"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
I still don't get why this site is so worried about the transmission mechanism of certain views rather than the views themselves.
Weren't people all in a tizzy because they thought @Heathener was somehow a troll or something on account of their ISP?
Just discuss the views - we are all robust enough not to worry about who or what may be putting them forward.
If I said the moon was made out of cheese no one would care a damn, nor I'm guessing argue with me (hey @BartholomewRoberts) because it is transparent rubbish. So apply the same test to posts on here. If they are transparent rubbish don't engage and if they have some merit then do engage.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
I still don't get why this site is so worried about the transmission mechanism of certain views rather than the views themselves.
Weren't people all in a tizzy because they thought @Heathener was somehow a troll or something on account of their ISP?
Just discuss the views - we are all robust enough not to worry about who or what may be putting them forward.
If I said the moon was made out of cheese no one would care a damn, nor I'm guessing argue with me (hey @BartholomewRoberts) because it is transparent rubbish. So apply the same test to posts on here. If they are transparent rubbish don't engage and if they have some merit then do engage.
We allow people to spout all kinds of rubbish on here. But there are a few rules, which I have posted before. And I am generally very suspicious of people whose IPs come up in blacklists.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
I still don't get why this site is so worried about the transmission mechanism of certain views rather than the views themselves.
Weren't people all in a tizzy because they thought @Heathener was somehow a troll or something on account of their ISP?
Just discuss the views - we are all robust enough not to worry about who or what may be putting them forward.
If I said the moon was made out of cheese no one would care a damn, nor I'm guessing argue with me (hey @BartholomewRoberts) because it is transparent rubbish. So apply the same test to posts on here. If they are transparent rubbish don't engage and if they have some merit then do engage.
Raw sewage from storm overflows and continuous discharge of waste containing viable organisms from sewage treatment works is an increasing problem. This is a serious public health issue for government and regulators and it is clear that the water companies are not doing enough. The public health dangers are in addition to the ecological and environmental impact which forms the basis for much regulation.
the Chair's forward says that the performance in one year was the worst since 2013, not since 1989.
The rivers are far, far cleaner than they were pre-privatisation, nobody disputes that. If you do, find a source citation comparing against pre-1989 figures not since 2013.
It always amuses me that there is this belief on the left that if something is in "public ownership" (i.e. subsidised by the taxpayer) it will be better, when there really is no quantitively or qualitative data to support this. Why will an organisation be better if it is run by bureaucrats from Whitehall and where there are endless areas of opportunity for individuals to be inefficient? Who would seriously want to hark back to the days of British Telecom when you had to wait six months to get an extra line put in and you were forced to have one standard type of phone, or British Rail FFS? I can only conclude that the real reason that the left is so in love with nationalisation is because the brothers can then fully hold our lives to ransom by endless strikes
But your prejudices, in the literal sense, leap from that little homily.
Your “subsidised by the taxpayer” isn’t an “i.e.” at all. I worked for the Royal Mail for many years and for most of them it returned a healthy profit, much of which was syphoned off by the government as its owner through something euphemistically called the External Financing Limit. One of the arguments against Royal Mail privatisation was that it was akin to selling shares that are paying you a healthy dividend.
I would say that there are arguments for and against. Looking at the business I know best, one could be perjorative like you and ask whether we would wish to hark back to the days when postage cost a third of the price? There are extra costs in being a private business - the whole business of managing and communicating with the shareholder base and associated financing, the AGM, the cost of paying dividends, the cost of having to forever justify short term performance and entertain the advisers and analysts and financial media industry, against which you have to assess the purported upside in terms of greater commercial focus and supposed agility. Often in an industry - like the railways - that remains highly regulated, and where there isn’t really any direct competition with competitive pressure coming merely from substitution to other forms of transport. It’s also true that you have to pay people more to work on the private sector since its managers are motivated mostly by money and progression, whereas the public sector attracts people for a more diverse range of reasons.
Both the railways and the postal service have become considerably more expensive to consumers since privatisation, both are more costly to government than before (in the former case because subsidies have actually increased and in the latter because the government lost its income stream), and it is hard to discern where the improvements in efficiencies have been, over and above the rate being achieved through progress heretofore? Industrial relations doesn’t appear to be any better, either.
I don’t understand why you assume that people in a nationalised industry would look for ways in which to be inefficient? People (or their representatives) may defend inefficiencies, where they see advantage in doing so, for sure, but then that is still happening in the privatised railway companies.
Thank you for your reply. I must confess my point was something of a polemic. I actually believe in a mixed economy, and many years ago I was a believer that some areas (such as water) should be in "public ownership", but now I must confess , after many years of having my own business while maintaining a political outlook that is pretty centrist, I can't really see any particular benefits to "public ownership" of pretty much anything. Even the NHS is certainly not "the envy of the world" that many Brits think. There are many better systems that still deliver healthcare free at the point of need. The only argument against a complete overhaul is the unnecessary upheaval.
Anyway, I apologise if my post upset you, as I think our politics are not too far apart in practice, and I did not intend to demean anyone who works in the public sector, as a number of my family members do.
Personally, I think each area should be assessed on a case by case basis. I long believed water might be better off run by private companies, but Thames Water et al have disabused me of that notion.
It's all down to incentives, and it seems impossible to set them up appropriately. The water companies have performed so badly with regards to sewage dumping that the Environment Agency is calling for prison sentences for Chief Executives if it continues (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/water-and-sewerage-companies-in-england-environmental-performance-report-2021/water-and-sewerage-companies-in-england-environmental-performance-report-2021 ). Leaks - Thames Water leaks a quarter of all its water. And as for the future water provision programme, the decision-making is so skewed as to be execrable. I've mentioned the STT being punted forwards - for a sub £1bn programme using tech that's well understood by TW, taking 2-3 years, providing 300-500 Ml/day when called upon, with minimal enviornmental impact to be pushed out by more than an average human lifespan in favour of one that would cost twice as much and more, with building techniques unfamiliar to TW, taking a minimum of fifteen years to provide under 290Ml/day at the best of times, solely dependent on the River Thames, with huge environmental impact at best (and significant dangers at worst) and displacing a flood plain (and that would caused fogs to roll down over the arterial A34 regularly) ... but would be better for them as a commercial asset...
Nope. It's broken. Need to try something different.
Water Companies CEOs don't get their stock prices up by improving water supplies and sewage treatment facilities, they get them up by cutting costs.
Though fines for poor treatment of sewage is a cost, so the CEO gets their stock price up by improving sewage treatment up to the required standards.
Which is part of why river quality improved so dramatically post privatisation. When water provision was state owned there was no incentive for the water firm to actually apply the legal standards in the same way.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
Some interesting points relating to the Republican prospects in November. The markets perhaps still underestimate Democratic prospects for the midterms.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1556301444613128194 You can see in the last 72 hrs how deep GOPs are in the mode of 'this election is going to fall into our lap because of global economic crises that don't have much to do with the White House' and perhaps the more general 'nothing matters' of recent years. As the Dems ... ...climate and inflation package moves forward I've seen multiple GOP senators actually up for reelection go on Twitter and focus their message on how miffed they are that the vote forced them to miss a weekend of parties in the district. Now others are ... ...cheerily voting against a cap out on out of control insulin prices. Needless to say, insulin is not an elective drug. As we know, there are lots of factor buoying Republicans and hurting Dems this cycle. But you can see by these and other actions how confident GOPs ... ...have become that they can do literally anything they want - down to complaining publicly about having to show up to do the job - and they won't pay any price.
Looks like another "the average US voter is not as stupid as we think or hope" piece. Or whistling in the wind, as it is sometimes called.
The US Senate polling is not looking great for Republicans. They are currently behind in Pennsylvania (by 11 points), Ohio (4 points) and Wisconsin (2 points) - all of which they currently hold.
Now, I suspect that they will only take Pennsylvania of those three, but the fact that we're even talking about the Democrats possibly gaining Senate seats is extraordinary.
The House, on the other hand, is another matter. I expect that will be comfortably taken by the Republicans.
I have a fair position laying a GOP Senate majority - and I've recently taken a small punt on the House, as the long odds look just a bit too long.
Some interesting points relating to the Republican prospects in November. The markets perhaps still underestimate Democratic prospects for the midterms.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1556301444613128194 You can see in the last 72 hrs how deep GOPs are in the mode of 'this election is going to fall into our lap because of global economic crises that don't have much to do with the White House' and perhaps the more general 'nothing matters' of recent years. As the Dems ... ...climate and inflation package moves forward I've seen multiple GOP senators actually up for reelection go on Twitter and focus their message on how miffed they are that the vote forced them to miss a weekend of parties in the district. Now others are ... ...cheerily voting against a cap out on out of control insulin prices. Needless to say, insulin is not an elective drug. As we know, there are lots of factor buoying Republicans and hurting Dems this cycle. But you can see by these and other actions how confident GOPs ... ...have become that they can do literally anything they want - down to complaining publicly about having to show up to do the job - and they won't pay any price.
Looks like another "the average US voter is not as stupid as we think or hope" piece. Or whistling in the wind, as it is sometimes called.
The US Senate polling is not looking great for Republicans. They are currently behind in Pennsylvania (by 11 points), Ohio (4 points) and Wisconsin (2 points) - all of which they currently hold.
Now, I suspect that they will only take Pennsylvania of those three, but the fact that we're even talking about the Democrats possibly gaining Senate seats is extraordinary.
The House, on the other hand, is another matter. I expect that will be comfortably taken by the Republicans.
The Republicans have had quite the track record since 2010, of selecting candidates so batshit that they throw away entirely winnable Senate seats.
I chattered online with a journalist from Alabama who said that he doubted if Roy Moore even knew how to feed and dress himself.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
I still don't get why this site is so worried about the transmission mechanism of certain views rather than the views themselves.
Weren't people all in a tizzy because they thought @Heathener was somehow a troll or something on account of their ISP?
Just discuss the views - we are all robust enough not to worry about who or what may be putting them forward.
If I said the moon was made out of cheese no one would care a damn, nor I'm guessing argue with me (hey @BartholomewRoberts) because it is transparent rubbish. So apply the same test to posts on here. If they are transparent rubbish don't engage and if they have some merit then do engage.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
Dura_Ace or Dynamo?
No, the former is a proud and open subversive - note the accounts of his Parish Council activities.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
“Azov Regiment” being the key phrase. They’re taking about what was a few hundred Ukranian defenders, of the lands Russia took in 2014, but in Russian minds they are the Nazis that dominate Eastern Ukraine, and against whom the Russians went for Kiev are fighting in the Donbass.
Who should replace KS and why would they be doing better? I would like polling evidence to support your conclusion
We have to assume that BJO would like to see the return of that crowd pleaser and (non) winner of elections and Putin apologist extraordinaire, the man affectionately known to PBers as Magic Grandpa or Mr. Thicky.
Corbyn thinks we shouldn't be arming the Ukrainians because it is prolonging the conflict. Which of course is probably true, because if we didn't Putin would have quickly won, which perhaps Jezza would be pleased about.
Why is Corbyn a sympathiser for a militaristic imperialist and murderer, Vladimir Putin? Corbyn fan please explain?
Corbyn has called for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine, and also called for stronger sanctions after Crimea than the Tories imposed. He might be a useful idiot but is surely not a Russian partisan.
He's absolutely a Russia partisan.
He's "called for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine" to save face while calling for the West to stop sending munitions to Ukraine.
If those policies were followed then Russia would roll over anywhere it wanted to do so while Corbyn would stand there saying "peace, lets talk about peace".
The only way to stop Russia is via force, and Corbyn is utterly opposed to that.
Nah - nobody who knows Corbyn would think he had the slightest interest in saving face. He's essentially a pacifist - opposed to the Russian invasion, which he sees as imperialist aggression, opposed to throwing arms into the conflict, favours tougher sanctions to force the Russians into line. But in any case he's a backbencher with zero influence on government or opposition.
FWIW I think the war is grinding to a stalemate - both sides are claiming gains of single "settlements" (which seem to be clumps of houses, smaller than villages), and missile strikes hitting supply dumps and bridges. If nothing much happens in the autumn, General Winter will freeze the positions further.
Possibly. But the Ukrainians have made big claims about liberating Kherson
The Ukrainians have made all sorts of mad bullshit claims since day one of the SMO - all of which have been faithfully regurgitated by their useless idiots on here.
The US are briefing that Russian dead and injured in Ukraine are around 75,000.
