The most wretched figure in the whole Brexit saga may, surprisingly, turn out to be Boris. The Eurosceptic-Right are already on manoeuvres to paint him as the hapless twerp who spoilt the dream through sheer stupidity and incompetence. And why not? The alternative tellings won't reflect well on them, so why not blacken Boris's name to history? I can certainly see Liz pushing this hard when she's anointed, her concern for Boris's reputation going the same way as much else.
Voters are going to have much bigger issues to worry about than whether Brexit is going well or not in next two years.
No, but the tory party have made Brexit their urmonotheismus. They are quite obviously going to fight the next election on a platform of saving Brexit because what else do they have? Nothing.
I think that’s right, and also there’s a strong feeling that “everything turned to shit in 2016”. It doesn’t really matter whether it was Brexit or not, Brexit helps defines the era.
The tension as to whether England lose by an innings or 10 wickets is becoming intense.
Or whether we can drag it out to two full days of play.
Oh steady, let's not get too carried away.
A truly awful performance with the bat. Again. At the moment Broad has joint top score. When Root and Bairstow fail England fail abysmally. We really need to think about this first test at Lords issue. We seem to play unusually poorly there.
Edit. Looks like an innings. Awful.
Third fewest balls to be bowled out twice at home. One v Windies on a dodgy Edgbaston. The other in 1888!
The tension as to whether England lose by an innings or 10 wickets is becoming intense.
Or whether we can drag it out to two full days of play.
Oh steady, let's not get too carried away.
A truly awful performance with the bat. Again. At the moment Broad has joint top score. When Root and Bairstow fail England fail abysmally. We really need to think about this first test at Lords issue. We seem to play unusually poorly there.
If it were up to me I wouldn't play an England game at Lords during the Ashes at least.
We have more than 5 Test grounds in the country. No reason for every series to incorporate Lords.
Good luck getting the agreement of the visiting team for that.
Emma Burrows @EJ_Burrows NEW: Western intelligence official says Russians are starting to 'run out of ammunition.' 'We have a large range of evidence to suggest munitions are being depleted...inc munitions coming out of deep storage.'
I am unsurprised by this. At least: they probably have lots of ammunition of certain types, whereas they are lacking ammunition of another, more immediately useful, sort. For instance they may have millions of bullets for their AK47s and AK74s, but have run out of missiles capable of long strikes.
Thread summarising briefing given by “a Western intelligence official”.
Briefly, yesterday Ukraine took out half of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet naval aviation.
Russia is starting to run out of ammo, including stores from deep storage.
They are struggling to reconstitute forces.
Ukraine special forces are upping the ante behind the lines.
Don’t worry about the nuke plant being hit by direct fire, built to withstand a civilian airliner crashing into it. Do worry if the Russians deliberately turn off power to reactor cooling.
War overall is proving to be a marathon not a sprint.
The tension as to whether England lose by an innings or 10 wickets is becoming intense.
Or whether we can drag it out to two full days of play.
Oh steady, let's not get too carried away.
A truly awful performance with the bat. Again. At the moment Broad has joint top score. When Root and Bairstow fail England fail abysmally. We really need to think about this first test at Lords issue. We seem to play unusually poorly there.
Edit. Looks like an innings. Awful.
The Stokes approach is high risk and high reward. It's easier to accept a few abject defeats when there are a greater number of fantastic victories. Stokes is still 4-1 with his approach. I'm willing to go along with the ride for a bit longer.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
That definition, which I don’t dispute as a one-liner, leaves an awful lot of use-cases where sovereignty is rather more nuanced.
Anyway, even by that definition, the UK remained the *ultimate* overseer, else it could logically not have Exited. I know you (or perhaps others) don’t like that riposte, but it is legally true.
Nope. For reasons I have just set out in another reply.
Ok, but international law doesn’t agree with you, or your analogy.
The UK was not under colonial control, it continued to exist, was recognised to exist, voluntary joined an organisation to which it agreed to cede certain (but by no means all) functions, and then left on its own steam.
An answer that does nothing to address the basic point of sovereignty. It is interesting that in all the debates no one ever provides a definition that does not include ultimate authority.
And anyone who claims that the UK had ultimate authority over our decision making process whilst we were in the EU is deluded. The fact that we could leave is irrelevant. Whilst we remained a member we were not sovereign.
By the way the ECJ and EU agree with me not you.
From the official website of the European Union:
"It should be noted that the primacy of EU law only applies where EU countries have ceded sovereignty to the EU — fields such as the single market, environment, transport, etc."
So they accept that sovereignty has been ceded even if you don't.
The tension as to whether England lose by an innings or 10 wickets is becoming intense.
Or whether we can drag it out to two full days of play.
Oh steady, let's not get too carried away.
A truly awful performance with the bat. Again. At the moment Broad has joint top score. When Root and Bairstow fail England fail abysmally. We really need to think about this first test at Lords issue. We seem to play unusually poorly there.
If it were up to me I wouldn't play an England game at Lords during the Ashes at least.
We have more than 5 Test grounds in the country. No reason for every series to incorporate Lords.
Lords is featured in every series because it's where the overseas team most wants to play? Few teams would willingly tour England for a Test series without a test at Lords...
I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers. I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.
Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).
It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.
I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.
'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'
'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'
'We too can have wars with our farmers....'
'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'
...Should go down well in Stoke...
In my country it'll be 'These people threatened you with the removal of EU membership in one referendum, completely ignored how you voted in another and think they should get to choose when another referendum takes place. Do you really want to be dictated to by these pricks?' Or words to that effect.
It’s not just energy affecting the trade balance: it’s more than that:
(Two currencies in one graph is not great, but they are roughly at parity now)
Can anyone find this data for the UK?
UK data look qualitatively similar, in fact worse relative to the size of our economy. In both cases it reflects a huge surge in imports post Covid - substitution from services to goods owing to lockdowns etc, supported by debt-financed fiscal support.
I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers. I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.
Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).
It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.
I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.
'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'
'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'
'We too can have wars with our farmers....'
'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'
...Should go down well in Stoke...
In my country it'll be 'These people threatened you with the removal of EU membership in one referendum, completely ignored how you voted in another and think they should get to choose when another referendum takes place. Do you really want to be dictated to by these pricks?' Or words to that effect.
Good to see you admit it will be driven by Anglophobia.
I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers. I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.
Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).
It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.
I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.
'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'
'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'
'We too can have wars with our farmers....'
'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'
...Should go down well in Stoke...
In my country it'll be 'These people threatened you with the removal of EU membership in one referendum, completely ignored how you voted in another and think they should get to choose when another referendum takes place. Do you really want to be dictated to by these pricks?' Or words to that effect.
The tension as to whether England lose by an innings or 10 wickets is becoming intense.
Or whether we can drag it out to two full days of play.
Oh steady, let's not get too carried away.
A truly awful performance with the bat. Again. At the moment Broad has joint top score. When Root and Bairstow fail England fail abysmally. We really need to think about this first test at Lords issue. We seem to play unusually poorly there.
