The exquisite irony, of course, is that if ultra-Remoaners like @Scott_xP had accepted the Brexit vote, and sought a compromise - rather than trying to thwart it and overturn it and demolish British democracy - they would have got their compromise. Britain would surely have stayed in the EEA/EFTA and the whole thing would feel much less Brexity. We’d be associate members.
And any route back would have been so much easier. Now it is impossible - or the work of two generations
This undeniable fact must gnaw at them. Daily
Yes but it would have been a Brexit that kept free movement and therefore betrayed the working class voters who won the referendum because of a desire to cut immigration from Eastern Europe in particular
Immigration has increased since Brexit and this government, which enacted Brexit, wants even more.
Good. Do you object to controlled, increased immigration? I don't, why would you? 👍
Read my reply in context of what I was replying to, which was that Brexit had to end free movement in order to cut immigration. If that was the government's intention then it has singularly failed.
Talk on immigration from the sane wing of Brexiteers (ie ignoring Farage) was primarily about controlling it, not about cutting it.
LOL x 1,000,000,000
Farage _was_ Brexit. And - where oh where is @Isam - cutting down immigration was the main driver of Brexit.
Look you can cover your ears and should la la la all you want but if you really think that the main driver of Brexit (rather than the fantasy land I'm not an awful person, really, state you're in now) was not about reducing immigration then you disqualify yourself from discussing politics, no matter how early you tipped Sunak to be next PM and at what odds.
On the subject of missing posters, where are Malcy and Moon Rabbit?
@MoonRabbit was banned on July 21st - @MalcolmG hasn't logged in since July 4th.
"Lockdown effects feared to be killing more people than Covid Unexplained excess deaths outstrip those from virus as medics call figures ‘terrifying’
Sarah Knapton Science Editor
The effects of lockdown may now be killing more people than are dying of Covid, official statistics suggest. Figures for excess deaths from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that around 1,000 more people than usual are dying each week from conditions other than the virus."
Going back to a discussion on the previous thread, the problem with grade inflation is that it becomes more difficult to differentiate between the higher achieving candidates.
Accademic achievement amongst the population is likely to be normally distributed. But if up to 40% are getting A or A*, then the A level results are more likely to fit a poisson distribution. It is not a good fit.
One of the purpose of exams is to be able to differentiate between candidates, so that universities and employers are able to determine which are better.
Currently, the A level grading system provides a lot of differentiation at low grades, but less at high grades.
In my view it should be the opposite.
The problem for politicians is that parents really like their kids getting these "A"s that they rarely did, not to mention the fancy looking Diplomas and degrees wearing silly clothes. Introducing rigour back into an exam system not fit for purpose is not a great way of getting elected.
The performance indicators of every Scottish college now require everyone on the course to pass, even if they don't turn up for most of it. If they are not passed the institution is penalised financially. The message is loud and clear as are the implications for educational standards.
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
I am scared of many things. Aliens, AI, Wokeness, Putin, new avian flu, a sudden unexplained lack of wine (and also intrigued by some of them) but I can also assure you that I am not remotely scared that Brexit will be reversed and we will “rejoin”. The political obstacles between us and that make it unthinkable for 30 years. By which time the aliens will have taken over the planet from the cold dead birds with AI brains, so who cares
I just like winding up Remoaners. Because they are so easy to wind up. That should be pretty bloody obvious by now
I trusted supranational EU bureaucrats to act in the best interests of most people in the UK
Well, there's your mistake.
Do NOT censor like that to set up a smart ass reply. It's bad practice.
The next bit was key ... "far more than I will ever trust the Tory Party".
Its not remotely key. There is a democratic way to remove the Tory Party, vote for another party. There is no democratic way to remove unelected supranational EU bureaucrats (if you're rejecting the notion of Brexit entirely).
To put your faith in unelected bodies because you dislike the fact that some of your compatriots might vote for people you dislike, is not a healthy path to go down. Its downright Trumpian too, seeking to reverse election results that go "wrong".
Tell me, how do I remove, democratically, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office? Or Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park? Or even (dare I say it), HM the Queen?
You may not realise this but I'm a republican who wants the House of Lords to be abolished, so perhaps not the best question to ask your question to, but all of those are in practice answerable to the elected House of Commons. And none of them can change the law without the elected Government or the Commons approving it.
Not the case with the EU which could circumvent the Commons.
But only by using powers the Commons had granted to it. So no difference.
Ah, yes, the old "we were always sovereign" nonsense. The only democratic control we ever had over the EU was the right to leave it. Still wondering why the referendum went as it did?
The exquisite irony, of course, is that if ultra-Remoaners like @Scott_xP had accepted the Brexit vote, and sought a compromise - rather than trying to thwart it and overturn it and demolish British democracy - they would have got their compromise. Britain would surely have stayed in the EEA/EFTA and the whole thing would feel much less Brexity. We’d be associate members.
And any route back would have been so much easier. Now it is impossible - or the work of two generations
This undeniable fact must gnaw at them. Daily
Yes but it would have been a Brexit that kept free movement and therefore betrayed the working class voters who won the referendum because of a desire to cut immigration from Eastern Europe in particular
Immigration has increased since Brexit and this government, which enacted Brexit, wants even more.
Good. Do you object to controlled, increased immigration? I don't, why would you? 👍
Read my reply in context of what I was replying to, which was that Brexit had to end free movement in order to cut immigration. If that was the government's intention then it has singularly failed.
Yeah but HYUFD is like Theresa May, a Remainer, who never understood Brexit or Brexiteers and reduces it all down to reducing immigration.
Remain-voting PMs like David Cameron and Theresa May were elected campaigning to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands but the Leave campaign (and Boris as PM) made no such commitment.
Talk on immigration from the sane wing of Brexiteers (ie ignoring Farage) was primarily about controlling it, not about cutting it.
The issue was control. Cameron could go on about ‘tens of thousands’ for as long as he liked, but he had no way of controlling the actual number. It was the lack of control that was the problem, not the numbers themselves.
The context was that the minimum wage was becoming the maximum wage in a number of jobs, and that the increase in population was causing other issues with regard to housing and public services.
No-one is going to object to the NHS going on a recruitment trip to Manila, and finding tens of thousands of English-speaking nurses and care workers.
No doubt there are some who would wonder why we are incapable of training British school-leavers in nursing or other health professions. Aside from government policy.
The exquisite irony, of course, is that if ultSorrssra-Remoaners like @Scott_xP had accepted the Brexit vote, and sought a compromise - rather than trying to thwart it and overturn it and demolish British democracy - they would have got their compromise. Britain would surely have stayed in the EEA/EFTA and the whole thing would feel much less Brexity. We’d be associate members.
And any route back would have been so much easier. Now it is impossible - or the work of two generations
This undeniable fact must gnaw at them. Daily
Yes but it would have been a Brexit that kept free movement and therefore betrayed the working class voters who won the referendum because of a desire to cut immigration from Eastern Europe in particular
I’m not saying it’s good or bad
I’m just saying this was the obvious realpolitik move. It also - I am sure - would have commanded a majority of British public opinion. All the Remainers and half of Leavers. A compromise. Stay in the EEA
Instead the fucking idiots decided that cancelling the vote and telling 17.4 million people “your vote doesn’t matter, even if you won” was somehow a BETTER idea
That is bollox and you know it. It was the Brexiters who once having won the vote decided to drive home their advantage and go for the full monty hardest Brexit they could manage. They had no magnanimity in victory, no attempt to make a compromise that would unite the country. This is because Brexiteers are essentially just like Nationalists north of the border; they are driven by hate, and division is their favourite pass time. It is why in spite of having got the vote you wanted you are still are determined to wind up the 48% that thought it was dumb, which proves to me you are still trying very hard to convince yourself. And do you know why you need to do this? Because you are not stupid enough to not realise that it was completely pointless.
Leon it was pointless. Thick. Stupid. But we are stuck with it and many of us realise that we have to make the best of it. We will still continue to laugh at those who still genuinely believe in the Brexit Bollox, and also those like you who keep desperately trying to convince yourself.
Having a go at Brexiteers for driving home their advantage is like "blaming" Salah and the Liverpool players when a fixture at Old Trafford ends Manchester United 0 - 5 Liverpool.
The Brexiteers pressing home their advantage is what they're supposed to do when they have the advantage, they were seeking what they wanted and won the vote to get it. Salah/Brexiteers didn't have a bad performance there.
The bad performance was purely on the side of Manchester United/Remainers who abjectly failed and in doing so allowed the other side to press the advantage.
Co-incidentally this coming Monday night’s fixture, and a good possibility of a similar scoreline to last year.
I trusted supranational EU bureaucrats to act in the best interests of most people in the UK
Well, there's your mistake.
Do NOT censor like that to set up a smart ass reply. It's bad practice.
The next bit was key ... "far more than I will ever trust the Tory Party".
Its not remotely key. There is a democratic way to remove the Tory Party, vote for another party. There is no democratic way to remove unelected supranational EU bureaucrats (if you're rejecting the notion of Brexit entirely).
To put your faith in unelected bodies because you dislike the fact that some of your compatriots might vote for people you dislike, is not a healthy path to go down. Its downright Trumpian too, seeking to reverse election results that go "wrong".
Tell me, how do I remove, democratically, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office? Or Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park? Or even (dare I say it), HM the Queen?
You may not realise this but I'm a republican who wants the House of Lords to be abolished, so perhaps not the best question to ask your question to, but all of those are in practice answerable to the elected House of Commons. And none of them can change the law without the elected Government or the Commons approving it.
Not the case with the EU which could circumvent the Commons.
But only by using powers the Commons had granted to it. So no difference.
No, there is a difference.
The EU unlike Trade Agreements or NATO or most other agreements has its own Parliament that can change the law, without recourse to the UK's elected Parliament agreeing to it.
Now if you want to live in a country called Europe, that is entirely democratically reasonable and acceptable. A country called Europe would be better than what the EU is right now by far. But if you don't, then the EU undermines the UK's democracy.
And I also had a vote for the EU Parliament. I still don't see the difference.
(But actually the original question was about unelected bureaucrats, who I thought were appointed via governments, but it was years ago now and I forget who was responsible for whom now)
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
If the former Remainers were actively advocating Rejoining, that would be fine. That's a damn sight different from moaning - more than six years on - that they lost a democratic vote because their campaign was atrocious.
The exquisite irony, of course, is that if ultra-Remoaners like @Scott_xP had accepted the Brexit vote, and sought a compromise - rather than trying to thwart it and overturn it and demolish British democracy - they would have got their compromise. Britain would surely have stayed in the EEA/EFTA and the whole thing would feel much less Brexity. We’d be associate members.
And any route back would have been so much easier. Now it is impossible - or the work of two generations
This undeniable fact must gnaw at them. Daily
Yes but it would have been a Brexit that kept free movement and therefore betrayed the working class voters who won the referendum because of a desire to cut immigration from Eastern Europe in particular
Immigration has increased since Brexit and this government, which enacted Brexit, wants even more.
Good. Do you object to controlled, increased immigration? I don't, why would you? 👍
Read my reply in context of what I was replying to, which was that Brexit had to end free movement in order to cut immigration. If that was the government's intention then it has singularly failed.
Yeah but HYUFD is like Theresa May, a Remainer, who never understood Brexit or Brexiteers and reduces it all down to reducing immigration.
Remain-voting PMs like David Cameron and Theresa May were elected campaigning to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands but the Leave campaign (and Boris as PM) made no such commitment.
Talk on immigration from the sane wing of Brexiteers (ie ignoring Farage) was primarily about controlling it, not about cutting it.
The issue was control. Cameron could go on about ‘tens of thousands’ for as long as he liked, but he had no way of controlling the actual number. It was the lack of control that was the problem, not the numbers themselves.
The context was that the minimum wage was becoming the maximum wage in a number of jobs, and that the increase in population was causing other issues with regard to housing and public services.
No-one is going to object to the NHS going on a recruitment trip to Manila, and finding tens of thousands of English-speaking nurses and care workers.
What about British nurses and care workers, who may see it as a squeeze on their pay and conditions?
The sad reality is that most of us are protectionist luddites about what we produce and globalised technophiles about what we consume, me included. It's just that insight doesn't provide a way to inform us about what to do next.
"Lockdown effects feared to be killing more people than Covid Unexplained excess deaths outstrip those from virus as medics call figures ‘terrifying’
Sarah Knapton Science Editor
The effects of lockdown may now be killing more people than are dying of Covid, official statistics suggest. Figures for excess deaths from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that around 1,000 more people than usual are dying each week from conditions other than the virus."
Well we know lots of people during lockdown were less mobile than they previously were and put on extra lockdown pounds as a result.
Being overweight and less mobile has an impact on both diabetes and cardiovascular disease, so potentially these deaths are lockdown related more than Covid related?
Interesting previous thread, with the news that the Telegraph is now describing Boris as the guilty man of Brexit. I doubt they really give a fig about the consequences of Brexit though: they stuffed the continentals and metropolitan types and that was enough; those who suffer the fallout now have to take care of themselves. But what the Telegraph does want is for Liz to beat wokey-cokey Keir Starmer at the next election, so 'Liz: the girl to get Brexit done' is probably a good slogan to start pumping.
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
I am scared of many things. Aliens, AI, Wokeness, Putin, new avian flu, a sudden unexplained lack of wine (and also intrigued by some of them) but I can also assure you that I am not remotely scared that Brexit will be reversed and we will “rejoin”. The political obstacles between us and that make it unthinkable for 30 years. By which time the aliens will have taken over the planet from the cold dead birds with AI brains, so who cares
I just like winding up Remoaners. Because they are so easy to wind up. That should be pretty bloody obvious by now
Yes of course and it is your right to do so and good luck with it. I felt super relieved in 2019 when Corbyn lost and I probably wasn't beyond pointing out my happiness to the various Corbyn-supporting Labour supporters then and afterwards.
But what I never said to any of them, no matter how much I disagreed with their policies (even @BJO for heaven's sake) is that they should shut up and not discuss Lab vs Cons any more, or their particular preference for Lab leader.
And yet when we discuss an equally live political topic, Brexit, plenty on here want no more discussion and berate posters ( @Scott_xP in this instance this morning) when they post about it.
Moreso the irony when he was posting leavers' views on Brexit. So even leavers discuss it still.
"Lockdown effects feared to be killing more people than Covid Unexplained excess deaths outstrip those from virus as medics call figures ‘terrifying’
Sarah Knapton Science Editor
The effects of lockdown may now be killing more people than are dying of Covid, official statistics suggest. Figures for excess deaths from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that around 1,000 more people than usual are dying each week from conditions other than the virus."
Well we know lots of people during lockdown were less mobile than they previously were and put on extra lockdown pounds as a result.
Being overweight and less mobile has an impact on both diabetes and cardiovascular disease, so potentially these deaths are lockdown related more than Covid related?
COVID does fuck with the cardiovascular system. From my own experience, it seems to muck up quite a few systems in the body. Which then take a while to return to normal.
