Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The exodus of CON MPs continues – politicalbetting.com

1234568»

Comments

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    According to the Fifa rankings Belgium are number 2 and Canada number 41 in the world.

    https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/men?dateId=id13792
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,643

    My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.

    However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.

    It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.

    Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.

    Does it not follow that if you don't want to end up in an EU superstate, the best option is to leave and negotiate with the nascent state from the outside rather than the inside?
    No, quite the reverse in my opinion.
    In fact, I don’t really see the logic at all in your position.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,232
    kinabalu said:

    pigeon said:

    Monkeys said:

    Indyref is two sides manoeuvring a negotiation position. Which is fine. In the end if people keep voting for you to ask a question you will eventually get to ask the question. If I were in Westminster I'd have thought about forcing the referendum but on my terms. As it stands they've chosen to delay it, and with it some degree of control.

    (I don't buy that people who voted SNP the last few years are not expecting them to push for one.)

    Only if more people don't keep on voting for you NOT to ask the question. Which is what makes the latest roll of the dice so risky. The SNP is capable of getting to 50% of the popular vote - it's been done before - but they've only managed it the once, and they're going to have to get almost all the way there again by themselves come the next election. It's not as if the Greens and Alba are going to contribute all that much.

    If they manage it, their opponents will simply disregard the achievement: general elections aren't single issue votes, regardless of whether or not one party insists that they are. But if they fail, then what?
    If they fail to hit 50 they'll point to seats. 2nd best but viable. If they do make 50 they'll say done deal. It's about ratcheting up the pressure. It can't be forever resisted if majority support is reached and maintained.
    It depends on what majority you're talking about, though. It can be resisted indefinitely so long as public opinion remains split down the middle. We're only having this conversation because it's been confirmed today that the Scottish Parliament isn't legally competent to do anything effective to advance the process of secession, and it goes without saying that Scotland isn't responsible for returning the majority of MPs to the House of Commons, which does have the power to give the SNP what it wants.

    Just so long as roughly as many people in Scotland keep voting for pro-Union as pro-independence politicians, and just so long as available evidence suggests that there's not a consistent, stable majority in favour of a rematch of 2014, the PM and the Scotland Secretary will both point at the stalemate and keep frustrating the Scottish Government. And they'll get away with it, just like they've done up until this point.
  • 👀

    Justice Dept. Seeking to Question Pence in Jan. 6 Investigation


    Prosecutors want to speak with the former vice president as a witness to former President Donald Trump’s efforts to remain in power, and he is said to be considering how to respond.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/23/us/politics/mike-pence-jan-6.html
  • glwglw Posts: 8,876
    Cookie said:

    glw said:

    MaxPB said:

    What irks me is Americans or people from other non EU countries who would never in a million years vote for the US to be subsumed into some other nation state have a go at Brexit. Europeans who are heading in that direction may not like that we've jumped off their train but people not from an EU country that would never vote for their country to become a mere state in a larger country can get fucked.

    Those people are just hypocritical idiots. I despise them.
    It's based on a simple matter of dividing the world into goodies and baddies. Not much more thinking often goes on than Brexit=Trump. This is not just a criticism of North American liberals - very few people of any stripe are well informed enough to comment in detail on what is in another's best interests, but many will still have a go.
    Of course, but coming from a nation that willfully ignores all sorts of international bodies it really grates.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,643

    MaxPB said:

    Omnium said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .

    I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
    I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .

    I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.

    Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
    The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
    But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.

    Omnium said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .

    I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
    I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .

    I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.

    Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
    The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
    But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
    And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.

    The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.

    Sorry, but no thanks.
    Britain did not join the Euro and is not going to. You are fulminating against phantoms.
    That's just not true. Eventually it becomes put up or shut up time and with a remain vote the answer from Brussels when we tell them no would be "but your people voted for this". It suits your agenda to pretend that the EU doesn't harbour dreams statehood but that doesn't make it true.
    My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.

    However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.

    It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.

    Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.
    The problem isn't really 'they ignored us', it's that a majority of Britain's political and administrative class were (and are) all in on us being right up to our necks in the EU, gold-plating every bit of stupid legislation, and getting ready behind the scenes to take us into the euro etc. David Cameron didn't want a two speed Europe. Juncker was actually quite prepared to have Britain semi-detached if the 4 freedoms were maintained. Cameron was not interested.
    Some truth to this.
    Elite British fear of being “outside” outweighed any coherent attempt to reform it upon lines that - I would argue - look more conducive to a plurality of posters on here.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,570

    Cookie said:

    My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.

    However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.

    It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.

    Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.

    Does it not follow that if you don't want to end up in an EU superstate, the best option is to leave and negotiate with the nascent state from the outside rather than the inside?
    I don't think that need alwaysnecessarily the case. But in this case - based on 40 years of failure to reform from the inside - I think you are right.
    I’m afraid the 40 years of failed reform is a bit of a canard. Britain largely got it wanted to the extent that it treated the EU as much more than a peripheral matter.

    The EU - like, say, Housing or Transport, or Scotland, or Culture, has been second-order issue for British administrations.

    It worked until it stopped working.
    CAP. That is all.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,677
    Belgium 1:0
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,754

    👀

    Justice Dept. Seeking to Question Pence in Jan. 6 Investigation


    Prosecutors want to speak with the former vice president as a witness to former President Donald Trump’s efforts to remain in power, and he is said to be considering how to respond.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/23/us/politics/mike-pence-jan-6.html

    I hope he is measuring up the precise spot where the bus is...
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,773
    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sturgeon's response seems a bit weak to me. I'd have thought she'd have gamed out something stronger given the likely outcome of the case.

    She generally seems a cautious character to me, always feels time is on her side and she can take her time.
    She can take her time for the simple reason that Scotland isn't going to vote for independence and that until they have voted NO again NS's position is safe, so the longer this goes on the better. The SC case - the outcome was obvious - was merely a tactic to ensure that the supporters thought she had done all she could, and to buy time. meanwhile there are oceans of jobs for the boys and girls in Edinburgh and Westminster.

    A major problem remains: as long as England is outside the SM and CU then the Gretna border (big razor wire fence perhaps) remains insoluble. The ROI/NI problem proves that fine words and promises don't deliver a solution.

    Lots of others too like, yes we want NATO but not its actual mode of defence thanks..

    Will some Scottish hotheads start outflanking her with talk of UDI and civil disobedience? Maybe there aren't any hotheads.
    Reading the innermost thoughts of Nicola Sturgeon and discovering they are at odds with everything she does and says - what a spooky talent! How about the Edinburgh Fringe next year?
    How kind. Some politicians do display a gap between words, deeds and motives. They all have to read holistically. Opinions may vary.
    I am kind so let's run a test.

    Nicola Sturgeon is a politician whose big cause - the cause of her life - is Sindy. So the suggestion she doesn't really want it now, that she's happy with the status quo, requires some evidence.

    What is it?
    Near but not quite. Yes, she would like independence, but it is plain that, on the consistent polling and the last referendum and the additional problems (especially England/Scotland border) there would be after Brexit, it can't happen. There are not the votes.

    NS is a politician. She knows it can't happen. But can't say so. She wants to stay in power - she is in politics. The only way she can do so is by NOT having Ref2. When Ref2 is lost she would have to resign like Salmond.

