighbours we will hit this issue again. If you want the collective benefits you submit to the collective will, and actually it's OK.
Not true. In general agreements to co-operate are precisely that, agreements to co-operate but no compulsion to "submit" to anyone else's collective will.
NATO explicitly rules out nations being compelled to "submit" to collective wills, it leaves each nations response to be determined by each nation, in full accordance with national sovereignty. If Article 5 is invoked and the British Parliament were to determine that the best way to respond to that would be to issue a stern press statement and do nothing further, that would be disreputable but still in accordance with our Article 5 obligations, legally. There is no legal obligation, and NATO explain this themselves, to provide military assistance and no external collective will to submit to.
Your very embrace of the word "submit" reveals a mindset that I dislike. We should never have to "submit" to anything. If co-operation is desired, then that co-operation should be done because we've agreed to it, not because we've "submitted" to it.
Blooming heck! Who will rid us of this turbulent virus?
The vaccines did. Over a year ago now.
Now its just a bad joke that most people are quite rightly bored with already.
I went shopping earlier today, didn't see a single person wearing a mask. The doom-mongers who wish to turn back the clock two years to pre-vaccine ages are fighting a lost battle now, good riddance to them. Let them continue bashing their heads into a brick wall if they want, until it starts to bleed - they're not getting through to rational people who've moved on.
Well. Approximately 3 in 10 think Boris is wonderful. You hear them on phone ins. I disagree it is particularly class or region based, though it seems far more prevalent amongst men. Being phenomenally credulous seems to be the thing they have in common.
Yep, this is very true. I mean you can see it in the polling, something is keeping them treading water at low 30s
That's mainly dislike or fear of Labour I would guess.
Blooming heck! Who will rid us of this turbulent virus?
The vaccines did. Over a year ago now.
Now its just a bad joke that most people are quite rightly bored with already.
I went shopping earlier today, didn't see a single person wearing a mask. The doom-mongers who wish to turn back the clock two years to pre-vaccine ages are fighting a lost battle now, good riddance to them. Let them continue bashing their heads into a brick wall if they want, until it starts to bleed - they're not getting through to rational people who've moved on.
There are some for sure, but most are calling for better ventilation and air filtration, not lockdowns and mandated masking.
One thing, which L can perhaps confirm, is that Montenegrins have tendency toward tallness.
They are tall. And generally slender (almost no obesity in the young here). They are also very good looking, a fact noted by Rebecca West back in the 1930s and still true now. They benefit from some perfect storm of angular Slavic genes, an agreeable climate making for an active lifestyle (everyone swimming or hiking year round), a simple but wholesome peasant diet, lots of greens and fish
If you plucked out 100 random Montenegrin girls aged 18-25 more than half would be notably or strikingly pretty, is my guess. Perhaps a world record. The young men are likewise tall rangy and handsome
The Croatians are similarly beautiful but they have a surliness, in my experience, That moody Slav thing. The Montenegrins don’t appear to have that at all, dunno why. They are more like Russians in their warm generosity
Here ends my outrageous list of ridiculous generalisations
Could be that the Montenegins have always thought of themselves as a free people, never - or at least seldom - under the rule of any outside power. Not so with the Croats.
One sign of Croat subjugation (maybe) is that the invented (or popularized) the necktie = cravat.
Yes that could be it. Never entirely subjugated by Jonny Turk. Proudly free always. So no lingering resentment like you get with some Irish or the foul and churlish Scot
Blooming heck! Who will rid us of this turbulent virus?
Yes, not very well timed. My departmental outbreak seems to have sprung from a face to face postgraduate meeting last Friday, which fortunately I didn't go to as covering clinical stuff.
I am going to the departmental summer party for our departing juniors tommorow. Sounds like a super-spreading event...
Boris Johnson is a metastasing tumour to the Conservative Party and the only solution to save the patient is radical radiotherapy.
Funnily enough, my Dad and I agreed lunchtime the best description is that he is a cancer on the Tory party and they need to act preferably with the aid of time travel. Pa Woolie has already written them off for next times vote. Possible he will vote Labour reading his runes but he wouldnt admit that to me knowing how 'fond' i am of them. He does have the luxury of not being in Clive Lewis' fiefdom though.
I thought you voted for Lewis yourself in '17. Sure I remember that revelation. To be fair, I think he would be a great option for Labour leader and I say that as a habitual Lib Dem voter.
Hmmmm dont remind me. I had a bit of a weird year in 2017. I tend to pretend it didnt exist. I made a lot of very weird life choices and that carried over into the election. Having said that, my engagement was falling apart and i think my vote was partly sabotage as she was a headbanging blue. My 'memories' pages on facebook from 2016 and 2017 are complete cringe/clusterfuck. So when i say ive never voted Labour we all have to pretend 2017 didnt happen and say yes Woolie youre a die hard Labour hater who would never vote for them and everyone respects your unwavering conviction. TM really annoyed me calling that election!
To be fair I've voted in every GE since 87 and 2017 is the only time I voted Labour. I've always lived in rural seats though. Harrogate, Perth and North Perthshire, Norfolk North, Ludlow.......
92 was my first, Southampton Itchen, then Norfolk South, Witham, Mid Norfolk x2, Broadland, Norwich South x2
Southhampton Itchen - how does that compare with the dread Cairo (or Kabul) Itch?
Boris Johnson is a metastasing tumour to the Conservative Party and the only solution to save the patient is radical radiotherapy.
Funnily enough, my Dad and I agreed lunchtime the best description is that he is a cancer on the Tory party and they need to act preferably with the aid of time travel. Pa Woolie has already written them off for next times vote. Possible he will vote Labour reading his runes but he wouldnt admit that to me knowing how 'fond' i am of them. He does have the luxury of not being in Clive Lewis' fiefdom though.
I thought you voted for Lewis yourself in '17. Sure I remember that revelation. To be fair, I think he would be a great option for Labour leader and I say that as a habitual Lib Dem voter.