The exquisite irony, of course, is that if ultra-Remoaners like @Scott_xP had accepted the Brexit vote, and sought a compromise - rather than trying to thwart it and overturn it and demolish British democracy - they would have got their compromise. Britain would surely have stayed in the EEA/EFTA and the whole thing would feel much less Brexity. We’d be associate members.
And any route back would have been so much easier. Now it is impossible - or the work of two generations
This undeniable fact must gnaw at them. Daily
Yes but it would have been a Brexit that kept free movement and therefore betrayed the working class voters who won the referendum because of a desire to cut immigration from Eastern Europe in particular
Immigration has increased since Brexit and this government, which enacted Brexit, wants even more.
Good. Do you object to controlled, increased immigration? I don't, why would you? 👍
Read my reply in context of what I was replying to, which was that Brexit had to end free movement in order to cut immigration. If that was the government's intention then it has singularly failed.
Talk on immigration from the sane wing of Brexiteers (ie ignoring Farage) was primarily about controlling it, not about cutting it.
LOL x 1,000,000,000
Farage _was_ Brexit. And - where oh where is @Isam - cutting down immigration was the main driver of Brexit.
Look you can cover your ears and should la la la all you want but if you really think that the main driver of Brexit (rather than the fantasy land I'm not an awful person, really, state you're in now) was not about reducing immigration then you disqualify yourself from discussing politics, no matter how early you tipped Sunak to be next PM and at what odds.
On the subject of missing posters, where are Malcy and Moon Rabbit?
I asked about Malky a week or so ago; someone suggested he was banned.
OT Emma Raducanu's tremendous run on the tennis pitches of Cincinnati ended last night. After beating two former world number ones, Emma succumbed to the world number seven.
Which means if I do go ahead and back her for a repeat US Open win, if there are no injury scares, then her price will be better.
Going back to a discussion on the previous thread, the problem with grade inflation is that it becomes more difficult to differentiate between the higher achieving candidates.
Accademic achievement amongst the population is likely to be normally distributed. But if up to 40% are getting A or A*, then the A level results are more likely to fit a poisson distribution. It is not a good fit.
One of the purpose of exams is to be able to differentiate between candidates, so that universities and employers are able to determine which are better.
Currently, the A level grading system provides a lot of differentiation at low grades, but less at high grades.
In my view it should be the opposite.
From a political point of view the exam grading is attempting to do two things which are contrary to each other.
First, it is used to bolster the ideology of meritocracy. This is the idea that you get ahead by working hard and the exams judge who deserves to succeed - with a secure middle-class income. The important corollary of this ideology is that those who find themselves at the top of the pile deserve to be there and earned their place.
The second aim is to convince people that everyone can succeed, if only they work hard enough. Consequently the exam system cannot judge too many people to have failed, as it would make it too obvious that not everyone can be a lawyer, doctor, etc. The corollary of this idea is that anyone who does fail, deserved to fail due to a moral weakness and lack of work ethic, and so those at the top have no responsibility to ensure they can live a life of dignity and security.
What this means is that people end up at the top of the pile, not due to inherent merit or effort, but due to other attributes that give them an edge - social markers, contacts, etc - but with a belief that they deserved to have won, and it wasn't due mainly to having the right parents.
I trusted supranational EU bureaucrats to act in the best interests of most people in the UK
Well, there's your mistake.
Do NOT censor like that to set up a smart ass reply. It's bad practice.
The next bit was key ... "far more than I will ever trust the Tory Party".
Its not remotely key. There is a democratic way to remove the Tory Party, vote for another party. There is no democratic way to remove unelected supranational EU bureaucrats (if you're rejecting the notion of Brexit entirely).
To put your faith in unelected bodies because you dislike the fact that some of your compatriots might vote for people you dislike, is not a healthy path to go down. Its downright Trumpian too, seeking to reverse election results that go "wrong".
Tell me, how do I remove, democratically, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office? Or Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park? Or even (dare I say it), HM the Queen?
You may not realise this but I'm a republican who wants the House of Lords to be abolished, so perhaps not the best question to ask your question to, but all of those are in practice answerable to the elected House of Commons. And none of them can change the law without the elected Government or the Commons approving it.
Not the case with the EU which could circumvent the Commons.
But only by using powers the Commons had granted to it. So no difference.
No, there is a difference.
The EU unlike Trade Agreements or NATO or most other agreements has its own Parliament that can change the law, without recourse to the UK's elected Parliament agreeing to it.
Now if you want to live in a country called Europe, that is entirely democratically reasonable and acceptable. A country called Europe would be better than what the EU is right now by far. But if you don't, then the EU undermines the UK's democracy.
And I also had a vote for the EU Parliament. I still don't see the difference.
(But actually the original question was about unelected bureaucrats, who I thought were appointed via governments, but it was years ago now and I forget who was responsible for whom now)
The difference is if you want to be in a country called Europe, or not.
A country called Europe would be far more democratic than the EU. It would have far more meaningful elections, and a more meaningful press scrutiny and demos for debating issues settled in the European Parliament and the European Commission.
But that's not what we had. We had a bastard halfway house where issues were decided on a European level but debated on a domestic one, so much of what was decided in the European Parliament evaded any reasoned scrutiny.
Over time the EU is evolving into a country called Europe and that's OK, its to be welcomed in fact over what it is right now, but the key question is whether you want to be a part of that or not? If not, then voting leave is sensible, if yes then democratic safeguards and reforms are sensible and Cameron proposed some sensible ones but they were rejected which is why I switched from Remain to Leave.
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
If the former Remainers were actively advocating Rejoining, that would be fine. That's a damn sight different from moaning - moe than six years on - that they lost a democratic vote.
But they aren't moaning about losing the vote, not in the main. They are moaning that Brexit is shit. Which they have every right to do, especially as Brexit is in fact shit. Many Remainers are advocating Rejoining too, but Labour won't touch this for a while because marginals are full of Leavers who haven't yet changed their minds/died. Most Remainers who want us to Rejoin, like me, reluctantly accept this electoral realism. We are patient. At the same time, we are rolling the pitch by pointing out that Brexit is shit.
The exquisite irony, of course, is that if ultra-Remoaners like @Scott_xP had accepted the Brexit vote, and sought a compromise - rather than trying to thwart it and overturn it and demolish British democracy - they would have got their compromise. Britain would surely have stayed in the EEA/EFTA and the whole thing would feel much less Brexity. We’d be associate members.
And any route back would have been so much easier. Now it is impossible - or the work of two generations
This undeniable fact must gnaw at them. Daily
Yes but it would have been a Brexit that kept free movement and therefore betrayed the working class voters who won the referendum because of a desire to cut immigration from Eastern Europe in particular
Immigration has increased since Brexit and this government, which enacted Brexit, wants even more.
Good. Do you object to controlled, increased immigration? I don't, why would you? 👍
Read my reply in context of what I was replying to, which was that Brexit had to end free movement in order to cut immigration. If that was the government's intention then it has singularly failed.
Talk on immigration from the sane wing of Brexiteers (ie ignoring Farage) was primarily about controlling it, not about cutting it.
LOL x 1,000,000,000
Farage _was_ Brexit. And - where oh where is @Isam - cutting down immigration was the main driver of Brexit.
Look you can cover your ears and should la la la all you want but if you really think that the main driver of Brexit (rather than the fantasy land I'm not an awful person, really, state you're in now) was not about reducing immigration then you disqualify yourself from discussing politics, no matter how early you tipped Sunak to be next PM and at what odds.
On the subject of missing posters, where are Malcy and Moon Rabbit?
I asked about Malky a week or so ago; someone suggested he was banned.
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
If the former Remainers were actively advocating Rejoining, that would be fine. That's a damn sight different from moaning - more than six years on - that they lost a democratic vote because their campaign was atrocious.
Not sure what you are saying here; you need to be slightly more precise in your language. Are they moaning that it was an atrocious campaign or are they moaning that they lost the democratic vote, which in turn was lost on account of an atrocious campaign.
Plus one man's "moaning" is another's "vibrant political debate".
The exquisite irony, of course, is that if ultra-Remoaners like @Scott_xP had accepted the Brexit vote, and sought a compromise - rather than trying to thwart it and overturn it and demolish British democracy - they would have got their compromise. Britain would surely have stayed in the EEA/EFTA and the whole thing would feel much less Brexity. We’d be associate members.
And any route back would have been so much easier. Now it is impossible - or the work of two generations
This undeniable fact must gnaw at them. Daily
Yes but it would have been a Brexit that kept free movement and therefore betrayed the working class voters who won the referendum because of a desire to cut immigration from Eastern Europe in particular
Immigration has increased since Brexit and this government, which enacted Brexit, wants even more.
Good. Do you object to controlled, increased immigration? I don't, why would you? 👍
Read my reply in context of what I was replying to, which was that Brexit had to end free movement in order to cut immigration. If that was the government's intention then it has singularly failed.
Yeah but HYUFD is like Theresa May, a Remainer, who never understood Brexit or Brexiteers and reduces it all down to reducing immigration.
Remain-voting PMs like David Cameron and Theresa May were elected campaigning to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands but the Leave campaign (and Boris as PM) made no such commitment.
Talk on immigration from the sane wing of Brexiteers (ie ignoring Farage) was primarily about controlling it, not about cutting it.
The issue was control. Cameron could go on about ‘tens of thousands’ for as long as he liked, but he had no way of controlling the actual number. It was the lack of control that was the problem, not the numbers themselves.
The context was that the minimum wage was becoming the maximum wage in a number of jobs, and that the increase in population was causing other issues with regard to housing and public services.
No-one is going to object to the NHS going on a recruitment trip to Manila, and finding tens of thousands of English-speaking nurses and care workers.
What about British nurses and care workers, who may see it as a squeeze on their pay and conditions?
The sad reality is that most of us are protectionist luddites about what we produce and globalised technophiles about what we consume, me included. It's just that insight doesn't provide a way to inform us about what to do next.
Indeed.
However, there is a difference - there is a world wide shortage in the academic skills professions. So even a full open doors policy won't depress the wages of nurses and doctors completely. This shortage is growing - since India and China (especially) are getting richer and demanding more services, faster than they can expand university education.
In other skill categories there isn't a world wide shortage.
Morning all. Just in reports of explosions around Zaporizhzhia, no other details yet. Ukraine's energy people sayuig Russia are planning to disconnect the NPP from the Ukraine grid today, some concern over the spent fuel rods.
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
I am scared of many things. Aliens, AI, Wokeness, Putin, new avian flu, a sudden unexplained lack of wine (and also intrigued by some of them) but I can also assure you that I am not remotely scared that Brexit will be reversed and we will “rejoin”. The political obstacles between us and that make it unthinkable for 30 years. By which time the aliens will have taken over the planet from the cold dead birds with AI brains, so who cares
I just like winding up Remoaners. Because they are so easy to wind up. That should be pretty bloody obvious by now
Yes of course and it is your right to do so and good luck with it. I felt super relieved in 2019 when Corbyn lost and I probably wasn't beyond pointing out my happiness to the various Corbyn-supporting Labour supporters then and afterwards.
But what I never said to any of them, no matter how much I disagreed with their policies (even @BJO for heaven's sake) is that they should shut up and not discuss Lab vs Cons any more, or their particular preference for Lab leader.
And yet when we discuss an equally live political topic, Brexit, plenty on here want no more discussion and berate posters ( @Scott_xP in this instance this morning) when they post about it.
Moreso the irony when he was posting leavers' views on Brexit. So even leavers discuss it still.
Again, wrong
@Scott_xP was advised to desist. On the grounds of his mental health. And I concur with that
Watching someone - clearly distressed by Brexit - mention Brexit incessantly day after day, is not a pretty sight. Like watching a man, deserted by his wife six years ago, who still spends his days saying “she was a heartless bitch AND I never loved her anyway, look here’s a photo of her in a bikini”
Interesting previous thread, with the news that the Telegraph is now describing Boris as the guilty man of Brexit. I doubt they really give a fig about the consequences of Brexit though: they stuffed the continentals and metropolitan types and that was enough; those who suffer the fallout now have to take care of themselves. But what the Telegraph does want is for Liz to beat wokey-cokey Keir Starmer at the next election, so 'Liz: the girl to get Brexit done' is probably a good slogan to start pumping.
Boris is the guilty man of Brexit just as Mao was the guilty man of communism.
"Lockdown effects feared to be killing more people than Covid Unexplained excess deaths outstrip those from virus as medics call figures ‘terrifying’
Sarah Knapton Science Editor
The effects of lockdown may now be killing more people than are dying of Covid, official statistics suggest. Figures for excess deaths from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that around 1,000 more people than usual are dying each week from conditions other than the virus."
Well we know lots of people during lockdown were less mobile than they previously were and put on extra lockdown pounds as a result.
Being overweight and less mobile has an impact on both diabetes and cardiovascular disease, so potentially these deaths are lockdown related more than Covid related?
Scotland had as much, if not more, lockdown than England and is not seeing the same death surge.
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
I am scared of many things. Aliens, AI, Wokeness, Putin, new avian flu, a sudden unexplained lack of wine (and also intrigued by some of them) but I can also assure you that I am not remotely scared that Brexit will be reversed and we will “rejoin”. The political obstacles between us and that make it unthinkable for 30 years. By which time the aliens will have taken over the planet from the cold dead birds with AI brains, so who cares
I just like winding up Remoaners. Because they are so easy to wind up. That should be pretty bloody obvious by now
Yes of course and it is your right to do so and good luck with it. I felt super relieved in 2019 when Corbyn lost and I probably wasn't beyond pointing out my happiness to the various Corbyn-supporting Labour supporters then and afterwards.
But what I never said to any of them, no matter how much I disagreed with their policies (even @BJO for heaven's sake) is that they should shut up and not discuss Lab vs Cons any more, or their particular preference for Lab leader.
And yet when we discuss an equally live political topic, Brexit, plenty on here want no more discussion and berate posters ( @Scott_xP in this instance this morning) when they post about it.
Moreso the irony when he was posting leavers' views on Brexit. So even leavers discuss it still.
The exquisite irony, of course, is that if ultra-Remoaners like @Scott_xP had accepted the Brexit vote, and sought a compromise - rather than trying to thwart it and overturn it and demolish British democracy - they would have got their compromise. Britain would surely have stayed in the EEA/EFTA and the whole thing would feel much less Brexity. We’d be associate members.
And any route back would have been so much easier. Now it is impossible - or the work of two generations
This undeniable fact must gnaw at them. Daily
Yes but it would have been a Brexit that kept free movement and therefore betrayed the working class voters who won the referendum because of a desire to cut immigration from Eastern Europe in particular
Immigration has increased since Brexit and this government, which enacted Brexit, wants even more.
Good. Do you object to controlled, increased immigration? I don't, why would you? 👍
Read my reply in context of what I was replying to, which was that Brexit had to end free movement in order to cut immigration. If that was the government's intention then it has singularly failed.
Yeah but HYUFD is like Theresa May, a Remainer, who never understood Brexit or Brexiteers and reduces it all down to reducing immigration.
Remain-voting PMs like David Cameron and Theresa May were elected campaigning to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands but the Leave campaign (and Boris as PM) made no such commitment.