    So delay (like the SC nonsense) false prospectuses (next election as referendum etc) keeps the pan on the boil while she exercises the maximum power a Scottish government can have.

    I totally sympathise with NS. She is a great politician.

    BTW even if she won a Ref2, it would be a 52/48 kind of thing, and as we know that doesn't settle things all that well.
    But how can we distinguish this from someone pursuing a rational strategy of (i) building up the moral and democratic pressure on the UKG to get another Sindy vote and (ii) at the same time trying to build up enough domestic support for Sindy to win it when it comes - ie following the only realistic route there is to an Independent Scotland by (say) the end of the decade?

    Answer, we can't - because they look the same. By definition they do.

    Therefore, given the evidence supports both, we're faced with a choice. Has she secretly given up on the dream - her lifelong political passion - or is she not only still working on it but following the path she judges the best way to get there?

    It's a no brainer surely. The fair and default assumption is the 2nd. The 1st is a conspiracy theory we don't need because the evidence perfectly fits the default.
    Thanks. Absolutely fair points. I should think all of these things pass through her astute mind. For myself I think she knows it will not happen in her day, but wants to play the hand the best she can. Though, as PBers all know, these things are all probabilities, including all assertions of fact.

    I think the probs are that NS genuinely supports independence, knows it can't be had in her day, keeps it on the boil, wants to stay leader, knows she can't if she loses Ref2, does her best to run Scotland.

    look at the polling:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence

    It's a challenge but I can't see a reason to think she's given up on it. Definitely agree that losing a 2nd Sindy Ref ends it for a long time and that she'll be very alert to that risk.
    I think we are fairly close to agreement really. She knows that a Ref2 loss would end her career and Scottish hopes for independence. She also knows that the chance of winning a Ref2 is very small. Down the line she also knows that Scotland would have to choose between the EU and her major trading partner, England.

    The prospect of a Berwick to Gretna hard border is horrific. It cannot be guaranteed it would not happen.

    NB listening with half an ear today did I catch this:

    With regard to 'GE as referendum' was I correct to notice that the SNP would not answer this question - the only interesting one: "In your GE referendum, is the independence mandate you will seek given by winning most seats or winning most votes"

  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,244
    biggles said:

    stodge said:

    If you want an example of a governing coalition having a few polling problems, the current Norstat poll for Norway is as good an example as you'll ever find:

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1595423616924950529/photo/1

    The Social Democrat/Centre Party coalition has lost half its support while the Conservatives are up 13 points on their 2021 result and would be back with a landslide.

    Further south, the Danish government formation talks are continuing. Four parties, two from the further left and two from the further right, have dropped out leaving the Social Democrats, Venstre, the Moderates and the other parties still in talks around a broad-based centrist Government.

    The speed with the which the Tories and LibDems formed a coalition in 2010, and the stability of that government in retrospect, gets more and more astonishing doesn’t it?
    I could say so much about that but wouldn't want to become too pompous and long winded.

    Let's just say there was a philosophical convergence between the Orange Bookers and the liberal conservative Cameroons which made the Coalition possible. The parliamentary arithmetic made it possible, the personal relationship between Cameron and Clegg made it possible, the seemingly imminent collapse of Greece and the Eurozone made it possible and the inability of the media and civil service to cope without a Government for a few days also made it possible.
  • There’s one specific thing Pence knows that no one else does: what he said to Trump during their final phone call on Jan. 6, as Trump berated him and pressured him to subvert the election.

    No one was in the room w Pence for that call.


    https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1595499487807827971?s=46&t=VihCjFHJj_ZNz--sRbM5og
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,570
    Andy_JS said:

    According to the Fifa rankings Belgium are number 2 and Canada number 41 in the world.

    https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/men?dateId=id13792

    FIFA rankings, like all sports rankings, have considerable lag, so are not always reflective of current status.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506

    My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.

    However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.

    It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.

    Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.

    Does it not follow that if you don't want to end up in an EU superstate, the best option is to leave and negotiate with the nascent state from the outside rather than the inside?
    No, quite the reverse in my opinion.
    In fact, I don’t really see the logic at all in your position.
    But if the ROEU wants to form a superstate, who are we to stand in their way? I don't want to boss the continent around (or rather to feel like Boris or Sunak is bossing them around on my behalf) any more than I want them to boss us around. Let them do as they wish.
  • IanB2 said:

    Belgium 1:0

    Phew.
  • From Alaska Division of Elections -

    Watch Nov 23 Tabulation Live at 4pm on KTOO 360TV

    KTOO will provide live Gavel Alaska special coverage of the Ranked Choice Tabulation from the Alaska Division of Elections headquarters in Juneau.

    Broadcast will be available via over-the-air broadcast, cable, satellite, and the ARCS television services across Alaska; and can be streamed live on the KTOO Roku app and online at ktoo.org/tv.

    SSI - 4pm Wed in Alaska = 1am Thur in UK
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,643

    Cookie said:

    My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.

    However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.

    It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.

    Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.

    Does it not follow that if you don't want to end up in an EU superstate, the best option is to leave and negotiate with the nascent state from the outside rather than the inside?
    I don't think that need alwaysnecessarily the case. But in this case - based on 40 years of failure to reform from the inside - I think you are right.
    I’m afraid the 40 years of failed reform is a bit of a canard. Britain largely got it wanted to the extent that it treated the EU as much more than a peripheral matter.

    The EU - like, say, Housing or Transport, or Scotland, or Culture, has been second-order issue for British administrations.

    It worked until it stopped working.
    CAP. That is all.
    That doesn’t change my argument.
    Nobody really cared about CAP, and to the extent they did the criticism was from a free market, Minfordian perspective.

    CAP now looks like a rather benign regime compared with the incoherency that has followed its scrapping.

    In my view, any sensible reform of CAP is iterative rather than revolutionary.
  • Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Omnium said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .

    I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
    I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .

    I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.

    Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
    The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
    But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.

    Omnium said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .

    I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
    I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .

    I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.

    Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
    The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
    But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
    And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.

    The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.

    Sorry, but no thanks.
    Yes, it needs a treasury which means EU taxes at which point it may as well be a country and the former nation states shadows of their former selves.
    And, this is why I voted Leave.

    I didn't believe there was any other long-term protection against this, and I didn't trust further Labour-LD governments not to bounce it.
    Yes, that's where I was as well. I fully realised it would be a pretty bumpy road afterwards but the alternative was my children growing up in a USE with the UK relegated to a region or state. That may be fine for countries in the EU but the destruction of our nation state isn't something for which I could vote in favour. All of the nonsense about jumping off the train later was just bullshit because it would have been even more difficult and the political forces simply wouldn't have given us an option, just as they didn't with the Lisbon Treaty, knowing that the public would say no.

    What irks me is Americans or people from other non EU countries who would never in a million years vote for the US to be subsumed into some other nation state have a go at Brexit. Europeans who are heading in that direction may not like that we've jumped off their train but people not from an EU country that would never vote for their country to become a mere state in a larger country can get fucked.
    Yes, that was broadly my view. I saw, and still see, the ratchet effect as inevitable.
    And while I don't necessarily believe in the UK in the same way that, say @HYUFD does - I don't have some principled desire for my kids to grow up, specifically, in the UK - I do believe in democracy, and a vaguely defined sort of common law freedom, which I see the UK as better able to deliver than a USE. It comes back to the rather late-medeival concept of an attachment to ones own laws and customs (which, I would note, is why Scotland remained Scotland rather than North Greag Britain, despite the act of Union.)
    I don't believe a USD can ever be a properly functioning democracy because of the language issue. A polity needs, in my view, a common language.
    India has 23 official regional languages.
    But that's not a British democracy, is it?