Some interesting points relating to the Republican prospects in November. The markets perhaps still underestimate Democratic prospects for the midterms.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1556301444613128194 You can see in the last 72 hrs how deep GOPs are in the mode of 'this election is going to fall into our lap because of global economic crises that don't have much to do with the White House' and perhaps the more general 'nothing matters' of recent years. As the Dems ... ...climate and inflation package moves forward I've seen multiple GOP senators actually up for reelection go on Twitter and focus their message on how miffed they are that the vote forced them to miss a weekend of parties in the district. Now others are ... ...cheerily voting against a cap out on out of control insulin prices. Needless to say, insulin is not an elective drug. As we know, there are lots of factor buoying Republicans and hurting Dems this cycle. But you can see by these and other actions how confident GOPs ... ...have become that they can do literally anything they want - down to complaining publicly about having to show up to do the job - and they won't pay any price.
Looks like another "the average US voter is not as stupid as we think or hope" piece. Or whistling in the wind, as it is sometimes called.
The US Senate polling is not looking great for Republicans. They are currently behind in Pennsylvania (by 11 points), Ohio (4 points) and Wisconsin (2 points) - all of which they currently hold.
Now, I suspect that they will only take Pennsylvania of those three, but the fact that we're even talking about the Democrats possibly gaining Senate seats is extraordinary.
The House, on the other hand, is another matter. I expect that will be comfortably taken by the Republicans.
I have a fair position laying a GOP Senate majority - and I've recently taken a small punt on the House, as the long odds look just a bit too long.
The generic polling is level-pegging, but I suspect will break somewhat towards the Republicans by November. Even a tie would give the Republicans a reasonable majority in the House, on current boundaries.
Some interesting points relating to the Republican prospects in November. The markets perhaps still underestimate Democratic prospects for the midterms.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1556301444613128194 You can see in the last 72 hrs how deep GOPs are in the mode of 'this election is going to fall into our lap because of global economic crises that don't have much to do with the White House' and perhaps the more general 'nothing matters' of recent years. As the Dems ... ...climate and inflation package moves forward I've seen multiple GOP senators actually up for reelection go on Twitter and focus their message on how miffed they are that the vote forced them to miss a weekend of parties in the district. Now others are ... ...cheerily voting against a cap out on out of control insulin prices. Needless to say, insulin is not an elective drug. As we know, there are lots of factor buoying Republicans and hurting Dems this cycle. But you can see by these and other actions how confident GOPs ... ...have become that they can do literally anything they want - down to complaining publicly about having to show up to do the job - and they won't pay any price.
Looks like another "the average US voter is not as stupid as we think or hope" piece. Or whistling in the wind, as it is sometimes called.
We'll see.
The Kansas result suggests that some Republican stances are really unpopular when their consequences become obvious. The entire GOP effort this cycle has been to try to stymie any legislation by the Democrats irrespective of its contents. The video I posted earlier of a Republican Senator speaking movingly of her two diabetic siblings, and the inequity of insulin pricing, back in 2020 - juxtaposed with her vote yesterday against a cap on that pricing is a small but neat illustration. They might shrug off any consequences, but if there's any uptick in the economy, they might take a significant hit.
Like you I live in hope. But like @rcs1000 I think that the House has almost certainly gone (despite the Dems winning the popular vote once again) thanks to remarkable gerrymandering. The Senate may be closer but given how close it is now I suspect that the Republicans will still end up with a tiny majority.
Some interesting points relating to the Republican prospects in November. The markets perhaps still underestimate Democratic prospects for the midterms.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1556301444613128194 You can see in the last 72 hrs how deep GOPs are in the mode of 'this election is going to fall into our lap because of global economic crises that don't have much to do with the White House' and perhaps the more general 'nothing matters' of recent years. As the Dems ... ...climate and inflation package moves forward I've seen multiple GOP senators actually up for reelection go on Twitter and focus their message on how miffed they are that the vote forced them to miss a weekend of parties in the district. Now others are ... ...cheerily voting against a cap out on out of control insulin prices. Needless to say, insulin is not an elective drug. As we know, there are lots of factor buoying Republicans and hurting Dems this cycle. But you can see by these and other actions how confident GOPs ... ...have become that they can do literally anything they want - down to complaining publicly about having to show up to do the job - and they won't pay any price.
Looks like another "the average US voter is not as stupid as we think or hope" piece. Or whistling in the wind, as it is sometimes called.
We'll see.
The Kansas result suggests that some Republican stances are really unpopular when their consequences become obvious. The entire GOP effort this cycle has been to try to stymie any legislation by the Democrats irrespective of its contents. The video I posted earlier of a Republican Senator speaking movingly of her two diabetic siblings, and the inequity of insulin pricing, back in 2020 - juxtaposed with her vote yesterday against a cap on that pricing is a small but neat illustration. They might shrug off any consequences, but if there's any uptick in the economy, they might take a significant hit.
Like you I live in hope. But like @rcs1000 I think that the House has almost certainly gone (despite the Dems winning the popular vote once again) thanks to remarkable gerrymandering. The Senate may be closer but given how close it is now I suspect that the Republicans will still end up with a tiny majority.
A bigger problem than gerrymandering is the way the Democrats keep piling up ever greater leads in cities with more than a million people. Their vote is badly distributed.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
I still don't get why this site is so worried about the transmission mechanism of certain views rather than the views themselves.
Weren't people all in a tizzy because they thought @Heathener was somehow a troll or something on account of their ISP?
Just discuss the views - we are all robust enough not to worry about who or what may be putting them forward.
If I said the moon was made out of cheese no one would care a damn, nor I'm guessing argue with me (hey @BartholomewRoberts) because it is transparent rubbish. So apply the same test to posts on here. If they are transparent rubbish don't engage and if they have some merit then do engage.
Haven't seen Heathener on a while.
Didn’t Leon finally retire “her” when someone posted that Heathener was Leon?
I seem to remember his rather relieved “finally” post in response!
Some interesting points relating to the Republican prospects in November. The markets perhaps still underestimate Democratic prospects for the midterms.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1556301444613128194 You can see in the last 72 hrs how deep GOPs are in the mode of 'this election is going to fall into our lap because of global economic crises that don't have much to do with the White House' and perhaps the more general 'nothing matters' of recent years. As the Dems ... ...climate and inflation package moves forward I've seen multiple GOP senators actually up for reelection go on Twitter and focus their message on how miffed they are that the vote forced them to miss a weekend of parties in the district. Now others are ... ...cheerily voting against a cap out on out of control insulin prices. Needless to say, insulin is not an elective drug. As we know, there are lots of factor buoying Republicans and hurting Dems this cycle. But you can see by these and other actions how confident GOPs ... ...have become that they can do literally anything they want - down to complaining publicly about having to show up to do the job - and they won't pay any price.
Looks like another "the average US voter is not as stupid as we think or hope" piece. Or whistling in the wind, as it is sometimes called.
We'll see.
The Kansas result suggests that some Republican stances are really unpopular when their consequences become obvious. The entire GOP effort this cycle has been to try to stymie any legislation by the Democrats irrespective of its contents. The video I posted earlier of a Republican Senator speaking movingly of her two diabetic siblings, and the inequity of insulin pricing, back in 2020 - juxtaposed with her vote yesterday against a cap on that pricing is a small but neat illustration. They might shrug off any consequences, but if there's any uptick in the economy, they might take a significant hit.
Like you I live in hope. But like @rcs1000 I think that the House has almost certainly gone (despite the Dems winning the popular vote once again) thanks to remarkable gerrymandering. The Senate may be closer but given how close it is now I suspect that the Republicans will still end up with a tiny majority.
A bigger problem than gerrymandering is the way the Democrats keep piling up ever greater leads in cities with more than a million people. Their vote is badly distributed.
Its these huge majorities in specific locations that make gerrymandering so worthwhile. Even worse, those elected in those super safe seats may well be quietly content with the system. If a state has 5 congressmen you set it up so 1 seat is 90:10 but the other 4 are 60:40 in your favour. Simples.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
“Azov Regiment” being the key phrase. They’re taking about what was a few hundred Ukranian defenders, of the lands Russia took in 2014, but in Russian minds they are the Nazis that dominate Eastern Ukraine, and against whom the Russians went for Kiev are fighting in the Donbass.
Near the start of the war, there was a piece saying that the Russians see 'Nazi' very differently to us, and it has a different association. For us, it is a particular form of fascism that started in 1930s Germany. For them, it is anyone who dares be anti-Russian or anti-Slavic, particularly from lands to the west. They also apparently split 'Nazism' from 'anti-Semitism', for ... reasons.
In addition, I think it claimed that before the fall of the Berlin wall, 'fascist' was the insult of choice, and preferable to 'Nazi'. That slowly changed after 1990.
I daresay our resident Russian experts can say more.
Some interesting points relating to the Republican prospects in November. The markets perhaps still underestimate Democratic prospects for the midterms.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1556301444613128194 You can see in the last 72 hrs how deep GOPs are in the mode of 'this election is going to fall into our lap because of global economic crises that don't have much to do with the White House' and perhaps the more general 'nothing matters' of recent years. As the Dems ... ...climate and inflation package moves forward I've seen multiple GOP senators actually up for reelection go on Twitter and focus their message on how miffed they are that the vote forced them to miss a weekend of parties in the district. Now others are ... ...cheerily voting against a cap out on out of control insulin prices. Needless to say, insulin is not an elective drug. As we know, there are lots of factor buoying Republicans and hurting Dems this cycle. But you can see by these and other actions how confident GOPs ... ...have become that they can do literally anything they want - down to complaining publicly about having to show up to do the job - and they won't pay any price.
Looks like another "the average US voter is not as stupid as we think or hope" piece. Or whistling in the wind, as it is sometimes called.
The US Senate polling is not looking great for Republicans. They are currently behind in Pennsylvania (by 11 points), Ohio (4 points) and Wisconsin (2 points) - all of which they currently hold.
Now, I suspect that they will only take Pennsylvania of those three, but the fact that we're even talking about the Democrats possibly gaining Senate seats is extraordinary.
The House, on the other hand, is another matter. I expect that will be comfortably taken by the Republicans.
I have a fair position laying a GOP Senate majority - and I've recently taken a small punt on the House, as the long odds look just a bit too long.
The generic polling is level-pegging, but I suspect will break somewhat towards the Republicans by November. Even a tie would give the Republicans a reasonable majority in the House, on current boundaries.
Go back to late summer 2020. Some polls showed Biden was going to sweep Florida, NC, Ohio, Iowa and Texas.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
I still don't get why this site is so worried about the transmission mechanism of certain views rather than the views themselves.
Weren't people all in a tizzy because they thought @Heathener was somehow a troll or something on account of their ISP?
Just discuss the views - we are all robust enough not to worry about who or what may be putting them forward.
If I said the moon was made out of cheese no one would care a damn, nor I'm guessing argue with me (hey @BartholomewRoberts) because it is transparent rubbish. So apply the same test to posts on here. If they are transparent rubbish don't engage and if they have some merit then do engage.
Haven't seen Heathener on a while.
Didn’t Leon finally retire “her” when someone posted that Heathener was Leon?
I seem to remember his rather relieved “finally” post in response!
I missed that if so, but wasn't it long speculated that Heathener was Leon?
Some interesting points relating to the Republican prospects in November. The markets perhaps still underestimate Democratic prospects for the midterms.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1556301444613128194 You can see in the last 72 hrs how deep GOPs are in the mode of 'this election is going to fall into our lap because of global economic crises that don't have much to do with the White House' and perhaps the more general 'nothing matters' of recent years. As the Dems ... ...climate and inflation package moves forward I've seen multiple GOP senators actually up for reelection go on Twitter and focus their message on how miffed they are that the vote forced them to miss a weekend of parties in the district. Now others are ... ...cheerily voting against a cap out on out of control insulin prices. Needless to say, insulin is not an elective drug. As we know, there are lots of factor buoying Republicans and hurting Dems this cycle. But you can see by these and other actions how confident GOPs ... ...have become that they can do literally anything they want - down to complaining publicly about having to show up to do the job - and they won't pay any price.
Looks like another "the average US voter is not as stupid as we think or hope" piece. Or whistling in the wind, as it is sometimes called.
We'll see.
The Kansas result suggests that some Republican stances are really unpopular when their consequences become obvious. The entire GOP effort this cycle has been to try to stymie any legislation by the Democrats irrespective of its contents. The video I posted earlier of a Republican Senator speaking movingly of her two diabetic siblings, and the inequity of insulin pricing, back in 2020 - juxtaposed with her vote yesterday against a cap on that pricing is a small but neat illustration. They might shrug off any consequences, but if there's any uptick in the economy, they might take a significant hit.
Like you I live in hope. But like @rcs1000 I think that the House has almost certainly gone (despite the Dems winning the popular vote once again) thanks to remarkable gerrymandering. The Senate may be closer but given how close it is now I suspect that the Republicans will still end up with a tiny majority.