Talk on immigration from the sane wing of Brexiteers (ie ignoring Farage) was primarily about controlling it, not about cutting it.
The issue was control. Cameron could go on about ‘tens of thousands’ for as long as he liked, but he had no way of controlling the actual number. It was the lack of control that was the problem, not the numbers themselves.
The context was that the minimum wage was becoming the maximum wage in a number of jobs, and that the increase in population was causing other issues with regard to housing and public services.
No-one is going to object to the NHS going on a recruitment trip to Manila, and finding tens of thousands of English-speaking nurses and care workers.
No doubt there are some who would wonder why we are incapable of training British school-leavers in nursing or other health professions. Aside from government policy.
As tangentially mentioned on the last thread, we now expect nurses to come into the profession with a three-year degree and £60k of index-linked debt.
In the short term we can get lots of them from Manila, but in the medium term we need to either scrap the degree requirement or offer degree apprenticeships.
"Lockdown effects feared to be killing more people than Covid Unexplained excess deaths outstrip those from virus as medics call figures ‘terrifying’
Sarah Knapton Science Editor
The effects of lockdown may now be killing more people than are dying of Covid, official statistics suggest. Figures for excess deaths from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that around 1,000 more people than usual are dying each week from conditions other than the virus."
Well we know lots of people during lockdown were less mobile than they previously were and put on extra lockdown pounds as a result.
Being overweight and less mobile has an impact on both diabetes and cardiovascular disease, so potentially these deaths are lockdown related more than Covid related?
Scotland had as much, if not more lockdown, than England and is not seeing the same death surge.
We're all too busy dying of alcohol and drugs. Diabetes and cardiovascular simply can't keep up.
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
If the former Remainers were actively advocating Rejoining, that would be fine. That's a damn sight different from moaning - moe than six years on - that they lost a democratic vote.
But they aren't moaning about losing the vote, not in the main. They are moaning that Brexit is shit. Which they have every right to do, especially as Brexit is in fact shit. Many Remainers are advocating Rejoining too, but Labour won't touch this for a while because marginals are full of Leavers who haven't yet changed their minds/died. Most Remainers who want us to Rejoin, like me, reluctantly accept this electoral realism. We are patient. At the same time, we are rolling the pitch by pointing out that Brexit is shit.
You pretty much are. "This is shit" is absolutely nothing more than a moan.
Morning all. Just in reports of explosions around Zaporizhzhia, no other details yet. Ukraine's energy people sayuig Russia are planning to disconnect the NPP from the Ukraine grid today, some concern over the spent fuel rods.
The Russians are playing with fire here, both figuratively and literally.
There’s nothing more likely to result in a Western escalation, than a nuclear ‘accident’ at Zaporizhzhia.
If Putin wants to see NATO countries send their armies into Ukraine, he’s going the right way about it.
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
If the former Remainers were actively advocating Rejoining, that would be fine. That's a damn sight different from moaning - more than six years on - that they lost a democratic vote because their campaign was atrocious.
Not sure what you are saying here; you need to be slightly more precise in your language. Are they moaning that it was an atrocious campaign or are they moaning that they lost the democratic vote, which in turn was lost on account of an atrocious campaign..
The latter. I should have used some parentheses, in hindsight.
"Lockdown effects feared to be killing more people than Covid Unexplained excess deaths outstrip those from virus as medics call figures ‘terrifying’
Sarah Knapton Science Editor
The effects of lockdown may now be killing more people than are dying of Covid, official statistics suggest. Figures for excess deaths from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that around 1,000 more people than usual are dying each week from conditions other than the virus."
Well we know lots of people during lockdown were less mobile than they previously were and put on extra lockdown pounds as a result.
Being overweight and less mobile has an impact on both diabetes and cardiovascular disease, so potentially these deaths are lockdown related more than Covid related?
Scotland had as much, if not more lockdown, than England and is not seeing the same death surge.
We're all too busy dying of alcohol and drugs. Diabetes and cardiovascular simply can't keep up.
Sheesh, you've got your period dignity czar, so don't sweat the small stuff.
Interesting previous thread, with the news that the Telegraph is now describing Boris as the guilty man of Brexit. I doubt they really give a fig about the consequences of Brexit though: they stuffed the continentals and metropolitan types and that was enough; those who suffer the fallout now have to take care of themselves. But what the Telegraph does want is for Liz to beat wokey-cokey Keir Starmer at the next election, so 'Liz: the girl to get Brexit done' is probably a good slogan to start pumping.
Boris is the guilty man of Brexit just as Mao was the guilty man of communism.
The theory is pure it was just executed badly.
One Brexit theory is that Boris was a remainer posing as a leaver in order to bolster his chances of succeeding Cameron as leader. So if the aim of Brexit was solely to propel Boris into Number 10, then it worked (after the May interregnum).
I trusted supranational EU bureaucrats to act in the best interests of most people in the UK
Well, there's your mistake.
Do NOT censor like that to set up a smart ass reply. It's bad practice.
The next bit was key ... "far more than I will ever trust the Tory Party".
Its not remotely key. There is a democratic way to remove the Tory Party, vote for another party. There is no democratic way to remove unelected supranational EU bureaucrats (if you're rejecting the notion of Brexit entirely).
To put your faith in unelected bodies because you dislike the fact that some of your compatriots might vote for people you dislike, is not a healthy path to go down. Its downright Trumpian too, seeking to reverse election results that go "wrong".
Tell me, how do I remove, democratically, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office? Or Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park? Or even (dare I say it), HM the Queen?
You may not realise this but I'm a republican who wants the House of Lords to be abolished, so perhaps not the best question to ask your question to, but all of those are in practice answerable to the elected House of Commons. And none of them can change the law without the elected Government or the Commons approving it.
Not the case with the EU which could circumvent the Commons.
But only by using powers the Commons had granted to it. So no difference.
No, there is a difference.
The EU unlike Trade Agreements or NATO or most other agreements has its own Parliament that can change the law, without recourse to the UK's elected Parliament agreeing to it.
Now if you want to live in a country called Europe, that is entirely democratically reasonable and acceptable. A country called Europe would be better than what the EU is right now by far. But if you don't, then the EU undermines the UK's democracy.
And I also had a vote for the EU Parliament. I still don't see the difference.
(But actually the original question was about unelected bureaucrats, who I thought were appointed via governments, but it was years ago now and I forget who was responsible for whom now)
The difference is if you want to be in a country called Europe, or not.
A country called Europe would be far more democratic than the EU. It would have far more meaningful elections, and a more meaningful press scrutiny and demos for debating issues settled in the European Parliament and the European Commission.
But that's not what we had. We had a bastard halfway house where issues were decided on a European level but debated on a domestic one, so much of what was decided in the European Parliament evaded any reasoned scrutiny.
Over time the EU is evolving into a country called Europe and that's OK, its to be welcomed in fact over what it is right now, but the key question is whether you want to be a part of that or not? If not, then voting leave is sensible, if yes then democratic safeguards and reforms are sensible and Cameron proposed some sensible ones but they were rejected which is why I switched from Remain to Leave.
Also that EU legislation is initiated not by the elected Parliament, but by the bureaucracy, and that the Parliament contained no formal Opposition that would hold the legislature accountable.
The problem with Leon is that he can't get over the fact he won. His obsession over Brexit. "Rejoice" he keeps reminding us. Like some host at a terrible party desperate for guests, who are clearly regretting their decision to come, to start having a good time.
If he could stop linking to that banal article with its hackneyed metaphor comparing Brexit to childbirth, that would be a first step to his psychological healing. That would then leave more time for boring the tits off everyone with the rest of his repetitive oeuvre, not so great for everyone but a win for Leon.
I trusted supranational EU bureaucrats to act in the best interests of most people in the UK
Well, there's your mistake.
Do NOT censor like that to set up a smart ass reply. It's bad practice.
The next bit was key ... "far more than I will ever trust the Tory Party".
Its not remotely key. There is a democratic way to remove the Tory Party, vote for another party. There is no democratic way to remove unelected supranational EU bureaucrats (if you're rejecting the notion of Brexit entirely).
To put your faith in unelected bodies because you dislike the fact that some of your compatriots might vote for people you dislike, is not a healthy path to go down. Its downright Trumpian too, seeking to reverse election results that go "wrong".
Tell me, how do I remove, democratically, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office? Or Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park? Or even (dare I say it), HM the Queen?
You may not realise this but I'm a republican who wants the House of Lords to be abolished, so perhaps not the best question to ask your question to, but all of those are in practice answerable to the elected House of Commons. And none of them can change the law without the elected Government or the Commons approving it.
Not the case with the EU which could circumvent the Commons.
But only by using powers the Commons had granted to it. So no difference.
Ah, yes, the old "we were always sovereign" nonsense. The only democratic control we ever had over the EU was the right to leave it. Still wondering why the referendum went as it did?
I do understand that feeling. But I don't see that we as a country had significantly less control over the EU than (say) the people of Greater Manchester do over the UK government. It's all indirect, at both levels. I have never elected my MP, only once voted for a party that formed the next government. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you are outvoted by everyone else. Same in the EU.
Morning all. Just in reports of explosions around Zaporizhzhia, no other details yet. Ukraine's energy people sayuig Russia are planning to disconnect the NPP from the Ukraine grid today, some concern over the spent fuel rods.
The Russians are playing with fire here, both figuratively and literally.
There’s nothing more likely to result in a Western escalation, than a nuclear ‘accident’ at Zaporizhzhia.
If Putin wants to see NATO countries send their armies into Ukraine, he’s going the right way about it.
Interesting previous thread, with the news that the Telegraph is now describing Boris as the guilty man of Brexit. I doubt they really give a fig about the consequences of Brexit though: they stuffed the continentals and metropolitan types and that was enough; those who suffer the fallout now have to take care of themselves. But what the Telegraph does want is for Liz to beat wokey-cokey Keir Starmer at the next election, so 'Liz: the girl to get Brexit done' is probably a good slogan to start pumping.
Boris is the guilty man of Brexit just as Mao was the guilty man of communism.
The theory is pure it was just executed badly.
Personally I think, following a bad start in 2017-19, its being executed pretty well.
We have taken back Parliamentary sovereignty over what used to be controlled by Europe, we have a trade deal with Europe, we have the ability to strike trade deals with the rest of the world.
We've gotten what I voted for in 2016. It looked shaky for a few years while May and Grieve etc dicked around, but we got there in the end and I'm content with that. 👍
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
If the former Remainers were actively advocating Rejoining, that would be fine. That's a damn sight different from moaning - moe than six years on - that they lost a democratic vote.
But they aren't moaning about losing the vote, not in the main. They are moaning that Brexit is shit. Which they have every right to do, especially as Brexit is in fact shit. Many Remainers are advocating Rejoining too, but Labour won't touch this for a while because marginals are full of Leavers who haven't yet changed their minds/died. Most Remainers who want us to Rejoin, like me, reluctantly accept this electoral realism. We are patient. At the same time, we are rolling the pitch by pointing out that Brexit is shit.
You pretty much are. "This is shit" is absolutely nothing more than a moan.
Is anyone saying it's great? Even Liz and Rishi have settled on the 'good idea, just crappily implemented' line.
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
If the former Remainers were actively advocating Rejoining, that would be fine. That's a damn sight different from moaning - moe than six years on - that they lost a democratic vote.
But they aren't moaning about losing the vote, not in the main. They are moaning that Brexit is shit. Which they have every right to do, especially as Brexit is in fact shit. Many Remainers are advocating Rejoining too, but Labour won't touch this for a while because marginals are full of Leavers who haven't yet changed their minds/died. Most Remainers who want us to Rejoin, like me, reluctantly accept this electoral realism. We are patient. At the same time, we are rolling the pitch by pointing out that Brexit is shit.
You pretty much are. "This is shit" is absolutely nothing more than a moan.
No I'm not, I am moaning about Brexit and its negative impact, which is absolutely legitimate in a democracy. Do you think that criticising government policies shouldn't be allowed? Moaning about losing the vote I interpret as talking about the infamous bus or the lies of the Leave campaign or how Leave voters are all "thick racists" etc which I haven't really seen being brought up on here much recently at all.
Poor Liz . Apparently she co-authored a report which had a series of controversial proposals regarding the NHS. Many of those proposals would go down like a bucket of sick with most of the public but now allegedly just because you co-author something doesn’t mean you agree with the proposals . Perhaps her spokesperson can tell us what she agreed with and what she didn’t !
I trusted supranational EU bureaucrats to act in the best interests of most people in the UK
Well, there's your mistake.
Do NOT censor like that to set up a smart ass reply. It's bad practice.
The next bit was key ... "far more than I will ever trust the Tory Party".
Its not remotely key. There is a democratic way to remove the Tory Party, vote for another party. There is no democratic way to remove unelected supranational EU bureaucrats (if you're rejecting the notion of Brexit entirely).
To put your faith in unelected bodies because you dislike the fact that some of your compatriots might vote for people you dislike, is not a healthy path to go down. Its downright Trumpian too, seeking to reverse election results that go "wrong".
Tell me, how do I remove, democratically, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office? Or Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park? Or even (dare I say it), HM the Queen?
You may not realise this but I'm a republican who wants the House of Lords to be abolished, so perhaps not the best question to ask your question to, but all of those are in practice answerable to the elected House of Commons. And none of them can change the law without the elected Government or the Commons approving it.
Not the case with the EU which could circumvent the Commons.
But only by using powers the Commons had granted to it. So no difference.
Ah, yes, the old "we were always sovereign" nonsense. The only democratic control we ever had over the EU was the right to leave it. Still wondering why the referendum went as it did?
I do understand that feeling. But I don't see that we as a country had significantly less control over the EU than (say) the people of Greater Manchester do over the UK government. It's all indirect, at both levels. I have never elected my MP, only once voted for a party that formed the next government. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you are outvoted by everyone else. Same in the EU.
There's a difference - the UK is a country with a demos, and the EU isn't.
As for the bit in bold - tell that to the Remoaners...
I trusted supranational EU bureaucrats to act in the best interests of most people in the UK
Well, there's your mistake.
Do NOT censor like that to set up a smart ass reply. It's bad practice.
The next bit was key ... "far more than I will ever trust the Tory Party".
Its not remotely key. There is a democratic way to remove the Tory Party, vote for another party. There is no democratic way to remove unelected supranational EU bureaucrats (if you're rejecting the notion of Brexit entirely).
To put your faith in unelected bodies because you dislike the fact that some of your compatriots might vote for people you dislike, is not a healthy path to go down. Its downright Trumpian too, seeking to reverse election results that go "wrong".
Tell me, how do I remove, democratically, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office? Or Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park? Or even (dare I say it), HM the Queen?
You may not realise this but I'm a republican who wants the House of Lords to be abolished, so perhaps not the best question to ask your question to, but all of those are in practice answerable to the elected House of Commons. And none of them can change the law without the elected Government or the Commons approving it.
Not the case with the EU which could circumvent the Commons.
But only by using powers the Commons had granted to it. So no difference.