    I can sort of respect the "Continental Europe is different to us" argument. But it needs to be accompanied by "Leaving the EU will leave us poorer, but it will be worth it in other, less tangible, ways".

    And that argument wasn't really made, outside niche publications, because it's blooming obvious that it would lose any vote.

    The UK has the same broad choices it's had all along. Detach from the European space, and get poorer. Align like Norway/Switzerland (lots of obey, limited say, can work if you work out the one thing you want). Rejoin, and accept much more union than we like. Or hope that the EU will give us the magic cake that we've made it very clear we want.

    Three of those are different kinds of bad, and the fourth isn't going to happen.

    Choose one.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,142

    Cookie said:

    My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.

    However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.

    It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.

    Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.

    Does it not follow that if you don't want to end up in an EU superstate, the best option is to leave and negotiate with the nascent state from the outside rather than the inside?
    I don't think that need alwaysnecessarily the case. But in this case - based on 40 years of failure to reform from the inside - I think you are right.
    I’m afraid the 40 years of failed reform is a bit of a canard. Britain largely got it wanted to the extent that it treated the EU as much more than a peripheral matter.

    The EU - like, say, Housing or Transport, or Scotland, or Culture, has been second-order issue for British administrations.

    It worked until it stopped working.
    Maybe. It was hard to argue an unfashionable view as one (large) state among 12; downright impossible as one among 27.
    But I'd argue that all you've done isgive a reason for the failure to reform the EU, not convince me that reform of the EU is possible. Really, does it make a difference whether the EU is unreformable because it is committed to a USE or because British elites won't try? Either way, reform is impossible and the sort of organisation we might want to be a member of won't, for whatever the reason, actually exist.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,570

    Cookie said:

    My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.

    However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.

    It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.

    Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.

    Does it not follow that if you don't want to end up in an EU superstate, the best option is to leave and negotiate with the nascent state from the outside rather than the inside?
    I don't think that need alwaysnecessarily the case. But in this case - based on 40 years of failure to reform from the inside - I think you are right.
    I’m afraid the 40 years of failed reform is a bit of a canard. Britain largely got it wanted to the extent that it treated the EU as much more than a peripheral matter.

    The EU - like, say, Housing or Transport, or Scotland, or Culture, has been second-order issue for British administrations.

    It worked until it stopped working.
    CAP. That is all.
    That doesn’t change my argument.
    Nobody really cared about CAP, and to the extent they did the criticism was from a free market, Minfordian perspective.

    CAP now looks like a rather benign regime compared with the incoherency that has followed its scrapping.

    In my view, any sensible reform of CAP is iterative rather than revolutionary.
    You don’t get away with “nobody cared about CAP”. It was a huge issue. French farmers on tiny farms profiting while much more efficient British farms suffered. Huge butter mountains and wine lakes. A symbol of distinction.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,802
    *If* this is true, then it's quite amazing:

    "Prigozhin sent the European Parliament a sledgehammer in a violin case with an engraved logo of "Wagner" and traces of "blood" on the handle."

    https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1595503405208072192
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,677

    Cookie said:

    My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.

    However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.

    It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.

    Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.

    Does it not follow that if you don't want to end up in an EU superstate, the best option is to leave and negotiate with the nascent state from the outside rather than the inside?
    I don't think that need alwaysnecessarily the case. But in this case - based on 40 years of failure to reform from the inside - I think you are right.
    I’m afraid the 40 years of failed reform is a bit of a canard. Britain largely got it wanted to the extent that it treated the EU as much more than a peripheral matter.

    The EU - like, say, Housing or Transport, or Scotland, or Culture, has been second-order issue for British administrations.

    It worked until it stopped working.
    CAP. That is all.
    That doesn’t change my argument.
    Nobody really cared about CAP, and to the extent they did the criticism was from a free market, Minfordian perspective.

    CAP now looks like a rather benign regime compared with the incoherency that has followed its scrapping.

    In my view, any sensible reform of CAP is iterative rather than revolutionary.
    You don’t get away with “nobody cared about CAP”. It was a huge issue. French farmers on tiny farms profiting while much more efficient British farms suffered. Huge butter mountains and wine lakes. A symbol of distinction.
    That’s going back a bit
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506

    MaxPB said:

    Omnium said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .

    I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
    I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .

    I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.

    Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
    The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
    But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.

    Omnium said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .

    I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
    I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .

    I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.

    Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
    The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
    But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
    And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.

    The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.

    Sorry, but no thanks.
    Britain did not join the Euro and is not going to. You are fulminating against phantoms.
    That's just not true. Eventually it becomes put up or shut up time and with a remain vote the answer from Brussels when we tell them no would be "but your people voted for this". It suits your agenda to pretend that the EU doesn't harbour dreams statehood but that doesn't make it true.
    My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.

    However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.

    It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.

    Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.
    The problem isn't really 'they ignored us', it's that a majority of Britain's political and administrative class were (and are) all in on us being right up to our necks in the EU, gold-plating every bit of stupid legislation, and getting ready behind the scenes to take us into the euro etc. David Cameron didn't want a two speed Europe. Juncker was actually quite prepared to have Britain semi-detached if the 4 freedoms were maintained. Cameron was not interested.
    Some truth to this.
    Elite British fear of being “outside” outweighed any coherent attempt to reform it upon lines that - I would argue - look more conducive to a plurality of posters on here.
    Yep. And if not reform *it* (we could never hold back the tide), still reform our membership of it. In fact, most of what needed to be done by Cameron wouldn't even have had to be granted by the EU. Reform of our own benefits system would have eased the resentment of free movement for a start. Cameron thought he could brow beat the public into giving EU membership, as it stood, their democratic assent.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,640
    What a travesty . Thoroughly against the run of play Belgium lead at the break. Canada will rue all those missed chances .
  • kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "In comments that are likely to cause a stir among European leaders, Boris Johnson told CNN Portugal: "This thing was a huge shock… we could see the Russian battalion tactical groups amassing, but different countries had very different perspectives.

    "The German view was at one stage that if it were going to happen, which would be a disaster, then it would be better for the whole thing to be over quickly, and for Ukraine to fold," he said.

    Mr Johnson said there were "all sorts of sound economic reasons" for this approach but that he "couldn't support" it.

    He also made comments on French President Emmanuel Macron, who had spearheaded Europe's bid to deter Vladimir Putin through diplomatic talks.

    "Be in no doubt that the French were in denial right up until the last moment," Mr Johnson said."

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-latest-putin-backs-down-on-key-aim-russia-burned-bodies-of-own-soldiers-at-landfill-site-in-kherson-12541713

    What she talking to CNN Portugal? Is he on holiday or something?

    For the unemployed* gentleman of leisure, every day is a holiday.

    *with apologies to the good people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip.
    It's likes of them, that should be apologizing, for electing obvious con artist like BJ their MP in first place.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,570
    IanB2 said:

    Cookie said:

    My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.