Edit. Looks like an innings. Awful.
Headline on the BBC cricket feed: 'South Africa are PUMPED.'
I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers. I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.
Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).
It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.
I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.
'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'
'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'
'We too can have wars with our farmers....'
'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'
...Should go down well in Stoke...
In my country it'll be 'These people threatened you with the removal of EU membership in one referendum, completely ignored how you voted in another and think they should get to choose when another referendum takes place. Do you really want to be dictated to by these pricks?' Or words to that effect.
Good to see you admit it will be driven by Anglophobia.
Twatty Brexiteer Unionist hypocrites and cowards phobia actually; there's a few Scots in that camp.
But please do indulge in some whiny victimhood, it is Friday after all.
I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers. I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.
Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).
It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.
I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.
'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'
'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'
'We too can have wars with our farmers....'
'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'
...Should go down well in Stoke...
In my country it'll be 'These people threatened you with the removal of EU membership in one referendum, completely ignored how you voted in another and think they should get to choose when another referendum takes place. Do you really want to be dictated to by these pricks?' Or words to that effect.
Good to see you admit it will be driven by Anglophobia.
Twatty Brexiteer Unionist hypocrites and cowards phobia actually; there's a few Scots in that camp.
But please do indulge in some whiny victimhood, it is Friday after all.
Not sure what was "whiny" about congratulating you wholeheartedly, tbh.
It’s not just energy affecting the trade balance: it’s more than that:
(Two currencies in one graph is not great, but they are roughly at parity now)
Can anyone find this data for the UK?
It's not that surprising, though. The EU's trade surplus is largely the consequence of the sale of cars and capital goods. Shortages of chips has crushed the former, while the latter is struggling due to Chinese lockdowns and supply chain issues.
I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers. I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.
Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).
It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.
I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.
'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'
'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'
'We too can have wars with our farmers....'
'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'
...Should go down well in Stoke...
In my country it'll be 'These people threatened you with the removal of EU membership in one referendum, completely ignored how you voted in another and think they should get to choose when another referendum takes place. Do you really want to be dictated to by these pricks?' Or words to that effect.
Good to see you admit it will be driven by Anglophobia.
Twatty Brexiteer Unionist hypocrites and cowards phobia actually; there's a few Scots in that camp.
But please do indulge in some whiny victimhood, it is Friday after all.
It’s not just energy affecting the trade balance: it’s more than that:
(Two currencies in one graph is not great, but they are roughly at parity now)
Can anyone find this data for the UK?
It's not that surprising, though. The EU's trade surplus is largely the consequence of the sale of cars and capital goods. Shortages of chips has crushed the former, while the latter is struggling due to Chinese lockdowns and supply chain issues.
No it is a huge rise in non-energy imports. Exports are up too. Same issue in the UK. It's what happens when people have loads of cash but can't eat out or go on holiday.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
It’s not just energy affecting the trade balance: it’s more than that:
(Two currencies in one graph is not great, but they are roughly at parity now)
Can anyone find this data for the UK?
It's not that surprising, though. The EU's trade surplus is largely the consequence of the sale of cars and capital goods. Shortages of chips has crushed the former, while the latter is struggling due to Chinese lockdowns and supply chain issues.
I think the details will take some teasing out - but it's notable, for instance, that Hyundai became the world's third largest car manufacturer this quarter by way of losing less production than all its major competitors.
I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers. I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.
Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).
It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.
I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.
'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'
'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'
'We too can have wars with our farmers....'
'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'
...Should go down well in Stoke...
The fact that even trolls like yourself are suggesting possible Rejoin slogans is probably a sign of the direction of travel.
The fact that you are silent on what Rejoin's pitch might be, and silent as to the horrible predicament Europe is in, is much more of a sign of the direction of travel.
You and all the other rejoin massive have precisely zero to say on either topic.
On Rejoin? I long thought it impossible.
The UK is not ready for it. Need to wait for the elderly to die off and the mad to be re-institutionalised.
Funny thing about waiting for the elderly to die off is that it never happens. Because while you're waiting, the young becone middle aged and the middle aged themselves become elderly.
The tension as to whether England lose by an innings or 10 wickets is becoming intense.
Or whether we can drag it out to two full days of play.
Oh steady, let's not get too carried away.
A truly awful performance with the bat. Again. At the moment Broad has joint top score. When Root and Bairstow fail England fail abysmally. We really need to think about this first test at Lords issue. We seem to play unusually poorly there.
If it were up to me I wouldn't play an England game at Lords during the Ashes at least.
We have more than 5 Test grounds in the country. No reason for every series to incorporate Lords.
I do believe - though - that the Lords test is able to earn significantly more money than at other grounds. Ticket prices in Noth London are higher, and the ground capacity is larger.
Of course, if we lose on day three, that advantage is lost.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
Only by leaving...
Not really. As we've seen time and again with France (or sometimes with Poland or Hungary), their governments can simply ignore EU rules when they really want to. Or Germany's constitutional court.
De facto it's blatantly obvious that the EU's power is not absolute over its members. Particularly the larger states.
I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers. I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.
Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).
It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.
I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.
'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'
'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'
'We too can have wars with our farmers....'
'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'
...Should go down well in Stoke...
The fact that even trolls like yourself are suggesting possible Rejoin slogans is probably a sign of the direction of travel.
The fact that you are silent on what Rejoin's pitch might be, and silent as to the horrible predicament Europe is in, is much more of a sign of the direction of travel.
You and all the other rejoin massive have precisely zero to say on either topic.
On Rejoin? I long thought it impossible.
The UK is not ready for it. Need to wait for the elderly to die off and the mad to be re-institutionalised.
Funny thing about waiting for the elderly to die off is that it never happens. Because while you're waiting, the young becone middle aged and the middle aged themselves become elderly.
I thought I was generally aware of the scale of repression and intimidation against Crimean Tatars after the annexation of Crimea, but talking to people who have recently fled the peninsula has been eye-opening in understanding the sheer brutality of the Russian occupation... https://twitter.com/ymatusik/status/1560611897749262337
It’s not just energy affecting the trade balance: it’s more than that:
(Two currencies in one graph is not great, but they are roughly at parity now)
Can anyone find this data for the UK?
It's not that surprising, though. The EU's trade surplus is largely the consequence of the sale of cars and capital goods. Shortages of chips has crushed the former, while the latter is struggling due to Chinese lockdowns and supply chain issues.
I think the details will take some teasing out - but it's notable, for instance, that Hyundai became the world's third largest car manufacturer this quarter by way of losing less production than all its major competitors.
The sinking of the Felicity Ace also knocked slightly more than $4bn of the 2022 exports number for the Eurozone!
I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers. I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.
Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).
It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.
I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.
'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'
'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'
'We too can have wars with our farmers....'
'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'
...Should go down well in Stoke...
The fact that even trolls like yourself are suggesting possible Rejoin slogans is probably a sign of the direction of travel.