Hmmmm dont remind me. I had a bit of a weird year in 2017. I tend to pretend it didnt exist. I made a lot of very weird life choices and that carried over into the election. Having said that, my engagement was falling apart and i think my vote was partly sabotage as she was a headbanging blue. My 'memories' pages on facebook from 2016 and 2017 are complete cringe/clusterfuck. So when i say ive never voted Labour we all have to pretend 2017 didnt happen and say yes Woolie youre a die hard Labour hater who would never vote for them and everyone respects your unwavering conviction. TM really annoyed me calling that election!
To be fair I've voted in every GE since 87 and 2017 is the only time I voted Labour. I've always lived in rural seats though. Harrogate, Perth and North Perthshire, Norfolk North, Ludlow.......
92 was my first, Southampton Itchen, then Norfolk South, Witham, Mid Norfolk x2, Broadland, Norwich South x2
Southhampton Itchen - how does that compare with the dread Cairo (or Kabul) Itch?
The Scottish Parliament who passed the Act was not a democratic one?
No, unless you think representatives elected by a fraction of 1% of the population is democratic. Some echoes from today's democracy, mind.
'Professor Sir Tom Devine agreed that promises of "favours, sinecures, pensions, offices and straightforward cash bribes became indispensable to secure government majorities"'
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
It happened because Scotland was bust and required English money to bail them out.
Morning all! With respect to the Brexit making people's lives better / worse and what does it matter now - it matters.
Quite simply comments like "nobody voted to make their daily lives better" are utterly ignorant of what so many red wall voters expected.
So it is a serious problem for the government that things have got worse and not better for many of these voters. Yes Covid and Ukraine etc etc but we are talking voters barely engaged with politics. They don't know or care about such details.
Brexit has failed because the NHS has got worse and prices have gone up and wages haven't. It's that simple. That we can't rejoin any time soon doesn't matter, people won't forget about it and move on. What they will do is hold their new Tory MPs to account...
Brexit is pretty special in that it hasn’t yet realised any benefit promised or otherwise. The rewriting of history to say that Brexit was never intended to yield benefits doesn’t really wash.
That simply isn't true.
We have a more sustainable agricultural and marine conservation policy now, public concern about immigration has a major issue has been killed off, we had a much better Covid vaccine programme, we've been able to adopt a more agile and flexible foreign policy on Ukraine with a firmer line, we've avoided any further drives to political union from Juncker or Von Der Leyen, or directives from Brussels that might target the City.
Personally, I take it as a huge relief that I don't have to worry about what nonsense comes out of the mouths of the EU Commission, or the integrationist political agenda for the European Council every 6 months, because it doesn't affect me anymore.
Agriculture is a mess. Immigration is not settled. The Poles and other Eastern European countries would argue they’ve shown robust support for Ukraine within the EU. UK Vaccine policy could have happened inside the EU There has been no further political union.
But I’m glad you feel better.
Agriculture is not a mess. Public concern about immigration has fallen drastically. We were able to put in place sanctions much earlier and adopt a robust line that influenced the EU in conjunction with Poland within. No it couldn't, this is pure "in theory" stuff whereas in political practice we'd absolutely have signed up to the same EU scheme Yes, us leaving has given them reason to pause (not in all areas, I hasten to add) and it would have continued had we stayed.
You need to get over your simplistic Brexit obsession and ridiculous partisanship.
Is that the best you have? Good grief, it's worse than I thought.
Remainers have never been able to answer the simplest questions despite maintaining frequently that we retained sovereignty while we were in the EU.
Like: If the UK is a democratic sovereign nation within the EU describe (omitting all whataboutery) by what process, involving only voting and democratic and democratically elected parliamentary processes the people of the UK could effect a change in how EU rules on FoM or VAT worked in the UK, or repeal any part of EU legislation insofar as it touches the interests of the UK.
Ooh me sir me sir pick me sir please.
Ans: because the UK voted to join the club and the club has rules. Like if I wanted to go to the Royal Meeting at Ascot in the Royal Enclosure and tried to wear jeans and a t-shirt when the requirement is for formal dress. I can unilaterally decide that I will accept those rules or not. As regards the EU it was the latter.
All the actions of a perfectly "democratic sovereign nation".
Your welcome.
The infantile nature of the response reveals that there is, of course, no sensible answer to @algakirk’s question that does not admit his point
The EU is horribly and painfully undemocratic, it was designed that way. You can accept that this corrosion of our democracy is worth it in return for the benefits - single market, free movement, etc - but you cannot deny it, as many Remainers once tried to do
@algakirk’s question FPT is a reasonable one. But if I can briefly indulge in some forbidden whataboutery, let's take NATO. As a NATO member our obligation to go to war on behalf of other members is absolute; there is zero democratic accountability about it. By contrast the EU doesn't make such absolute demands on its members and it does have a degree of democratic accountability, albeit constrained by member state governments. So why are we in NATO?
So maybe the perceived benefit of NATO is greater than that of the EU. But this is an opinion, not a principle.
The point is, you enter into international alliances to obtain benefits that aren't otherwise available and in doing so you submit yourself to the collective decision. The principle is the same whether it's EU, NATO or another treaty.
This isn't a hypothetical point. While people voted Brexit "to take control", they actually voted to have less of the things they presumably want - prosperity, trade, freedoms, good relations with neighbours, influence etc. And what do we do if we decide at some point we want some of those benefits back again? The Brexit problem lies there
Yes, two points to team FF43 in the endless debate. Why did the people of Britain ignore such impeccable logic and vote to Leave?
Putting to one side a whole bunch of mundane reasons - being lied to, dissatisfaction following austerity, etc - the fundamental reasons were that there was a feeling that Europe was something that was being done to people, and they weren't involved in it, and this was only reinforced by the basic message from Remain being, "to Leave would be such an economic calamity that we have no choice but to Remain," which hardly does much to foster a sense of consent.