    However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.

    It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.

    Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.

    Does it not follow that if you don't want to end up in an EU superstate, the best option is to leave and negotiate with the nascent state from the outside rather than the inside?
    I don't think that need alwaysnecessarily the case. But in this case - based on 40 years of failure to reform from the inside - I think you are right.
    I’m afraid the 40 years of failed reform is a bit of a canard. Britain largely got it wanted to the extent that it treated the EU as much more than a peripheral matter.

    The EU - like, say, Housing or Transport, or Scotland, or Culture, has been second-order issue for British administrations.

    It worked until it stopped working.
    CAP. That is all.
    That doesn’t change my argument.
    Nobody really cared about CAP, and to the extent they did the criticism was from a free market, Minfordian perspective.

    CAP now looks like a rather benign regime compared with the incoherency that has followed its scrapping.

    In my view, any sensible reform of CAP is iterative rather than revolutionary.
    You don’t get away with “nobody cared about CAP”. It was a huge issue. French farmers on tiny farms profiting while much more efficient British farms suffered. Huge butter mountains and wine lakes. A symbol of distinction.
    That’s going back a bit
    I have a long memory.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    There’s one specific thing Pence knows that no one else does: what he said to Trump during their final phone call on Jan. 6, as Trump berated him and pressured him to subvert the election.

    No one was in the room w Pence for that call.


    https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1595499487807827971?s=46&t=VihCjFHJj_ZNz--sRbM5og

    So whatever it was it cannot be proven in any case?
  • Question: do PBers think that Saudi victory by 2-1 versus Argentina was . . . ahem . . . kosher?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,570

    Question: do PBers think that Saudi victory by 2-1 versus Argentina was . . . ahem . . . kosher?

    Yes, absolutely. Do you think they deliberately scored three off side goals?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,965
    pigeon said:

    kinabalu said:

    pigeon said:

    Monkeys said:

    Indyref is two sides manoeuvring a negotiation position. Which is fine. In the end if people keep voting for you to ask a question you will eventually get to ask the question. If I were in Westminster I'd have thought about forcing the referendum but on my terms. As it stands they've chosen to delay it, and with it some degree of control.

    (I don't buy that people who voted SNP the last few years are not expecting them to push for one.)

    Only if more people don't keep on voting for you NOT to ask the question. Which is what makes the latest roll of the dice so risky. The SNP is capable of getting to 50% of the popular vote - it's been done before - but they've only managed it the once, and they're going to have to get almost all the way there again by themselves come the next election. It's not as if the Greens and Alba are going to contribute all that much.

    If they manage it, their opponents will simply disregard the achievement: general elections aren't single issue votes, regardless of whether or not one party insists that they are. But if they fail, then what?
    If they fail to hit 50 they'll point to seats. 2nd best but viable. If they do make 50 they'll say done deal. It's about ratcheting up the pressure. It can't be forever resisted if majority support is reached and maintained.
    It depends on what majority you're talking about, though. It can be resisted indefinitely so long as public opinion remains split down the middle. We're only having this conversation because it's been confirmed today that the Scottish Parliament isn't legally competent to do anything effective to advance the process of secession, and it goes without saying that Scotland isn't responsible for returning the majority of MPs to the House of Commons, which does have the power to give the SNP what it wants.

    Just so long as roughly as many people in Scotland keep voting for pro-Union as pro-independence politicians, and just so long as available evidence suggests that there's not a consistent, stable majority in favour of a rematch of 2014, the PM and the Scotland Secretary will both point at the stalemate and keep frustrating the Scottish Government. And they'll get away with it, just like they've done up until this point.
    Yes, Sindy needs to break through 50 and stay there to become the favourite in the 2 horse race vs the no Sindy scenario you paint. Will it? I don't know. If I had to price it happening this decade I'd go 30% something like that. Longer term higher.
  • kle4 said:

    There’s one specific thing Pence knows that no one else does: what he said to Trump during their final phone call on Jan. 6, as Trump berated him and pressured him to subvert the election.

    No one was in the room w Pence for that call.


    https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1595499487807827971?s=46&t=VihCjFHJj_ZNz--sRbM5og

    So whatever it was it cannot be proven in any case?
    Believe that in most courts of law, testimony by person of at least average credibility, can and often does trump (pun intended) the "testimony" of a proven, serial, habitual liar?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    Things have now reached the stage where even fully paid-up Torygraph writers have tired of the OAP bribing model of governance.

    https://twitter.com/CitySamuel/status/1595374304249757696

    Message received loud and clear: the Conservative Party is for NIMBY home-owning pensioners, not for working, aspiring home owners.

    Yet still most over 39s voted Tory in 2019, not just pensioners.

    Development should be in brownbelt land first, not all over the greenbelt
    True, but that was largely a Marxism de-fence, plus some GBD on top. United blue and red wall.

    Neither apply next time.
    The fact most over 39s still own property applies next time, we need some new housing in brownbelt land, particularly around London which is the most expensive UK region property wise. We do not need to build all over the greenbelt
    Do they, when you have deducted how much is left on their mortgages? And if they have to default on them thanks to Conservative policies?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,754

    kle4 said:

    There’s one specific thing Pence knows that no one else does: what he said to Trump during their final phone call on Jan. 6, as Trump berated him and pressured him to subvert the election.

    No one was in the room w Pence for that call.


    https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1595499487807827971?s=46&t=VihCjFHJj_ZNz--sRbM5og

    So whatever it was it cannot be proven in any case?
    Believe that in most courts of law, testimony by person of at least average credibility, can and often does trump (pun intended) the "testimony" of a proven, serial, habitual liar?
    I am not sure Pence qualifies as being 'of at least average credibility.'

    However, compared to Trump he is a veritable George Washington of integrity.*

    *As in that stupid, made up (ironically) story 'I cannot tell a lie.'
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,649

    MaxPB said:

    Omnium said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .

    I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
    I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .

    I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.

    Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
    The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
    But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.

    Omnium said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .

    I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
    I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .

    I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.

    Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
    The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
    But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
    And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.

    The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.

    Sorry, but no thanks.
    Britain did not join the Euro and is not going to. You are fulminating against phantoms.
    That's just not true. Eventually it becomes put up or shut up time and with a remain vote the answer from Brussels when we tell them no would be "but your people voted for this". It suits your agenda to pretend that the EU doesn't harbour dreams statehood but that doesn't make it true.
    My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.

    However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.

    It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.

    Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.
    The problem isn't really 'they ignored us', it's that a majority of Britain's political and administrative class were (and are) all in on us being right up to our necks in the EU, gold-plating every bit of stupid legislation, and getting ready behind the scenes to take us into the euro etc. David Cameron didn't want a two speed Europe. Juncker was actually quite prepared to have Britain semi-detached if the 4 freedoms were maintained. Cameron was not interested.
    Some truth to this.
    Elite British fear of being “outside” outweighed any coherent attempt to reform it upon lines that - I would argue - look more conducive to a plurality of posters on here.
    You still think that the EU is in any way reformable and even more absurdly, reformable by the British were we still in it. We can't even reform the NHS.
  • MaxPB said:

    Omnium said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .

    I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
    I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .

    I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.

    Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
    The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
    But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.

    Omnium said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .

    I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
    I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .

    I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.

    Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
    The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
    But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
    And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.

    The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.

    Sorry, but no thanks.
    Britain did not join the Euro and is not going to. You are fulminating against phantoms.
    That's just not true. Eventually it becomes put up or shut up time and with a remain vote the answer from Brussels when we tell them no would be "but your people voted for this". It suits your agenda to pretend that the EU doesn't harbour dreams statehood but that doesn't make it true.
    My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.

    However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.

    It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.

    Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.
    The problem isn't really 'they ignored us', it's that a majority of Britain's political and administrative class were (and are) all in on us being right up to our necks in the EU, gold-plating every bit of stupid legislation, and getting ready behind the scenes to take us into the euro etc. David Cameron didn't want a two speed Europe. Juncker was actually quite prepared to have Britain semi-detached if the 4 freedoms were maintained. Cameron was not interested.
    Yes, there's some truth in this.

    I neither trusted the British political establishment nor the EU on the subject.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    Is technology also used to determine whether a ball has marginally gone out of play?
  • TOPPING said:

    This game is now about as much fun as watching a colonoscopy.....

    Watching your own colonoscopy is of course an intensely "interesting" experience.
    The nurse overseeing mine said it was one the cleanest colons she’d seen.

    Probly says that to all the guys.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,232
    kinabalu said:

    pigeon said:

    kinabalu said:

    pigeon said:

    Monkeys said:

    Indyref is two sides manoeuvring a negotiation position. Which is fine. In the end if people keep voting for you to ask a question you will eventually get to ask the question. If I were in Westminster I'd have thought about forcing the referendum but on my terms. As it stands they've chosen to delay it, and with it some degree of control.

    (I don't buy that people who voted SNP the last few years are not expecting them to push for one.)

    Only if more people don't keep on voting for you NOT to ask the question. Which is what makes the latest roll of the dice so risky. The SNP is capable of getting to 50% of the popular vote - it's been done before - but they've only managed it the once, and they're going to have to get almost all the way there again by themselves come the next election. It's not as if the Greens and Alba are going to contribute all that much.

    If they manage it, their opponents will simply disregard the achievement: general elections aren't single issue votes, regardless of whether or not one party insists that they are. But if they fail, then what?
    If they fail to hit 50 they'll point to seats. 2nd best but viable. If they do make 50 they'll say done deal. It's about ratcheting up the pressure. It can't be forever resisted if majority support is reached and maintained.
    It depends on what majority you're talking about, though. It can be resisted indefinitely so long as public opinion remains split down the middle. We're only having this conversation because it's been confirmed today that the Scottish Parliament isn't legally competent to do anything effective to advance the process of secession, and it goes without saying that Scotland isn't responsible for returning the majority of MPs to the House of Commons, which does have the power to give the SNP what it wants.

    Just so long as roughly as many people in Scotland keep voting for pro-Union as pro-independence politicians, and just so long as available evidence suggests that there's not a consistent, stable majority in favour of a rematch of 2014, the PM and the Scotland Secretary will both point at the stalemate and keep frustrating the Scottish Government. And they'll get away with it, just like they've done up until this point.
    Yes, Sindy needs to break through 50 and stay there to become the favourite in the 2 horse race vs the no Sindy scenario you paint. Will it? I don't know. If I had to price it happening this decade I'd go 30% something like that. Longer term higher.
    30% probably overstates it, but we're both just guessing aren't we?

    Anyway, I just wonder, with everything that has gone wrong in the last eight years (as well as a whole lot of elderly Unionist voters dying off and being replaced in the electorate by pro-independence youth,) why it is that the split in Scottish public opinion remains so stubbornly even - and what on Earth is meant to tilt it decisively in the direction that the Scottish Government would like?
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 895
    stodge said:

    biggles said:

    stodge said:

    If you want an example of a governing coalition having a few polling problems, the current Norstat poll for Norway is as good an example as you'll ever find:

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1595423616924950529/photo/1

    The Social Democrat/Centre Party coalition has lost half its support while the Conservatives are up 13 points on their 2021 result and would be back with a landslide.

    Further south, the Danish government formation talks are continuing. Four parties, two from the further left and two from the further right, have dropped out leaving the Social Democrats, Venstre, the Moderates and the other parties still in talks around a broad-based centrist Government.

    The speed with the which the Tories and LibDems formed a coalition in 2010, and the stability of that government in retrospect, gets more and more astonishing doesn’t it?
    I could say so much about that but wouldn't want to become too pompous and long winded.

    Let's just say there was a philosophical convergence between the Orange Bookers and the liberal conservative Cameroons which made the Coalition possible. The parliamentary arithmetic made it possible, the personal relationship between Cameron and Clegg made it possible, the seemingly imminent collapse of Greece and the Eurozone made it possible and the inability of the media and civil service to cope without a Government for a few days also made it possible.
    There was a quite good (and well researched afaik) Radio 4 dramatisation of the coalition, how it came about, Gordon Browns part in it all, etc :

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vr5sb

    "Five Days in May
    Saturday Drama

    Play telling the story of the tense negotiation following the 2010 General Election, based on interviews with those at the meetings and political journalists."
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 792
    edited November 2022
    Absolutely ideal result in the Supreme Court today for Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. There'll be celebrations tonight among leading nationalists.[*]

    "They stop us. Those 'Westminsters', they always stop us. They tell us what we can and can't do. We need to..."

    Note
    * And not just in the Lubyanka and Trump Tower.

    Edit: *checks whether TASS have reported the court judgment.* Yes, they have. Trebles all round at the Russian consulate in Edinburgh.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002

    *If* this is true, then it's quite amazing:

    "Prigozhin sent the European Parliament a sledgehammer in a violin case with an engraved logo of "Wagner" and traces of "blood" on the handle."

    https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1595503405208072192

    Prigozhin is a total fucking nutjob.

    So it's far from impossible.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,050
    Andy_JS said:

    According to the Fifa rankings Belgium are number 2 and Canada number 41 in the world.

    https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/men?dateId=id13792

    Belgium is consistently slightly more dangerous, though it's not a walkover. Canada not really looking close to scoring.
  • Andy_JS said:

    Is technology also used to determine whether a ball has marginally gone out of play?

    Only for VAR decisions.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423

    Andy_JS said:

    According to the Fifa rankings Belgium are number 2 and Canada number 41 in the world.

    https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/men?dateId=id13792

    Belgium is consistently slightly more dangerous, though it's not a walkover. Canada not really looking close to scoring.
    One of the commentators said that Canada were the better team in the first half, although I didn't see much of it myself.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,570
    Andy_JS said:

    Is technology also used to determine whether a ball has marginally gone out of play?

    Could be if involved in a goal.
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 792
    DJ41 said:

    Absolutely ideal result in the Supreme Court today for Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. There'll be celebrations tonight among leading nationalists.[*]

    "They stop us. Those 'Westminsters', they always stop us. They tell us what we can and can't do. We need to..."

    Note
    * And not just in the Lubyanka and Trump Tower.

    Edit: *checks whether TASS have reported the court judgment.* Yes, they have. Trebles all round at the Russian consulate in Edinburgh.