The fact that you are silent on what Rejoin's pitch might be, and silent as to the horrible predicament Europe is in, is much more of a sign of the direction of travel.
You and all the other rejoin massive have precisely zero to say on either topic.
On Rejoin? I long thought it impossible.
The UK is not ready for it. Need to wait for the elderly to die off and the mad to be re-institutionalised.
Funny thing about waiting for the elderly to die off is that it never happens. Because while you're waiting, the young becone middle aged and the middle aged themselves become elderly.
Different generations of elderly care about different stuff, though. Even if they have stuff in common.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.
And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.
The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
On Topic - in addition to referring to vegetables as "crudité" something which in my many years of living in and visiting the Keystone State yours truly NEVER heard from the lips of ANY Pennsylvanian, Oz also managed to refer to the grocery store where he was filmed shopping as “Wegners” an interesting mashup of two actual eastern PA supermarket chains: Wegmans and Redner's.
I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers. I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.
Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).
It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.
I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.
'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'
'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'
'We too can have wars with our farmers....'
'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'
...Should go down well in Stoke...
The fact that even trolls like yourself are suggesting possible Rejoin slogans is probably a sign of the direction of travel.
The fact that you are silent on what Rejoin's pitch might be, and silent as to the horrible predicament Europe is in, is much more of a sign of the direction of travel.
You and all the other rejoin massive have precisely zero to say on either topic.
On Rejoin? I long thought it impossible.
The UK is not ready for it. Need to wait for the elderly to die off and the mad to be re-institutionalised.
Funny thing about waiting for the elderly to die off is that it never happens. Because while you're waiting, the young becone middle aged and the middle aged themselves become elderly.
The idea is that the Leave voters are a substantially Boomer cohort, rather than shifting Leave being an age related trait.
Hence it was younger voters who voted against the EU in 1975, while older voters were in favour, and younger voters are now.
There may be some merit to this idea, but actually I think it more likely that half hearted Leave voters will soon see that Brexit is not the solution to the nations ills that they were seeking, but rather the door into a lost decade or two.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
Only by leaving...
Not really. As we've seen time and again with France (or sometimes with Poland or Hungary), their governments can simply ignore EU rules when they really want to. Or Germany's constitutional court.
De facto it's blatantly obvious that the EU's power is not absolute over its members. Particularly the larger states.
1) Parliament remained the ultimate authority in the UK, not leasdt because it had the power to leave the EU
2) It had transferred areas of law making and court decisions elsewhere
3) The UK had shared its sovereignty ('pooled' in EU/Heath speak) with others.
All these are sovereignties. That there was no one thing called 'sovereignty' was the problem for some; while others loved it.
On Topic - in addition to referring to vegetables as "crudité" something which in my many years of living in and visiting the Keystone State yours truly NEVER heard from the lips of ANY Pennsylvanian, Oz also managed to refer to the grocery store where he was filmed shopping as “Wegners” an interesting mashup of two actual eastern PA supermarket chains: Wegmans and Redner's.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
Only by leaving...
Not really. As we've seen time and again with France (or sometimes with Poland or Hungary), their governments can simply ignore EU rules when they really want to. Or Germany's constitutional court.
De facto it's blatantly obvious that the EU's power is not absolute over its members. Particularly the larger states.
How these wazzocks ever enter into employment or mortgage contracts, or get married, is what puzzles me. The surrender of personal sovereignty must be intolerable. Perhaps that's the point, is the illusory compensation of national sovereignty.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right....
They couldn't refuse to work.
As we've seen time and again, EU directives can be ignored if a member state is sufficiently determined.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
Only by leaving...
Not really. As we've seen time and again with France (or sometimes with Poland or Hungary), their governments can simply ignore EU rules when they really want to. Or Germany's constitutional court.
De facto it's blatantly obvious that the EU's power is not absolute over its members. Particularly the larger states.
1) Parliament remained the ultimate authority in the UK, not leasdt because it had the power to leave the EU
2) It had transferred areas of law making and court decisions elsewhere
3) The UK had shared its sovereignty ('pooled' in EU/Heath speak) with others.
All these are sovereignties. That there was no one thing called 'sovereignty' was the problem for some; while others loved it.
Simple.
It still does, to an extent, by way of international treaties. EU membership is clearly a much stronger form of that, but even then it is far from absolute.
Factory to build subsea cable (in Hunterston, North Ayrshire) from Sahara to Devon approved
The undersea cable will comprise 90,000 tons of steel and will follow the shallow water route from Morocco to the UK, past Spain, Portugal, and France to Alverdiscott in north Devon.
Xlinks will construct 7 GW of solar and 3.5 GW of wind, along with onsite 20GWh/5GW battery storage, in Morocco.
Santosh Patel, director at Pick Everard said: “We’re excited and proud to be involved in creating a new high tech green industry for the UK and supporting the drive towards net zero.”
Utterly cool in all possible respects, though it would be good to hear from @malcolmg on the neo colonial issues.
On Topic - in addition to referring to vegetables as "crudité" something which in my many years of living in and visiting the Keystone State yours truly NEVER heard from the lips of ANY Pennsylvanian, Oz also managed to refer to the grocery store where he was filmed shopping as “Wegners” an interesting mashup of two actual eastern PA supermarket chains: Wegmans and Redner's.
Are you suggesting that Oz doesn't do his own shopping?
It’s not just energy affecting the trade balance: it’s more than that:
(Two currencies in one graph is not great, but they are roughly at parity now)
Can anyone find this data for the UK?
It's not that surprising, though. The EU's trade surplus is largely the consequence of the sale of cars and capital goods. Shortages of chips has crushed the former, while the latter is struggling due to Chinese lockdowns and supply chain issues.
I think the details will take some teasing out - but it's notable, for instance, that Hyundai became the world's third largest car manufacturer this quarter by way of losing less production than all its major competitors.
The sinking of the Felicity Ace also knocked slightly more than $4bn of the 2022 exports number for the Eurozone!
Probably didn't do much for our balance of payments either when the insurance is paid out.
I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers. I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.
Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).
It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.
I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.
'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'
'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'
'We too can have wars with our farmers....'
'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'
...Should go down well in Stoke...
The fact that even trolls like yourself are suggesting possible Rejoin slogans is probably a sign of the direction of travel.
The fact that you are silent on what Rejoin's pitch might be, and silent as to the horrible predicament Europe is in, is much more of a sign of the direction of travel.
You and all the other rejoin massive have precisely zero to say on either topic.
On Rejoin? I long thought it impossible.
The UK is not ready for it. Need to wait for the elderly to die off and the mad to be re-institutionalised.
Funny thing about waiting for the elderly to die off is that it never happens. Because while you're waiting, the young becone middle aged and the middle aged themselves become elderly.
The idea is that the Leave voters are a substantially Boomer cohort, rather than shifting Leave being an age related trait.
Hence it was younger voters who voted against the EU in 1975, while older voters were in favour, and younger voters are now.
There may be some merit to this idea, but actually I think it more likely that half hearted Leave voters will soon see that Brexit is not the solution to the nations ills that they were seeking, but rather the door into a lost decade or two.