Remainers/Rejoiners clearly still don't understand this because the tenor of their argument is unchanged. It's still the same argument that Britain is unable to survive on its own. Regardless of what economic stats you can point to in support of this case it is a losing argument, because it only conceives of Britain rejoining the EU reluctantly as a weak supplicant.
I believe that any future Union between Britain and the EU can only be successful if Britain decides to seek such a Union from a position of self-confidence and optimism. This is sadly completely lacking from everything I see from Rejoiners.
A binary decision over the future course of the country is different to selling people something and people are apt to make simple choices. And the the simpler the person the more simple the choice they're likely to make.
The Brexit side managed to neutralise the financial arguments because they weren't well argued which left the visceral ones. In the end dislike of foreigners turned out to trump everything and no one could see it coming.
I saw it about two weeks before the vote during a vox pop. Nearly everyone questioned had distilled it down to immigration one way or another. Less foreigners equals less waiting times. Fewer foreigners means less competition for jobs so more money. No payments to the EU meant more money spent at home. Really simple stuff but they'd bought it.
Then there was the simple prejudice like the Turkey scare. Strangely Farage was the only one who seemed to latch onto this and though crude it was very effective. Probably the two or three percent difference between winning and losing. A horrible 'Leave' broadcast aimed directly at racists and a tasteless poster where the EU were shown as Syrian refugees
Blooming heck! Who will rid us of this turbulent virus?
The vaccines did. Over a year ago now.
Now its just a bad joke that most people are quite rightly bored with already.
I went shopping earlier today, didn't see a single person wearing a mask. The doom-mongers who wish to turn back the clock two years to pre-vaccine ages are fighting a lost battle now, good riddance to them. Let them continue bashing their heads into a brick wall if they want, until it starts to bleed - they're not getting through to rational people who've moved on.
I've just spent an hour in A&E (not for me, I was a taxi service). Everyone I saw inside bar one person were wearing masks.
Conservatism is in an ideological trough globally, as it’s allowed itself to be nothing more than a platform for culture-war-mongering behind which rapacious rentiers, monopolists and unearned privilege can hide.
More the natural pendulum, it dominated most of the last decade
On the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.
Now it’s even given up that.
As you’ve often suggested yourself, there’s nothing left now except a fetishistic, bordering on malevolent, desire to protect wealth - esp. the unearned kind.
Johnson and Morrison in 2019, Trump in 2016, even Merkel in 2013 and 2017, did not win on 'the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.'
Plus on current polls for the Spanish and Italian elections next year the right is ahead in both nations, on a populist platform in the latter particularly
I was working with a woman today who was eulogising Johnson. A young (circa 30) blueish white collar type West Midlander.
I agree with you that for some bizarre reason Johnson personally holds sway over RedWall voters. They love him irrespective of what the polls say. The question in, by holding on to them is he sacrificing the Blue Wall?
Did you ask her what on earth the attraction is?
I suspect it is anti-puritanism. Thing is, the more you follow Johnson in detail the less you like him.
It's that while he maybe a rogue and a fraud, he's was their rogue and fraud who would stick it to the right people and maybe shake up a sclerotic Westminster by doing so. Thing is. It's become increasingly clear that the only person's side he's on is his own. That's why partygate and other assorted dodginess and the attempt to kid people was so damaging. It perfectly captured the idea that it's not just that he's a bit of a political rogue whose moral faults came with being a maverick serving his voters' interest, but someone who's very much on the make and doesn't care who he hurts or what he breaks to serve his own interests. That's toxic to both traditional one nation Tories and those red wall voters who maybe are a bit unaligned but were glad someone was paying attention to them. Some of course will be with him until the bitter end as if you genuinely bought into his schtick its quite painful to admit you were had.
One thing, which L can perhaps confirm, is that Montenegrins have tendency toward tallness.
They are tall. And generally slender (almost no obesity in the young here). They are also very good looking, a fact noted by Rebecca West back in the 1930s and still true now. They benefit from some perfect storm of angular Slavic genes, an agreeable climate making for an active lifestyle (everyone swimming or hiking year round), a simple but wholesome peasant diet, lots of greens and fish
If you plucked out 100 random Montenegrin girls aged 18-25 more than half would be notably or strikingly pretty, is my guess. Perhaps a world record. The young men are likewise tall rangy and handsome
The Croatians are similarly beautiful but they have a surliness, in my experience, That moody Slav thing. The Montenegrins don’t appear to have that at all, dunno why. They are more like Russians in their warm generosity
Here ends my outrageous list of ridiculous generalisations
Could be that the Montenegins have always thought of themselves as a free people, never - or at least seldom - under the rule of any outside power. Not so with the Croats.
One sign of Croat subjugation (maybe) is that the invented (or popularized) the necktie = cravat.
Yes that could be it. Never entirely subjugated by Jonny Turk. Proudly free always. So no lingering resentment like you get with some Irish or the foul and churlish Scot
Like the "some Irish" bit. Seeing as how our resentments are eternal, not merely lingering!
Blooming heck! Who will rid us of this turbulent virus?
The vaccines did. Over a year ago now.
Now its just a bad joke that most people are quite rightly bored with already.
I went shopping earlier today, didn't see a single person wearing a mask. The doom-mongers who wish to turn back the clock two years to pre-vaccine ages are fighting a lost battle now, good riddance to them. Let them continue bashing their heads into a brick wall if they want, until it starts to bleed - they're not getting through to rational people who've moved on.
I've just spent an hour in A&E (not for me, I was a taxi service). Everyone I saw inside bar one person were wearing masks.
Anecdotes, eh?
So combining our anecdotes we can come to the theorem that mask wearing leads to A&E while non-mask wearing leads to shopping.
The threat of Primark might be almost enough to make me want to put on a mask from that logic.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
It happened because Scotland was bust and required English money to bail them out.