A bigger problem than gerrymandering is the way the Democrats keep piling up ever greater leads in cities with more than a million people. Their vote is badly distributed.
The level of gerrymandering in the United States is quite frankly shameful. The country has no right to call itself a democracy.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
I still don't get why this site is so worried about the transmission mechanism of certain views rather than the views themselves.
Weren't people all in a tizzy because they thought @Heathener was somehow a troll or something on account of their ISP?
Just discuss the views - we are all robust enough not to worry about who or what may be putting them forward.
If I said the moon was made out of cheese no one would care a damn, nor I'm guessing argue with me (hey @BartholomewRoberts) because it is transparent rubbish. So apply the same test to posts on here. If they are transparent rubbish don't engage and if they have some merit then do engage.
Haven't seen Heathener on a while.
Didn’t Leon finally retire “her” when someone posted that Heathener was Leon?
I seem to remember his rather relieved “finally” post in response!
I missed that if so, but wasn't it long speculated that Heathener was Leon?
Some interesting points relating to the Republican prospects in November. The markets perhaps still underestimate Democratic prospects for the midterms.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1556301444613128194 You can see in the last 72 hrs how deep GOPs are in the mode of 'this election is going to fall into our lap because of global economic crises that don't have much to do with the White House' and perhaps the more general 'nothing matters' of recent years. As the Dems ... ...climate and inflation package moves forward I've seen multiple GOP senators actually up for reelection go on Twitter and focus their message on how miffed they are that the vote forced them to miss a weekend of parties in the district. Now others are ... ...cheerily voting against a cap out on out of control insulin prices. Needless to say, insulin is not an elective drug. As we know, there are lots of factor buoying Republicans and hurting Dems this cycle. But you can see by these and other actions how confident GOPs ... ...have become that they can do literally anything they want - down to complaining publicly about having to show up to do the job - and they won't pay any price.
Looks like another "the average US voter is not as stupid as we think or hope" piece. Or whistling in the wind, as it is sometimes called.
The US Senate polling is not looking great for Republicans. They are currently behind in Pennsylvania (by 11 points), Ohio (4 points) and Wisconsin (2 points) - all of which they currently hold.
Now, I suspect that they will only take Pennsylvania of those three, but the fact that we're even talking about the Democrats possibly gaining Senate seats is extraordinary.
The House, on the other hand, is another matter. I expect that will be comfortably taken by the Republicans.
I have a fair position laying a GOP Senate majority - and I've recently taken a small punt on the House, as the long odds look just a bit too long.
The generic polling is level-pegging, but I suspect will break somewhat towards the Republicans by November. Even a tie would give the Republicans a reasonable majority in the House, on current boundaries.
I laid the GOP Senate majority at around 1.55 on Betfair; it's now around 2.35 (which still makes them favourite, ahead of NOC). A GOP House majority is 1.18 to lay; I'm on at 1.15.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
Dura_Ace or Dynamo?
No, the former is a proud and open subversive - note the accounts of his Parish Council activities.
And also, on his own account, the remarkable efforts to bring Ukranian refugees to this country which, if true, is worthy of considerable admiration. Personally, I choose to believe it.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
Some interesting points relating to the Republican prospects in November. The markets perhaps still underestimate Democratic prospects for the midterms.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1556301444613128194 You can see in the last 72 hrs how deep GOPs are in the mode of 'this election is going to fall into our lap because of global economic crises that don't have much to do with the White House' and perhaps the more general 'nothing matters' of recent years. As the Dems ... ...climate and inflation package moves forward I've seen multiple GOP senators actually up for reelection go on Twitter and focus their message on how miffed they are that the vote forced them to miss a weekend of parties in the district. Now others are ... ...cheerily voting against a cap out on out of control insulin prices. Needless to say, insulin is not an elective drug. As we know, there are lots of factor buoying Republicans and hurting Dems this cycle. But you can see by these and other actions how confident GOPs ... ...have become that they can do literally anything they want - down to complaining publicly about having to show up to do the job - and they won't pay any price.
Looks like another "the average US voter is not as stupid as we think or hope" piece. Or whistling in the wind, as it is sometimes called.
The US Senate polling is not looking great for Republicans. They are currently behind in Pennsylvania (by 11 points), Ohio (4 points) and Wisconsin (2 points) - all of which they currently hold.
Now, I suspect that they will only take Pennsylvania of those three, but the fact that we're even talking about the Democrats possibly gaining Senate seats is extraordinary.
The House, on the other hand, is another matter. I expect that will be comfortably taken by the Republicans.
My impression is that this is the most favourable cycle for Democrats because of the States involved and Republicans have overachieved in them in the past. I expect the Senate elections in 2024 and 2026 to be much harder for the Democrats.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
Dura_Ace or Dynamo?
No, the former is a proud and open subversive - note the accounts of his Parish Council activities.
I have pretty much managed to destroy it in a functional sense as an executive body.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
Dura_Ace or Dynamo?
No, the former is a proud and open subversive - note the accounts of his Parish Council activities.
And also, on his own account, the remarkable efforts to bring Ukranian refugees to this country which, if true, is worthy of considerable admiration. Personally, I choose to believe it.
I wasn't sitting in judgment on his subversion, but rather offering it in his defence.
There's no sign of that happening. Another Musk promise that got the faithful all fired up, and was promptly forgotten...
Shoot for the Moon Mars, even if you miss you'll land among the stars.
That Musk has missed some ambitious goals is far less significant than what he has achieved.
It isn't, if he is funding his missed goals with broken promises. There is a significant chance autopilot will *never* work as promised.
An ambition and a promise are two very different things.
Autopilot has never been promised AFAIK.
People are spending thousands of dollars buying it as an extra!
I think it was about 2k extra on mine and it does work. Kind of scary really on the couple of occasions i have tried it. I tend to drive slightly to the right of the lane and it pulls you back into dead centre. It then follows the road and slows down if a vehicle ahead is slower to a distance that you can preprogram. You then put your indicator on to overtake (if on dual carriageway) and it manoeuvres when it believes it to be safe. You just hold onto the wheel and the car does the rest until you hit the break or pull the control stalk down.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
Dura_Ace or Dynamo?
No, the former is a proud and open subversive - note the accounts of his Parish Council activities.
And also, on his own account, the remarkable efforts to bring Ukranian refugees to this country which, if true, is worthy of considerable admiration. Personally, I choose to believe it.
I wasn't sitting in judgment on his subversion, but rather offering it in his defence.
Mad Nad will presumably only accept a peerage if she is accepting that her cabinet career is over. Whilst this is something for all sane Conservatives to devoutly pray for I would not be so confident. She has been pretty chummy with Truss of late.
Mogg wants to be a "Knight Commander" apparently. You can combine that with continuing to serve the public as an MP.
Mogg will likely be in Truss' cabinet alongside Braverman, Kwarteng, Cleverly, Lewis, Coffey, Baker, Redwood etc. Maybe even Francois
Ah, a Cabinet of none of the talents.
Truss' Cabinet will likely be the most rightwing Tory Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet since IDS was leader. Most Tory moderates will refuse to serve in it and Truss will offer barely any senior posts to Sunak supporters
How many Tory MPs have a genuine allegiance to Sunak or anybody else, either personally or politically?
The Tory party adopted the Chinese Communist Party response to Covid, followed by the Jeremy Corbyn response to funding it. Since then they have adopted the Liz Cheney neo-con response to Ukraine, coupled with the Ed Miliband policy on energy.
The notion that Tory MPs have any allegiance to any philosophy or principles whatever is utterly fanciful.
Indeed, the only reason that Truss got a third of MPs backing her in the final round is that there was a three-way split between Sunak, Truss and Mordaunt. A few weeks ago Penny Mordaunt was vehemently opposing Truss while campaigning for herself to be PM instead.
Take a glance at Mordaunt's Twitter now and tell me that she hates Truss and will refuse to be a part of her team because she was in the third of MPs that backed Mordaunt and wasn't in the third of MPs to back Truss.
@PennyMordaunt tells #TimesRadio she is not supporting Liz Truss because she's the frontrunner but because she wants "to make sure that we don't become an ordinary nation."
Sky News Liz Truss 'understands our nation is at an inflection point' says Liz Truss supporter Penny Mordaunt - adding "her tax cuts are funded" and she has "a plan to get growth back into our economy".
LBC 'The things that don't work for us' in terms of EU regulations will 'go' under Liz Truss, says Trade Policy Minister Penny Mordaunt.
Once the leadership campaign is over, or even before it once other candidates like Mordaunt are eliminated, people who backed other candidates fall in behind other candidates ending with the eventual winner.
Its quite fun to contemplate the consternation of those MPs who are backing the wrong horse in this leadership race.
I doubt there's much consternation whatsoever. They're politicians, they'll do what they do.
The second the election is over and the other horse has won they'll congratulate them and offer to serve to "unite the party".
That's not how it played out last time.
As I said last time was the exception because they were vitriolically and existentially divided on the issue of Europe which had caused May's paralysis. So the only way for the paralysis to end was for one side to vanquish the other, which happened - most actually did accept the victory for Leave but the die hards like Grieve who couldn't had to be showed the door in order to allow governing to function and end the paralysis.
That's not the case this time. There is no vitriolic division on a matter of politics causing division, its far more squabbling between personalities than politics this time. The biggest political issue has already been resolved and nobody is proposing changing course that significantly. The arguments over tax right now are more the narcissism of small differences that can be put behind once the argument is over in a way that couldn't happen last time.
There's no existential issues like Remain or Leave, Deal or No Deal anymore.
Ken Clarke, who accepted the result without quibble and voted consistently for every different flavour of Brexit put in front of him, was also "shown the door".
He voted against the Government on a confidence motion to not extend Article 50, so no he didn't accept the result without quibble.
He served in a Cabinet that pulled the same trick of making it a confidence motion to pass Maastricht, so he can hardly complain when turnabout is fair play.
That was about fear of the chaos of No Deal - people (other than me) not realizing back then that it was a bluff. Fact is, no high profile Remainer accepted the result better than KC. The May deal, he voted for, all varieties of EFTA, Norway, Turkey, whatever, he voted for, even the shit sandwich that was the Johnson deal, he voted for. Not enough for the Johnson gang. Not pure enough. Not reckless enough. Not enough of a toady.
Clarke consistently maneuvered against any EU referendum ever, and did dirty tricks thereby. He is one of the chief if distant architects of Brexit, ironically enough. Because, by denying a vote earlier, they ended up with a catastrophically angry vote, later. He must be ranked along with Blair, Cameron, Heseltine, Major, etc etc
Clarke has always seemed a more thoughtful man than Heseltine and Major and others, however. I wonder if he now, ruefully, realises his epochal mistake. I kind of hope so, because I kind of like him
One gauge of how badly Brexit is going is how Leavers now claim that Remainers made them do it.
Brexit is going great.
That Remainers failed to get what they wanted absolutely is Remainers fault though, they had so many decks stacked in their favour and they failed hubristically every step of the way.
Pointing out Remainers abysmalness in the process is no more flawed than pointing out and laughing at Man Utd's failures in recent seasons means that Man Utd's opponents are doing badly.
Lol. You are the person I referred to in my previous post. Brexit is not "going great". It is pointless and it has no "benefits". It was a con. Only the super gullible still believe in it. By the way, Barty, Father Christmas does not exist and there are no fairies at the end of the garden. Sorry to break it to you.
That you're unable to see any points or "benefits" to Brexit is just another example your closed and simple-mindedness. There are both cons and pros to Brexit, and as a thinking individual who was pro-Remain until the campaign I was torn in the debate weighing up both cons and pros.
That you can only see cons and no pros whatever is just your own Mr Thickyness coming to the fore. I can see and accept and acknowledge the cons, even if I think the pros exist.
PS as a father of 6 and 8 year old girls I can 100% insist and demonstrate that Father Christmas and fairies at the garden absolutely do exist. Father Christmas exists through me and my wife ensuring he exists and our girls can see his existence through our actions. It is up to us to make Father Christmas work, just as its up to us to get the benefits from Brexit.
On Father Christmas... Are all presents to your daughters from Father Christmas?
I was in trouble one year because we identified presents from other family members as being from Aunt Elsie, Grandpa Freddy, etc, and gave Father Christmas the credit for our presents, so our daughter wondered why we hadn't given her any presents...
No. We do what both our parents did, the primary present that we've chosen [which wasn't on the list] comes from us, extra presents come from Father Christmas. They always write a letter to Father Christmas a few days before Christmas which we guide them towards putting on a couple of the things that Father Christmas has 'chosen' for them, minus a few surprises.