And likewise, unenthusiastic remain voters will see that actually the apocalypse didn't happen (barring anything wrought by viruses or megalomaniac dictators).
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.
And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.
The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.
Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.
I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.
You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
It’s not just energy affecting the trade balance: it’s more than that:
(Two currencies in one graph is not great, but they are roughly at parity now)
Can anyone find this data for the UK?
It's not that surprising, though. The EU's trade surplus is largely the consequence of the sale of cars and capital goods. Shortages of chips has crushed the former, while the latter is struggling due to Chinese lockdowns and supply chain issues.
I think the details will take some teasing out - but it's notable, for instance, that Hyundai became the world's third largest car manufacturer this quarter by way of losing less production than all its major competitors.
The sinking of the Felicity Ace also knocked slightly more than $4bn of the 2022 exports number for the Eurozone!
Probably didn't do much for our balance of payments either when the insurance is paid out.
I don't think we'll have been too badly dinged, with Swiss, Bermudan and US reinsurers all on the hook for more than us.
Except Martlesham Creek and the River Deben have been subject of issues over sewage pollution for decades. Indeed back in 2011 there was a report on shellfisheries along the estuary which highlighted the issue of sewage pollution there including the prevalence of ecoli. That's 5 years before we voted to leave the EU.
Factory to build subsea cable (in Hunterston, North Ayrshire) from Sahara to Devon approved
The undersea cable will comprise 90,000 tons of steel and will follow the shallow water route from Morocco to the UK, past Spain, Portugal, and France to Alverdiscott in north Devon.
Xlinks will construct 7 GW of solar and 3.5 GW of wind, along with onsite 20GWh/5GW battery storage, in Morocco.
Santosh Patel, director at Pick Everard said: “We’re excited and proud to be involved in creating a new high tech green industry for the UK and supporting the drive towards net zero.”
Utterly cool in all possible respects, though it would be good to hear from @malcolmg on the neo colonial issues.
It is: solar in the Sahara has the potential to make a massive difference to energy security.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
Only by leaving...
Not really. As we've seen time and again with France (or sometimes with Poland or Hungary), their governments can simply ignore EU rules when they really want to. Or Germany's constitutional court.
De facto it's blatantly obvious that the EU's power is not absolute over its members. Particularly the larger states.
How these wazzocks ever enter into employment or mortgage contracts, or get married, is what puzzles me. The surrender of personal sovereignty must be intolerable. Perhaps that's the point, is the illusory compensation of national sovereignty.
LOL. Although I do get why having to sit through an interminable meeting rather than head off for the beach on a sunny Wednesday afternoon is an intolerable surrender of personal sovereignty!
Also impressed that a discussion that had already been running a couple of hours when I chipped in before lunch is still going on
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.
And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.
The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.
Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.
I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.
You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
Your position only works if you change the fundamental meaning of the words you are using. Not something I am willing to accept as it renders any and all discussion on any and all subject meaningless.
What the Rishi move is really all about. Further evidence of how shit he is at politics and how good Liz is (if not at anything else).
Agrivoltaics (sheepies n crops co existing with panels) is a complete red herring, because it doesn't happen here. Possibly great in theory, say in countries where crops benefit from shade over noon, but depends on panels being at head height. They are all at ground level here.
I imagine the quality of the grazing (amount of sheep you can feed on it without supplementing their diet) would be inversely proportional to the amount of solar panels blocking the sun from the grass. So it's not win/win, it's more w/in. Or wi/n. Or win/___.
Except Martlesham Creek and the River Deben have been subject of issues over sewage pollution for decades. Indeed back in 2011 there was a report on shellfisheries along the estuary which highlighted the issue of sewage pollution there including the prevalence of ecoli. That's 5 years before we voted to leave the EU.
So your logic is... well, shit.
And now there is no authority that can do anything to pressure the UK government into cleaning things up. The EU may not have had much success in the case of this river, but few doubt that EU fines and pressure helped to force the UK to clean up its rivers and beaches over the years. EU rules were tougher than our own. So your argument is also 💩
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.
And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.
The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.
Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.
I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.
You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
That's the point though, we still had ultimate sovereignty but we had chosen to pool it with others for a wider shared benefit. It may be argued that the loss of sovereignty wasn't worth the benefit (I disagree) but you can't argue that we had given it up altogether.
If that was the case the same people would also be arguing that we withdraw from all other international associations and agreements because by being members we no longer have full sovereignty. Of course we haven't, and there is no suggestion that the benefits of being in NATO or the WTO don't outweigh the loss of being able to act independently in every circumstance.
Factory to build subsea cable (in Hunterston, North Ayrshire) from Sahara to Devon approved
The undersea cable will comprise 90,000 tons of steel and will follow the shallow water route from Morocco to the UK, past Spain, Portugal, and France to Alverdiscott in north Devon.
Xlinks will construct 7 GW of solar and 3.5 GW of wind, along with onsite 20GWh/5GW battery storage, in Morocco.
Santosh Patel, director at Pick Everard said: “We’re excited and proud to be involved in creating a new high tech green industry for the UK and supporting the drive towards net zero.”
Utterly cool in all possible respects, though it would be good to hear from @malcolmg on the neo colonial issues.
That’s great news. One question though, couldn’t they have saved a lot of money by having it finishing in South Devon or Cornwall rather than having to go round the leg of England?
Not being spree but is there a reason it takes a longer route?
What the Rishi move is really all about. Further evidence of how shit he is at politics and how good Liz is (if not at anything else).
Agrivoltaics (sheepies n crops co existing with panels) is a complete red herring, because it doesn't happen here. Possibly great in theory, say in countries where crops benefit from shade over noon, but depends on panels being at head height. They are all at ground level here.
I imagine the quality of the grazing (amount of sheep you can feed on it without supplementing their diet) would be inversely proportional to the amount of solar panels blocking the sun from the grass. So it's not win/win, it's more w/in. Or wi/n. Or win/___.
I think that is right, then again livestock do need shade in these summers. Solar panels are in principle analogous to trees and there's never been a problem with woodland pasture which actually is highly fashionable atm. But you need to design for that if it's what you want
It’s not just energy affecting the trade balance: it’s more than that:
(Two currencies in one graph is not great, but they are roughly at parity now)
Can anyone find this data for the UK?
UK data look qualitatively similar, in fact worse relative to the size of our economy. In both cases it reflects a huge surge in imports post Covid - substitution from services to goods owing to lockdowns etc, supported by debt-financed fiscal support.
Factory to build subsea cable (in Hunterston, North Ayrshire) from Sahara to Devon approved
The undersea cable will comprise 90,000 tons of steel and will follow the shallow water route from Morocco to the UK, past Spain, Portugal, and France to Alverdiscott in north Devon.
Xlinks will construct 7 GW of solar and 3.5 GW of wind, along with onsite 20GWh/5GW battery storage, in Morocco.