    Trump's position on his motherland is one to watch. It may have more dimensions to it, and changes to it, than any statement coming from sources close to the Russian government, who are more likely to grin and say that self-determination is good, or that it's always good to listen to the people, or something boring like that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348
    DJ41 said:

    Absolutely ideal result in the Supreme Court today for Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. There'll be celebrations tonight among leading nationalists.[*]

    "They stop us. Those 'Westminsters', they always stop us. They tell us what we can and can't do. We need to..."

    Note
    * And not just in the Lubyanka and Trump Tower.

    Edit: *checks whether TASS have reported the court judgment.* Yes, they have. Trebles all round at the Russian consulate in Edinburgh.

    Oh really, Wings is furious. 'Nicola Sturgeon has single-handedly undone generations of work by people who spent their whole lives bringing the Scottish National Party to the position that she’s so abysmally squandered. It’s not just the last eight years she’s wasted, but the eight decades before them. She will be remembered as Scottish politics’ worst failure, and its gravest betrayer for 315 years.

    If she had a shred of decency or dignity she would resign today over her fatal delay in obtaining this ruling. But she won’t, and between now and 2024 her toxic, incompetent, arrogant and divisive administration will destroy the last tattered hopes of the independence movement as she clings desperately to power for its own sake.'


    https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-thief-of-time/
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 792
    edited November 2022
    rcs1000 said:

    *If* this is true, then it's quite amazing:

    "Prigozhin sent the European Parliament a sledgehammer in a violin case with an engraved logo of "Wagner" and traces of "blood" on the handle."

    https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1595503405208072192

    Prigozhin is a total fucking nutjob.

    So it's far from impossible.
    Such an image is worth a lot.

    Cf. David Starkey, Jeremy Clarkson, Nicholas van Hoogstraten.

    Love the way Prigozhin is referred to as a "chef".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnVsR5tpf38#t=3m42s
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,643
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Omnium said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .

    I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
    I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .

    I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.

    Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
    The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
    But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.

    Omnium said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .

    I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
    I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .

    I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.

    Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
    The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
    But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
    And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.

    The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.

    Sorry, but no thanks.
    Britain did not join the Euro and is not going to. You are fulminating against phantoms.
    That's just not true. Eventually it becomes put up or shut up time and with a remain vote the answer from Brussels when we tell them no would be "but your people voted for this". It suits your agenda to pretend that the EU doesn't harbour dreams statehood but that doesn't make it true.
    My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.

    However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.

    It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.

    Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.
    The problem isn't really 'they ignored us', it's that a majority of Britain's political and administrative class were (and are) all in on us being right up to our necks in the EU, gold-plating every bit of stupid legislation, and getting ready behind the scenes to take us into the euro etc. David Cameron didn't want a two speed Europe. Juncker was actually quite prepared to have Britain semi-detached if the 4 freedoms were maintained. Cameron was not interested.
    Some truth to this.
    Elite British fear of being “outside” outweighed any coherent attempt to reform it upon lines that - I would argue - look more conducive to a plurality of posters on here.
    You still think that the EU is in any way reformable and even more absurdly, reformable by the British were we still in it. We can't even reform the NHS.
    That’s just a counsel of despair.
    It’s true though that the last six years of government have been incredibly inept.

    The historians on here will be able to better place it into context but for my money May/Johnson/Truss/Rishi can’t be “beat” on poor performance.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    edited November 2022
    Canada are a little irritating to watch, with the number of chances they've had, but failed to control at the last stage.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,265

    *If* this is true, then it's quite amazing:

    "Prigozhin sent the European Parliament a sledgehammer in a violin case with an engraved logo of "Wagner" and traces of "blood" on the handle."

    https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1595503405208072192

    Send it for storage at The Hague.....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    There’s one specific thing Pence knows that no one else does: what he said to Trump during their final phone call on Jan. 6, as Trump berated him and pressured him to subvert the election.

    No one was in the room w Pence for that call.


    https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1595499487807827971?s=46&t=VihCjFHJj_ZNz--sRbM5og

    So whatever it was it cannot be proven in any case?
    Believe that in most courts of law, testimony by person of at least average credibility, can and often does trump (pun intended) the "testimony" of a proven, serial, habitual liar?
    I am not sure Pence qualifies as being 'of at least average credibility.'

    However, compared to Trump he is a veritable George Washington of integrity.*

    *As in that stupid, made up (ironically) story 'I cannot tell a lie.'
    Unless he's been holding fire for a really critical moment, Pence doesn't seem to have been that inclined to actually take on Trump, only distance himself.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829

    TOPPING said:

    This game is now about as much fun as watching a colonoscopy.....

    Watching your own colonoscopy is of course an intensely "interesting" experience.
    The nurse overseeing mine said it was one the cleanest colons she’d seen.

    Probly says that to all the guys.
    Of course, it's possible most of them all look pretty clean after the enema, and only a minority look like the corner of Trongate and the Sautmarket at 4 am on a Sunday.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,486

    Andy_JS said:

    According to the Fifa rankings Belgium are number 2 and Canada number 41 in the world.

    https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/men?dateId=id13792

    Belgium is consistently slightly more dangerous, though it's not a walkover. Canada not really looking close to scoring.
    Weird grammatical tick slipping on PB whereby people say Canada is; England is; instead of Canada are; England are. I’ve seen it a few times now.

    Stop it please! We aren’t American.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,486
    Andy_JS said:

    Canada are a little irritating to watch, with the number of chances they've had, but failed to control at the last stage.

    Yes, really poor up top
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Omnium said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .

    I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
    I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .

    I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.

    Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
    The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
    But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.

    Omnium said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .

    I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
    I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .

    I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.

    Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
    The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
    But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
    And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.

    The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.

    Sorry, but no thanks.
    Britain did not join the Euro and is not going to. You are fulminating against phantoms.
    That's just not true. Eventually it becomes put up or shut up time and with a remain vote the answer from Brussels when we tell them no would be "but your people voted for this". It suits your agenda to pretend that the EU doesn't harbour dreams statehood but that doesn't make it true.
    My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.

    However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.

    It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.

    Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.
    The problem isn't really 'they ignored us', it's that a majority of Britain's political and administrative class were (and are) all in on us being right up to our necks in the EU, gold-plating every bit of stupid legislation, and getting ready behind the scenes to take us into the euro etc. David Cameron didn't want a two speed Europe. Juncker was actually quite prepared to have Britain semi-detached if the 4 freedoms were maintained. Cameron was not interested.
    Some truth to this.
    Elite British fear of being “outside” outweighed any coherent attempt to reform it upon lines that - I would argue - look more conducive to a plurality of posters on here.
    You still think that the EU is in any way reformable and even more absurdly, reformable by the British were we still in it. We can't even reform the NHS.
    That’s just a counsel of despair.
    It’s true though that the last six years of government have been incredibly inept.

    The historians on here will be able to better place it into context but for my money May/Johnson/Truss/Rishi can’t be “beat” on poor performance.
    That's the other thing 2016 did.

    If the referendum hadn't happened, or had gone the other way, would any of them got the top job?

    May certainly wouldn't have even tried.
    Johnson would have craved it, but he needed the post-referendum paranoia to break through. (Who would have challenged for the post-Dave premiership in 2019ish?)
    Truss and Sunak would still be junior Cabinet minsters... promising talents maybe to be leader in the 2030s. (Sunak definitely... Truss would still have been too flaky to be leader in normal times.)
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 792
    edited November 2022
    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Absolutely ideal result in the Supreme Court today for Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. There'll be celebrations tonight among leading nationalists.[*]

    "They stop us. Those 'Westminsters', they always stop us. They tell us what we can and can't do. We need to..."