EG last year my eldest was Harry Potter crazy and so her main present we got was a Lego Hogwarts Castle. She didn't know about it and we tried to ensure she never saw it, so it wasn't on her list to Father Christmas. That came from us, everything else came from Father Christmas. Thankfully their requests to Father Christmas are always quite moderate.
Giving big presents via Father Christmas is *strongly* deprecated by teachers of the Santa credulous age group because it makes children of poorer families, and presumably richer families who don't do this, feel discriminated against.
yeah it never sits comfortably with me this santa claus thing for a number of reasons
a) its fundamentally silly and insulting to kids intelligence (once above 5) - Kids do seem incredulous when getting told Santa really does cover billions of houses in one night b) It makes Christmas a very commercial thing .Fine if you are an adult and want to treat yourself to M&S finest but kids should not have commericalism in their face c) and that silly talk about santa only rewards good kids does mean kids of poorer or non-giving parents think they have been bad (if still young enough to believe all the BS)
I told my daughter at 5 there was no Santa Claus and never regretted it
In our house Father Christmas only gives some low grade presents, things like books, stationery, fruit and chocolate, enough to fill the stockings. Serious presents come from real people. I have never told my kids that Father Christmas isn't real but I think they have all worked it out, just like I did. Same with the tooth fairy. I don't think there's any harm in it, it helps to create a little bit of magic and mystery that somehow lingers on even after you work out the truth.
Yep, I still remember - and I mean it, I really do - the thrill of early Christmas morning and seeing that my stocking at the foot of the bed was bulging. Or if not "bulging" exactly, had something in it. It usually turned out to be some tangerines but was I disappointed? No, I was not. In fact I was disappointed when my dad stopped doing it, saying "look you're 15 now".
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
Dura_Ace or Dynamo?
No, the former is a proud and open subversive - note the accounts of his Parish Council activities.
I have pretty much managed to destroy it in a functional sense as an executive body.
Hope lies in the ashes of empires.
Other Parish Councils have managed to achieve that without your intervention.
Some interesting points relating to the Republican prospects in November. The markets perhaps still underestimate Democratic prospects for the midterms.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1556301444613128194 You can see in the last 72 hrs how deep GOPs are in the mode of 'this election is going to fall into our lap because of global economic crises that don't have much to do with the White House' and perhaps the more general 'nothing matters' of recent years. As the Dems ... ...climate and inflation package moves forward I've seen multiple GOP senators actually up for reelection go on Twitter and focus their message on how miffed they are that the vote forced them to miss a weekend of parties in the district. Now others are ... ...cheerily voting against a cap out on out of control insulin prices. Needless to say, insulin is not an elective drug. As we know, there are lots of factor buoying Republicans and hurting Dems this cycle. But you can see by these and other actions how confident GOPs ... ...have become that they can do literally anything they want - down to complaining publicly about having to show up to do the job - and they won't pay any price.
Looks like another "the average US voter is not as stupid as we think or hope" piece. Or whistling in the wind, as it is sometimes called.
We'll see.
The Kansas result suggests that some Republican stances are really unpopular when their consequences become obvious. The entire GOP effort this cycle has been to try to stymie any legislation by the Democrats irrespective of its contents. The video I posted earlier of a Republican Senator speaking movingly of her two diabetic siblings, and the inequity of insulin pricing, back in 2020 - juxtaposed with her vote yesterday against a cap on that pricing is a small but neat illustration. They might shrug off any consequences, but if there's any uptick in the economy, they might take a significant hit.
Like you I live in hope. But like @rcs1000 I think that the House has almost certainly gone (despite the Dems winning the popular vote once again) thanks to remarkable gerrymandering. The Senate may be closer but given how close it is now I suspect that the Republicans will still end up with a tiny majority.
A bigger problem than gerrymandering is the way the Democrats keep piling up ever greater leads in cities with more than a million people. Their vote is badly distributed.
The level of gerrymandering in the United States is quite frankly shameful. The country has no right to call itself a democracy.
Though note their executive has achieved a considerably larger share of the popular vote than has ours in any recent elections. Even, on occasion, a majority.
Some interesting points relating to the Republican prospects in November. The markets perhaps still underestimate Democratic prospects for the midterms.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1556301444613128194 You can see in the last 72 hrs how deep GOPs are in the mode of 'this election is going to fall into our lap because of global economic crises that don't have much to do with the White House' and perhaps the more general 'nothing matters' of recent years. As the Dems ... ...climate and inflation package moves forward I've seen multiple GOP senators actually up for reelection go on Twitter and focus their message on how miffed they are that the vote forced them to miss a weekend of parties in the district. Now others are ... ...cheerily voting against a cap out on out of control insulin prices. Needless to say, insulin is not an elective drug. As we know, there are lots of factor buoying Republicans and hurting Dems this cycle. But you can see by these and other actions how confident GOPs ... ...have become that they can do literally anything they want - down to complaining publicly about having to show up to do the job - and they won't pay any price.
Looks like another "the average US voter is not as stupid as we think or hope" piece. Or whistling in the wind, as it is sometimes called.
The US Senate polling is not looking great for Republicans. They are currently behind in Pennsylvania (by 11 points), Ohio (4 points) and Wisconsin (2 points) - all of which they currently hold.
Now, I suspect that they will only take Pennsylvania of those three, but the fact that we're even talking about the Democrats possibly gaining Senate seats is extraordinary.
The House, on the other hand, is another matter. I expect that will be comfortably taken by the Republicans.
My impression is that this is the most favourable cycle for Democrats because of the States involved and Republicans have overachieved in them in the past. I expect the Senate elections in 2024 and 2026 to be much harder for the Democrats.
The GOP is behind in Penn because Trump backed a TV doctor who does not live in the state and the opponent is a "man of the people" and a top campaigner. It is going to be one to watch for sure.
The mid terms re the Senate especially are so volatile that anything could happen .
What happens with inflation and gas prices could have a big impact but against that the GOP have dug themselves a hole choosing some real nutjobs as candidates . The abortion issue is going to cause them problems and voting against the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will be in many Dem campaign ads . Refusing to cap insulin prices will also give the Dems plenty of ammunition .
If inflation edges down and the jobs data remains good then the GOP could actually lose Senate seats .
The house looks better for the GOP but even there they’ve lost their poll lead although because of gerrymandering the Dems would need to be much further ahead .
Mad Nad will presumably only accept a peerage if she is accepting that her cabinet career is over. Whilst this is something for all sane Conservatives to devoutly pray for I would not be so confident. She has been pretty chummy with Truss of late.
Mogg wants to be a "Knight Commander" apparently. You can combine that with continuing to serve the public as an MP.
Mogg will likely be in Truss' cabinet alongside Braverman, Kwarteng, Cleverly, Lewis, Coffey, Baker, Redwood etc. Maybe even Francois
Ah, a Cabinet of none of the talents.
Truss' Cabinet will likely be the most rightwing Tory Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet since IDS was leader. Most Tory moderates will refuse to serve in it and Truss will offer barely any senior posts to Sunak supporters
How many Tory MPs have a genuine allegiance to Sunak or anybody else, either personally or politically?
The Tory party adopted the Chinese Communist Party response to Covid, followed by the Jeremy Corbyn response to funding it. Since then they have adopted the Liz Cheney neo-con response to Ukraine, coupled with the Ed Miliband policy on energy.
The notion that Tory MPs have any allegiance to any philosophy or principles whatever is utterly fanciful.
Indeed, the only reason that Truss got a third of MPs backing her in the final round is that there was a three-way split between Sunak, Truss and Mordaunt. A few weeks ago Penny Mordaunt was vehemently opposing Truss while campaigning for herself to be PM instead.
Take a glance at Mordaunt's Twitter now and tell me that she hates Truss and will refuse to be a part of her team because she was in the third of MPs that backed Mordaunt and wasn't in the third of MPs to back Truss.
@PennyMordaunt tells #TimesRadio she is not supporting Liz Truss because she's the frontrunner but because she wants "to make sure that we don't become an ordinary nation."
Sky News Liz Truss 'understands our nation is at an inflection point' says Liz Truss supporter Penny Mordaunt - adding "her tax cuts are funded" and she has "a plan to get growth back into our economy".
LBC 'The things that don't work for us' in terms of EU regulations will 'go' under Liz Truss, says Trade Policy Minister Penny Mordaunt.
Once the leadership campaign is over, or even before it once other candidates like Mordaunt are eliminated, people who backed other candidates fall in behind other candidates ending with the eventual winner.
Its quite fun to contemplate the consternation of those MPs who are backing the wrong horse in this leadership race.
I doubt there's much consternation whatsoever. They're politicians, they'll do what they do.
The second the election is over and the other horse has won they'll congratulate them and offer to serve to "unite the party".
That's not how it played out last time.
As I said last time was the exception because they were vitriolically and existentially divided on the issue of Europe which had caused May's paralysis. So the only way for the paralysis to end was for one side to vanquish the other, which happened - most actually did accept the victory for Leave but the die hards like Grieve who couldn't had to be showed the door in order to allow governing to function and end the paralysis.
That's not the case this time. There is no vitriolic division on a matter of politics causing division, its far more squabbling between personalities than politics this time. The biggest political issue has already been resolved and nobody is proposing changing course that significantly. The arguments over tax right now are more the narcissism of small differences that can be put behind once the argument is over in a way that couldn't happen last time.
There's no existential issues like Remain or Leave, Deal or No Deal anymore.
Ken Clarke, who accepted the result without quibble and voted consistently for every different flavour of Brexit put in front of him, was also "shown the door".
He voted against the Government on a confidence motion to not extend Article 50, so no he didn't accept the result without quibble.
He served in a Cabinet that pulled the same trick of making it a confidence motion to pass Maastricht, so he can hardly complain when turnabout is fair play.
That was about fear of the chaos of No Deal - people (other than me) not realizing back then that it was a bluff. Fact is, no high profile Remainer accepted the result better than KC. The May deal, he voted for, all varieties of EFTA, Norway, Turkey, whatever, he voted for, even the shit sandwich that was the Johnson deal, he voted for. Not enough for the Johnson gang. Not pure enough. Not reckless enough. Not enough of a toady.
Clarke consistently maneuvered against any EU referendum ever, and did dirty tricks thereby. He is one of the chief if distant architects of Brexit, ironically enough. Because, by denying a vote earlier, they ended up with a catastrophically angry vote, later. He must be ranked along with Blair, Cameron, Heseltine, Major, etc etc
Clarke has always seemed a more thoughtful man than Heseltine and Major and others, however. I wonder if he now, ruefully, realises his epochal mistake. I kind of hope so, because I kind of like him
One gauge of how badly Brexit is going is how Leavers now claim that Remainers made them do it.
Brexit is going great.
That Remainers failed to get what they wanted absolutely is Remainers fault though, they had so many decks stacked in their favour and they failed hubristically every step of the way.
Pointing out Remainers abysmalness in the process is no more flawed than pointing out and laughing at Man Utd's failures in recent seasons means that Man Utd's opponents are doing badly.
Lol. You are the person I referred to in my previous post. Brexit is not "going great". It is pointless and it has no "benefits". It was a con. Only the super gullible still believe in it. By the way, Barty, Father Christmas does not exist and there are no fairies at the end of the garden. Sorry to break it to you.
That you're unable to see any points or "benefits" to Brexit is just another example your closed and simple-mindedness. There are both cons and pros to Brexit, and as a thinking individual who was pro-Remain until the campaign I was torn in the debate weighing up both cons and pros.
That you can only see cons and no pros whatever is just your own Mr Thickyness coming to the fore. I can see and accept and acknowledge the cons, even if I think the pros exist.
PS as a father of 6 and 8 year old girls I can 100% insist and demonstrate that Father Christmas and fairies at the garden absolutely do exist. Father Christmas exists through me and my wife ensuring he exists and our girls can see his existence through our actions. It is up to us to make Father Christmas work, just as its up to us to get the benefits from Brexit.
On Father Christmas... Are all presents to your daughters from Father Christmas?
I was in trouble one year because we identified presents from other family members as being from Aunt Elsie, Grandpa Freddy, etc, and gave Father Christmas the credit for our presents, so our daughter wondered why we hadn't given her any presents...
No. We do what both our parents did, the primary present that we've chosen [which wasn't on the list] comes from us, extra presents come from Father Christmas. They always write a letter to Father Christmas a few days before Christmas which we guide them towards putting on a couple of the things that Father Christmas has 'chosen' for them, minus a few surprises.
EG last year my eldest was Harry Potter crazy and so her main present we got was a Lego Hogwarts Castle. She didn't know about it and we tried to ensure she never saw it, so it wasn't on her list to Father Christmas. That came from us, everything else came from Father Christmas. Thankfully their requests to Father Christmas are always quite moderate.