Santosh Patel, director at Pick Everard said: “We’re excited and proud to be involved in creating a new high tech green industry for the UK and supporting the drive towards net zero.”
Utterly cool in all possible respects, though it would be good to hear from @malcolmg on the neo colonial issues.
It is: solar in the Sahara has the potential to make a massive difference to energy security.
To be honest it would be good to hear from @malcolmg for any reason. I hope he is ok.
Factory to build subsea cable (in Hunterston, North Ayrshire) from Sahara to Devon approved
The undersea cable will comprise 90,000 tons of steel and will follow the shallow water route from Morocco to the UK, past Spain, Portugal, and France to Alverdiscott in north Devon.
Xlinks will construct 7 GW of solar and 3.5 GW of wind, along with onsite 20GWh/5GW battery storage, in Morocco.
Santosh Patel, director at Pick Everard said: “We’re excited and proud to be involved in creating a new high tech green industry for the UK and supporting the drive towards net zero.”
Utterly cool in all possible respects, though it would be good to hear from @malcolmg on the neo colonial issues.
That’s great news. One question though, couldn’t they have saved a lot of money by having it finishing in South Devon or Cornwall rather than having to go round the leg of England?
Not being spree but is there a reason it takes a longer route?
I was wondering that myself, what with the tidal flows round Lands End. Haven't a notion what the answer is. Land is cheaper and planning easier might be the answer.
Except Martlesham Creek and the River Deben have been subject of issues over sewage pollution for decades. Indeed back in 2011 there was a report on shellfisheries along the estuary which highlighted the issue of sewage pollution there including the prevalence of ecoli. That's 5 years before we voted to leave the EU.
So your logic is... well, shit.
And now there is no authority that can do anything to pressure the UK government into cleaning things up. The EU may not have had much success in the case of this river, but few doubt that EU fines and pressure helped to force the UK to clean up its rivers and beaches over the years. EU rules were tougher than our own. So your argument is also 💩
I see no reason why democracy in the UK cannot clean up its rivers. If we fail to do so it will be because we chose to prioritise other things.
Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist
Brexiteers are the ones shitting themselves that Brexit dies with BoZo
Please explain how it “dies” after Boris?
Honestly. It’s just bonkers
Depends on what you mean by 'Brexit'. If you take Brexit as meaning that we are not members of the EU, then yes, Brexit obviously won't die with Boris. Getting back in is a generational project. If you mean by Brexit the 'Brexit project' - that it's going to bring about some positive economic change or other benefits - then it's going to be dead as soon as the present version of the Conservative Party get booted from office. Once Labour get back in - and the Conservatives actually have to sort themselves out and realise they have to marginalise the ERG like Labour did with the Corbynites - the people running show will treat Brexit as something to be mitigated and not as something worth pursuing. At that point we will drift closer to the EU, until we probably end up in the EEA or have some Swiss-style deal with them.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.
And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.
The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.
Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.
I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.
You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
That's the point though, we still had ultimate sovereignty but we had chosen to pool it with others for a wider shared benefit. It may be argued that the loss of sovereignty wasn't worth the benefit (I disagree) but you can't argue that we had given it up altogether.
If that was the case the same people would also be arguing that we withdraw from all other international associations and agreements because by being members we no longer have full sovereignty. Of course we haven't, and there is no suggestion that the benefits of being in NATO or the WTO don't outweigh the loss of being able to act independently in every circumstance.
Neither NATO, the WTO or even the UN can pass laws over the UK which we cannot veto.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.
And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.
The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.
Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.
I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.
You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.
Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.
Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.
Except Martlesham Creek and the River Deben have been subject of issues over sewage pollution for decades. Indeed back in 2011 there was a report on shellfisheries along the estuary which highlighted the issue of sewage pollution there including the prevalence of ecoli. That's 5 years before we voted to leave the EU.
So your logic is... well, shit.
And now there is no authority that can do anything to pressure the UK government into cleaning things up. The EU may not have had much success in the case of this river, but few doubt that EU fines and pressure helped to force the UK to clean up its rivers and beaches over the years. EU rules were tougher than our own. So your argument is also 💩
I see no reason why democracy in the UK cannot clean up its rivers. If we fail to do so it will be because we chose to prioritise other things.
So far as I know, the rules concerning river pollutants have not changed, and nor have the agencies enforcing them. So the only change is the sudden scatalogical enthusiasm on the part of the continuity remoaners on Twitter.
On Topic - in addition to referring to vegetables as "crudité" something which in my many years of living in and visiting the Keystone State yours truly NEVER heard from the lips of ANY Pennsylvanian, Oz also managed to refer to the grocery store where he was filmed shopping as “Wegners” an interesting mashup of two actual eastern PA supermarket chains: Wegmans and Redner's.
Are you suggesting that Oz doesn't do his own shopping?
Just saying that he's no wizard when it comes to groceries.
I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers. I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.
Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).
It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.
I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.
'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'
'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'
'We too can have wars with our farmers....'
'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'
...Should go down well in Stoke...
The fact that even trolls like yourself are suggesting possible Rejoin slogans is probably a sign of the direction of travel.
The fact that you are silent on what Rejoin's pitch might be, and silent as to the horrible predicament Europe is in, is much more of a sign of the direction of travel.
You and all the other rejoin massive have precisely zero to say on either topic.
On Rejoin? I long thought it impossible.
The UK is not ready for it. Need to wait for the elderly to die off and the mad to be re-institutionalised.
Funny thing about waiting for the elderly to die off is that it never happens. Because while you're waiting, the young becone middle aged and the middle aged themselves become elderly.
The idea is that the Leave voters are a substantially Boomer cohort, rather than shifting Leave being an age related trait.
Hence it was younger voters who voted against the EU in 1975, while older voters were in favour, and younger voters are now.
There may be some merit to this idea, but actually I think it more likely that half hearted Leave voters will soon see that Brexit is not the solution to the nations ills that they were seeking, but rather the door into a lost decade or two.
And likewise, unenthusiastic remain voters will see that actually the apocalypse didn't happen (barring anything wrought by viruses or megalomaniac dictators).
Certainly there will be movement both ways, but like Scottish Independence there will be a repeat vote at some point.
If you want an entertaining read in to the problems with local government, the government response to the second commissioners report in to Liverpool City Council is worth a look. In summary, there were various "problems" at Liverpool Council and government sent in commissioners to sort it out. Something that keeps on happening across the country (slough, croydon etc) The commissioners are typically grandee senior local governmnet officers being paid quite a lot of money, well the going rate for a senior management level interim. In the case of Liverpool, the commissioners are now reporting back to Ministers that, actually, they need more commissioners to be appointed to take over more of the Council's functions. Ministers are not happy about this and expect to see more progress. And quickly! But actually, there is little sign of any progress, and lots of problems being unearthed. So what exactly can the government do now? They've already taken the "nuclear" step of taking over the Council. The problems being unearthed are perhaps connected to the structural problems with local government financing arrangements and 12 years of cynical government policy making in this regard. chickens coming home to roost, or something like that. Perhaps the limitations of this model of intervention in local governance are slowly becoming clear.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.