Ah, yes, the old "we were always sovereign" nonsense. The only democratic control we ever had over the EU was the right to leave it. Still wondering why the referendum went as it did?
I do understand that feeling. But I don't see that we as a country had significantly less control over the EU than (say) the people of Greater Manchester do over the UK government. It's all indirect, at both levels. I have never elected my MP, only once voted for a party that formed the next government. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you are outvoted by everyone else. Same in the EU.
I believe, life is too short to check, that many of the EU regulations to which the government now objects were in fact introduced by the British government of the time!
Now it's reasonable to argue that circumstances change and therefore an idea which was a good idea once upon a time is no longer so, but it's not reasonable to blame somebody else when it was your idea in the first place!
The exquisite irony, of course, is that if ultra-Remoaners like @Scott_xP had accepted the Brexit vote, and sought a compromise - rather than trying to thwart it and overturn it and demolish British democracy - they would have got their compromise. Britain would surely have stayed in the EEA/EFTA and the whole thing would feel much less Brexity. We’d be associate members.
And any route back would have been so much easier. Now it is impossible - or the work of two generations
This undeniable fact must gnaw at them. Daily
Yes but it would have been a Brexit that kept free movement and therefore betrayed the working class voters who won the referendum because of a desire to cut immigration from Eastern Europe in particular
Immigration has increased since Brexit and this government, which enacted Brexit, wants even more.
Good. Do you object to controlled, increased immigration? I don't, why would you? 👍
Read my reply in context of what I was replying to, which was that Brexit had to end free movement in order to cut immigration. If that was the government's intention then it has singularly failed.
Yeah but HYUFD is like Theresa May, a Remainer, who never understood Brexit or Brexiteers and reduces it all down to reducing immigration.
Remain-voting PMs like David Cameron and Theresa May were elected campaigning to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands but the Leave campaign (and Boris as PM) made no such commitment.
Talk on immigration from the sane wing of Brexiteers (ie ignoring Farage) was primarily about controlling it, not about cutting it.
The issue was control. Cameron could go on about ‘tens of thousands’ for as long as he liked, but he had no way of controlling the actual number. It was the lack of control that was the problem, not the numbers themselves.
The context was that the minimum wage was becoming the maximum wage in a number of jobs, and that the increase in population was causing other issues with regard to housing and public services.
No-one is going to object to the NHS going on a recruitment trip to Manila, and finding tens of thousands of English-speaking nurses and care workers.
No doubt there are some who would wonder why we are incapable of training British school-leavers in nursing or other health professions. Aside from government policy.
As tangentially mentioned on the last thread, we now expect nurses to come into the profession with a three-year degree and £60k of index-linked debt.
In the short term we can get lots of them from Manila, but in the medium term we need to either scrap the degree requirement or offer degree apprenticeships.
The degree requirement is not the end of the world because in the old days, SRN training also took three years, albeit more hospital than classroom based. It is that student nurses were paid, and had free accommodation. Now, as you say, they have different letters after their name and an enormous debt. Your solution of making it an apprentice degree might be sound.
The exquisite irony, of course, is that if ultra-Remoaners like @Scott_xP had accepted the Brexit vote, and sought a compromise - rather than trying to thwart it and overturn it and demolish British democracy - they would have got their compromise. Britain would surely have stayed in the EEA/EFTA and the whole thing would feel much less Brexity. We’d be associate members.
And any route back would have been so much easier. Now it is impossible - or the work of two generations
This undeniable fact must gnaw at them. Daily
Yes but it would have been a Brexit that kept free movement and therefore betrayed the working class voters who won the referendum because of a desire to cut immigration from Eastern Europe in particular
Immigration has increased since Brexit and this government, which enacted Brexit, wants even more.
No, immigration has decreased from the EU as most Leave voters wanted. It may have increased from outside the EU but that is nothing to do with the Brexit vote and the government can tighten immigration from EU or non EU now as it wishes, whereas before it couldn't for the EU.
The government was elected to deliver Brexit which it has done but Labour now lead the polls and Farage may return, so not unconnected, the government will lose if it does not get more control over immigration as it can
@Scott_xP was advised to desist. On the grounds of his mental health. And I concur with that
It’s not good. Stop
LOL
I posted a single reference to an article by Brexiteers whining about Brexit.
And since then Brexiteers have been losing their shit over 2 different threads.
I am not the one that is obsessed, perhaps because I am not burdened by the guilt Brexiteers clearly feel having been suckered by BoZo and voted for this shitshow
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
If the former Remainers were actively advocating Rejoining, that would be fine. That's a damn sight different from moaning - moe than six years on - that they lost a democratic vote.
But they aren't moaning about losing the vote, not in the main. They are moaning that Brexit is shit. Which they have every right to do, especially as Brexit is in fact shit. Many Remainers are advocating Rejoining too, but Labour won't touch this for a while because marginals are full of Leavers who haven't yet changed their minds/died. Most Remainers who want us to Rejoin, like me, reluctantly accept this electoral realism. We are patient. At the same time, we are rolling the pitch by pointing out that Brexit is shit.
You pretty much are. "This is shit" is absolutely nothing more than a moan.
No I'm not, I am moaning about Brexit and its negative impact, which is absolutely legitimate in a democracy. Do you think that criticising government policies shouldn't be allowed?
Allowed, yes. But it's far more credible when you have an alternative.
I trusted supranational EU bureaucrats to act in the best interests of most people in the UK
Well, there's your mistake.
Do NOT censor like that to set up a smart ass reply. It's bad practice.
The next bit was key ... "far more than I will ever trust the Tory Party".
Its not remotely key. There is a democratic way to remove the Tory Party, vote for another party. There is no democratic way to remove unelected supranational EU bureaucrats (if you're rejecting the notion of Brexit entirely).
To put your faith in unelected bodies because you dislike the fact that some of your compatriots might vote for people you dislike, is not a healthy path to go down. Its downright Trumpian too, seeking to reverse election results that go "wrong".
Tell me, how do I remove, democratically, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office? Or Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park? Or even (dare I say it), HM the Queen?
You may not realise this but I'm a republican who wants the House of Lords to be abolished, so perhaps not the best question to ask your question to, but all of those are in practice answerable to the elected House of Commons. And none of them can change the law without the elected Government or the Commons approving it.
Not the case with the EU which could circumvent the Commons.
But only by using powers the Commons had granted to it. So no difference.
Ah, yes, the old "we were always sovereign" nonsense. The only democratic control we ever had over the EU was the right to leave it. Still wondering why the referendum went as it did?
I do understand that feeling. But I don't see that we as a country had significantly less control over the EU than (say) the people of Greater Manchester do over the UK government. It's all indirect, at both levels. I have never elected my MP, only once voted for a party that formed the next government. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you are outvoted by everyone else. Same in the EU.
The people of Manchester get to elect a representative who can actually propose and make laws. An MEP cannot do that. At best they can stop laws being passed. All laws are proposed and prepared by the Commission, not the Parliament. There is a fundamental difference in the powers vested in the two types of politician.
Russian security really is arse isn't it? We seem to know on here the day before what their next move will be. Lord alone knows how much advance knowledge the Ukrainians have.
Poor Liz . Apparently she co-authored a report which had a series of controversial proposals regarding the NHS. Many of those proposals would go down like a bucket of sick with most of the public but now allegedly just because you co-author something doesn’t mean you agree with the proposals . Perhaps her spokesperson can tell us what she agreed with and what she didn’t !
I rather assume she agreed at the time with the bits she wrote. Any further assumptions are unsafe.
I trusted supranational EU bureaucrats to act in the best interests of most people in the UK
Well, there's your mistake.
Do NOT censor like that to set up a smart ass reply. It's bad practice.
The next bit was key ... "far more than I will ever trust the Tory Party".
Its not remotely key. There is a democratic way to remove the Tory Party, vote for another party. There is no democratic way to remove unelected supranational EU bureaucrats (if you're rejecting the notion of Brexit entirely).
To put your faith in unelected bodies because you dislike the fact that some of your compatriots might vote for people you dislike, is not a healthy path to go down. Its downright Trumpian too, seeking to reverse election results that go "wrong".
Tell me, how do I remove, democratically, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office? Or Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park? Or even (dare I say it), HM the Queen?
You may not realise this but I'm a republican who wants the House of Lords to be abolished, so perhaps not the best question to ask your question to, but all of those are in practice answerable to the elected House of Commons. And none of them can change the law without the elected Government or the Commons approving it.
Not the case with the EU which could circumvent the Commons.
But only by using powers the Commons had granted to it. So no difference.
Ah, yes, the old "we were always sovereign" nonsense. The only democratic control we ever had over the EU was the right to leave it. Still wondering why the referendum went as it did?
I do understand that feeling. But I don't see that we as a country had significantly less control over the EU than (say) the people of Greater Manchester do over the UK government. It's all indirect, at both levels. I have never elected my MP, only once voted for a party that formed the next government. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you are outvoted by everyone else. Same in the EU.
The difference is that the people of Greater Manchester are happy to be in a country called the United Kingdom and that country operates with the safeguards you should expect within a democratic country: a democratically elected government and crucially an Opposition, a demos, a news media debating national issues etc
The EU is not (yet) a country called Europe. The EU doesn't have a proper functioning news media and it certainly doesn't have a heathy, functioning opposition.
If you want to be in a country called Europe then great, but we should have better democratic safeguards while we evolve that. Unfortunately they were rejected.
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
If the former Remainers were actively advocating Rejoining, that would be fine. That's a damn sight different from moaning - moe than six years on - that they lost a democratic vote.
But they aren't moaning about losing the vote, not in the main. They are moaning that Brexit is shit. Which they have every right to do, especially as Brexit is in fact shit. Many Remainers are advocating Rejoining too, but Labour won't touch this for a while because marginals are full of Leavers who haven't yet changed their minds/died. Most Remainers who want us to Rejoin, like me, reluctantly accept this electoral realism. We are patient. At the same time, we are rolling the pitch by pointing out that Brexit is shit.
If anything is shit, it's not Brexit but the cumulative legacy of failed policies pushed by both parties that led to Brexit. By repeating that Brexit is shit you're not rolling the pitch for rejoin but advertising the fact that you haven't understood why we left.
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
I am scared of many things. Aliens, AI, Wokeness, Putin, new avian flu, a sudden unexplained lack of wine (and also intrigued by some of them) but I can also assure you that I am not remotely scared that Brexit will be reversed and we will “rejoin”. The political obstacles between us and that make it unthinkable for 30 years. By which time the aliens will have taken over the planet from the cold dead birds with AI brains, so who cares
I just like winding up Remoaners. Because they are so easy to wind up. That should be pretty bloody obvious by now
Yes of course and it is your right to do so and good luck with it. I felt super relieved in 2019 when Corbyn lost and I probably wasn't beyond pointing out my happiness to the various Corbyn-supporting Labour supporters then and afterwards.
But what I never said to any of them, no matter how much I disagreed with their policies (even @BJO for heaven's sake) is that they should shut up and not discuss Lab vs Cons any more, or their particular preference for Lab leader.
And yet when we discuss an equally live political topic, Brexit, plenty on here want no more discussion and berate posters ( @Scott_xP in this instance this morning) when they post about it.
Moreso the irony when he was posting leavers' views on Brexit. So even leavers discuss it still.
Again, wrong
@Scott_xP was advised to desist. On the grounds of his mental health. And I concur with that
Watching someone - clearly distressed by Brexit - mention Brexit incessantly day after day, is not a pretty sight. Like watching a man, deserted by his wife six years ago, who still spends his days saying “she was a heartless bitch AND I never loved her anyway, look here’s a photo of her in a bikini”
It’s not good. Stop
Nah that's bollocks. No one on here gets to comment on someone else's mental health apart from their own. Or they shouldn't if they don't want to make themselves look like a c**t.
You don't get to say who should post what or why.
Stick to your Regents Park railing painting revelations.
Poor Liz . Apparently she co-authored a report which had a series of controversial proposals regarding the NHS. Many of those proposals would go down like a bucket of sick with most of the public but now allegedly just because you co-author something doesn’t mean you agree with the proposals . Perhaps her spokesperson can tell us what she agreed with and what she didn’t !
She’s certainly revolutionised the English language.
Misinterpreted = those words sounded really good in my head but I’m disowning them now they’re in the wild. Taken out of context = I’ve changed my mind because I now realise what I said was crap.
Morning all. Just in reports of explosions around Zaporizhzhia, no other details yet. Ukraine's energy people sayuig Russia are planning to disconnect the NPP from the Ukraine grid today, some concern over the spent fuel rods.
The Russians are playing with fire here, both figuratively and literally.
There’s nothing more likely to result in a Western escalation, than a nuclear ‘accident’ at Zaporizhzhia.
If Putin wants to see NATO countries send their armies into Ukraine, he’s going the right way about it.
The theory on the Telegraph Ukraine podcast yesterday was that Putin likes to provoke these crises so that he can gain leverage/kudos for ending them. They drew a parallel with the grain blockade, where there is now a deal allowing a limited quantity of Ukrainian grain exports.
So the idea would be that Putin provokes a nuclear crisis, but then agrees to resolve it in return for something - perhaps a ceasefire on the current front lines, or some limit on Western arms supplies, or just so that he can look good on Russian State TV.
The danger is that there is a miscalculation, a mistake, and a disaster happens.
I tend to think that it's a rather charitable interpretation of Putin's motivation and decision-making, similar to the analysis before the February invasion that saw the military buildup as a means to extract diplomatic concessions. But, well, fingers crossed, eh?
I trusted supranational EU bureaucrats to act in the best interests of most people in the UK
Well, there's your mistake.
Do NOT censor like that to set up a smart ass reply. It's bad practice.
The next bit was key ... "far more than I will ever trust the Tory Party".
Its not remotely key. There is a democratic way to remove the Tory Party, vote for another party. There is no democratic way to remove unelected supranational EU bureaucrats (if you're rejecting the notion of Brexit entirely).
To put your faith in unelected bodies because you dislike the fact that some of your compatriots might vote for people you dislike, is not a healthy path to go down. Its downright Trumpian too, seeking to reverse election results that go "wrong".
Tell me, how do I remove, democratically, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office? Or Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park? Or even (dare I say it), HM the Queen?
You may not realise this but I'm a republican who wants the House of Lords to be abolished, so perhaps not the best question to ask your question to, but all of those are in practice answerable to the elected House of Commons. And none of them can change the law without the elected Government or the Commons approving it.
Not the case with the EU which could circumvent the Commons.
But only by using powers the Commons had granted to it. So no difference.
Ah, yes, the old "we were always sovereign" nonsense. The only democratic control we ever had over the EU was the right to leave it. Still wondering why the referendum went as it did?
I do understand that feeling. But I don't see that we as a country had significantly less control over the EU than (say) the people of Greater Manchester do over the UK government. It's all indirect, at both levels. I have never elected my MP, only once voted for a party that formed the next government. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you are outvoted by everyone else. Same in the EU.
I believe, life is too short to check, that many of the EU regulations to which the government now objects were in fact introduced by the British government of the time!
Now it's reasonable to argue that circumstances change and therefore an idea which was a good idea once upon a time is no longer so, but it's not reasonable to blame somebody else when it was your idea in the first place!