Plus ca change.
Scotland hasn’t gone bust though. Unless your definition of “bust” is as a net recipient of funds from Westminster, in which case most of England is also “bust”.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
It happened because Scotland was bust and required English money to bail them out.
Plus ca change.
London's money. The North of England, the Midlands, and for that matter Wales and Northern Ireland all get more of the money taken from taxpayers in London and the South East than Scotland does, per head of population.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
It happened because Scotland was bust and required English money to bail them out.
Plus ca change.
London's money. The North of England, the Midlands, and for that matter Wales and Northern Ireland all get more of the money taken from taxpayers in London and the South East than Scotland does, per head of population.
[Citation Needed]
Though London is not a nation of course. You might as well divide Edinburgh from the rest of Scotland if you want to go down that silly rabbit hole.
Conservatism is in an ideological trough globally, as it’s allowed itself to be nothing more than a platform for culture-war-mongering behind which rapacious rentiers, monopolists and unearned privilege can hide.
More the natural pendulum, it dominated most of the last decade
On the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.
Now it’s even given up that.
As you’ve often suggested yourself, there’s nothing left now except a fetishistic, bordering on malevolent, desire to protect wealth - esp. the unearned kind.
Johnson and Morrison in 2019, Trump in 2016, even Merkel in 2013 and 2017, did not win on 'the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.'
Plus on current polls for the Spanish and Italian elections next year the right is ahead in both nations, on a populist platform in the latter particularly
I was working with a woman today who was eulogising Johnson. A young (circa 30) blueish white collar type West Midlander.
I agree with you that for some bizarre reason Johnson personally holds sway over RedWall voters. They love him irrespective of what the polls say. The question in, by holding on to them is he sacrificing the Blue Wall?
Did you ask her what on earth the attraction is?
I suspect it is anti-puritanism. Thing is, the more you follow Johnson in detail the less you like him.
It's that while he maybe a rogue and a fraud, he's was their rogue and fraud who would stick it to the right people and maybe shake up a sclerotic Westminster by doing so. Thing is. It's become increasingly clear that the only person's side he's on is his own. That's why partygate and other assorted dodginess and the attempt to kid people was so damaging. It perfectly captured the idea that it's not just that he's a bit of a political rogue whose moral faults came with being a maverick serving his voters' interest, but someone who's very much on the make and doesn't care who he hurts or what he breaks to serve his own interests. That's toxic to both traditional one nation Tories and those red wall voters who maybe are a bit unaligned but were glad someone was paying attention to them. Some of course will be with him until the bitter end as if you genuinely bought into his schtick its quite painful to admit you were had.
Yes. I am always reminded of Fox Mulder when listening to his diehard defenders on call-ins. There is a rather desperate air of "I want to believe" about them. The final fall back is always "he's a good laugh, and not boring."
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
It happened because Scotland was bust and required English money to bail them out.
Plus ca change.
London's money. The North of England, the Midlands, and for that matter Wales and Northern Ireland all get more of the money taken from taxpayers in London and the South East than Scotland does, per head of population.
[Citation Needed]
Go and look at the ONS regional fiscal accounts, showing tax receipts and spending per region. Google is your friend.
The Roman theatre of Philippopolis in Plovdiv. Built in the 1st Century AD it is still in use today.
Tonight, they are showing an opera and have sold 4,000 tickets.
If you ever get the chance (if you haven’t already) go and watch the opera at the Verona Arena - it’s an amazing experience watching the opera in a Roman Ampitheatre that’s still in incredibly good nick.
Watched Carmen there one fantastic warm evening there - it’s not just the quality of the opera but the weird sensation of sitting on stairs/seats (I was a backpacking student so wasn’t in the black tie section on the floor) that people watched god knows what 2,000 years ago.
Took a picnic and it was one of the most enjoyable stage experiences I’ve had.
Plovdiv place is pure kitsch, there was virtually nothing there before the "reconstruction" of the 1960s. That multi storey shit was never going to last millennia in an earthquake zone
Maybe the SNP should stand in English seats. They might actually get a mandate for a referendum...
More likely just split the Labour vote and save some Tory seats
Don't tell them that, they'll be all over it. They did get Callaghan booted out and let Thatcher in.
That rather omits the small matter of the overwhelming numbers of Labour and Conservative seats. It's like chundering on the kitchen floor and blaming the gerbil for spilling a couple of sunflower seed.
It was quite clear at the time, and in memoirs of Labour figures after that, that the SNP made no discernible difference except to timing. And Labour had imposed a referendum where the dead voted no. They can't talk of democracy.
Each person who voted is responsible for their own vote, but it is an historical fact that the SNP used their votes (or lack of) to ensure that Callaghan's Government fell, in the full knowledge that it would probably result in a Thatcher Government. Politically it was a wise decision. It was also a decision that probably resulted in hardship for many of their supporters, but that has always been secondary to 'the greater good'.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
Conservatism is in an ideological trough globally, as it’s allowed itself to be nothing more than a platform for culture-war-mongering behind which rapacious rentiers, monopolists and unearned privilege can hide.
More the natural pendulum, it dominated most of the last decade
On the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.
Now it’s even given up that.
As you’ve often suggested yourself, there’s nothing left now except a fetishistic, bordering on malevolent, desire to protect wealth - esp. the unearned kind.
Johnson and Morrison in 2019, Trump in 2016, even Merkel in 2013 and 2017, did not win on 'the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.'
Plus on current polls for the Spanish and Italian elections next year the right is ahead in both nations, on a populist platform in the latter particularly
I was working with a woman today who was eulogising Johnson. A young (circa 30) blueish white collar type West Midlander.
I agree with you that for some bizarre reason Johnson personally holds sway over RedWall voters. They love him irrespective of what the polls say. The question in, by holding on to them is he sacrificing the Blue Wall?
Did you ask her what on earth the attraction is?