And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.
The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.
Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.
I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.
You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.
Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.
Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.
As I understand it you’re against neoliberal economics, so why are you so wedded to a system that entrenches a settlement you don’t like?
If you want an entertaining read in to the problems with local government, the government response to the second commissioners report in to Liverpool City Council is worth a look. In summary, there were various "problems" at Liverpool Council and government sent in commissioners to sort it out. Something that keeps on happening across the country (slough, croydon etc) The commissioners are typically grandee senior local governmnet officers being paid quite a lot of money, well the going rate for a senior management level interim. In the case of Liverpool, the commissioners are now reporting back to Ministers that, actually, they need more commissioners to be appointed to take over more of the Council's functions. Ministers are not happy about this and expect to see more progress. And quickly! But actually, there is little sign of any progress, and lots of problems being unearthed. So what exactly can the government do now? They've already taken the "nuclear" step of taking over the Council. The problems being unearthed are perhaps connected to the structural problems with local government financing arrangements and 12 years of cynical government policy making in this regard. chickens coming home to roost, or something like that. Perhaps the limitations of this model of intervention in local governance are slowly becoming clear.
I have always though behavioural scientists/consultants should be brought in to review British organisations that are dysfunctional, and make recommendations for new structures. Aubrey Daniels from the US is one who I think is excellent.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.
And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.
The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.
Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.
I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.
You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.
Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.
Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.
You’re right, pooling works better, I was using Tyndall’s language as cited.
It’s important we are honestly nuanced about this, because Continuity Leavers insist somehow that the UK was no longer sovereign. That is false and extremist.
On Topic - in addition to referring to vegetables as "crudité" something which in my many years of living in and visiting the Keystone State yours truly NEVER heard from the lips of ANY Pennsylvanian, Oz also managed to refer to the grocery store where he was filmed shopping as “Wegners” an interesting mashup of two actual eastern PA supermarket chains: Wegmans and Redner's.
Are you suggesting that Oz doesn't do his own shopping?
Just saying that he's no wizard when it comes to groceries.
Except Martlesham Creek and the River Deben have been subject of issues over sewage pollution for decades. Indeed back in 2011 there was a report on shellfisheries along the estuary which highlighted the issue of sewage pollution there including the prevalence of ecoli. That's 5 years before we voted to leave the EU.
So your logic is... well, shit.
And now there is no authority that can do anything to pressure the UK government into cleaning things up. The EU may not have had much success in the case of this river, but few doubt that EU fines and pressure helped to force the UK to clean up its rivers and beaches over the years. EU rules were tougher than our own. So your argument is also 💩
I see no reason why democracy in the UK cannot clean up its rivers. If we fail to do so it will be because we chose to prioritise other things.
So far as I know, the rules concerning river pollutants have not changed, and nor have the agencies enforcing them. So the only change is the sudden scatalogical enthusiasm on the part of the continuity remoaners on Twitter.
People have been pointing out that we need to do something to stop storm water from causing sewage overflows for decades. The EU neither forced us, or prevented us, from tackling this. Like with many things out was a failure of our own government.
Factory to build subsea cable (in Hunterston, North Ayrshire) from Sahara to Devon approved
The undersea cable will comprise 90,000 tons of steel and will follow the shallow water route from Morocco to the UK, past Spain, Portugal, and France to Alverdiscott in north Devon.
Xlinks will construct 7 GW of solar and 3.5 GW of wind, along with onsite 20GWh/5GW battery storage, in Morocco.
Santosh Patel, director at Pick Everard said: “We’re excited and proud to be involved in creating a new high tech green industry for the UK and supporting the drive towards net zero.”
Utterly cool in all possible respects, though it would be good to hear from @malcolmg on the neo colonial issues.
It is: solar in the Sahara has the potential to make a massive difference to energy security.
To be honest it would be good to hear from @malcolmg for any reason. I hope he is ok.
Haven't heard from Carlotta recently either. Perhaps they're together in a pea-green boat.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.
And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.
The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.
Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.
I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.
You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.
Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.
Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.
This is why I find the SNPs argument about "Tory rule" so lazy. In whatever democracy you are in, there are always going to be people who don't get the representation they want.
Tories in the EU. Labour in the UK. Unionists in Scotland. Tories in Edinburgh. Labour voters in Morningside.
Breaking up or supporting these structures in the interest of your personal views is selfish.
If you want an entertaining read in to the problems with local government, the government response to the second commissioners report in to Liverpool City Council is worth a look. In summary, there were various "problems" at Liverpool Council and government sent in commissioners to sort it out. Something that keeps on happening across the country (slough, croydon etc) The commissioners are typically grandee senior local governmnet officers being paid quite a lot of money, well the going rate for a senior management level interim. In the case of Liverpool, the commissioners are now reporting back to Ministers that, actually, they need more commissioners to be appointed to take over more of the Council's functions. Ministers are not happy about this and expect to see more progress. And quickly! But actually, there is little sign of any progress, and lots of problems being unearthed. So what exactly can the government do now? They've already taken the "nuclear" step of taking over the Council. The problems being unearthed are perhaps connected to the structural problems with local government financing arrangements and 12 years of cynical government policy making in this regard. chickens coming home to roost, or something like that. Perhaps the limitations of this model of intervention in local governance are slowly becoming clear.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.
And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.
The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.
Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.
I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.
You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.
Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.
Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.
You’re right, pooling works better, I was using Tyndall’s language as cited.
It’s important we are honestly nuanced about this, because Continuity Leavers insist somehow that the UK was no longer sovereign. That is false and extremist.
The argument that our ability to leave meant there was no loss of sovereignty is overly pedantic. In practice we were part of a system that imposed significant constraints.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.
And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.
The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.
Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.
I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.
You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.
Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.
Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.
This is why I find the SNPs argument about "Tory rule" so lazy. In whatever democracy you are in, there are always going to be people who don't get the representation they want.
Tories in the EU. Labour in the UK. Unionists in Scotland. Tories in Edinburgh. Labour voters in Morningside.
Breaking up or supporting these structures in the interest of your personal views is selfish.
Labour voters in Morningside!?
Do you mean to say that Mr Murray isn't a Labour MP?
Edit: under the Scottish system, Unionists get plenty of representation, too.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.
And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.
The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.
Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.
I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.
You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.
Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.
Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.
You’re right, pooling works better, I was using Tyndall’s language as cited.
It’s important we are honestly nuanced about this, because Continuity Leavers insist somehow that the UK was no longer sovereign. That is false and extremist.
It's unfair to paint Richard as such. Possible to argue that he's overly pedantic, or unnuanced, even absolutist etc on the point of legal sovereignty, but labelling one of the more reasonable leavers' arguments as 'extremist' is unnecessary.
Factory to build subsea cable (in Hunterston, North Ayrshire) from Sahara to Devon approved
The undersea cable will comprise 90,000 tons of steel and will follow the shallow water route from Morocco to the UK, past Spain, Portugal, and France to Alverdiscott in north Devon.