That was an argument made by Brexiteers though! That the EU was being (ab)used by Governments of all colours to bypass Parliament.
The fact "a British Government" passed a law without going through the Commons doesn't make it OK. The Commons is whom we have elected to debate British laws.
A European Parliament passing European laws in a nation called Europe would be entirely reasonable, but it needs a European Opposition and European safeguards and checks, not to be used by the British Government to bypass the British Parliament.
The exquisite irony, of course, is that if ultra-Remoaners like @Scott_xP had accepted the Brexit vote, and sought a compromise - rather than trying to thwart it and overturn it and demolish British democracy - they would have got their compromise. Britain would surely have stayed in the EEA/EFTA and the whole thing would feel much less Brexity. We’d be associate members.
And any route back would have been so much easier. Now it is impossible - or the work of two generations
This undeniable fact must gnaw at them. Daily
Yes but it would have been a Brexit that kept free movement and therefore betrayed the working class voters who won the referendum because of a desire to cut immigration from Eastern Europe in particular
Immigration has increased since Brexit and this government, which enacted Brexit, wants even more.
Good. Do you object to controlled, increased immigration? I don't, why would you? 👍
Read my reply in context of what I was replying to, which was that Brexit had to end free movement in order to cut immigration. If that was the government's intention then it has singularly failed.
Yeah but HYUFD is like Theresa May, a Remainer, who never understood Brexit or Brexiteers and reduces it all down to reducing immigration.
Remain-voting PMs like David Cameron and Theresa May were elected campaigning to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands but the Leave campaign (and Boris as PM) made no such commitment.
Talk on immigration from the sane wing of Brexiteers (ie ignoring Farage) was primarily about controlling it, not about cutting it.
The issue was control. Cameron could go on about ‘tens of thousands’ for as long as he liked, but he had no way of controlling the actual number. It was the lack of control that was the problem, not the numbers themselves.
The context was that the minimum wage was becoming the maximum wage in a number of jobs, and that the increase in population was causing other issues with regard to housing and public services.
No-one is going to object to the NHS going on a recruitment trip to Manila, and finding tens of thousands of English-speaking nurses and care workers.
No doubt there are some who would wonder why we are incapable of training British school-leavers in nursing or other health professions. Aside from government policy.
As tangentially mentioned on the last thread, we now expect nurses to come into the profession with a three-year degree and £60k of index-linked debt.
In the short term we can get lots of them from Manila, but in the medium term we need to either scrap the degree requirement or offer degree apprenticeships.
Or pay down the loan at the normal rate based on salary, but without actually deducting it from nurses' salaries for the duration of NHS employment. So there's a carrot to stay in the profession (and the NHS, rather than private). With some kind of write-off in the event of being made redundant (if that's ever a thing).
Edit: I may be biased, as my Department has a substantial nursing degree programme, althugh I'm not involved in it myself (not paid specifically for it anyway, occasionally I contribute a lecture or seminar). But I do think nursing degrees have some value over simply training. Exposure to researchers and research methods and critical analysis should help to push evidence based things, rather than some of the nonsense that older nurses/midwives have been known to spout (one of our, very pleasant, midwives encountered during pregnancies is a big believer in homeopathy, for example).
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
I am scared of many things. Aliens, AI, Wokeness, Putin, new avian flu, a sudden unexplained lack of wine (and also intrigued by some of them) but I can also assure you that I am not remotely scared that Brexit will be reversed and we will “rejoin”. The political obstacles between us and that make it unthinkable for 30 years. By which time the aliens will have taken over the planet from the cold dead birds with AI brains, so who cares
I just like winding up Remoaners. Because they are so easy to wind up. That should be pretty bloody obvious by now
Yes of course and it is your right to do so and good luck with it. I felt super relieved in 2019 when Corbyn lost and I probably wasn't beyond pointing out my happiness to the various Corbyn-supporting Labour supporters then and afterwards.
But what I never said to any of them, no matter how much I disagreed with their policies (even @BJO for heaven's sake) is that they should shut up and not discuss Lab vs Cons any more, or their particular preference for Lab leader.
And yet when we discuss an equally live political topic, Brexit, plenty on here want no more discussion and berate posters ( @Scott_xP in this instance this morning) when they post about it.
Moreso the irony when he was posting leavers' views on Brexit. So even leavers discuss it still.
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
If the former Remainers were actively advocating Rejoining, that would be fine. That's a damn sight different from moaning - moe than six years on - that they lost a democratic vote.
But they aren't moaning about losing the vote, not in the main. They are moaning that Brexit is shit. Which they have every right to do, especially as Brexit is in fact shit. Many Remainers are advocating Rejoining too, but Labour won't touch this for a while because marginals are full of Leavers who haven't yet changed their minds/died. Most Remainers who want us to Rejoin, like me, reluctantly accept this electoral realism. We are patient. At the same time, we are rolling the pitch by pointing out that Brexit is shit.
If anything is shit, it's not Brexit but the cumulative legacy of failed policies pushed by both parties that led to Brexit. By repeating that Brexit is shit you're not rolling the pitch for rejoin but advertising the fact that you haven't understood why we left.
Brexit is simply doubling down on those failed policies, with added pointless red tape. I understand perfectly why we left, but you seemingly don't understand that leaving hasn't helped and never will.
Morning all. Just in reports of explosions around Zaporizhzhia, no other details yet. Ukraine's energy people sayuig Russia are planning to disconnect the NPP from the Ukraine grid today, some concern over the spent fuel rods.
The Russians are playing with fire here, both figuratively and literally.
There’s nothing more likely to result in a Western escalation, than a nuclear ‘accident’ at Zaporizhzhia.
If Putin wants to see NATO countries send their armies into Ukraine, he’s going the right way about it.
Even if there was an incident at the nuclear power station at most other would lead to a NATO airstrike, more likely just even tighter sanctions on Russia. There will be no NATO ground troops unless a NATO nation is invaded
I trusted supranational EU bureaucrats to act in the best interests of most people in the UK
Well, there's your mistake.
Do NOT censor like that to set up a smart ass reply. It's bad practice.
The next bit was key ... "far more than I will ever trust the Tory Party".
Its not remotely key. There is a democratic way to remove the Tory Party, vote for another party. There is no democratic way to remove unelected supranational EU bureaucrats (if you're rejecting the notion of Brexit entirely).
To put your faith in unelected bodies because you dislike the fact that some of your compatriots might vote for people you dislike, is not a healthy path to go down. Its downright Trumpian too, seeking to reverse election results that go "wrong".
Tell me, how do I remove, democratically, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office? Or Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park? Or even (dare I say it), HM the Queen?
You may not realise this but I'm a republican who wants the House of Lords to be abolished, so perhaps not the best question to ask your question to, but all of those are in practice answerable to the elected House of Commons. And none of them can change the law without the elected Government or the Commons approving it.
Not the case with the EU which could circumvent the Commons.
But only by using powers the Commons had granted to it. So no difference.
Ah, yes, the old "we were always sovereign" nonsense. The only democratic control we ever had over the EU was the right to leave it. Still wondering why the referendum went as it did?
I do understand that feeling. But I don't see that we as a country had significantly less control over the EU than (say) the people of Greater Manchester do over the UK government. It's all indirect, at both levels. I have never elected my MP, only once voted for a party that formed the next government. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you are outvoted by everyone else. Same in the EU.
I believe, life is too short to check, that many of the EU regulations to which the government now objects were in fact introduced by the British government of the time!
Now it's reasonable to argue that circumstances change and therefore an idea which was a good idea once upon a time is no longer so, but it's not reasonable to blame somebody else when it was your idea in the first place!
That was an argument made by Brexiteers though! That the EU was being (ab)used by Governments of all colours to bypass Parliament.
The fact "a British Government" passed a law without going through the Commons doesn't make it OK. The Commons is whom we have elected to debate British laws.
A European Parliament passing European laws in a nation called Europe would be entirely reasonable, but it needs a European Opposition and European safeguards and checks, not to be used by the British Government to bypass the British Parliament.
Exactly the main reason I voted to Leave - I was fed up with governments of both sides using the EU to introduce laws that they knew they couldn't get past the British public.
Poor Liz . Apparently she co-authored a report which had a series of controversial proposals regarding the NHS. Many of those proposals would go down like a bucket of sick with most of the public but now allegedly just because you co-author something doesn’t mean you agree with the proposals . Perhaps her spokesperson can tell us what she agreed with and what she didn’t !
She’s certainly revolutionised the English language.
Misinterpreted = those words sounded really good in my head but I’m disowning them now they’re in the wild. Taken out of context = I’ve changed my mind because I now realise what I said was crap.
Though even @Foxy has acknowledged the context has changed.
In 2009 she co-authored a pamphlet that said amongst other things doctors pay should be cut by 10%.
According to @Foxy since then doctors pay has actually been cut by 20% in real terms.
So the context has changed. In the intervening thirteen years double what she proposed then has already happened.
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
I am scared of many things. Aliens, AI, Wokeness, Putin, new avian flu, a sudden unexplained lack of wine (and also intrigued by some of them) but I can also assure you that I am not remotely scared that Brexit will be reversed and we will “rejoin”. The political obstacles between us and that make it unthinkable for 30 years. By which time the aliens will have taken over the planet from the cold dead birds with AI brains, so who cares
I just like winding up Remoaners. Because they are so easy to wind up. That should be pretty bloody obvious by now
Yes of course and it is your right to do so and good luck with it. I felt super relieved in 2019 when Corbyn lost and I probably wasn't beyond pointing out my happiness to the various Corbyn-supporting Labour supporters then and afterwards.
But what I never said to any of them, no matter how much I disagreed with their policies (even @BJO for heaven's sake) is that they should shut up and not discuss Lab vs Cons any more, or their particular preference for Lab leader.
And yet when we discuss an equally live political topic, Brexit, plenty on here want no more discussion and berate posters ( @Scott_xP in this instance this morning) when they post about it.
Moreso the irony when he was posting leavers' views on Brexit. So even leavers discuss it still.
Again, wrong
@Scott_xP was advised to desist. On the grounds of his mental health. And I concur with that
Watching someone - clearly distressed by Brexit - mention Brexit incessantly day after day, is not a pretty sight. Like watching a man, deserted by his wife six years ago, who still spends his days saying “she was a heartless bitch AND I never loved her anyway, look here’s a photo of her in a bikini”
It’s not good. Stop
Nah that's bollocks. No one on here gets to comment on someone else's mental health apart from their own. Or they shouldn't if they don't want to make themselves look like a c**t.
You don't get to say who should post what or why.
Stick to your Regents Park railing painting revelations.
Going to Leon for mental health advice would be like asking Dura_Ace to advise on road safety.
I trusted supranational EU bureaucrats to act in the best interests of most people in the UK
Well, there's your mistake.
Do NOT censor like that to set up a smart ass reply. It's bad practice.
The next bit was key ... "far more than I will ever trust the Tory Party".
Its not remotely key. There is a democratic way to remove the Tory Party, vote for another party. There is no democratic way to remove unelected supranational EU bureaucrats (if you're rejecting the notion of Brexit entirely).
To put your faith in unelected bodies because you dislike the fact that some of your compatriots might vote for people you dislike, is not a healthy path to go down. Its downright Trumpian too, seeking to reverse election results that go "wrong".
Tell me, how do I remove, democratically, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office? Or Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park? Or even (dare I say it), HM the Queen?
You may not realise this but I'm a republican who wants the House of Lords to be abolished, so perhaps not the best question to ask your question to, but all of those are in practice answerable to the elected House of Commons. And none of them can change the law without the elected Government or the Commons approving it.
Not the case with the EU which could circumvent the Commons.
But only by using powers the Commons had granted to it. So no difference.
No, there is a difference.
The EU unlike Trade Agreements or NATO or most other agreements has its own Parliament that can change the law, without recourse to the UK's elected Parliament agreeing to it.
Now if you want to live in a country called Europe, that is entirely democratically reasonable and acceptable. A country called Europe would be better than what the EU is right now by far. But if you don't, then the EU undermines the UK's democracy.
And I also had a vote for the EU Parliament. I still don't see the difference.
(But actually the original question was about unelected bureaucrats, who I thought were appointed via governments, but it was years ago now and I forget who was responsible for whom now)
The difference is if you want to be in a country called Europe, or not.
A country called Europe would be far more democratic than the EU. It would have far more meaningful elections, and a more meaningful press scrutiny and demos for debating issues settled in the European Parliament and the European Commission.
But that's not what we had. We had a bastard halfway house where issues were decided on a European level but debated on a domestic one, so much of what was decided in the European Parliament evaded any reasoned scrutiny.
Over time the EU is evolving into a country called Europe and that's OK, its to be welcomed in fact over what it is right now, but the key question is whether you want to be a part of that or not? If not, then voting leave is sensible, if yes then democratic safeguards and reforms are sensible and Cameron proposed some sensible ones but they were rejected which is why I switched from Remain to Leave.
Actually I agree with a lot of what you say, and I don't have a problem with people who say it's not for them (same with Scottish independence). But I didn't see that the EU was inherently less democratic that the UK government, as is often argued. Different, yes, but not less.
I actually think the real problem was that our very centralising view of government means that there are many (mostly, but not only) in the Conservative Party who just don't like having to do something because somebody else says so.
Morning all. Just in reports of explosions around Zaporizhzhia, no other details yet. Ukraine's energy people sayuig Russia are planning to disconnect the NPP from the Ukraine grid today, some concern over the spent fuel rods.
The Russians are playing with fire here, both figuratively and literally.
There’s nothing more likely to result in a Western escalation, than a nuclear ‘accident’ at Zaporizhzhia.
If Putin wants to see NATO countries send their armies into Ukraine, he’s going the right way about it.
We might well be in WW3 in short order. Fuck.
I think the fuel rods thing is a key to a lot of this. Putin knows that he has had an enemy of the Ukraine for the next century or so.
Civil nuclear reactors burn quite "hot" in terms of neutron flux. They also keep their fuel in use for a longer period. This means that in addition to Plutonium 239, they make Plutonium 240. Pu 239 is what you use to make bombs. Pu 240 makes it very hard to make a bomb. This is why some people refer to plutonium from civil reactors as Civil Plutonium.
However, Pu 240 has a half life of 7 years. It decays to Uranium 236. Which can be removed with ordinary chemistry, along with the other Uranium in the fuel rods.
So, if you have 24% PU 240 (typical of civilian reactors), after seven years, you have 12%, after 14 6%, after 21... 3%
So the old fuel rods in the cooling ponds in the various Ukrainian nuclear reactor sites are loaded with nuclear material - a bit of simple chemistry and tons of PU 239 are yours.
To Putin it is obvious and certain that the Ukrainians will get the plutonium and construct bombs. He would, in their place. Nukes in Ukraine, combined with the new capabilities that the Ukrainians are acquiring in terms of missiles..... There would be next to no warning of a Ukrainian strike on Moscow.