I suspect it is anti-puritanism. Thing is, the more you follow Johnson in detail the less you like him.
It's that while he maybe a rogue and a fraud, he's was their rogue and fraud who would stick it to the right people and maybe shake up a sclerotic Westminster by doing so. Thing is. It's become increasingly clear that the only person's side he's on is his own. That's why partygate and other assorted dodginess and the attempt to kid people was so damaging. It perfectly captured the idea that it's not just that he's a bit of a political rogue whose moral faults came with being a maverick serving his voters' interest, but someone who's very much on the make and doesn't care who he hurts or what he breaks to serve his own interests. That's toxic to both traditional one nation Tories and those red wall voters who maybe are a bit unaligned but were glad someone was paying attention to them. Some of course will be with him until the bitter end as if you genuinely bought into his schtick its quite painful to admit you were had.
It's painful, but eventually it happens to everyone. As was predicted by those who knew him well.
And for each individual or group who flakes away from the Boris Admiration Society, there tends to be a specific moment of betrayal where the forgivable becomes unforgivable.
For some, it was Brexit in general. For others, it was this Brexit in particular. Then there was lockdown, to infuriate libertarians. Then choosing Carrie over Dom, which made Dom cross. Then the tax rises, to upset the dries. Then the revelation of the lockdown breaking. And so on. Each one dismaying a different group of people.
But like those inkblot tests, once you see what a sh1t the man is, you can't unsee it. He can't win you back.
So I guess the question is- who is still riding the Johnson train (Greater Britain Brexit types? who else?) and what betrayal does he have in mind for them?
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
It happened because Scotland was bust and required English money to bail them out.
Plus ca change.
Wsn't. The Scots ended up paying money to Ebgland to help out with the national debt.
The Roman theatre of Philippopolis in Plovdiv. Built in the 1st Century AD it is still in use today.
Tonight, they are showing an opera and have sold 4,000 tickets.
If you ever get the chance (if you haven’t already) go and watch the opera at the Verona Arena - it’s an amazing experience watching the opera in a Roman Ampitheatre that’s still in incredibly good nick.
Watched Carmen there one fantastic warm evening there - it’s not just the quality of the opera but the weird sensation of sitting on stairs/seats (I was a backpacking student so wasn’t in the black tie section on the floor) that people watched god knows what 2,000 years ago.
Took a picnic and it was one of the most enjoyable stage experiences I’ve had.
Plovdiv place is pure kitsch, there was virtually nothing there before the "reconstruction" of the 1960s. That multi storey shit was never going to last millennia in an earthquake zone
There is also the stadium of Philippopolis which is an ancient Roman stadium built in the 2nd century AD. It is among the largest and best preserved buildings from the time of the Roman Empire in the Balkans, but only the northern end is excavated and accessible today; the whole length extended up to 250m in its heyday.
It has a fascinating museum there today and it's great fun walking through the entrance briefly imagining yourself as it might have felt to an athlete or gladiator from those times.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
The main reasons for the 1707 vote were kingship, religion and a threatened invasion from England.
England was pushing very strongly for Union because it was planning a dodgy dynastic manoeuvre by importing a German king rather than the legitimate one and didn't want Scotland to opt for James VIII/III as their King and to provide a potential rebellion point for England too. Having previously rejected Scottish overtures, England made it clear it would invade Scotland if it didn't get the full Act of Union.
Scottish parliamentarians had little appetite to be invaded by England to prevent them choosing a king that most of them didn't want anyway because they were Protestant.
There was a large amount of bribery but it didn't materially affect the result.
Has any PB-er changed their behaviour yet, thanks to Covid version 9.0?
Honest question. I haven’t. Indeed the mere possibility of ANOTHER lockdown and another winter of eternal shiteness makes me want to live it up even more. If we are all doomed, let us eat, drink and be merry
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
Has any PB-er changed their behaviour yet, thanks to Covid version 9.0?
Honest question. I haven’t. Indeed the mere possibility of ANOTHER lockdown and another winter of eternal shiteness makes me want to live it up even more. If we are all doomed, let us eat, drink and be merry
No, nor shall i. There wont be any more lockdowns, nor restrictions of any kind. Even figures will now only be reported weekly. The fear apparatus isnt there to get any level of compliance and even limited interventions would crush the government even if it got past the MPs.
I think this wave will peak in the next fortnight and snake downwards fast afterwards
Has any PB-er changed their behaviour yet, thanks to Covid version 9.0?
Honest question. I haven’t. Indeed the mere possibility of ANOTHER lockdown and another winter of eternal shiteness makes me want to live it up even more. If we are all doomed, let us eat, drink and be merry
Not really. I still don't think posting on PB on a Friday night qualifies as living it up even more.
Conservatism is in an ideological trough globally, as it’s allowed itself to be nothing more than a platform for culture-war-mongering behind which rapacious rentiers, monopolists and unearned privilege can hide.
More the natural pendulum, it dominated most of the last decade
On the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.
Now it’s even given up that.
As you’ve often suggested yourself, there’s nothing left now except a fetishistic, bordering on malevolent, desire to protect wealth - esp. the unearned kind.
Johnson and Morrison in 2019, Trump in 2016, even Merkel in 2013 and 2017, did not win on 'the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.'
Plus on current polls for the Spanish and Italian elections next year the right is ahead in both nations, on a populist platform in the latter particularly
I was working with a woman today who was eulogising Johnson. A young (circa 30) blueish white collar type West Midlander.
I agree with you that for some bizarre reason Johnson personally holds sway over RedWall voters. They love him irrespective of what the polls say. The question in, by holding on to them is he sacrificing the Blue Wall?
Did you ask her what on earth the attraction is?
I suspect it is anti-puritanism. Thing is, the more you follow Johnson in detail the less you like him.