Xlinks will construct 7 GW of solar and 3.5 GW of wind, along with onsite 20GWh/5GW battery storage, in Morocco.
Santosh Patel, director at Pick Everard said: “We’re excited and proud to be involved in creating a new high tech green industry for the UK and supporting the drive towards net zero.”
Utterly cool in all possible respects, though it would be good to hear from @malcolmg on the neo colonial issues.
That’s great news. One question though, couldn’t they have saved a lot of money by having it finishing in South Devon or Cornwall rather than having to go round the leg of England?
Not being spree but is there a reason it takes a longer route?
I was wondering that myself, what with the tidal flows round Lands End. Haven't a notion what the answer is. Land is cheaper and planning easier might be the answer.
Looking at it from a great circle pov, there might not be that much in it, given the UK 'tilts' to the southwest. I bet there's also significant cost in upgrading the national grid to cope with the power. I wonder why Alverdiscott is interesting?
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.
And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.
The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.
Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.
I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.
You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.
Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.
Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.
You’re right, pooling works better, I was using Tyndall’s language as cited.
It’s important we are honestly nuanced about this, because Continuity Leavers insist somehow that the UK was no longer sovereign. That is false and extremist.
The argument that our ability to leave meant there was no loss of sovereignty is overly pedantic. In practice we were part of a system that imposed significant constraints.
I started this (or chipped in) by suggesting that it he word sovereign wasn’t helpful and that Britain inside the EU was just be “less flexible”.
I don’t think those constraints were significant, though, as evidence by the fact that the government have done fuck all with the new flexibilities won, indeed have trouble identifying them.
If you want an entertaining read in to the problems with local government, the government response to the second commissioners report in to Liverpool City Council is worth a look. In summary, there were various "problems" at Liverpool Council and government sent in commissioners to sort it out. Something that keeps on happening across the country (slough, croydon etc) The commissioners are typically grandee senior local governmnet officers being paid quite a lot of money, well the going rate for a senior management level interim. In the case of Liverpool, the commissioners are now reporting back to Ministers that, actually, they need more commissioners to be appointed to take over more of the Council's functions. Ministers are not happy about this and expect to see more progress. And quickly! But actually, there is little sign of any progress, and lots of problems being unearthed. So what exactly can the government do now? They've already taken the "nuclear" step of taking over the Council. The problems being unearthed are perhaps connected to the structural problems with local government financing arrangements and 12 years of cynical government policy making in this regard. chickens coming home to roost, or something like that. Perhaps the limitations of this model of intervention in local governance are slowly becoming clear.
I have always though behavioural scientists/consultants should be brought in to review British organisations that are dysfunctional. Aubrey Daniels from the US is one who I think is excellent.
The dysfuctionality is with the structure of local government itself. The model of commissioner intervention assumes that there is a 'right' way of running a council, but in reality many are on the cusp of bankruptcy, due to the pressures imposed on them by central government policy. Some are more egregious and reckless in their behaviour than others, but the problems run very deep.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.
And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.
The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.
Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.
I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.
You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.
Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.
Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.
You’re right, pooling works better, I was using Tyndall’s language as cited.
It’s important we are honestly nuanced about this, because Continuity Leavers insist somehow that the UK was no longer sovereign. That is false and extremist.
It was proven in court that British parliamentary statute was inferior to EU writ. The claim that we were still sovereign rests on the fact that leaving was permitted. So we've exercised that right and left. If doing so was to all intents and purposes an impossibility, then it can only have been a fig leaf of sovereignty. If it was always an inbuilt feature, you should be delighted - let member states come and go whenever they like and exercise all that lovely sovereignty the EU gives them.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.
And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.
The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.
Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.
I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.
You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.
Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.
Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.
You’re right, pooling works better, I was using Tyndall’s language as cited.
It’s important we are honestly nuanced about this, because Continuity Leavers insist somehow that the UK was no longer sovereign. That is false and extremist.
It was proven in court that British parliamentary statute was inferior to EU writ. The claim that we were still sovereign rests on the fact that leaving was permitted. So we've exercised that right and left. If doing so was to all intents and purposes an impossibility, then it can only have been a fig leaf of sovereignty. If it was always an inbuilt feature, you should be delighted - let member states come and go whenever they like and exercise all that lovely sovereignty the EU gives them.
I have no issue with states coming and going. Do you?
Except Martlesham Creek and the River Deben have been subject of issues over sewage pollution for decades. Indeed back in 2011 there was a report on shellfisheries along the estuary which highlighted the issue of sewage pollution there including the prevalence of ecoli. That's 5 years before we voted to leave the EU.
So your logic is... well, shit.
And now there is no authority that can do anything to pressure the UK government into cleaning things up. The EU may not have had much success in the case of this river, but few doubt that EU fines and pressure helped to force the UK to clean up its rivers and beaches over the years. EU rules were tougher than our own. So your argument is also 💩
I see no reason why democracy in the UK cannot clean up its rivers. If we fail to do so it will be because we chose to prioritise other things.
So far as I know, the rules concerning river pollutants have not changed, and nor have the agencies enforcing them. So the only change is the sudden scatalogical enthusiasm on the part of the continuity remoaners on Twitter.
People have been pointing out that we need to do something to stop storm water from causing sewage overflows for decades. The EU neither forced us, or prevented us, from tackling this. Like with many things out was a failure of our own government.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.
And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.
The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.
Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.
I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.
You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.
Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.
Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.
You’re right, pooling works better, I was using Tyndall’s language as cited.
It’s important we are honestly nuanced about this, because Continuity Leavers insist somehow that the UK was no longer sovereign. That is false and extremist.
It's unfair to paint Richard as such. Possible to argue that he's overly pedantic, or unnuanced, even absolutist etc on the point of legal sovereignty, but labelling one of the more reasonable leavers' arguments as 'extremist' is unnecessary.
I don’t know if Richard holds that view, I’m not sure.
But the idea that Britain was “no longer sovereign” IS extremist, and it leads to some very dark places and strange justifications.
If you properly understood thread sovereignty you would have realised it never had it in the first place as another was destined to take control before the day was out.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.
And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.
The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.
Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.
I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.
You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.
Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.
Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.
This is why I find the SNPs argument about "Tory rule" so lazy. In whatever democracy you are in, there are always going to be people who don't get the representation they want.
Tories in the EU. Labour in the UK. Unionists in Scotland. Tories in Edinburgh. Labour voters in Morningside.
Breaking up or supporting these structures in the interest of your personal views is selfish.
Labour voters in Morningside!?
Do you mean to say that Mr Murray isn't a Labour MP?
Edit: under the Scottish system, Unionists get plenty of representation, too.
He must be the most tactically voted for MP in the UK. Any other candidates we can think of?
And true, the Scottish system is way better. But your Orkney Lib Dems will never get the government they voted for.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.
And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.
The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.
Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.
I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.
You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.
Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.
Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.
As I understand it you’re against neoliberal economics, so why are you so wedded to a system that entrenches a settlement you don’t like?