Giving big presents via Father Christmas is *strongly* deprecated by teachers of the Santa credulous age group because it makes children of poorer families, and presumably richer families who don't do this, feel discriminated against.
yeah it never sits comfortably with me this santa claus thing for a number of reasons
a) its fundamentally silly and insulting to kids intelligence (once above 5) - Kids do seem incredulous when getting told Santa really does cover billions of houses in one night b) It makes Christmas a very commercial thing .Fine if you are an adult and want to treat yourself to M&S finest but kids should not have commericalism in their face c) and that silly talk about santa only rewards good kids does mean kids of poorer or non-giving parents think they have been bad (if still young enough to believe all the BS)
I told my daughter at 5 there was no Santa Claus and never regretted it
In our house Father Christmas only gives some low grade presents, things like books, stationery, fruit and chocolate, enough to fill the stockings. Serious presents come from real people. I have never told my kids that Father Christmas isn't real but I think they have all worked it out, just like I did. Same with the tooth fairy. I don't think there's any harm in it, it helps to create a little bit of magic and mystery that somehow lingers on even after you work out the truth.
Yep, I still remember - and I mean it, I really do - the thrill of early Christmas morning and seeing that my stocking at the foot of the bed was bulging. Or if not "bulging" exactly, had something in it. It usually turned out to be some tangerines but was I disappointed? No, I was not. In fact I was disappointed when my dad stopped doing it, saying "look you're 15 now".
Our youngest (and most cynical) reaching that age did nothing to stop the tradition around here. Its a part of Christmas.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
If "No body cares" that Germany's ruling party wants to pander to Putin like that then thank goodness we're not in a political union with Germany anymore.
Even if Putin apologists like you think otherwise.
There's no sign of that happening. Another Musk promise that got the faithful all fired up, and was promptly forgotten...
Shoot for the Moon Mars, even if you miss you'll land among the stars.
That Musk has missed some ambitious goals is far less significant than what he has achieved.
It isn't, if he is funding his missed goals with broken promises. There is a significant chance autopilot will *never* work as promised.
An ambition and a promise are two very different things.
Autopilot has never been promised AFAIK.
People are spending thousands of dollars buying it as an extra!
I think it was about 2k extra on mine and it does work. Kind of scary really on the couple of occasions i have tried it. I tend to drive slightly to the right of the lane and it pulls you back into dead centre. It then follows the road and slows down if a vehicle ahead is slower to a distance that you can preprogram. You then put your indicator on to overtake (if on dual carriageway) and it manoeuvres when it believes it to be safe. You just hold onto the wheel and the car does the rest until you hit the break or pull the control stalk down.
I think the UK version is different to the US's one, is it not?
Besides, what are you getting over and above the driver-assistance aids by GM, Merc etc?
(Heck, Mrs J's Hyundai I20 has quite a good lane-keeping ability. Although you notice where and when it doesn't work...)
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
I still don't get why this site is so worried about the transmission mechanism of certain views rather than the views themselves.
Weren't people all in a tizzy because they thought @Heathener was somehow a troll or something on account of their ISP?
Just discuss the views - we are all robust enough not to worry about who or what may be putting them forward.
If I said the moon was made out of cheese no one would care a damn, nor I'm guessing argue with me (hey @BartholomewRoberts) because it is transparent rubbish. So apply the same test to posts on here. If they are transparent rubbish don't engage and if they have some merit then do engage.
Haven't seen Heathener on a while.
Didn’t Leon finally retire “her” when someone posted that Heathener was Leon?
I seem to remember his rather relieved “finally” post in response!
I missed that if so, but wasn't it long speculated that Heathener was Leon?
There's no sign of that happening. Another Musk promise that got the faithful all fired up, and was promptly forgotten...
Shoot for the Moon Mars, even if you miss you'll land among the stars.
That Musk has missed some ambitious goals is far less significant than what he has achieved.
It isn't, if he is funding his missed goals with broken promises. There is a significant chance autopilot will *never* work as promised.
I had a very scary autopilot experience a few months ago: the car was going pretty quickly (75-78 mph) on the highway, and we hit a transition from asphalt to bridge material. The car lifted up on its suspension, and autopilot over corrected. The car swung right, then it started trying to over correct the other way.
Fortunately, there were no other vehicles around us, and I grabbed control and let the car settle. But it severely reduced my faith in autopilot to be able to deal with anything other than very easy driving.
Edit to add: I don't think I described this very well. The car was on a slight curve, and as it lifted up, the wheels lost a bit of traction and it moved towards the outside of the lane. Autopilot thought the reason was a lack of left control input, rather than the fact the wheels weren't gripping well, and applied more. As the car dropped down, this caused the car to slew left, partially exiting the lane. Autopilot then attempted a hard right control input and we headed towards the right hand side of the lane. I took control back from the car and all was well
Those who thought that self-driving cars were an 80/20 problem, have spent the last decade learning that they’re a 99.999/0.001 problem.
I know it is my favourite example but a South Korean professor built a self driving car using a 386 processor back in the early 90s which he took on a city to city drive.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
Er...an attack on one is an attack on all.
Is a principle, not a compelled action. NATO can't compel action, that is a founding principle of NATO.
America could in theory turn around and say they consider an attack on a European nation as an attack on them, but they've chosen to do nothing militarily about it. America has been open and adamant on that principle since day one, since they were wanting to avoid getting dragged into conflicts based on imperial possessions etc
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
I still don't get why this site is so worried about the transmission mechanism of certain views rather than the views themselves.
Weren't people all in a tizzy because they thought @Heathener was somehow a troll or something on account of their ISP?
Just discuss the views - we are all robust enough not to worry about who or what may be putting them forward.
If I said the moon was made out of cheese no one would care a damn, nor I'm guessing argue with me (hey @BartholomewRoberts) because it is transparent rubbish. So apply the same test to posts on here. If they are transparent rubbish don't engage and if they have some merit then do engage.
Haven't seen Heathener on a while.
Didn’t Leon finally retire “her” when someone posted that Heathener was Leon?
I seem to remember his rather relieved “finally” post in response!
I missed that if so, but wasn't it long speculated that Heathener was Leon?
Maybe we all are!
Also been speculated on before...
You can't all be me, because I am just the idle creation of a bored @Mysticrose
FFS, what on earth is the point? We can rightly focus on areas where laws are thought to be harmful but to review a law just because it originated in the EU? I thought he was presenting as the sane one in this contest?
Its utterly meaningless gesture politics. You can't possibly have a sincere and meaningful review of all laws within 100 days, so it simply won't happen and will be a waste of time and money. You can barely properly review a solitary law in that time, let alone all laws.
Also makes you wonder what the department of Brexit opportunities has been doing with its time.
But, to take a couple of examples, zero rating gas as Truss is proposing and (with appropriate safeguards) removing restrictions on the driving of vehicles of up to 7.5 tonnes are a couple of good examples where we can change laws that are no longer helpful but we were otherwise stuck with. Focus on the bloody practical and stop this gesture crap. We had enough of that from Boris for a life time.
Dunno about lorries. I drive one on a car licence, or rather I don't at the moment after selling the last one 2 years ago, and I'm not over the moon about there being other people like me on the roads.
But there are, they are just getting increasingly doddery to boot having had their licence since before 1997. I would be looking for a clean driving licences for at least 5 years and, possibly, some sort of parking test.
It's my own dodderiness which concerns me. I passed a test in 1980.
There's no need to worry, the change only affects people who passed after 1997, people who passed before can drive 7.5T anyway.
Yes, I know that. My point is a lorry is such a different deal from a car I think I, and everyone else driving them, should have had training and passed a specific test.
Yes. I passed my test in 86 and I did not know, and am a little perturbed to now know, that I am allowed to drive a lorry about the place.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
Dura_Ace or Dynamo?
No, the former is a proud and open subversive - note the accounts of his Parish Council activities.
I have pretty much managed to destroy it in a functional sense as an executive body.
There's no sign of that happening. Another Musk promise that got the faithful all fired up, and was promptly forgotten...
Shoot for the Moon Mars, even if you miss you'll land among the stars.
That Musk has missed some ambitious goals is far less significant than what he has achieved.
It isn't, if he is funding his missed goals with broken promises. There is a significant chance autopilot will *never* work as promised.
An ambition and a promise are two very different things.
Autopilot has never been promised AFAIK.
People are spending thousands of dollars buying it as an extra!
But they're buying it "as is" are they not? Any ambitions on future versions are not promised are they?
Not really. Features are 'promised' for the future - which is why the lie about the 2017 coast-to-coast drive was so bad. People would have spent thousands on autopilot/FSD on the back of that, thinking they would have it good enough to be a demo in a year. They haven't managed it five years later. By which time many people would have got a new car anyway.
I'm sadly expecting bait-and-switch on FSD.
But seriously, would we expect this from any other area of life? "They promised a four bedroom home, but I got a two bedroom that catches afire occasionally. I'm fine with it though, because it's branded with the company I like..."
Witness also the massive backlog they have for Tesla solar roofs, and their shitty attempts to put up prices for those who have ordered, but are waiting.
If "No body cares" that Germany's ruling party wants to pander to Putin like that then thank goodness we're not in a political union with Germany anymore.
Even if Putin apologists like you think otherwise.
I am a Putin apologist? lol. Point out one post you keyboard warrior fuckwit?
Actually, do yourself and the rest of us a favour and go and get yourself a job you lazy twat and then you might have something useful to say on here from a perspective of experience instead of what you read in the Daily Express. You add nothing to this site other than to give the peabrained perspective of the average monumentally gullible and emotionally retarded right wing pillock.
There's no sign of that happening. Another Musk promise that got the faithful all fired up, and was promptly forgotten...
Shoot for the Moon Mars, even if you miss you'll land among the stars.
That Musk has missed some ambitious goals is far less significant than what he has achieved.
It isn't, if he is funding his missed goals with broken promises. There is a significant chance autopilot will *never* work as promised.
I had a very scary autopilot experience a few months ago: the car was going pretty quickly (75-78 mph) on the highway, and we hit a transition from asphalt to bridge material. The car lifted up on its suspension, and autopilot over corrected. The car swung right, then it started trying to over correct the other way.
Fortunately, there were no other vehicles around us, and I grabbed control and let the car settle. But it severely reduced my faith in autopilot to be able to deal with anything other than very easy driving.
Edit to add: I don't think I described this very well. The car was on a slight curve, and as it lifted up, the wheels lost a bit of traction and it moved towards the outside of the lane. Autopilot thought the reason was a lack of left control input, rather than the fact the wheels weren't gripping well, and applied more. As the car dropped down, this caused the car to slew left, partially exiting the lane. Autopilot then attempted a hard right control input and we headed towards the right hand side of the lane. I took control back from the car and all was well
Those who thought that self-driving cars were an 80/20 problem, have spent the last decade learning that they’re a 99.999/0.001 problem.
I know it is my favourite example but a South Korean professor built a self driving car using a 386 processor back in the early 90s which he took on a city to city drive.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
Er...an attack on one is an attack on all.
Is a principle, not a compelled action. NATO can't compel action, that is a founding principle of NATO.
America could in theory turn around and say they consider an attack on a European nation as an attack on them, but they've chosen to do nothing militarily about it. America has been open and adamant on that principle since day one, since they were wanting to avoid getting dragged into conflicts based on imperial possessions etc
If any NATO nation is attacked then all other NATO nations are expected to defend it, including the US. Ukraine is not in NATO and since NATO was founded in 1949 no NATO nation has been invaded so the theory has not been tested but that is the iron law of NATO.
However if a NATO nation was invaded and any NATO nation refused to defend it by definition it would be expelled from NATO for having broken the core rule of the alliance
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
“Azov Regiment” being the key phrase. They’re taking about what was a few hundred Ukranian defenders, of the lands Russia took in 2014, but in Russian minds they are the Nazis that dominate Eastern Ukraine, and against whom the Russians went for Kiev are fighting in the Donbass.
Near the start of the war, there was a piece saying that the Russians see 'Nazi' very differently to us, and it has a different association. For us, it is a particular form of fascism that started in 1930s Germany. For them, it is anyone who dares be anti-Russian or anti-Slavic, particularly from lands to the west. They also apparently split 'Nazism' from 'anti-Semitism', for ... reasons.
In addition, I think it claimed that before the fall of the Berlin wall, 'fascist' was the insult of choice, and preferable to 'Nazi'. That slowly changed after 1990.
I daresay our resident Russian experts can say more.