It's that while he maybe a rogue and a fraud, he's was their rogue and fraud who would stick it to the right people and maybe shake up a sclerotic Westminster by doing so. Thing is. It's become increasingly clear that the only person's side he's on is his own. That's why partygate and other assorted dodginess and the attempt to kid people was so damaging. It perfectly captured the idea that it's not just that he's a bit of a political rogue whose moral faults came with being a maverick serving his voters' interest, but someone who's very much on the make and doesn't care who he hurts or what he breaks to serve his own interests. That's toxic to both traditional one nation Tories and those red wall voters who maybe are a bit unaligned but were glad someone was paying attention to them. Some of course will be with him until the bitter end as if you genuinely bought into his schtick its quite painful to admit you were had.
It's painful, but eventually it happens to everyone. As was predicted by those who knew him well.
And for each individual or group who flakes away from the Boris Admiration Society, there tends to be a specific moment of betrayal where the forgivable becomes unforgivable.
For some, it was Brexit in general. For others, it was this Brexit in particular. Then there was lockdown, to infuriate libertarians. Then choosing Carrie over Dom, which made Dom cross. Then the tax rises, to upset the dries. Then the revelation of the lockdown breaking. And so on. Each one dismaying a different group of people.
But like those inkblot tests, once you see what a sh1t the man is, you can't unsee it. He can't win you back.
So I guess the question is- who is still riding the Johnson train (Greater Britain Brexit types? who else?) and what betrayal does he have in mind for them?
HYUFD and agreeing to a Section 30 order for IndyRef2.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
That is Daily Mail guide to the 30 best things in the UK think. That is where the theme park is so that's where it happened. It's wrong.
Has any PB-er changed their behaviour yet, thanks to Covid version 9.0?
Honest question. I haven’t. Indeed the mere possibility of ANOTHER lockdown and another winter of eternal shiteness makes me want to live it up even more. If we are all doomed, let us eat, drink and be merry
I’m a little more cautious before visiting my mum.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
That is Daily Mail guide to the 30 best things in the UK think. That is where the theme park is so that's where it happened. It's wrong.
Didn’t it happen in various places, across the Midlands and the North especially?
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
I see you are unaware of such things as the Carron Ironworks, for instance, and the concentration of coal, limestone, and blackband iron ore in the Central Belt. Industry would undoubtedly have developed in parallel with the Shropshire developments, and did: after all, the Scots didn;t suffer the penalty of the English university system (remember: it was Quakers and Nonconformists in ENgland who were crucial). It's sad to see you so proud of threats of invasion and economic blockade and suppression, as if they somehow glorified the union.
Has any PB-er changed their behaviour yet, thanks to Covid version 9.0?
Honest question. I haven’t. Indeed the mere possibility of ANOTHER lockdown and another winter of eternal shiteness makes me want to live it up even more. If we are all doomed let us eat, drink and be merry
Not really. I still don't think posting on PB on a Friday night qualifies as living it up even more.
Fair, but on the other hand I am doing it on a balcony overlooking the dreamy Bay of Kotor, after ten weeks of continuous travel from the USA to Armenia
Has any PB-er changed their behaviour yet, thanks to Covid version 9.0?
Honest question. I haven’t. Indeed the mere possibility of ANOTHER lockdown and another winter of eternal shiteness makes me want to live it up even more. If we are all doomed, let us eat, drink and be merry
There is no way that there will be another lockdown in this country unless Johnson is no longer PM.
Imagine him standing in front of TV and saying - again - like last time - as he ruffled his hair - it is essential we do not mix, imperative that we do not socialise, no one should meet with others who they do not live with, stay indoors, save the NHS etc etc.
The levels of 'get the fuck out' laugher would be off the scale.
Blooming heck! Who will rid us of this turbulent virus?
The vaccines did. Over a year ago now.
Now its just a bad joke that most people are quite rightly bored with already.
I went shopping earlier today, didn't see a single person wearing a mask. The doom-mongers who wish to turn back the clock two years to pre-vaccine ages are fighting a lost battle now, good riddance to them. Let them continue bashing their heads into a brick wall if they want, until it starts to bleed - they're not getting through to rational people who've moved on.
I've just spent an hour in A&E (not for me, I was a taxi service). Everyone I saw inside bar one person were wearing masks.
Anecdotes, eh?
So combining our anecdotes we can come to the theorem that mask wearing leads to A&E while non-mask wearing leads to shopping.
The threat of Primark might be almost enough to make me want to put on a mask from that logic.
I'm unsure that further research will support that theorem...
Has any PB-er changed their behaviour yet, thanks to Covid version 9.0?
Honest question. I haven’t. Indeed the mere possibility of ANOTHER lockdown and another winter of eternal shiteness makes me want to live it up even more. If we are all doomed, let us eat, drink and be merry
No, nor shall i. There wont be any more lockdowns, nor restrictions of any kind. Even figures will now only be reported weekly. The fear apparatus isnt there to get any level of compliance and even limited interventions would crush the government even if it got past the MPs.
I think this wave will peak in the next fortnight and snake downwards fast afterwards
No one will agree to lockdown again in this country.
Has any PB-er changed their behaviour yet, thanks to Covid version 9.0?
Honest question. I haven’t. Indeed the mere possibility of ANOTHER lockdown and another winter of eternal shiteness makes me want to live it up even more. If we are all doomed, let us eat, drink and be merry
I certainly haven't. Nor do I expect, nor favour any restrictions. Nonetheless. It hasn't gone away. And is making some folk quite ill. Even second time around. Which isn't going to help Labour shortages, nor waiting lists. The peaks of infections seem to be getting shorter however. Have to hope that continues I guess. Bugger!
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
I see you are unaware of such things as the Carron Ironworks, for instance, and the concentration of coal, limestone, and blackband iron ore in the Central Belt. Industry would undoubtedly have developed in parallel with the Shropshire developments, and did: after all, the Scots didn;t suffer the penalty of the English university system (remember: it was Quakers and Nonconformists in ENgland who were crucial). It's sad to see you so proud of threats of invasion and economic blockade and suppression, as if they somehow glorified the union.