There is a lot to unpack in your term neo-liberal economics, so you will have to define what you mean.
I don't think I have ever expressed a view on it either way using that name.
Comments
It doesn’t really matter whether it was Brexit or not, Brexit helps defines the era.
https://twitter.com/Flash43191300/status/1560522996862836737?t=ZRpQ6JlSaijD4HqEPJvWCg&s=19
One v Windies on a dodgy Edgbaston.
The other in 1888!
That wasn't South Africa's first choice attack.
Thread summarising briefing given by “a Western intelligence official”.
Briefly, yesterday Ukraine took out half of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet naval aviation.
Russia is starting to run out of ammo, including stores from deep storage.
They are struggling to reconstitute forces.
Ukraine special forces are upping the ante behind the lines.
Don’t worry about the nuke plant being hit by direct fire, built to withstand a civilian airliner crashing into it. Do worry if the Russians deliberately turn off power to reactor cooling.
War overall is proving to be a marathon not a sprint.
And anyone who claims that the UK had ultimate authority over our decision making process whilst we were in the EU is deluded. The fact that we could leave is irrelevant. Whilst we remained a member we were not sovereign.
By the way the ECJ and EU agree with me not you.
From the official website of the European Union:
"It should be noted that the primacy of EU law only applies where EU countries have ceded sovereignty to the EU — fields such as the single market, environment, transport, etc."
So they accept that sovereignty has been ceded even if you don't.
(Two currencies in one graph is not great, but they are roughly at parity now)
Can anyone find this data for the UK?
Or words to that effect.
Actually, I think you'll find..
But please do indulge in some whiny victimhood, it is Friday after all.
You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
Guess how much it cost
Of course, if we lose on day three, that advantage is lost.
As we've seen time and again with France (or sometimes with Poland or Hungary), their governments can simply ignore EU rules when they really want to.
Or Germany's constitutional court.
De facto it's blatantly obvious that the EU's power is not absolute over its members.
Particularly the larger states.
https://twitter.com/ymatusik/status/1560611897749262337
As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.
And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.
The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
Hence it was younger voters who voted against the EU in 1975, while older voters were in favour, and younger voters are now.
There may be some merit to this idea, but actually I think it more likely that half hearted Leave voters will soon see that Brexit is not the solution to the nations ills that they were seeking, but rather the door into a lost decade or two.
2) It had transferred areas of law making and court decisions elsewhere
3) The UK had shared its sovereignty ('pooled' in EU/Heath speak) with others.
All these are sovereignties. That there was no one thing called 'sovereignty' was the problem for some; while others loved it.
Simple.
As we've seen time and again, EU directives can be ignored if a member state is sufficiently determined.
EU membership is clearly a much stronger form of that, but even then it is far from absolute.
Factory to build subsea cable (in Hunterston, North Ayrshire) from Sahara to Devon approved
The undersea cable will comprise 90,000 tons of steel and will follow the shallow water route from Morocco to the UK, past Spain, Portugal, and France to Alverdiscott in north Devon.
Xlinks will construct 7 GW of solar and 3.5 GW of wind, along with onsite 20GWh/5GW battery storage, in Morocco.
Santosh Patel, director at Pick Everard said: “We’re excited and proud to be involved in creating a new high tech green industry for the UK and supporting the drive towards net zero.”
Utterly cool in all possible respects, though it would be good to hear from @malcolmg on the neo colonial issues.
Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.
I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.
You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
On a 40 hr week, this means:
23+ would earn an extra £832 a year.
21-22 would get about £1,500 more.
18-20 would earn over £6,000 more a year.
Thank you Labour!
So your logic is... well, shit.
Also impressed that a discussion that had already been running a couple of hours when I chipped in before lunch is still going on
If that was the case the same people would also be arguing that we withdraw from all other international associations and agreements because by being members we no longer have full sovereignty. Of course we haven't, and there is no suggestion that the benefits of being in NATO or the WTO don't outweigh the loss of being able to act independently in every circumstance.
Not being spree but is there a reason it takes a longer route?
But it’s less than two miles, only two stops and takes less than five minutes
Earlier today I got a bus from Devizes to Pewsey that went over ten miles, ten stops, and takes an hour, for only £3.60
If you take Brexit as meaning that we are not members of the EU, then yes, Brexit obviously won't die with Boris. Getting back in is a generational project.
If you mean by Brexit the 'Brexit project' - that it's going to bring about some positive economic change or other benefits - then it's going to be dead as soon as the present version of the Conservative Party get booted from office. Once Labour get back in - and the Conservatives actually have to sort themselves out and realise they have to marginalise the ERG like Labour did with the Corbynites - the people running show will treat Brexit as something to be mitigated and not as something worth pursuing. At that point we will drift closer to the EU, until we probably end up in the EEA or have some Swiss-style deal with them.
Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.
Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.
In summary, there were various "problems" at Liverpool Council and government sent in commissioners to sort it out.
Something that keeps on happening across the country (slough, croydon etc)
The commissioners are typically grandee senior local governmnet officers being paid quite a lot of money, well the going rate for a senior management level interim.
In the case of Liverpool, the commissioners are now reporting back to Ministers that, actually, they need more commissioners to be appointed to take over more of the Council's functions.
Ministers are not happy about this and expect to see more progress. And quickly!
But actually, there is little sign of any progress, and lots of problems being unearthed.
So what exactly can the government do now? They've already taken the "nuclear" step of taking over the Council.
The problems being unearthed are perhaps connected to the structural problems with local government financing arrangements and 12 years of cynical government policy making in this regard. chickens coming home to roost, or something like that.
Perhaps the limitations of this model of intervention in local governance are slowly becoming clear.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/liverpool-city-council-commissioners-second-report
It’s important we are honestly nuanced about this, because Continuity Leavers insist somehow that the UK was no longer sovereign. That is false and extremist.
We didn't privatise the council buses in Edinburgh and the Lothians, and they have been profitable (covid dip aside).
Tories in the EU. Labour in the UK. Unionists in Scotland. Tories in Edinburgh. Labour voters in Morningside.
Breaking up or supporting these structures in the interest of your personal views is selfish.
And probably other places.
It will continue to be a problem until Britain unshackles itself from the dead hand of Treasury/Whitehall.
Do you mean to say that Mr Murray isn't a Labour MP?
Edit: under the Scottish system, Unionists get plenty of representation, too.
Possible to argue that he's overly pedantic, or unnuanced, even absolutist etc on the point of legal sovereignty, but labelling one of the more reasonable leavers' arguments as 'extremist' is unnecessary.
https://www.nationalgrid.com/electricity-transmission/network-and-infrastructure/network-route-maps
I don’t think those constraints were significant, though, as evidence by the fact that the government have done fuck all with the new flexibilities won, indeed have trouble identifying them.
Do you?
But the idea that Britain was “no longer sovereign” IS extremist, and it leads to some very dark places and strange justifications.
And true, the Scottish system is way better. But your Orkney Lib Dems will never get the government they voted for.
I don't think I have ever expressed a view on it either way using that name.