I hesitate to engage on this stuff as it's so wrapped up in ulterior motives, but there isn't really any dispute that Azov was set up as a neo-Nazi organisation and that it had an unhealthy overlap with Ukrainian ultra-nationalism. The founder, Andriy Biletsky, said in 2010 that the Ukrainian nation's mission is to "lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen". Equally, there isn't any doubt that efforts have been made to tone it down. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Regiment#Neo-Nazism for what looks like a reasonably balanced discussion.
It's also true that Russians tend to think of the Nazis primarily as the people who slaughtered millions of Russians for ultra-nationalist reasons, so groups like this are useful to Putin to whip up feeling against Ukrainian nationalism. But does any of that justify the invasion? No.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
I still don't get why this site is so worried about the transmission mechanism of certain views rather than the views themselves.
Weren't people all in a tizzy because they thought @Heathener was somehow a troll or something on account of their ISP?
Just discuss the views - we are all robust enough not to worry about who or what may be putting them forward.
If I said the moon was made out of cheese no one would care a damn, nor I'm guessing argue with me (hey @BartholomewRoberts) because it is transparent rubbish. So apply the same test to posts on here. If they are transparent rubbish don't engage and if they have some merit then do engage.
Haven't seen Heathener on a while.
Didn’t Leon finally retire “her” when someone posted that Heathener was Leon?
I seem to remember his rather relieved “finally” post in response!
I missed that if so, but wasn't it long speculated that Heathener was Leon?
Maybe we all are!
Also been speculated on before...
Heathener is (was) Mystic Rose and neither are Fruity Leon.
You can trust me on this. It's one of my specialities.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Just before the Olympics when Putin had already assembled his invasion force and had his tête-à-tête with Xi it seemed that they might operate as a tag team versus Ukraine/Taiwan, as I commented at the time.
Mad Nad will presumably only accept a peerage if she is accepting that her cabinet career is over. Whilst this is something for all sane Conservatives to devoutly pray for I would not be so confident. She has been pretty chummy with Truss of late.
Mogg wants to be a "Knight Commander" apparently. You can combine that with continuing to serve the public as an MP.
Mogg will likely be in Truss' cabinet alongside Braverman, Kwarteng, Cleverly, Lewis, Coffey, Baker, Redwood etc. Maybe even Francois
Ah, a Cabinet of none of the talents.
Truss' Cabinet will likely be the most rightwing Tory Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet since IDS was leader. Most Tory moderates will refuse to serve in it and Truss will offer barely any senior posts to Sunak supporters
How many Tory MPs have a genuine allegiance to Sunak or anybody else, either personally or politically?
The Tory party adopted the Chinese Communist Party response to Covid, followed by the Jeremy Corbyn response to funding it. Since then they have adopted the Liz Cheney neo-con response to Ukraine, coupled with the Ed Miliband policy on energy.
The notion that Tory MPs have any allegiance to any philosophy or principles whatever is utterly fanciful.
Indeed, the only reason that Truss got a third of MPs backing her in the final round is that there was a three-way split between Sunak, Truss and Mordaunt. A few weeks ago Penny Mordaunt was vehemently opposing Truss while campaigning for herself to be PM instead.
Take a glance at Mordaunt's Twitter now and tell me that she hates Truss and will refuse to be a part of her team because she was in the third of MPs that backed Mordaunt and wasn't in the third of MPs to back Truss.
@PennyMordaunt tells #TimesRadio she is not supporting Liz Truss because she's the frontrunner but because she wants "to make sure that we don't become an ordinary nation."
Sky News Liz Truss 'understands our nation is at an inflection point' says Liz Truss supporter Penny Mordaunt - adding "her tax cuts are funded" and she has "a plan to get growth back into our economy".
LBC 'The things that don't work for us' in terms of EU regulations will 'go' under Liz Truss, says Trade Policy Minister Penny Mordaunt.
Once the leadership campaign is over, or even before it once other candidates like Mordaunt are eliminated, people who backed other candidates fall in behind other candidates ending with the eventual winner.
Its quite fun to contemplate the consternation of those MPs who are backing the wrong horse in this leadership race.
I doubt there's much consternation whatsoever. They're politicians, they'll do what they do.
The second the election is over and the other horse has won they'll congratulate them and offer to serve to "unite the party".
That's not how it played out last time.
As I said last time was the exception because they were vitriolically and existentially divided on the issue of Europe which had caused May's paralysis. So the only way for the paralysis to end was for one side to vanquish the other, which happened - most actually did accept the victory for Leave but the die hards like Grieve who couldn't had to be showed the door in order to allow governing to function and end the paralysis.
That's not the case this time. There is no vitriolic division on a matter of politics causing division, its far more squabbling between personalities than politics this time. The biggest political issue has already been resolved and nobody is proposing changing course that significantly. The arguments over tax right now are more the narcissism of small differences that can be put behind once the argument is over in a way that couldn't happen last time.
There's no existential issues like Remain or Leave, Deal or No Deal anymore.
Ken Clarke, who accepted the result without quibble and voted consistently for every different flavour of Brexit put in front of him, was also "shown the door".
He voted against the Government on a confidence motion to not extend Article 50, so no he didn't accept the result without quibble.
He served in a Cabinet that pulled the same trick of making it a confidence motion to pass Maastricht, so he can hardly complain when turnabout is fair play.
That was about fear of the chaos of No Deal - people (other than me) not realizing back then that it was a bluff. Fact is, no high profile Remainer accepted the result better than KC. The May deal, he voted for, all varieties of EFTA, Norway, Turkey, whatever, he voted for, even the shit sandwich that was the Johnson deal, he voted for. Not enough for the Johnson gang. Not pure enough. Not reckless enough. Not enough of a toady.
Clarke consistently maneuvered against any EU referendum ever, and did dirty tricks thereby. He is one of the chief if distant architects of Brexit, ironically enough. Because, by denying a vote earlier, they ended up with a catastrophically angry vote, later. He must be ranked along with Blair, Cameron, Heseltine, Major, etc etc
Clarke has always seemed a more thoughtful man than Heseltine and Major and others, however. I wonder if he now, ruefully, realises his epochal mistake. I kind of hope so, because I kind of like him
One gauge of how badly Brexit is going is how Leavers now claim that Remainers made them do it.
Brexit is going great.
That Remainers failed to get what they wanted absolutely is Remainers fault though, they had so many decks stacked in their favour and they failed hubristically every step of the way.
Pointing out Remainers abysmalness in the process is no more flawed than pointing out and laughing at Man Utd's failures in recent seasons means that Man Utd's opponents are doing badly.
Lol. You are the person I referred to in my previous post. Brexit is not "going great". It is pointless and it has no "benefits". It was a con. Only the super gullible still believe in it. By the way, Barty, Father Christmas does not exist and there are no fairies at the end of the garden. Sorry to break it to you.
That you're unable to see any points or "benefits" to Brexit is just another example your closed and simple-mindedness. There are both cons and pros to Brexit, and as a thinking individual who was pro-Remain until the campaign I was torn in the debate weighing up both cons and pros.
That you can only see cons and no pros whatever is just your own Mr Thickyness coming to the fore. I can see and accept and acknowledge the cons, even if I think the pros exist.
PS as a father of 6 and 8 year old girls I can 100% insist and demonstrate that Father Christmas and fairies at the garden absolutely do exist. Father Christmas exists through me and my wife ensuring he exists and our girls can see his existence through our actions. It is up to us to make Father Christmas work, just as its up to us to get the benefits from Brexit.
On Father Christmas... Are all presents to your daughters from Father Christmas?
I was in trouble one year because we identified presents from other family members as being from Aunt Elsie, Grandpa Freddy, etc, and gave Father Christmas the credit for our presents, so our daughter wondered why we hadn't given her any presents...
No. We do what both our parents did, the primary present that we've chosen [which wasn't on the list] comes from us, extra presents come from Father Christmas. They always write a letter to Father Christmas a few days before Christmas which we guide them towards putting on a couple of the things that Father Christmas has 'chosen' for them, minus a few surprises.
EG last year my eldest was Harry Potter crazy and so her main present we got was a Lego Hogwarts Castle. She didn't know about it and we tried to ensure she never saw it, so it wasn't on her list to Father Christmas. That came from us, everything else came from Father Christmas. Thankfully their requests to Father Christmas are always quite moderate.
Giving big presents via Father Christmas is *strongly* deprecated by teachers of the Santa credulous age group because it makes children of poorer families, and presumably richer families who don't do this, feel discriminated against.
yeah it never sits comfortably with me this santa claus thing for a number of reasons
a) its fundamentally silly and insulting to kids intelligence (once above 5) - Kids do seem incredulous when getting told Santa really does cover billions of houses in one night b) It makes Christmas a very commercial thing .Fine if you are an adult and want to treat yourself to M&S finest but kids should not have commericalism in their face c) and that silly talk about santa only rewards good kids does mean kids of poorer or non-giving parents think they have been bad (if still young enough to believe all the BS)
I told my daughter at 5 there was no Santa Claus and never regretted it
In our house Father Christmas only gives some low grade presents, things like books, stationery, fruit and chocolate, enough to fill the stockings. Serious presents come from real people. I have never told my kids that Father Christmas isn't real but I think they have all worked it out, just like I did. Same with the tooth fairy. I don't think there's any harm in it, it helps to create a little bit of magic and mystery that somehow lingers on even after you work out the truth.
Yep, I still remember - and I mean it, I really do - the thrill of early Christmas morning and seeing that my stocking at the foot of the bed was bulging. Or if not "bulging" exactly, had something in it. It usually turned out to be some tangerines but was I disappointed? No, I was not. In fact I was disappointed when my dad stopped doing it, saying "look you're 15 now".
Our youngest (and most cynical) reaching that age did nothing to stop the tradition around here. Its a part of Christmas.
My wife and I are compatible in almost every respect, but we come from different traditions on this one. My Christmas was as described above - one of my Dad's old climbing socks hung at the end of the bed, thrillingly bulging in the morning. Tangerines, polos, maybe a book, some Highland Toffee... giddiliy exciting. Anything bigger would be from my mum and dad, and was under the tree. (I'm 47 now, and they still bring cintrive to get Father Christmas to bring me and the wife a stocking each, bless 'em.) This to me is the how far Santa's should go. Whereas in her house, Santa brought an absolute shed load of gifts for the kids, piled up high and all opened before breakfast. Only one token present from the parents. What we do with the kids is an uneasy balance between the two which neither of us, in all honesty, are entirely happy with. Still, by the time it comes to start prepping lunch and dis-ease is long in the past.
If "No body cares" that Germany's ruling party wants to pander to Putin like that then thank goodness we're not in a political union with Germany anymore.
Even if Putin apologists like you think otherwise.
I am a Putin apologist? lol. Point out one post you keyboard warrior fuckwit?
Actually, do yourself and the rest of us a favour and go and get yourself a job you lazy twat and then you might have something useful to say on here from a perspective of experience instead of what you read in the Daily Express. You add nothing to this site other than to give the peabrained perspective of the average monumentally gullible and emotionally retarded right wing pillock.
Some things don't change from one generation to another:
So lefties aren't all traitors and Britain haters who either know they love Putin or who are his useful idiots, who won't even stand up and salute for God Save the Queen, and who want to encourage every little boy to wonder if he was born a little girl, etc., etc., as they plot to commit the wickedest filthiest sin of all possible sins by raising taxes on income received by hardworking business owners and genuine contributors to society and even on their estates after they die, so that the money can be given in handouts to degenerates living on council estates? :-)
Mind you, anyone who has watched the Manchurian Candidate knows that sometimes where assets of foreign governments are concerned it's a case of "he who smelled it, dealt it".
Khrushchev said that if he were British he would vote Tory. No prizes for guessing who Tories would support now, and which party they would have supported in the past, if they were Russian.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
“Azov Regiment” being the key phrase. They’re taking about what was a few hundred Ukranian defenders, of the lands Russia took in 2014, but in Russian minds they are the Nazis that dominate Eastern Ukraine, and against whom the Russians went for Kiev are fighting in the Donbass.
Near the start of the war, there was a piece saying that the Russians see 'Nazi' very differently to us, and it has a different association. For us, it is a particular form of fascism that started in 1930s Germany. For them, it is anyone who dares be anti-Russian or anti-Slavic, particularly from lands to the west. They also apparently split 'Nazism' from 'anti-Semitism', for ... reasons.
In addition, I think it claimed that before the fall of the Berlin wall, 'fascist' was the insult of choice, and preferable to 'Nazi'. That slowly changed after 1990.
I daresay our resident Russian experts can say more.