It’s realpolitik
England was becoming a greatly powerful country; an independent Scotland would have been a major irritant if not a threat, so England would have moved to eliminate the problem, with a mixture of bribes and bullying. This is what happened in 1707 but if it hadn’t happened then it would have happened after
If the roles were reversed do you imagine for a second Scotland, the senior and greater power, would not have done the same to England? Would Scotland have been uniquely moral amongst the nations? Pff
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
Not in 1710. Abraham Darby the Elder was only just starting his experiments then.
Has any PB-er changed their behaviour yet, thanks to Covid version 9.0?
Honest question. I haven’t. Indeed the mere possibility of ANOTHER lockdown and another winter of eternal shiteness makes me want to live it up even more. If we are all doomed, let us eat, drink and be merry
There is no way that there will be another lockdown in this country unless Johnson is no longer PM.
Imagine him standing in front of TV and saying - again - like last time - as he ruffled his hair - it is essential we do not mix, imperative that we do not socialise, no one should meet with others who they do not live with, stay indoors, save the NHS etc etc.
The levels of 'get the fuck out' laugher would be off the scale.
He wouldnt even get away with 'masks for a fortnight on public transport' as he would immediately catch a bus and gob on a nurse
Has any PB-er changed their behaviour yet, thanks to Covid version 9.0?
Honest question. I haven’t. Indeed the mere possibility of ANOTHER lockdown and another winter of eternal shiteness makes me want to live it up even more. If we are all doomed, let us eat, drink and be merry
There is no way that there will be another lockdown in this country unless Johnson is no longer PM.
Imagine him standing in front of TV and saying - again - like last time - as he ruffled his hair - it is essential we do not mix, imperative that we do not socialise, no one should meet with others who they do not live with, stay indoors, save the NHS etc etc.
The levels of 'get the fuck out' laugher would be off the scale.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
That is Daily Mail guide to the 30 best things in the UK think. That is where the theme park is so that's where it happened. It's wrong.
Didn’t it happen in various places, across the Midlands and the North especially?
Lancashire Birmingham Nottingham anywhere there was cotton factories
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
That is Daily Mail guide to the 30 best things in the UK think. That is where the theme park is so that's where it happened. It's wrong.
Didn’t it happen in various places, across the Midlands and the North especially?
Lancashire Birmingham Nottingham anywhere there was cotton factories
That came a bit later. Arguably Cornish tin mining was the start of the industrial revolution about that time.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
That is Daily Mail guide to the 30 best things in the UK think. That is where the theme park is so that's where it happened. It's wrong.
Didn’t it happen in various places, across the Midlands and the North especially?
Lancashire Birmingham Nottingham anywhere there was cotton factories
That came a bit later. Arguably Cornish tin mining was the start of the industrial revolution about that time.
Which one of you gentlemen ended up with the comb?
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
I see you are unaware of such things as the Carron Ironworks, for instance, and the concentration of coal, limestone, and blackband iron ore in the Central Belt. Industry would undoubtedly have developed in parallel with the Shropshire developments, and did: after all, the Scots didn;t suffer the penalty of the English university system (remember: it was Quakers and Nonconformists in ENgland who were crucial). It's sad to see you so proud of threats of invasion and economic blockade and suppression, as if they somehow glorified the union.
It’s realpolitik
England was becoming a greatly powerful country; an independent Scotland would have been a major irritant if not a threat, so England would have moved to eliminate the problem, with a mixture of bribes and bullying. This is what happened in 1707 but if it hadn’t happened then it would have happened after
If the roles were reversed do you imagine for a second Scotland, the senior and greater power, would not have done the same to England? Would Scotland have been uniquely moral amongst the nations? Pff
England was *not* greatly powerful.That was the point. It was a frightened, stupid, muddled, thuggish bully which lashed out. Scotland was not a threat, except insofar as the English had imported an alien dynasty and insisted thsat the Scots should also conform.
Your second point is irrelevant. "It's all your fault for being smaller than me" - the classic whine of the bully at his victim through the ages.
Another instance to ponder: the crucial thermodynamic and chemical insights of the 18th century, on whjich the industrial revolution were founded, were in part mediated by research at Scottish universities. And later. Why do you think the SI units for work output, energy, temperature, capacitance, and so on are named after Scots and after English nonconformists (i.e. those who worked against the flow of English established society?
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
Comments
Being phenomenally credulous seems to be the thing they have in common.
nick.
Watched Carmen there one fantastic warm evening there - it’s not just the quality of the opera but the weird sensation of sitting on stairs/seats (I was a backpacking student so wasn’t in the black tie section on the floor) that people watched god knows what 2,000 years ago.
Took a picnic and it was one of the most enjoyable stage experiences I’ve had.
The innate Cavalier in me finds him more appealing than most Tories.
NATO is a promise to co-operate and a principle that an attack on one is an attack on all, and that's about it. Nothing in Article 5 says that we must go to war in response. It very deliberately does not say what you are claiming it says.
Article 5 instead says that if it is invoked each NATO member must take whatever actions it deems appropriate, to assist restore security. It is thus still the sovereign responsibility of the UK to determine what those actions are. We are not compelled by NATO to take actions we don't wish to take.
This is even literally explained on NATO's very own website, so the fact that you have either misrepresented or misunderstood NATO merely reflects your own misunderstanding and not that Leavers are somehow inconsistent.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
The principle of providing assistance
With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances.
This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.
At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.
https://www.rferl.org/a/moldova-eurovision-entry-censorship-romania/31685135.html
Hospital admissions, MV beds, in hospital - UP
Deaths - starting to tick up
Who will rid us of this turbulent virus?