Poor Liz . Apparently she co-authored a report which had a series of controversial proposals regarding the NHS. Many of those proposals would go down like a bucket of sick with most of the public but now allegedly just because you co-author something doesn’t mean you agree with the proposals . Perhaps her spokesperson can tell us what she agreed with and what she didn’t !
Interesting that she co-authored this in 2009 and yet Starmer did everything to get Corbyn into no 10 plus derail brexit but he has now changed his mind on both
I trusted supranational EU bureaucrats to act in the best interests of most people in the UK
Well, there's your mistake.
Do NOT censor like that to set up a smart ass reply. It's bad practice.
The next bit was key ... "far more than I will ever trust the Tory Party".
Its not remotely key. There is a democratic way to remove the Tory Party, vote for another party. There is no democratic way to remove unelected supranational EU bureaucrats (if you're rejecting the notion of Brexit entirely).
To put your faith in unelected bodies because you dislike the fact that some of your compatriots might vote for people you dislike, is not a healthy path to go down. Its downright Trumpian too, seeking to reverse election results that go "wrong".
Tell me, how do I remove, democratically, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office? Or Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park? Or even (dare I say it), HM the Queen?
You may not realise this but I'm a republican who wants the House of Lords to be abolished, so perhaps not the best question to ask your question to, but all of those are in practice answerable to the elected House of Commons. And none of them can change the law without the elected Government or the Commons approving it.
Not the case with the EU which could circumvent the Commons.
But only by using powers the Commons had granted to it. So no difference.
Ah, yes, the old "we were always sovereign" nonsense. The only democratic control we ever had over the EU was the right to leave it. Still wondering why the referendum went as it did?
I do understand that feeling. But I don't see that we as a country had significantly less control over the EU than (say) the people of Greater Manchester do over the UK government. It's all indirect, at both levels. I have never elected my MP, only once voted for a party that formed the next government. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you are outvoted by everyone else. Same in the EU.
I believe, life is too short to check, that many of the EU regulations to which the government now objects were in fact introduced by the British government of the time!
Now it's reasonable to argue that circumstances change and therefore an idea which was a good idea once upon a time is no longer so, but it's not reasonable to blame somebody else when it was your idea in the first place!
That was an argument made by Brexiteers though! That the EU was being (ab)used by Governments of all colours to bypass Parliament.
The fact "a British Government" passed a law without going through the Commons doesn't make it OK. The Commons is whom we have elected to debate British laws.
A European Parliament passing European laws in a nation called Europe would be entirely reasonable, but it needs a European Opposition and European safeguards and checks, not to be used by the British Government to bypass the British Parliament.
Exactly the main reason I voted to Leave - I was fed up with governments of both sides using the EU to introduce laws that they knew they couldn't get past the British public.
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
If the former Remainers were actively advocating Rejoining, that would be fine. That's a damn sight different from moaning - moe than six years on - that they lost a democratic vote.
But they aren't moaning about losing the vote, not in the main. They are moaning that Brexit is shit. Which they have every right to do, especially as Brexit is in fact shit. Many Remainers are advocating Rejoining too, but Labour won't touch this for a while because marginals are full of Leavers who haven't yet changed their minds/died. Most Remainers who want us to Rejoin, like me, reluctantly accept this electoral realism. We are patient. At the same time, we are rolling the pitch by pointing out that Brexit is shit.
You pretty much are. "This is shit" is absolutely nothing more than a moan.
No I'm not, I am moaning about Brexit and its negative impact, which is absolutely legitimate in a democracy. Do you think that criticising government policies shouldn't be allowed?
Allowed, yes. But it's far more credible when you have an alternative.
I've already said that my alternative is to rejoin.
I find Brexit just pointless as it’s not delivering anything even close to what was promised to Leavers .
The irritation for Remainers like myself is that I can’t even say okay fair enough I didn’t like it but here’s a list of things that it’s done which is what Leavers wanted .
Take today’s Times headline . Wtf was the point of leaving the EU and immigration not falling . All we heard in 2016 was too many immigrants , and pressure on services now nothing’s changed .
Removing people’s freedom of movement rights with fxck all to show for it !
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
If the former Remainers were actively advocating Rejoining, that would be fine. That's a damn sight different from moaning - moe than six years on - that they lost a democratic vote.
But they aren't moaning about losing the vote, not in the main. They are moaning that Brexit is shit. Which they have every right to do, especially as Brexit is in fact shit. Many Remainers are advocating Rejoining too, but Labour won't touch this for a while because marginals are full of Leavers who haven't yet changed their minds/died. Most Remainers who want us to Rejoin, like me, reluctantly accept this electoral realism. We are patient. At the same time, we are rolling the pitch by pointing out that Brexit is shit.
You pretty much are. "This is shit" is absolutely nothing more than a moan.
No I'm not, I am moaning about Brexit and its negative impact, which is absolutely legitimate in a democracy. Do you think that criticising government policies shouldn't be allowed?
Allowed, yes. But it's far more credible when you have an alternative.
I've already said that my alternative is to rejoin.
Great. Then extol the benefits of Rejoining (especially with respect to joining the euro and Schengen). Hopefully you can do it in a better way than the Remain campaign extolled the benefits of Remaining.
I trusted supranational EU bureaucrats to act in the best interests of most people in the UK
Well, there's your mistake.
Do NOT censor like that to set up a smart ass reply. It's bad practice.
The next bit was key ... "far more than I will ever trust the Tory Party".
Its not remotely key. There is a democratic way to remove the Tory Party, vote for another party. There is no democratic way to remove unelected supranational EU bureaucrats (if you're rejecting the notion of Brexit entirely).
To put your faith in unelected bodies because you dislike the fact that some of your compatriots might vote for people you dislike, is not a healthy path to go down. Its downright Trumpian too, seeking to reverse election results that go "wrong".
Tell me, how do I remove, democratically, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office? Or Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park? Or even (dare I say it), HM the Queen?
You may not realise this but I'm a republican who wants the House of Lords to be abolished, so perhaps not the best question to ask your question to, but all of those are in practice answerable to the elected House of Commons. And none of them can change the law without the elected Government or the Commons approving it.
Not the case with the EU which could circumvent the Commons.
But only by using powers the Commons had granted to it. So no difference.
No, there is a difference.
The EU unlike Trade Agreements or NATO or most other agreements has its own Parliament that can change the law, without recourse to the UK's elected Parliament agreeing to it.
Now if you want to live in a country called Europe, that is entirely democratically reasonable and acceptable. A country called Europe would be better than what the EU is right now by far. But if you don't, then the EU undermines the UK's democracy.
And I also had a vote for the EU Parliament. I still don't see the difference.
(But actually the original question was about unelected bureaucrats, who I thought were appointed via governments, but it was years ago now and I forget who was responsible for whom now)
The difference is if you want to be in a country called Europe, or not.
A country called Europe would be far more democratic than the EU. It would have far more meaningful elections, and a more meaningful press scrutiny and demos for debating issues settled in the European Parliament and the European Commission.
But that's not what we had. We had a bastard halfway house where issues were decided on a European level but debated on a domestic one, so much of what was decided in the European Parliament evaded any reasoned scrutiny.
Over time the EU is evolving into a country called Europe and that's OK, its to be welcomed in fact over what it is right now, but the key question is whether you want to be a part of that or not? If not, then voting leave is sensible, if yes then democratic safeguards and reforms are sensible and Cameron proposed some sensible ones but they were rejected which is why I switched from Remain to Leave.
Actually I agree with a lot of what you say, and I don't have a problem with people who say it's not for them (same with Scottish independence). But I didn't see that the EU was inherently less democratic that the UK government, as is often argued. Different, yes, but not less.
I actually think the real problem was that our very centralising view of government means that there are many (mostly, but not only) in the Conservative Party who just don't like having to do something because somebody else says so.
In the UK the Leader of the Opposition is Keir Starmer and voting for his party would see a significant change in direction in how the UK is ran.
Who is the Leader of the Opposition in the EU?
How do we get a significant change of direction from the EU?
I find Brexit just pointless as it’s not delivering anything even close to what was promised to Leavers .
The irritation for Remainers like myself is that I can’t even say okay fair enough I didn’t like it but here’s a list of things that it’s done which is what Leavers wanted .
Take today’s Times headline . Wtf was the point of leaving the EU and immigration not falling . All we heard in 2016 was too many immigrants , and pressure on services now nothing’s changed .
Removing people’s freedom of movement rights with fxck all to show for it !
You just show that six years on, you still don't understand why people voted to Leave.
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
If the former Remainers were actively advocating Rejoining, that would be fine. That's a damn sight different from moaning - moe than six years on - that they lost a democratic vote.
But they aren't moaning about losing the vote, not in the main. They are moaning that Brexit is shit. Which they have every right to do, especially as Brexit is in fact shit. Many Remainers are advocating Rejoining too, but Labour won't touch this for a while because marginals are full of Leavers who haven't yet changed their minds/died. Most Remainers who want us to Rejoin, like me, reluctantly accept this electoral realism. We are patient. At the same time, we are rolling the pitch by pointing out that Brexit is shit.
If anything is shit, it's not Brexit but the cumulative legacy of failed policies pushed by both parties that led to Brexit. By repeating that Brexit is shit you're not rolling the pitch for rejoin but advertising the fact that you haven't understood why we left.
Brexit is simply doubling down on those failed policies, with added pointless red tape. I understand perfectly why we left, but you seemingly don't understand that leaving hasn't helped and never will.
To say that it never will is not a rational position.
If the 'pointless red tape' led to a measurable amount of import substitution and a more balanced economy, you'd still denounce it as wrong because it contradicts your worldview.
It's not disqualifying for nuclear but it is a strength of say wind turbines that it's tremendously difficult to missile strike a wind farm.
A wind farm will probably only have one connection to the wider grid, so you would just need to hit a single transformer/cable to knock out the whole wind farm.
I recall recently that there was a failure in the grid connection that threw a whole offshore wind farm off the UK grid.
That's not to say there aren't advantages to wind power in war - there's no risk of a blockade of fossil fuel imports, for example, but you don't have to hit every wind turbine to take out a wind farm.
Morning all. Just in reports of explosions around Zaporizhzhia, no other details yet. Ukraine's energy people sayuig Russia are planning to disconnect the NPP from the Ukraine grid today, some concern over the spent fuel rods.
The Russians are playing with fire here, both figuratively and literally.
There’s nothing more likely to result in a Western escalation, than a nuclear ‘accident’ at Zaporizhzhia.
If Putin wants to see NATO countries send their armies into Ukraine, he’s going the right way about it.
Even if there was an incident at the nuclear power station at most other would lead to a NATO airstrike, more likely just even tighter sanctions on Russia. There will be no NATO ground troops unless a NATO nation is invaded
I wasn’t talking about an invasion by NATO itself, but an invasion by NATO members. How do you expect Poland to react to a radioactive cloud over their country? With many other countries willing to help out, outside of the formal NATO structure.
Poor Liz . Apparently she co-authored a report which had a series of controversial proposals regarding the NHS. Many of those proposals would go down like a bucket of sick with most of the public but now allegedly just because you co-author something doesn’t mean you agree with the proposals . Perhaps her spokesperson can tell us what she agreed with and what she didn’t !
Interesting that she co-authored this in 2009 and yet Starmer did everything to get Corbyn into no 10 plus derail brexit but he has now changed his mind on both
What is good for the goose is good for the gander
Newsflash: Keir Starmer is not standing for election as leader of the Conservative Party. Not yet, anyway.
Liz faces Rishi at the Manchester hustings tonight (7pm on GB News and no doubt elsewhere) so she can clarify what she thought then and, more importantly, proposes now.
It's not disqualifying for nuclear but it is a strength of say wind turbines that it's tremendously difficult to missile strike a wind farm.
What about offshore windfarms? Genuine question: is there a single point of failure where the power comes onshore?
Probably but that's true of any sort of power - I guess rooftop solar is perhaps the OG in that regard mind, but it's a damned sight easier to replace a transformer rather than an entire power plant - the turbines are still up (Or tidal lagoon still there) Onshore wind is likely better than offshore wind too.
So perhaps
S-tier Solar / Onshore wind A-tier Tidal / Offshore wind.
The justification in terms of 'positives' for this type of research is so thin it would be insulting to tissue paper to make the comparison.
You do realise that bird flu, in wild bird populations, is endemic - and that the number of transmission events in the wild are so many orders of magnitude greater than would be possible in every laboratory on earth that any lab research is completely irrelevant as far as bird flu infecting birds is concerned ?
The debate over lab work is in regard to possible spread between species.
I find Brexit just pointless as it’s not delivering anything even close to what was promised to Leavers .
The irritation for Remainers like myself is that I can’t even say okay fair enough I didn’t like it but here’s a list of things that it’s done which is what Leavers wanted .
Take today’s Times headline . Wtf was the point of leaving the EU and immigration not falling . All we heard in 2016 was too many immigrants , and pressure on services now nothing’s changed .
Removing people’s freedom of movement rights with fxck all to show for it !
Immigration is controlled now. Instead of free movement allowing anyone to come regardless of skills we can now set what criteria we want people to come through on - and that has led to a deliberate liberalisation for skilled non-EU workers.
That is something to show for it and is a good thing. Why should we not have liberal immigration rules for skilled non-EU workers in your eyes?
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
If the former Remainers were actively advocating Rejoining, that would be fine. That's a damn sight different from moaning - moe than six years on - that they lost a democratic vote.
But they aren't moaning about losing the vote, not in the main. They are moaning that Brexit is shit. Which they have every right to do, especially as Brexit is in fact shit. Many Remainers are advocating Rejoining too, but Labour won't touch this for a while because marginals are full of Leavers who haven't yet changed their minds/died. Most Remainers who want us to Rejoin, like me, reluctantly accept this electoral realism. We are patient. At the same time, we are rolling the pitch by pointing out that Brexit is shit.
If anything is shit, it's not Brexit but the cumulative legacy of failed policies pushed by both parties that led to Brexit. By repeating that Brexit is shit you're not rolling the pitch for rejoin but advertising the fact that you haven't understood why we left.
Brexit is simply doubling down on those failed policies, with added pointless red tape. I understand perfectly why we left, but you seemingly don't understand that leaving hasn't helped and never will.
To say that it never will is not a rational position.
If the 'pointless red tape' led to a measurable amount of import substitution and a more balanced economy, you'd still denounce it as wrong because it contradicts your worldview.
The Brexit red tape is screwing the British exporters.
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
If the former Remainers were actively advocating Rejoining, that would be fine. That's a damn sight different from moaning - moe than six years on - that they lost a democratic vote.
But they aren't moaning about losing the vote, not in the main. They are moaning that Brexit is shit. Which they have every right to do, especially as Brexit is in fact shit. Many Remainers are advocating Rejoining too, but Labour won't touch this for a while because marginals are full of Leavers who haven't yet changed their minds/died. Most Remainers who want us to Rejoin, like me, reluctantly accept this electoral realism. We are patient. At the same time, we are rolling the pitch by pointing out that Brexit is shit.
You pretty much are. "This is shit" is absolutely nothing more than a moan.