I hesitate to engage on this stuff as it's so wrapped up in ulterior motives, but there isn't really any dispute that Azov was set up as a neo-Nazi organisation and that it had an unhealthy overlap with Ukrainian ultra-nationalism. The founder, Andriy Biletsky, said in 2010 that the Ukrainian nation's mission is to "lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen". Equally, there isn't any doubt that efforts have been made to tone it down. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Regiment#Neo-Nazism for what looks like a reasonably balanced discussion.
It's also true that Russians tend to think of the Nazis primarily as the people who slaughtered millions of Russians for ultra-nationalist reasons, so groups like this are useful to Putin to whip up feeling against Ukrainian nationalism. But does any of that justify the invasion? No.
It's also true that Russia has its own rather more significant lot of neo-Nazis in the Wagner Group. We have some of our own in this country. But as far as invading other nations is concerned, that's completely irrelevant.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
“Azov Regiment” being the key phrase. They’re taking about what was a few hundred Ukranian defenders, of the lands Russia took in 2014, but in Russian minds they are the Nazis that dominate Eastern Ukraine, and against whom the Russians went for Kiev are fighting in the Donbass.
Near the start of the war, there was a piece saying that the Russians see 'Nazi' very differently to us, and it has a different association. For us, it is a particular form of fascism that started in 1930s Germany. For them, it is anyone who dares be anti-Russian or anti-Slavic, particularly from lands to the west. They also apparently split 'Nazism' from 'anti-Semitism', for ... reasons.
In addition, I think it claimed that before the fall of the Berlin wall, 'fascist' was the insult of choice, and preferable to 'Nazi'. That slowly changed after 1990.
I daresay our resident Russian experts can say more.
I hesitate to engage on this stuff as it's so wrapped up in ulterior motives, but there isn't really any dispute that Azov was set up as a neo-Nazi organisation and that it had an unhealthy overlap with Ukrainian ultra-nationalism. The founder, Andriy Biletsky, said in 2010 that the Ukrainian nation's mission is to "lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen". Equally, there isn't any doubt that efforts have been made to tone it down. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Regiment#Neo-Nazism for what looks like a reasonably balanced discussion.
It's also true that Russians tend to think of the Nazis primarily as the people who slaughtered millions of Russians for ultra-nationalist reasons, so groups like this are useful to Putin to whip up feeling against Ukrainian nationalism. But does any of that justify the invasion? No.
I agree with that. But I'd also add Russia's own (ahem) neo-Nazi problem. Which backs up the view that Russians define Nazism differently. *Their* neo-Nazis are fine, as long as they fight for Russia and the regime.
A Woolie is Arya Stark of Winterfell and i'm going home.
Truss leads Starmer 38 to 35 as best PM, LLG still 57, ConRef ticks back up to 38, but still nothing over 35 for Con since March's Kantar, they will need 37/38 plus to get anywhere near 300 seats
Labour leads by 5%.
Westminster Voting Intention (7 August):
Labour 40% (–) Conservative 35% (+3) Liberal Democrat 12% (-1) Green 5% (+1) Scottish National Party 4% (–) Reform UK 3% (-1) Plaid Cymru 1% (–) Other 1% (-1)
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
“Azov Regiment” being the key phrase. They’re taking about what was a few hundred Ukranian defenders, of the lands Russia took in 2014, but in Russian minds they are the Nazis that dominate Eastern Ukraine, and against whom the Russians went for Kiev are fighting in the Donbass.
Near the start of the war, there was a piece saying that the Russians see 'Nazi' very differently to us, and it has a different association. For us, it is a particular form of fascism that started in 1930s Germany. For them, it is anyone who dares be anti-Russian or anti-Slavic, particularly from lands to the west. They also apparently split 'Nazism' from 'anti-Semitism', for ... reasons.
In addition, I think it claimed that before the fall of the Berlin wall, 'fascist' was the insult of choice, and preferable to 'Nazi'. That slowly changed after 1990.
I daresay our resident Russian experts can say more.
I hesitate to engage on this stuff as it's so wrapped up in ulterior motives, but there isn't really any dispute that Azov was set up as a neo-Nazi organisation and that it had an unhealthy overlap with Ukrainian ultra-nationalism. The founder, Andriy Biletsky, said in 2010 that the Ukrainian nation's mission is to "lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen". Equally, there isn't any doubt that efforts have been made to tone it down. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Regiment#Neo-Nazism for what looks like a reasonably balanced discussion.
It's also true that Russians tend to think of the Nazis primarily as the people who slaughtered millions of Russians for ultra-nationalist reasons, so groups like this are useful to Putin to whip up feeling against Ukrainian nationalism. But does any of that justify the invasion? No.
It's also true that Russia has its own rather more significant lot of neo-Nazis in the Wagner Group. We have some of our own in this country. But as far as invading other nations is concerned, that's completely irrelevant.
As a teenager I knew someone who, allegedly, had been a neo-Nazi a decade earlier. He was never anything other than polite and kind to me, and to a couple of foreign-born girlfriends of mine. The rumour might just have been that-a nasty rumour. I'd like to think he was Thatcher's secret agent against neo-Nazism: no-one would ever join any political group he was in.
Mad Nad will presumably only accept a peerage if she is accepting that her cabinet career is over. Whilst this is something for all sane Conservatives to devoutly pray for I would not be so confident. She has been pretty chummy with Truss of late.
Mogg wants to be a "Knight Commander" apparently. You can combine that with continuing to serve the public as an MP.
Mogg will likely be in Truss' cabinet alongside Braverman, Kwarteng, Cleverly, Lewis, Coffey, Baker, Redwood etc. Maybe even Francois
Ah, a Cabinet of none of the talents.
Truss' Cabinet will likely be the most rightwing Tory Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet since IDS was leader. Most Tory moderates will refuse to serve in it and Truss will offer barely any senior posts to Sunak supporters
How many Tory MPs have a genuine allegiance to Sunak or anybody else, either personally or politically?
The Tory party adopted the Chinese Communist Party response to Covid, followed by the Jeremy Corbyn response to funding it. Since then they have adopted the Liz Cheney neo-con response to Ukraine, coupled with the Ed Miliband policy on energy.
The notion that Tory MPs have any allegiance to any philosophy or principles whatever is utterly fanciful.
Indeed, the only reason that Truss got a third of MPs backing her in the final round is that there was a three-way split between Sunak, Truss and Mordaunt. A few weeks ago Penny Mordaunt was vehemently opposing Truss while campaigning for herself to be PM instead.
Take a glance at Mordaunt's Twitter now and tell me that she hates Truss and will refuse to be a part of her team because she was in the third of MPs that backed Mordaunt and wasn't in the third of MPs to back Truss.
@PennyMordaunt tells #TimesRadio she is not supporting Liz Truss because she's the frontrunner but because she wants "to make sure that we don't become an ordinary nation."
Sky News Liz Truss 'understands our nation is at an inflection point' says Liz Truss supporter Penny Mordaunt - adding "her tax cuts are funded" and she has "a plan to get growth back into our economy".
LBC 'The things that don't work for us' in terms of EU regulations will 'go' under Liz Truss, says Trade Policy Minister Penny Mordaunt.
Once the leadership campaign is over, or even before it once other candidates like Mordaunt are eliminated, people who backed other candidates fall in behind other candidates ending with the eventual winner.
Its quite fun to contemplate the consternation of those MPs who are backing the wrong horse in this leadership race.
I doubt there's much consternation whatsoever. They're politicians, they'll do what they do.
The second the election is over and the other horse has won they'll congratulate them and offer to serve to "unite the party".
That's not how it played out last time.
As I said last time was the exception because they were vitriolically and existentially divided on the issue of Europe which had caused May's paralysis. So the only way for the paralysis to end was for one side to vanquish the other, which happened - most actually did accept the victory for Leave but the die hards like Grieve who couldn't had to be showed the door in order to allow governing to function and end the paralysis.
That's not the case this time. There is no vitriolic division on a matter of politics causing division, its far more squabbling between personalities than politics this time. The biggest political issue has already been resolved and nobody is proposing changing course that significantly. The arguments over tax right now are more the narcissism of small differences that can be put behind once the argument is over in a way that couldn't happen last time.
There's no existential issues like Remain or Leave, Deal or No Deal anymore.
Ken Clarke, who accepted the result without quibble and voted consistently for every different flavour of Brexit put in front of him, was also "shown the door".
He voted against the Government on a confidence motion to not extend Article 50, so no he didn't accept the result without quibble.
He served in a Cabinet that pulled the same trick of making it a confidence motion to pass Maastricht, so he can hardly complain when turnabout is fair play.
That was about fear of the chaos of No Deal - people (other than me) not realizing back then that it was a bluff. Fact is, no high profile Remainer accepted the result better than KC. The May deal, he voted for, all varieties of EFTA, Norway, Turkey, whatever, he voted for, even the shit sandwich that was the Johnson deal, he voted for. Not enough for the Johnson gang. Not pure enough. Not reckless enough. Not enough of a toady.
Clarke consistently maneuvered against any EU referendum ever, and did dirty tricks thereby. He is one of the chief if distant architects of Brexit, ironically enough. Because, by denying a vote earlier, they ended up with a catastrophically angry vote, later. He must be ranked along with Blair, Cameron, Heseltine, Major, etc etc
Clarke has always seemed a more thoughtful man than Heseltine and Major and others, however. I wonder if he now, ruefully, realises his epochal mistake. I kind of hope so, because I kind of like him
One gauge of how badly Brexit is going is how Leavers now claim that Remainers made them do it.
Brexit is going great.
That Remainers failed to get what they wanted absolutely is Remainers fault though, they had so many decks stacked in their favour and they failed hubristically every step of the way.
Pointing out Remainers abysmalness in the process is no more flawed than pointing out and laughing at Man Utd's failures in recent seasons means that Man Utd's opponents are doing badly.
Lol. You are the person I referred to in my previous post. Brexit is not "going great". It is pointless and it has no "benefits". It was a con. Only the super gullible still believe in it. By the way, Barty, Father Christmas does not exist and there are no fairies at the end of the garden. Sorry to break it to you.
That you're unable to see any points or "benefits" to Brexit is just another example your closed and simple-mindedness. There are both cons and pros to Brexit, and as a thinking individual who was pro-Remain until the campaign I was torn in the debate weighing up both cons and pros.
That you can only see cons and no pros whatever is just your own Mr Thickyness coming to the fore. I can see and accept and acknowledge the cons, even if I think the pros exist.
PS as a father of 6 and 8 year old girls I can 100% insist and demonstrate that Father Christmas and fairies at the garden absolutely do exist. Father Christmas exists through me and my wife ensuring he exists and our girls can see his existence through our actions. It is up to us to make Father Christmas work, just as its up to us to get the benefits from Brexit.
On Father Christmas... Are all presents to your daughters from Father Christmas?
I was in trouble one year because we identified presents from other family members as being from Aunt Elsie, Grandpa Freddy, etc, and gave Father Christmas the credit for our presents, so our daughter wondered why we hadn't given her any presents...
No. We do what both our parents did, the primary present that we've chosen [which wasn't on the list] comes from us, extra presents come from Father Christmas. They always write a letter to Father Christmas a few days before Christmas which we guide them towards putting on a couple of the things that Father Christmas has 'chosen' for them, minus a few surprises.
EG last year my eldest was Harry Potter crazy and so her main present we got was a Lego Hogwarts Castle. She didn't know about it and we tried to ensure she never saw it, so it wasn't on her list to Father Christmas. That came from us, everything else came from Father Christmas. Thankfully their requests to Father Christmas are always quite moderate.
Giving big presents via Father Christmas is *strongly* deprecated by teachers of the Santa credulous age group because it makes children of poorer families, and presumably richer families who don't do this, feel discriminated against.
yeah it never sits comfortably with me this santa claus thing for a number of reasons
a) its fundamentally silly and insulting to kids intelligence (once above 5) - Kids do seem incredulous when getting told Santa really does cover billions of houses in one night b) It makes Christmas a very commercial thing .Fine if you are an adult and want to treat yourself to M&S finest but kids should not have commericalism in their face c) and that silly talk about santa only rewards good kids does mean kids of poorer or non-giving parents think they have been bad (if still young enough to believe all the BS)
I told my daughter at 5 there was no Santa Claus and never regretted it
In our house Father Christmas only gives some low grade presents, things like books, stationery, fruit and chocolate, enough to fill the stockings. Serious presents come from real people. I have never told my kids that Father Christmas isn't real but I think they have all worked it out, just like I did. Same with the tooth fairy. I don't think there's any harm in it, it helps to create a little bit of magic and mystery that somehow lingers on even after you work out the truth.