    Note
    * And not just in the Lubyanka and Trump Tower.

    Edit: *checks whether TASS have reported the court judgment.* Yes, they have. Trebles all round at the Russian consulate in Edinburgh.

    Oh really, Wings is furious. 'Nicola Sturgeon has single-handedly undone generations of work by people who spent their whole lives bringing the Scottish National Party to the position that she’s so abysmally squandered. It’s not just the last eight years she’s wasted, but the eight decades before them. She will be remembered as Scottish politics’ worst failure, and its gravest betrayer for 315 years.

    If she had a shred of decency or dignity she would resign today over her fatal delay in obtaining this ruling. But she won’t, and between now and 2024 her toxic, incompetent, arrogant and divisive administration will destroy the last tattered hopes of the independence movement as she clings desperately to power for its own sake.'

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-thief-of-time/
    What do you deduce from that enraged purple prose written by a reverend who probably finds it challenging to pen a Christmas round robin?

    When Sturgeon does a Catalonia, those who say such things will be well placed to help sell the line that Yes doesn't necessarily mean YeSNP. Some of them may even believe what comes out of their own mouths.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,649

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Omnium said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .

    I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
    I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .

    I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.

    Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
    The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
    But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.

    Omnium said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .

    I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
    I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .

    I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.

    Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
    The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
    But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
    And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.

    The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.

    Sorry, but no thanks.
    Britain did not join the Euro and is not going to. You are fulminating against phantoms.
    That's just not true. Eventually it becomes put up or shut up time and with a remain vote the answer from Brussels when we tell them no would be "but your people voted for this". It suits your agenda to pretend that the EU doesn't harbour dreams statehood but that doesn't make it true.
    My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.

    However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.

    It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.

    Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.
    The problem isn't really 'they ignored us', it's that a majority of Britain's political and administrative class were (and are) all in on us being right up to our necks in the EU, gold-plating every bit of stupid legislation, and getting ready behind the scenes to take us into the euro etc. David Cameron didn't want a two speed Europe. Juncker was actually quite prepared to have Britain semi-detached if the 4 freedoms were maintained. Cameron was not interested.
    Some truth to this.
    Elite British fear of being “outside” outweighed any coherent attempt to reform it upon lines that - I would argue - look more conducive to a plurality of posters on here.
    You still think that the EU is in any way reformable and even more absurdly, reformable by the British were we still in it. We can't even reform the NHS.
    That’s just a counsel of despair.
    It’s true though that the last six years of government have been incredibly inept.

    The historians on here will be able to better place it into context but for my money May/Johnson/Truss/Rishi can’t be “beat” on poor performance.
    It's not just since 2016 though, the UK economy and state has been an unreformed beast for 25+ years. We're still basically in the Thatcher era of economics and government but she lost power over 30 years ago and the nation and world has evolved significantly since then. Yet no reform of the economy or state by either major party.

    It's just a fantasy to believe that any British led reform package could make a difference at the EU. It was invariably 1 vs 27 and our natural allies deserting us to be seen as "good Europeans", since we've left the Dutch have now taken over that role and they're being shat on just as much as we were and the Dutch now realise that had they and the rest of our natural allies actually supported the UK while we were in we probably wouldn't have left. But they didn't so we did.
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 792
    edited November 2022
    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Absolutely ideal result in the Supreme Court today for Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. There'll be celebrations tonight among leading nationalists.[*]

    "They stop us. Those 'Westminsters', they always stop us. They tell us what we can and can't do. We need to..."

    Note
    * And not just in the Lubyanka and Trump Tower.

    Edit: *checks whether TASS have reported the court judgment.* Yes, they have. Trebles all round at the Russian consulate in Edinburgh.

    Oh really, Wings is furious. 'Nicola Sturgeon has single-handedly undone generations of work by people who spent their whole lives bringing the Scottish National Party to the position that she’s so abysmally squandered. It’s not just the last eight years she’s wasted, but the eight decades before them. She will be remembered as Scottish politics’ worst failure, and its gravest betrayer for 315 years.

    If she had a shred of decency or dignity she would resign today over her fatal delay in obtaining this ruling. But she won’t, and between now and 2024 her toxic, incompetent, arrogant and divisive administration will destroy the last tattered hopes of the independence movement as she clings desperately to power for its own sake.'

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-thief-of-time/
    What do you deduce from that enraged purple prose written by a reverend who seems more suited to producing Christmas round robins?

    When Sturgeon does a Catalonia, those who say such things will be well placed to help sell the line that Yes doesn't necessarily mean YeSNP. Some of them may even believe what comes out of their own mouths.

    "Had the matter been put to the Court and decided in 2016, the Scottish Government would have known where it stood. It could have conducted either the 2017 or 2019 UK general elections, or the 2021 Scottish election, as the plebiscite it now belatedly says it will hold in two years’ time."

    No it couldn't. It could have had an unequivocal referendum rerun pledge in its manifesto, yes. That's different. I wouldn't assume the reverend has great facility with using the word "plebiscite". Anyway the SNP failed to score 50% in any of those elections. (Scotland has always voted unionist, in every election either to Holyrood or Westminster.) Had it said "A vote for us is a vote for a referendum", or even a vote for UDI, its voteshare would have been even lower. Any they can always trigger a Scottish general election any time they want anyway. (The opposition parties will help them.) They keep quiet about that, because it doesn't play to their line that they're being stopped from doing what they want by the English.

    Nope, HYUFD - sadly things are going the way the SNP want right now. It gives me no pleasure to say this.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Omnium said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .

    I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
    I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .

    I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.

    Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
    The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
    But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.

    Omnium said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .

    I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
    I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .

    I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.

    Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
    The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
    But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
    And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.

    The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.

    Sorry, but no thanks.
    Britain did not join the Euro and is not going to. You are fulminating against phantoms.
    That's just not true. Eventually it becomes put up or shut up time and with a remain vote the answer from Brussels when we tell them no would be "but your people voted for this". It suits your agenda to pretend that the EU doesn't harbour dreams statehood but that doesn't make it true.
    My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.

    However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.

    It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.

    Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.
    The problem isn't really 'they ignored us', it's that a majority of Britain's political and administrative class were (and are) all in on us being right up to our necks in the EU, gold-plating every bit of stupid legislation, and getting ready behind the scenes to take us into the euro etc. David Cameron didn't want a two speed Europe. Juncker was actually quite prepared to have Britain semi-detached if the 4 freedoms were maintained. Cameron was not interested.
    Some truth to this.
    Elite British fear of being “outside” outweighed any coherent attempt to reform it upon lines that - I would argue - look more conducive to a plurality of posters on here.
    You still think that the EU is in any way reformable and even more absurdly, reformable by the British were we still in it. We can't even reform the NHS.
    That’s just a counsel of despair.
    It’s true though that the last six years of government have been incredibly inept.

    The historians on here will be able to better place it into context but for my money May/Johnson/Truss/Rishi can’t be “beat” on poor performance.
    That's the other thing 2016 did.

    If the referendum hadn't happened, or had gone the other way, would any of them got the top job?