No I'm not, I am moaning about Brexit and its negative impact, which is absolutely legitimate in a democracy. Do you think that criticising government policies shouldn't be allowed?
Allowed, yes. But it's far more credible when you have an alternative.
I've already said that my alternative is to rejoin.
Great. Then extol the benefits of Rejoining (especially with respect to joining the euro and Schengen). Hopefully you can do it in a better way than the Remain campaign extolled the benefits of Remaining.
I think Schengen would be great actually. A truly frictionless border. No more hours at passport control. Through trains from Glasgow or Manchester to Paris. We would have to make changes to our welfare system first. I don't think we should join the Euro any time soon though. We could renegotiate a Denmark style opt out or go for the Sweden model of a de facto opt out.
I trusted supranational EU bureaucrats to act in the best interests of most people in the UK
Well, there's your mistake.
Do NOT censor like that to set up a smart ass reply. It's bad practice.
The next bit was key ... "far more than I will ever trust the Tory Party".
Its not remotely key. There is a democratic way to remove the Tory Party, vote for another party. There is no democratic way to remove unelected supranational EU bureaucrats (if you're rejecting the notion of Brexit entirely).
To put your faith in unelected bodies because you dislike the fact that some of your compatriots might vote for people you dislike, is not a healthy path to go down. Its downright Trumpian too, seeking to reverse election results that go "wrong".
Tell me, how do I remove, democratically, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office? Or Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park? Or even (dare I say it), HM the Queen?
You may not realise this but I'm a republican who wants the House of Lords to be abolished, so perhaps not the best question to ask your question to, but all of those are in practice answerable to the elected House of Commons. And none of them can change the law without the elected Government or the Commons approving it.
Not the case with the EU which could circumvent the Commons.
But only by using powers the Commons had granted to it. So no difference.
Ah, yes, the old "we were always sovereign" nonsense. The only democratic control we ever had over the EU was the right to leave it. Still wondering why the referendum went as it did?
I do understand that feeling. But I don't see that we as a country had significantly less control over the EU than (say) the people of Greater Manchester do over the UK government. It's all indirect, at both levels. I have never elected my MP, only once voted for a party that formed the next government. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you are outvoted by everyone else. Same in the EU.
The people of Manchester get to elect a representative who can actually propose and make laws. An MEP cannot do that. At best they can stop laws being passed. All laws are proposed and prepared by the Commission, not the Parliament. There is a fundamental difference in the powers vested in the two types of politician.
But the Commission was appointed by governments. Who we voted for. I do agree there was an extra level of abstraction, which is not ideal. (MPs in each country--> Governments --> Commission)
I find Brexit just pointless as it’s not delivering anything even close to what was promised to Leavers .
The irritation for Remainers like myself is that I can’t even say okay fair enough I didn’t like it but here’s a list of things that it’s done which is what Leavers wanted .
Take today’s Times headline . Wtf was the point of leaving the EU and immigration not falling . All we heard in 2016 was too many immigrants , and pressure on services now nothing’s changed .
Removing people’s freedom of movement rights with fxck all to show for it !
You just show that six years on, you still don't understand why people voted to Leave.
The Leave vote won because of immigration. Amazingly the same papers scapegoating EU nationals are saying zip now about the current levels of immigration . Do you seriously think Leave would have won with the argument that we’re going to leave the EU and immigration levels will remain the same . A few might have voted on sovereignty but that’s not what won the vote for Leave .
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
If the former Remainers were actively advocating Rejoining, that would be fine. That's a damn sight different from moaning - moe than six years on - that they lost a democratic vote.
But they aren't moaning about losing the vote, not in the main. They are moaning that Brexit is shit. Which they have every right to do, especially as Brexit is in fact shit. Many Remainers are advocating Rejoining too, but Labour won't touch this for a while because marginals are full of Leavers who haven't yet changed their minds/died. Most Remainers who want us to Rejoin, like me, reluctantly accept this electoral realism. We are patient. At the same time, we are rolling the pitch by pointing out that Brexit is shit.
You pretty much are. "This is shit" is absolutely nothing more than a moan.
No I'm not, I am moaning about Brexit and its negative impact, which is absolutely legitimate in a democracy. Do you think that criticising government policies shouldn't be allowed?
Allowed, yes. But it's far more credible when you have an alternative.
I've already said that my alternative is to rejoin.
Great. Then extol the benefits of Rejoining (especially with respect to joining the euro and Schengen). Hopefully you can do it in a better way than the Remain campaign extolled the benefits of Remaining.
I think Schengen would be great actually. A truly frictionless border. No more hours at passport control. Through trains from Glasgow or Manchester to Paris. We would have to make changes to our welfare system first. I don't think we should join the Euro any time soon though. We could renegotiate a Denmark style opt out or go for the Sweden model of a de facto opt out.
I trusted supranational EU bureaucrats to act in the best interests of most people in the UK
Well, there's your mistake.
Do NOT censor like that to set up a smart ass reply. It's bad practice.
The next bit was key ... "far more than I will ever trust the Tory Party".
Its not remotely key. There is a democratic way to remove the Tory Party, vote for another party. There is no democratic way to remove unelected supranational EU bureaucrats (if you're rejecting the notion of Brexit entirely).
To put your faith in unelected bodies because you dislike the fact that some of your compatriots might vote for people you dislike, is not a healthy path to go down. Its downright Trumpian too, seeking to reverse election results that go "wrong".
Tell me, how do I remove, democratically, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office? Or Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park? Or even (dare I say it), HM the Queen?
You may not realise this but I'm a republican who wants the House of Lords to be abolished, so perhaps not the best question to ask your question to, but all of those are in practice answerable to the elected House of Commons. And none of them can change the law without the elected Government or the Commons approving it.
Not the case with the EU which could circumvent the Commons.
But only by using powers the Commons had granted to it. So no difference.
Ah, yes, the old "we were always sovereign" nonsense. The only democratic control we ever had over the EU was the right to leave it. Still wondering why the referendum went as it did?
I do understand that feeling. But I don't see that we as a country had significantly less control over the EU than (say) the people of Greater Manchester do over the UK government. It's all indirect, at both levels. I have never elected my MP, only once voted for a party that formed the next government. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you are outvoted by everyone else. Same in the EU.
The people of Manchester get to elect a representative who can actually propose and make laws. An MEP cannot do that. At best they can stop laws being passed. All laws are proposed and prepared by the Commission, not the Parliament. There is a fundamental difference in the powers vested in the two types of politician.
But the Commission was appointed by governments. Who we voted for. I do agree there was an extra level of abstraction, which is not ideal. (MPs in each country--> Governments --> Commission)
In the UK it is bureaucrats who write laws not MPs, too.
Morning all. Just in reports of explosions around Zaporizhzhia, no other details yet. Ukraine's energy people sayuig Russia are planning to disconnect the NPP from the Ukraine grid today, some concern over the spent fuel rods.
The Russians are playing with fire here, both figuratively and literally.
There’s nothing more likely to result in a Western escalation, than a nuclear ‘accident’ at Zaporizhzhia.
If Putin wants to see NATO countries send their armies into Ukraine, he’s going the right way about it.
The theory on the Telegraph Ukraine podcast yesterday was that Putin likes to provoke these crises so that he can gain leverage/kudos for ending them. They drew a parallel with the grain blockade, where there is now a deal allowing a limited quantity of Ukrainian grain exports.
So the idea would be that Putin provokes a nuclear crisis, but then agrees to resolve it in return for something - perhaps a ceasefire on the current front lines, or some limit on Western arms supplies, or just so that he can look good on Russian State TV.
The danger is that there is a miscalculation, a mistake, and a disaster happens.
I tend to think that it's a rather charitable interpretation of Putin's motivation and decision-making, similar to the analysis before the February invasion that saw the military buildup as a means to extract diplomatic concessions. But, well, fingers crossed, eh?
I've been finding the theory that predicts Putin's behaviour is that he's a dude with a big pile of oil company stocks who wants the oil price to go up and he doesn't care about anything else.
Germany is just looking like they might finally get over their fear of nuclear power and keep their power stations going a bit longer. Time to get everybody shitting their pants about radiation again.
I find Brexit just pointless as it’s not delivering anything even close to what was promised to Leavers .
The irritation for Remainers like myself is that I can’t even say okay fair enough I didn’t like it but here’s a list of things that it’s done which is what Leavers wanted .
Take today’s Times headline . Wtf was the point of leaving the EU and immigration not falling . All we heard in 2016 was too many immigrants , and pressure on services now nothing’s changed .
Removing people’s freedom of movement rights with fxck all to show for it !
Immigration is controlled now. Instead of free movement allowing anyone to come regardless of skills we can now set what criteria we want people to come through on - and that has led to a deliberate liberalisation for skilled non-EU workers.
That is something to show for it and is a good thing. Why should we not have liberal immigration rules for skilled non-EU workers in your eyes?
There are still massive shortages of labour in the care industry, though.
I trusted supranational EU bureaucrats to act in the best interests of most people in the UK
Well, there's your mistake.
Do NOT censor like that to set up a smart ass reply. It's bad practice.
The next bit was key ... "far more than I will ever trust the Tory Party".
Its not remotely key. There is a democratic way to remove the Tory Party, vote for another party. There is no democratic way to remove unelected supranational EU bureaucrats (if you're rejecting the notion of Brexit entirely).
To put your faith in unelected bodies because you dislike the fact that some of your compatriots might vote for people you dislike, is not a healthy path to go down. Its downright Trumpian too, seeking to reverse election results that go "wrong".
Tell me, how do I remove, democratically, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office? Or Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park? Or even (dare I say it), HM the Queen?
You may not realise this but I'm a republican who wants the House of Lords to be abolished, so perhaps not the best question to ask your question to, but all of those are in practice answerable to the elected House of Commons. And none of them can change the law without the elected Government or the Commons approving it.
Not the case with the EU which could circumvent the Commons.
But only by using powers the Commons had granted to it. So no difference.
No, there is a difference.
The EU unlike Trade Agreements or NATO or most other agreements has its own Parliament that can change the law, without recourse to the UK's elected Parliament agreeing to it.
Now if you want to live in a country called Europe, that is entirely democratically reasonable and acceptable. A country called Europe would be better than what the EU is right now by far. But if you don't, then the EU undermines the UK's democracy.
And I also had a vote for the EU Parliament. I still don't see the difference.
(But actually the original question was about unelected bureaucrats, who I thought were appointed via governments, but it was years ago now and I forget who was responsible for whom now)
The difference is if you want to be in a country called Europe, or not.
A country called Europe would be far more democratic than the EU. It would have far more meaningful elections, and a more meaningful press scrutiny and demos for debating issues settled in the European Parliament and the European Commission.
But that's not what we had. We had a bastard halfway house where issues were decided on a European level but debated on a domestic one, so much of what was decided in the European Parliament evaded any reasoned scrutiny.
Over time the EU is evolving into a country called Europe and that's OK, its to be welcomed in fact over what it is right now, but the key question is whether you want to be a part of that or not? If not, then voting leave is sensible, if yes then democratic safeguards and reforms are sensible and Cameron proposed some sensible ones but they were rejected which is why I switched from Remain to Leave.
Actually I agree with a lot of what you say, and I don't have a problem with people who say it's not for them (same with Scottish independence). But I didn't see that the EU was inherently less democratic that the UK government, as is often argued. Different, yes, but not less.
I actually think the real problem was that our very centralising view of government means that there are many (mostly, but not only) in the Conservative Party who just don't like having to do something because somebody else says so.
In the UK the Leader of the Opposition is Keir Starmer and voting for his party would see a significant change in direction in how the UK is ran.
Who is the Leader of the Opposition in the EU?
How do we get a significant change of direction from the EU?
Same as in this country, you form a pan-European party and stand on a ticket of change.
Anyway, good debate but I'd better go back to work
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
If the former Remainers were actively advocating Rejoining, that would be fine. That's a damn sight different from moaning - moe than six years on - that they lost a democratic vote.
But they aren't moaning about losing the vote, not in the main. They are moaning that Brexit is shit. Which they have every right to do, especially as Brexit is in fact shit. Many Remainers are advocating Rejoining too, but Labour won't touch this for a while because marginals are full of Leavers who haven't yet changed their minds/died. Most Remainers who want us to Rejoin, like me, reluctantly accept this electoral realism. We are patient. At the same time, we are rolling the pitch by pointing out that Brexit is shit.
You pretty much are. "This is shit" is absolutely nothing more than a moan.
No I'm not, I am moaning about Brexit and its negative impact, which is absolutely legitimate in a democracy. Do you think that criticising government policies shouldn't be allowed?
Allowed, yes. But it's far more credible when you have an alternative.
I've already said that my alternative is to rejoin.
Great. Then extol the benefits of Rejoining (especially with respect to joining the euro and Schengen). Hopefully you can do it in a better way than the Remain campaign extolled the benefits of Remaining.
I think Schengen would be great actually. A truly frictionless border. No more hours at passport control. Through trains from Glasgow or Manchester to Paris. We would have to make changes to our welfare system first. I don't think we should join the Euro any time soon though. We could renegotiate a Denmark style opt out or go for the Sweden model of a de facto opt out.
Rejoining will require us to join the euro.
Rejoining would (in theory) require us to join the euro. I suspect, however, that a lot of Euro members would prefer us to remain well outside it...
I trusted supranational EU bureaucrats to act in the best interests of most people in the UK
Well, there's your mistake.
Do NOT censor like that to set up a smart ass reply. It's bad practice.
The next bit was key ... "far more than I will ever trust the Tory Party".
Its not remotely key. There is a democratic way to remove the Tory Party, vote for another party. There is no democratic way to remove unelected supranational EU bureaucrats (if you're rejecting the notion of Brexit entirely).
To put your faith in unelected bodies because you dislike the fact that some of your compatriots might vote for people you dislike, is not a healthy path to go down. Its downright Trumpian too, seeking to reverse election results that go "wrong".
Tell me, how do I remove, democratically, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office? Or Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park? Or even (dare I say it), HM the Queen?
You may not realise this but I'm a republican who wants the House of Lords to be abolished, so perhaps not the best question to ask your question to, but all of those are in practice answerable to the elected House of Commons. And none of them can change the law without the elected Government or the Commons approving it.
Not the case with the EU which could circumvent the Commons.
But only by using powers the Commons had granted to it. So no difference.
No, there is a difference.
The EU unlike Trade Agreements or NATO or most other agreements has its own Parliament that can change the law, without recourse to the UK's elected Parliament agreeing to it.
Now if you want to live in a country called Europe, that is entirely democratically reasonable and acceptable. A country called Europe would be better than what the EU is right now by far. But if you don't, then the EU undermines the UK's democracy.
And I also had a vote for the EU Parliament. I still don't see the difference.
(But actually the original question was about unelected bureaucrats, who I thought were appointed via governments, but it was years ago now and I forget who was responsible for whom now)
The difference is if you want to be in a country called Europe, or not.
A country called Europe would be far more democratic than the EU. It would have far more meaningful elections, and a more meaningful press scrutiny and demos for debating issues settled in the European Parliament and the European Commission.