Yep, I still remember - and I mean it, I really do - the thrill of early Christmas morning and seeing that my stocking at the foot of the bed was bulging. Or if not "bulging" exactly, had something in it. It usually turned out to be some tangerines but was I disappointed? No, I was not. In fact I was disappointed when my dad stopped doing it, saying "look you're 15 now".
Our youngest (and most cynical) reaching that age did nothing to stop the tradition around here. Its a part of Christmas.
My wife and I are compatible in almost every respect, but we come from different traditions on this one. My Christmas was as described above - one of my Dad's old climbing socks hung at the end of the bed, thrillingly bulging in the morning. Tangerines, polos, maybe a book, some Highland Toffee... giddiliy exciting. Anything bigger would be from my mum and dad, and was under the tree. (I'm 47 now, and they still bring cintrive to get Father Christmas to bring me and the wife a stocking each, bless 'em.) This to me is the how far Santa's should go. Whereas in her house, Santa brought an absolute shed load of gifts for the kids, piled up high and all opened before breakfast. Only one token present from the parents. What we do with the kids is an uneasy balance between the two which neither of us, in all honesty, are entirely happy with. Still, by the time it comes to start prepping lunch and dis-ease is long in the past.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
ts'easy.
Europhobes: no confidence in their country; deeply insecure, need tangible reassurance about their place in the world, always worried what the big boys are saying.
Europhiles: supremely at ease with the world and their place in it, cool, laid back, confident, are the big boys.
Talking of MAZEBOMBS old music, this impromptu version of Whole Lotta Love - with one guy on a guitar and another just shrieking into a mic - is incredible
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
ts'easy.
Europhobes: no confidence in their country; deeply insecure, need tangible reassurance about their place in the world, always worried what the big boys are saying.
Europhiles: supremely at ease with the world and their place in it, cool, laid back, confident, are the big boys.
A Woolie is Arya Stark of Winterfell and i'm going home.
Truss leads Starmer 38 to 35 as best PM, LLG still 57, ConRef ticks back up to 38, but still nothing over 35 for Con since March's Kantar, they will need 37/38 plus to get anywhere near 300 seats
Labour leads by 5%.
Westminster Voting Intention (7 August):
Labour 40% (–) Conservative 35% (+3) Liberal Democrat 12% (-1) Green 5% (+1) Scottish National Party 4% (–) Reform UK 3% (-1) Plaid Cymru 1% (–) Other 1% (-1)
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
The comparison has oft been made, and is quite apt, right down to the Remoaners being recusants, conspiring with foreign powers - Catholic Spain/Brussels - to take Protestant Brexity Britain back into the Roman fold
Europhobes: no confidence in their country; deeply insecure, need tangible reassurance about their place in the world, always worried what the big boys are saying.
A Woolie is Arya Stark of Winterfell and i'm going home.
Truss leads Starmer 38 to 35 as best PM, LLG still 57, ConRef ticks back up to 38, but still nothing over 35 for Con since March's Kantar, they will need 37/38 plus to get anywhere near 300 seats
Labour leads by 5%.
Westminster Voting Intention (7 August):
Labour 40% (–) Conservative 35% (+3) Liberal Democrat 12% (-1) Green 5% (+1) Scottish National Party 4% (–) Reform UK 3% (-1) Plaid Cymru 1% (–) Other 1% (-1)
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
The comparison has oft been made, and is quite apt, right down to the Remoaners being recusants, conspiring with foreign powers - Catholic Spain/Brussels - to take Protestant Brexity Britain back into the Roman fold
They failed, and they will fail again
Rejoining would be the 21st century answer to the Restoration of 1660.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Last headcount had 3 people switching sides after 6 years of intense debate, for a net change of 1 poster. Fuhgeddaboudit.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Last headcount had 3 people switching sides after 6 years of intense debate, for a net change of 1 poster. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Yeah but how they switched. Made up in energy for around 100 posters apiece.
Interesting, thanks for that. I have had my Tesla (which I love) for just over a year and had the full monty autopilot put on it but have never really used it. Possibly too much of a control freak!
Here is a driving instruction channel on Youtube trying Tesla Autopilot round Liverpool. Basically, it reacts late and gets confused by street markings; adaptive cruise control is better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jDLE9oRqOk
@Sunil_Prasannan - a late huge congrats for completing the UK rail network. Correct me if I'm wrong, this is basically all the rail lines, plus all tube/metro/tram?
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
The comparison has oft been made, and is quite apt, right down to the Remoaners being recusants, conspiring with foreign powers - Catholic Spain/Brussels - to take Protestant Brexity Britain back into the Roman fold
They failed, and they will fail again
Rejoining would be the 21st century answer to the Restoration of 1660.
It would lead to a violent revolution against the leadership in 30 years time?
Europhobes: no confidence in their country; deeply insecure, need tangible reassurance about their place in the world, always worried what the big boys are saying.
Brexit encapsulated.
"Mummy, mummy, mummy, mummy, are we the best?"
"No, your grandpa is still better, becuase he fought an actual war against an actual tyranny."
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Last headcount had 3 people switching sides after 6 years of intense debate, for a net change of 1 poster. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Yeah but how they switched. Made up in energy for around 100 posters apiece.
@williamglenn is the only Remain > Leave switcher I think?
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Last headcount had 3 people switching sides after 6 years of intense debate, for a net change of 1 poster. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Yeah but how they switched. Made up in energy for around 100 posters apiece.
@williamglenn is the only Remain > Leave switcher I think?
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Take the 'tone' out of this and I agree. Brexit was fuelled - at it's intellectual Dan Hannon end - by the idea that EU membership was incompatible with true national sovereignty. Now for me that's a noddy archaic view of what sovereignty means in this complicated superconnected world, but still, it's not something that can be called plain wrong.
Interestingly, a couple of weeks ago Northern Monkey wrote a post illustrating exactly this, using an analogy of a bloke he knew with a desperate yearning, come what may, to be his own boss rather than an employee. It was a v good post and got lots of likes. Yet Leavers such as Casino Royale went ape about it, saying it was rubbish and all those who'd 'liked' it were a disgrace.
Comments
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Weren't people all in a tizzy because they thought @Heathener was somehow a troll or something on account of their ISP?
Just discuss the views - we are all robust enough not to worry about who or what may be putting them forward.
If I said the moon was made out of cheese no one would care a damn, nor I'm guessing argue with me (hey @BartholomewRoberts) because it is transparent rubbish. So apply the same test to posts on here. If they are transparent rubbish don't engage and if they have some merit then do engage.
Which is part of why river quality improved so dramatically post privatisation. When water provision was state owned there was no incentive for the water firm to actually apply the legal standards in the same way.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
I chattered online with a journalist from Alabama who said that he doubted if Roy Moore even knew how to feed and dress himself.
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020401.html
What number ore you briefing?
Schröder is “not so far removed from the principles of the SPD” with his statements that it would warrant suspension
https://twitter.com/minna_alander/status/1556632838925160449
I seem to remember his rather relieved “finally” post in response!
In addition, I think it claimed that before the fall of the Berlin wall, 'fascist' was the insult of choice, and preferable to 'Nazi'. That slowly changed after 1990.
I daresay our resident Russian experts can say more.
A GOP House majority is 1.18 to lay; I'm on at 1.15.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/blue-versus-green-rocking-the-byzantine-empire-113325928/
Readers may come up with their own ideas about the notorious stage act.
Hope lies in the ashes of empires.
She had much better taste in music for a start.
Outfield now tending towards 1976 brown.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
Although I would rate the odds that he would have done so without posting some stupid meme on his Twitter account as very low.
What happens with inflation and gas prices could have a big impact but against that the GOP have dug themselves a hole choosing some real nutjobs as candidates . The abortion issue is going to cause them problems and voting against the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will be in many Dem campaign ads . Refusing to cap insulin prices will also give the Dems plenty of ammunition .
If inflation edges down and the jobs data remains good then the GOP could actually lose Senate seats .
The house looks better for the GOP but even there they’ve lost their poll lead although because of gerrymandering the Dems would need to be much further ahead .
Even if Putin apologists like you think otherwise.
Besides, what are you getting over and above the driver-assistance aids by GM, Merc etc?
(Heck, Mrs J's Hyundai I20 has quite a good lane-keeping ability. Although you notice where and when it doesn't work...)
https://techwireasia.com/2021/04/this-self-driving-car-drove-safely-all-over-south-korea-in-1993/
We are not appreciably further forward.
America could in theory turn around and say they consider an attack on a European nation as an attack on them, but they've chosen to do nothing militarily about it. America has been open and adamant on that principle since day one, since they were wanting to avoid getting dragged into conflicts based on imperial possessions etc
I'm sadly expecting bait-and-switch on FSD.
But seriously, would we expect this from any other area of life? "They promised a four bedroom home, but I got a two bedroom that catches afire occasionally. I'm fine with it though, because it's branded with the company I like..."
Witness also the massive backlog they have for Tesla solar roofs, and their shitty attempts to put up prices for those who have ordered, but are waiting.
https://electrek.co/2021/09/20/tesla-agrees-finally-honor-solar-roof-prices-signed-contracts/
Actually, do yourself and the rest of us a favour and go and get yourself a job you lazy twat and then you might have something useful to say on here from a perspective of experience instead of what you read in the Daily Express. You add nothing to this site other than to give the peabrained perspective of the average monumentally gullible and emotionally retarded right wing pillock.
The original DARPA Grand Challenge was awesome, though, and I think we've gone a long way since then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge
However if a NATO nation was invaded and any NATO nation refused to defend it by definition it would be expelled from NATO for having broken the core rule of the alliance
It's also true that Russians tend to think of the Nazis primarily as the people who slaughtered millions of Russians for ultra-nationalist reasons, so groups like this are useful to Putin to whip up feeling against Ukrainian nationalism. But does any of that justify the invasion? No.
You can trust me on this. It's one of my specialities.
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Still, by the time it comes to start prepping lunch and dis-ease is long in the past.
Of course!
This is fun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfzwIms-M5M
So lefties aren't all traitors and Britain haters who either know they love Putin or who are his useful idiots, who won't even stand up and salute for God Save the Queen, and who want to encourage every little boy to wonder if he was born a little girl, etc., etc., as they plot to commit the wickedest filthiest sin of all possible sins by raising taxes on income received by hardworking business owners and genuine contributors to society and even on their estates after they die, so that the money can be given in handouts to degenerates living on council estates? :-)
Mind you, anyone who has watched the Manchurian Candidate knows that sometimes where assets of foreign governments are concerned it's a case of "he who smelled it, dealt it".
Khrushchev said that if he were British he would vote Tory.
No prizes for guessing who Tories would support now, and which party they would have supported in the past, if they were Russian.
But as far as invading other nations is concerned, that's completely irrelevant.
Truss leads Starmer 38 to 35 as best PM, LLG still 57, ConRef ticks back up to 38, but still nothing over 35 for Con since March's Kantar, they will need 37/38 plus to get anywhere near 300 seats
Labour leads by 5%.
Westminster Voting Intention (7 August):
Labour 40% (–)
Conservative 35% (+3)
Liberal Democrat 12% (-1)
Green 5% (+1)
Scottish National Party 4% (–)
Reform UK 3% (-1)
Plaid Cymru 1% (–)
Other 1% (-1)
Changes +/- 4 August
https://t.co/r0DzGHMZYe https://t.co/w2nJiVzs0f
U.S. consumers' inflation outlooks drop sharply, NY Fed survey shows
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-consumers-inflation-outlooks-drop-sharply-ny-fed-survey-shows-2022-08-08/
Europhobes: no confidence in their country; deeply insecure, need tangible reassurance about their place in the world, always worried what the big boys are saying.
Europhiles: supremely at ease with the world and their place in it, cool, laid back, confident, are the big boys.
https://twitter.com/BrianRoemmele/status/1555905631764168705?s=20&t=uOJghHE_thQMQZKGSior6Q
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
There are zillions of old bands now on the touring circuit including Sham 69 god help us and other blasts from the past.
Given our discussions about Ukraine/Russia I hope not Skrewdriver et al.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpegKeUWicY
They failed then, and they will fail again
"Mummy, mummy, mummy, mummy, are we the best?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jDLE9oRqOk
I assume you drew the line at preserved railways?
@kinabalu and @RochdalePioneers went the other way. I vaguely remember one more?
Not sure how we'd count @HYUFD
Interestingly, a couple of weeks ago Northern Monkey wrote a post illustrating exactly this, using an analogy of a bloke he knew with a desperate yearning, come what may, to be his own boss rather than an employee. It was a v good post and got lots of likes. Yet Leavers such as Casino Royale went ape about it, saying it was rubbish and all those who'd 'liked' it were a disgrace.
Fragile fragile Leavers.