NATO explicitly rules out nations being compelled to "submit" to collective wills, it leaves each nations response to be determined by each nation, in full accordance with national sovereignty. If Article 5 is invoked and the British Parliament were to determine that the best way to respond to that would be to issue a stern press statement and do nothing further, that would be disreputable but still in accordance with our Article 5 obligations, legally. There is no legal obligation, and NATO explain this themselves, to provide military assistance and no external collective will to submit to.
Your very embrace of the word "submit" reveals a mindset that I dislike. We should never have to "submit" to anything. If co-operation is desired, then that co-operation should be done because we've agreed to it, not because we've "submitted" to it.
Now its just a bad joke that most people are quite rightly bored with already.
I went shopping earlier today, didn't see a single person wearing a mask. The doom-mongers who wish to turn back the clock two years to pre-vaccine ages are fighting a lost battle now, good riddance to them. Let them continue bashing their heads into a brick wall if they want, until it starts to bleed - they're not getting through to rational people who've moved on.
WTAF does that mean?
I am going to the departmental summer party for our departing juniors tommorow. Sounds like a super-spreading event...
Some echoes from today's democracy, mind.
'Professor Sir Tom Devine agreed that promises of "favours, sinecures, pensions, offices and straightforward cash bribes became indispensable to secure government majorities"'
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Plus ca change.
The Brexit side managed to neutralise the financial arguments because they weren't well argued which left the visceral ones. In the end dislike of foreigners turned out to trump everything and no one could see it coming.
I saw it about two weeks before the vote during a vox pop. Nearly everyone questioned had distilled it down to immigration one way or another. Less foreigners equals less waiting times. Fewer foreigners means less competition for jobs so more money. No payments to the EU meant more money spent at home. Really simple stuff but they'd bought it.
Then there was the simple prejudice like the Turkey scare. Strangely Farage was the only one who seemed to latch onto this and though crude it was very effective. Probably the two or three percent difference between winning and losing. A horrible 'Leave' broadcast aimed directly at racists and a tasteless poster where the EU were shown as Syrian refugees
Anecdotes, eh?
The threat of Primark might be almost enough to make me want to put on a mask from that logic.
Unless your definition of “bust” is as a net recipient of funds from Westminster, in which case most of England is also “bust”.
Though London is not a nation of course. You might as well divide Edinburgh from the rest of Scotland if you want to go down that silly rabbit hole.
There is a rather desperate air of "I want to believe" about them. The final fall back is always "he's a good laugh, and not boring."
No matter how much you think you've wiped them all out they manage to get one onto the ship to breed again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Theatre_of_Orange
And it was not a return.
But that was in 1706 when the masses were not consulted or regarded, although they made their views very clear.
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
And for each individual or group who flakes away from the Boris Admiration Society, there tends to be a specific moment of betrayal where the forgivable becomes unforgivable.
For some, it was Brexit in general.
For others, it was this Brexit in particular.
Then there was lockdown, to infuriate libertarians.
Then choosing Carrie over Dom, which made Dom cross.
Then the tax rises, to upset the dries.
Then the revelation of the lockdown breaking.
And so on. Each one dismaying a different group of people.
But like those inkblot tests, once you see what a sh1t the man is, you can't unsee it. He can't win you back.
So I guess the question is- who is still riding the Johnson train (Greater Britain Brexit types? who else?) and what betrayal does he have in mind for them?
Err, is that it, or is there more behind the paywall?
It has a fascinating museum there today and it's great fun walking through the entrance briefly imagining yourself as it might have felt to an athlete or gladiator from those times.
Where do you think it was happening?
England was pushing very strongly for Union because it was planning a dodgy dynastic manoeuvre by importing a German king rather than the legitimate one and didn't want Scotland to opt for James VIII/III as their King and to provide a potential rebellion point for England too. Having previously rejected Scottish overtures, England made it clear it would invade Scotland if it didn't get the full Act of Union.
Scottish parliamentarians had little appetite to be invaded by England to prevent them choosing a king that most of them didn't want anyway because they were Protestant.
There was a large amount of bribery but it didn't materially affect the result.
Honest question. I haven’t. Indeed the mere possibility of ANOTHER lockdown and another winter of eternal shiteness makes me want to live it up even more. If we are all doomed, let us eat, drink and be merry
I think this wave will peak in the next fortnight and snake downwards fast afterwards
I still don't think posting on PB on a Friday night qualifies as living it up even more.
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
South Carolina:
https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466
The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
Imagine him standing in front of TV and saying - again - like last time - as he ruffled his hair - it is essential we do not mix, imperative that we do not socialise, no one should meet with others who they do not live with, stay indoors, save the NHS etc etc.
The levels of 'get the fuck out' laugher would be off the scale.
I'm unsure that further research will support that theorem...
And rightly so.
Nonetheless. It hasn't gone away. And is making some folk quite ill. Even second time around.
Which isn't going to help Labour shortages, nor waiting lists.
The peaks of infections seem to be getting shorter however. Have to hope that continues I guess.
Bugger!
England was becoming a greatly powerful country; an independent Scotland would have been a major irritant if not a threat, so England would have moved to eliminate the problem, with a mixture of bribes and bullying. This is what happened in 1707 but if it hadn’t happened then it would have happened after
If the roles were reversed do you imagine for a second Scotland, the senior and greater power, would not have done the same to England? Would Scotland have been uniquely moral amongst the nations? Pff
Your second point is irrelevant. "It's all your fault for being smaller than me" - the classic whine of the bully at his victim through the ages.
Another instance to ponder: the crucial thermodynamic and chemical insights of the 18th century, on whjich the industrial revolution were founded, were in part mediated by research at Scottish universities. And later. Why do you think the SI units for work output, energy, temperature, capacitance, and so on are named after Scots and after English nonconformists (i.e. those who worked against the flow of English established society?
“Accounts align with significant parts of Hutchinson's testimony”
“He tried to lunge over the seat”
Tony Ornato should be worried about 18 USC 1001 for material omissions
https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1542949219941638146
Looks as though the effort to smear her lasted about a day.