But that's not what we had. We had a bastard halfway house where issues were decided on a European level but debated on a domestic one, so much of what was decided in the European Parliament evaded any reasoned scrutiny.
Over time the EU is evolving into a country called Europe and that's OK, its to be welcomed in fact over what it is right now, but the key question is whether you want to be a part of that or not? If not, then voting leave is sensible, if yes then democratic safeguards and reforms are sensible and Cameron proposed some sensible ones but they were rejected which is why I switched from Remain to Leave.
Actually I agree with a lot of what you say, and I don't have a problem with people who say it's not for them (same with Scottish independence). But I didn't see that the EU was inherently less democratic that the UK government, as is often argued. Different, yes, but not less.
I actually think the real problem was that our very centralising view of government means that there are many (mostly, but not only) in the Conservative Party who just don't like having to do something because somebody else says so.
In the UK the Leader of the Opposition is Keir Starmer and voting for his party would see a significant change in direction in how the UK is ran.
Who is the Leader of the Opposition in the EU?
How do we get a significant change of direction from the EU?
The direction of the EU was set by negotiations between national governments and by the commission, chosen by national governments (with oversight from the parliament, elected by national voters).
To change the direction of the EU, a majority of voters across the EU need to vote for parties (in national and EU parliament elections) that will change the direction.
Now, you might say that's no good because the French and Germans have different objectives to us and the wishes of the UK voters will be in a minority. It may be true. But it's fundamentally no different to the wishes of Liverpudlians being ignored because the rest of the country keeps voting in Conservative governments.
Far better to argue that you want everything UK decided at a UK level, rather than an international level (which is a valid viewpoint). As valid as Scots wanting Scottish issues decided at a Scotland level (which you also support - you are consistent) but Scots do have democratic input into the UK, even if they keep getting governments and policies they didn't vote for.
Plus why is everyone whining about Brexit discussions - talking to you, here, leavers.
Take a leaf out of your role model Nigel's book. He didn't stop talking about it for decades. It is a live political debate and there are two sides to it, actually more, given differing potential relationships with the EU.
Did you expect the Labour Party to shut up and go home after the 2019 general election? Or the Cons to disband in 1997 after the GE then? No. Of course not.
So Brexit will continue to be discussed. And my take on it is that the eg @Leons of this world are only so vituperative about it because they are scared. A bit like a dog barking. It is doing it because it is scared most of the time.
Don't be scared, @Leon, have confidence in your fellow citizens to handle democracy.
If the former Remainers were actively advocating Rejoining, that would be fine. That's a damn sight different from moaning - moe than six years on - that they lost a democratic vote.
But they aren't moaning about losing the vote, not in the main. They are moaning that Brexit is shit. Which they have every right to do, especially as Brexit is in fact shit. Many Remainers are advocating Rejoining too, but Labour won't touch this for a while because marginals are full of Leavers who haven't yet changed their minds/died. Most Remainers who want us to Rejoin, like me, reluctantly accept this electoral realism. We are patient. At the same time, we are rolling the pitch by pointing out that Brexit is shit.
You pretty much are. "This is shit" is absolutely nothing more than a moan.
No I'm not, I am moaning about Brexit and its negative impact, which is absolutely legitimate in a democracy. Do you think that criticising government policies shouldn't be allowed?
Allowed, yes. But it's far more credible when you have an alternative.
I've already said that my alternative is to rejoin.
Great. Then extol the benefits of Rejoining (especially with respect to joining the euro and Schengen). Hopefully you can do it in a better way than the Remain campaign extolled the benefits of Remaining.
I think Schengen would be great actually. A truly frictionless border. No more hours at passport control. Through trains from Glasgow or Manchester to Paris. We would have to make changes to our welfare system first. I don't think we should join the Euro any time soon though. We could renegotiate a Denmark style opt out or go for the Sweden model of a de facto opt out.
Rejoining will require us to join the euro.
What's the actual issue with joining the euro. The horror of our politicians having to actually stick to some fiscal rules ? Foreign exchanges being less busy in August ? The Queens head being removed from our notes and coins ? Andrew Bailey losing his job ?
Comments
Or are the lackeys as out of touch and piss poor as the candidates ?
https://twitter.com/ActuaryByDay/status/1557033440607879171
The performance indicators of every Scottish college now require everyone on the course to pass, even if they don't turn up for most of it. If they are not passed the institution is penalised financially. The message is loud and clear as are the implications for educational standards.
I just like winding up Remoaners. Because they are so easy to wind up. That should be pretty bloody obvious by now
(But actually the original question was about unelected bureaucrats, who I thought were appointed via governments, but it was years ago now and I forget who was responsible for whom now)
The sad reality is that most of us are protectionist luddites about what we produce and globalised technophiles about what we consume, me included. It's just that insight doesn't provide a way to inform us about what to do next.
Being overweight and less mobile has an impact on both diabetes and cardiovascular disease, so potentially these deaths are lockdown related more than Covid related?
But what I never said to any of them, no matter how much I disagreed with their policies (even @BJO for heaven's sake) is that they should shut up and not discuss Lab vs Cons any more, or their particular preference for Lab leader.
And yet when we discuss an equally live political topic, Brexit, plenty on here want no more discussion and berate posters ( @Scott_xP in this instance this morning) when they post about it.
Moreso the irony when he was posting leavers' views on Brexit. So even leavers discuss it still.
Abusive language I think; can't imagine why!
Which means if I do go ahead and back her for a repeat US Open win, if there are no injury scares, then her price will be better.
First, it is used to bolster the ideology of meritocracy. This is the idea that you get ahead by working hard and the exams judge who deserves to succeed - with a secure middle-class income. The important corollary of this ideology is that those who find themselves at the top of the pile deserve to be there and earned their place.
The second aim is to convince people that everyone can succeed, if only they work hard enough. Consequently the exam system cannot judge too many people to have failed, as it would make it too obvious that not everyone can be a lawyer, doctor, etc. The corollary of this idea is that anyone who does fail, deserved to fail due to a moral weakness and lack of work ethic, and so those at the top have no responsibility to ensure they can live a life of dignity and security.
What this means is that people end up at the top of the pile, not due to inherent merit or effort, but due to other attributes that give them an edge - social markers, contacts, etc - but with a belief that they deserved to have won, and it wasn't due mainly to having the right parents.
A country called Europe would be far more democratic than the EU. It would have far more meaningful elections, and a more meaningful press scrutiny and demos for debating issues settled in the European Parliament and the European Commission.
But that's not what we had. We had a bastard halfway house where issues were decided on a European level but debated on a domestic one, so much of what was decided in the European Parliament evaded any reasoned scrutiny.
Over time the EU is evolving into a country called Europe and that's OK, its to be welcomed in fact over what it is right now, but the key question is whether you want to be a part of that or not? If not, then voting leave is sensible, if yes then democratic safeguards and reforms are sensible and Cameron proposed some sensible ones but they were rejected which is why I switched from Remain to Leave.
Clicking the links should answer the question
MoonRabbit banned malcolm not, but awol since 4 July
Petition for restoration of MR, I liked her and she broadens the demographic. Best wishes for malc.
Plus one man's "moaning" is another's "vibrant political debate".
So stop moaning.
However, there is a difference - there is a world wide shortage in the academic skills professions. So even a full open doors policy won't depress the wages of nurses and doctors completely. This shortage is growing - since India and China (especially) are getting richer and demanding more services, faster than they can expand university education.
In other skill categories there isn't a world wide shortage.
Ukraine's energy people sayuig Russia are planning to disconnect the NPP from the Ukraine grid today, some concern over the spent fuel rods.
@Scott_xP was advised to desist. On the grounds of his mental health. And I concur with that
Watching someone - clearly distressed by Brexit - mention Brexit incessantly day after day, is not a pretty sight. Like watching a man, deserted by his wife six years ago, who still spends his days saying “she was a heartless bitch AND I never loved her anyway, look here’s a photo of her in a bikini”
It’s not good. Stop
The theory is pure it was just executed badly.
There will be another Lab v Con general election.
There won't be another Remain v Leave referendum.
In the short term we can get lots of them from Manila, but in the medium term we need to either scrap the degree requirement or offer degree apprenticeships.
There’s nothing more likely to result in a Western escalation, than a nuclear ‘accident’ at Zaporizhzhia.
If Putin wants to see NATO countries send their armies into Ukraine, he’s going the right way about it.
That would then leave more time for boring the tits off everyone with the rest of his repetitive oeuvre, not so great for everyone but a win for Leon.
We have taken back Parliamentary sovereignty over what used to be controlled by Europe, we have a trade deal with Europe, we have the ability to strike trade deals with the rest of the world.
We've gotten what I voted for in 2016. It looked shaky for a few years while May and Grieve etc dicked around, but we got there in the end and I'm content with that. 👍
Moaning about losing the vote I interpret as talking about the infamous bus or the lies of the Leave campaign or how Leave voters are all "thick racists" etc which I haven't really seen being brought up on here much recently at all.
As for the bit in bold - tell that to the Remoaners...
Now it's reasonable to argue that circumstances change and therefore an idea which was a good idea once upon a time is no longer so, but it's not reasonable to blame somebody else when it was your idea in the first place!
The government was elected to deliver Brexit which it has done but Labour now lead the polls and Farage may return, so not unconnected, the government will lose if it does not get more control over immigration as it can
I posted a single reference to an article by Brexiteers whining about Brexit.
And since then Brexiteers have been losing their shit over 2 different threads.
I am not the one that is obsessed, perhaps because I am not burdened by the guilt Brexiteers clearly feel having been suckered by BoZo and voted for this shitshow
We seem to know on here the day before what their next move will be.
Lord alone knows how much advance knowledge the Ukrainians have.
The EU is not (yet) a country called Europe. The EU doesn't have a proper functioning news media and it certainly doesn't have a heathy, functioning opposition.
If you want to be in a country called Europe then great, but we should have better democratic safeguards while we evolve that. Unfortunately they were rejected.
You don't get to say who should post what or why.
Stick to your Regents Park railing painting revelations.
Misinterpreted = those words sounded really good in my head but I’m disowning them now they’re in the wild.
Taken out of context = I’ve changed my mind because I now realise what I said was crap.
So the idea would be that Putin provokes a nuclear crisis, but then agrees to resolve it in return for something - perhaps a ceasefire on the current front lines, or some limit on Western arms supplies, or just so that he can look good on Russian State TV.
The danger is that there is a miscalculation, a mistake, and a disaster happens.
I tend to think that it's a rather charitable interpretation of Putin's motivation and decision-making, similar to the analysis before the February invasion that saw the military buildup as a means to extract diplomatic concessions. But, well, fingers crossed, eh?
The fact "a British Government" passed a law without going through the Commons doesn't make it OK. The Commons is whom we have elected to debate British laws.
A European Parliament passing European laws in a nation called Europe would be entirely reasonable, but it needs a European Opposition and European safeguards and checks, not to be used by the British Government to bypass the British Parliament.
Edit: I may be biased, as my Department has a substantial nursing degree programme, althugh I'm not involved in it myself (not paid specifically for it anyway, occasionally I contribute a lecture or seminar). But I do think nursing degrees have some value over simply training. Exposure to researchers and research methods and critical analysis should help to push evidence based things, rather than some of the nonsense that older nurses/midwives have been known to spout (one of our, very pleasant, midwives encountered during pregnancies is a big believer in homeopathy, for example).
One day you'll figure it out
In 2009 she co-authored a pamphlet that said amongst other things doctors pay should be cut by 10%.
According to @Foxy since then doctors pay has actually been cut by 20% in real terms.
So the context has changed. In the intervening thirteen years double what she proposed then has already happened.
I actually think the real problem was that our very centralising view of government means that there are many (mostly, but not only) in the Conservative Party who just don't like having to do something because somebody else says so.
S-tier Wind, Solar, Tidal
B-tier Oil, gas, coal
F-tier Nuclear
It's not disqualifying for nuclear but it is a strength of say wind turbines that it's tremendously difficult to missile strike a wind farm.
Civil nuclear reactors burn quite "hot" in terms of neutron flux. They also keep their fuel in use for a longer period. This means that in addition to Plutonium 239, they make Plutonium 240. Pu 239 is what you use to make bombs. Pu 240 makes it very hard to make a bomb. This is why some people refer to plutonium from civil reactors as Civil Plutonium.
However, Pu 240 has a half life of 7 years. It decays to Uranium 236. Which can be removed with ordinary chemistry, along with the other Uranium in the fuel rods.
So, if you have 24% PU 240 (typical of civilian reactors), after seven years, you have 12%, after 14 6%, after 21... 3%
So the old fuel rods in the cooling ponds in the various Ukrainian nuclear reactor sites are loaded with nuclear material - a bit of simple chemistry and tons of PU 239 are yours.
To Putin it is obvious and certain that the Ukrainians will get the plutonium and construct bombs. He would, in their place. Nukes in Ukraine, combined with the new capabilities that the Ukrainians are acquiring in terms of missiles..... There would be next to no warning of a Ukrainian strike on Moscow.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander
The irritation for Remainers like myself is that I can’t even say okay fair enough I didn’t like it but here’s a list of things that it’s done which is what Leavers wanted .
Take today’s Times headline . Wtf was the point of leaving the EU and immigration not falling . All we heard in 2016 was too many immigrants , and pressure on services now nothing’s changed .
Removing people’s freedom of movement rights with fxck all to show for it !
Who is the Leader of the Opposition in the EU?
How do we get a significant change of direction from the EU?
If the 'pointless red tape' led to a measurable amount of import substitution and a more balanced economy, you'd still denounce it as wrong because it contradicts your worldview.
I recall recently that there was a failure in the grid connection that threw a whole offshore wind farm off the UK grid.
That's not to say there aren't advantages to wind power in war - there's no risk of a blockade of fossil fuel imports, for example, but you don't have to hit every wind turbine to take out a wind farm.
Liz faces Rishi at the Manchester hustings tonight (7pm on GB News and no doubt elsewhere) so she can clarify what she thought then and, more importantly, proposes now.
Onshore wind is likely better than offshore wind too.
So perhaps
S-tier Solar / Onshore wind
A-tier Tidal / Offshore wind.
The debate over lab work is in regard to possible spread between species.
That is something to show for it and is a good thing. Why should we not have liberal immigration rules for skilled non-EU workers in your eyes?
Germany is just looking like they might finally get over their fear of nuclear power and keep their power stations going a bit longer. Time to get everybody shitting their pants about radiation again.
Anyway, good debate but I'd better go back to work
To change the direction of the EU, a majority of voters across the EU need to vote for parties (in national and EU parliament elections) that will change the direction.
Now, you might say that's no good because the French and Germans have different objectives to us and the wishes of the UK voters will be in a minority. It may be true. But it's fundamentally no different to the wishes of Liverpudlians being ignored because the rest of the country keeps voting in Conservative governments.
Far better to argue that you want everything UK decided at a UK level, rather than an international level (which is a valid viewpoint). As valid as Scots wanting Scottish issues decided at a Scotland level (which you also support - you are consistent) but Scots do have democratic input into the UK, even if they keep getting governments and policies they didn't vote for.