    May certainly wouldn't have even tried.
    Johnson would have craved it, but he needed the post-referendum paranoia to break through. (Who would have challenged for the post-Dave premiership in 2019ish?)
    Truss and Sunak would still be junior Cabinet minsters... promising talents maybe to be leader in the 2030s. (Sunak definitely... Truss would still have been too flaky to be leader in normal times.)
    One thing's for sure: Osborne wouldn't have got it regardless of what happened.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,272
    I don't think May was incompetent, but she was rejected for trying to minimise the damage of Brexit while also carrying out Brexit. Harsh in a way, but she just didn't have a democratic majority for it. Subsequently a majority was elected to deliver a more macho, self-harming version of Brexit. Johnson was your typical rich-country populist delivering the macho feel-good self-harming policies. That wasn't incompetence, it was intentional. Truss and Sunak are the real dregs who seem to think things are possible which aren't.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631
    DJ41 said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Absolutely ideal result in the Supreme Court today for Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. There'll be celebrations tonight among leading nationalists.[*]

    "They stop us. Those 'Westminsters', they always stop us. They tell us what we can and can't do. We need to..."

    Note
    * And not just in the Lubyanka and Trump Tower.

    Edit: *checks whether TASS have reported the court judgment.* Yes, they have. Trebles all round at the Russian consulate in Edinburgh.

    Oh really, Wings is furious. 'Nicola Sturgeon has single-handedly undone generations of work by people who spent their whole lives bringing the Scottish National Party to the position that she’s so abysmally squandered. It’s not just the last eight years she’s wasted, but the eight decades before them. She will be remembered as Scottish politics’ worst failure, and its gravest betrayer for 315 years.

    If she had a shred of decency or dignity she would resign today over her fatal delay in obtaining this ruling. But she won’t, and between now and 2024 her toxic, incompetent, arrogant and divisive administration will destroy the last tattered hopes of the independence movement as she clings desperately to power for its own sake.'

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-thief-of-time/
    What do you deduce from that enraged purple prose written by a reverend who seems more suited to producing Christmas round robins?

    When Sturgeon does a Catalonia, those who say such things will be well placed to help sell the line that Yes doesn't necessarily mean YeSNP. Some of them may even believe what comes out of their own mouths.

    "Had the matter been put to the Court and decided in 2016, the Scottish Government would have known where it stood. It could have conducted either the 2017 or 2019 UK general elections, or the 2021 Scottish election, as the plebiscite it now belatedly says it will hold in two years’ time."

    No it couldn't. It could have had an unequivocal referendum rerun pledge in its manifesto, yes. That's different. I wouldn't assume the reverend has great facility with using the word "plebiscite". Anyway the SNP failed to score 50% in any of those elections. (Scotland has always voted unionist, in every election either to Holyrood or Westminster.) Had it said "A vote for us is a vote for a referendum", or even a vote for UDI, its voteshare would have been even lower. Any they can always trigger a Scottish general election any time they want anyway. (The opposition parties will help them.) Nope, HYUFD - sadly things are going the way the SNP want right now.
    The SNP are fucked. There is no way you can sensibly declare a "UK election" a de facto plebiscite

    It's over. If the SCOTUK decision had been even vague today, there was maybe a route. No more

    Sturgeon will retire after a good result in the 24 election, and then the SNP will have to regroup and rethink - or split
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,260
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348
    DJ41 said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Absolutely ideal result in the Supreme Court today for Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. There'll be celebrations tonight among leading nationalists.[*]

    "They stop us. Those 'Westminsters', they always stop us. They tell us what we can and can't do. We need to..."

    Note
    * And not just in the Lubyanka and Trump Tower.

    Edit: *checks whether TASS have reported the court judgment.* Yes, they have. Trebles all round at the Russian consulate in Edinburgh.

    Oh really, Wings is furious. 'Nicola Sturgeon has single-handedly undone generations of work by people who spent their whole lives bringing the Scottish National Party to the position that she’s so abysmally squandered. It’s not just the last eight years she’s wasted, but the eight decades before them. She will be remembered as Scottish politics’ worst failure, and its gravest betrayer for 315 years.

    If she had a shred of decency or dignity she would resign today over her fatal delay in obtaining this ruling. But she won’t, and between now and 2024 her toxic, incompetent, arrogant and divisive administration will destroy the last tattered hopes of the independence movement as she clings desperately to power for its own sake.'

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-thief-of-time/
    What do you deduce from that enraged purple prose written by a reverend who seems more suited to producing Christmas round robins?

    When Sturgeon does a Catalonia, those who say such things will be well placed to help sell the line that Yes doesn't necessarily mean YeSNP. Some of them may even believe what comes out of their own mouths.

    "Had the matter been put to the Court and decided in 2016, the Scottish Government would have known where it stood. It could have conducted either the 2017 or 2019 UK general elections, or the 2021 Scottish election, as the plebiscite it now belatedly says it will hold in two years’ time."

    No it couldn't. It could have had an unequivocal referendum rerun pledge in its manifesto, yes. That's different. I wouldn't assume the reverend has great facility with using the word "plebiscite". Anyway the SNP failed to score 50% in any of those elections. (Scotland has always voted unionist, in every election either to Holyrood or Westminster.) Had it said "A vote for us is a vote for a referendum", or even a vote for UDI, its voteshare would have been even lower. Any they can always trigger a Scottish general election any time they want anyway. (The opposition parties will help them.) Nope, HYUFD - sadly things are going the way the SNP want right now.
    No they aren't, Wings is right. The period 2016-2022 and especially post the Brexit vote and during the Premiership of Johnson, was the best opportunity Nationalists may ever get for independence. Instead, rather than using elections during that timeframe to get a mandate for UDI or hold a wildcat referendum Sturgeon stalled and delayed, firstly in a futile UK wide campaign to reverse Brexit then in waiting for a SC referendum that went against them.

    Now she has a Tory PM in Sunak of BME heritage and less antagonistic to Scots than Johnson and likely a Labour government after the next election too that will be less unpopular in Scotland and can probably arrange some sort of devomax solution to settle the issue. Salmond and Alba meanwhile will be ready to pounce and push an independence at all costs line splitting the SNP vote. However today's court ruling entrenches the UK government's position too, now they don't need to grant any indyref2 unless on their own terms at a time of their choosing not that of the SNP

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,570
    EPG said:

    I don't think May was incompetent, but she was rejected for trying to minimise the damage of Brexit while also carrying out Brexit. Harsh in a way, but she just didn't have a democratic majority for it. Subsequently a majority was elected to deliver a more macho, self-harming version of Brexit. Johnson was your typical rich-country populist delivering the macho feel-good self-harming policies. That wasn't incompetence, it was intentional. Truss and Sunak are the real dregs who seem to think things are possible which aren't.

    The greatest damage May did was to try to push a solution to social care by ‘robbing’ peoples inheritance. You only need to see hyfuds reaction to see why that failed so badly. She allowed an opinion poll lead to make her feel invincible, when in reality she was a poor campaigner trying to sell something a lot of natural Tories hated, and with a large nimbe4 of remainers looking to overturn the vote, she ballsed it up.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,307
    Was it a Russian missile that hit Poland on 15 November? If you remember the initial response from Russia (unsurprisingly) was to claim it was a Ukrainian missile and the US said it was probably a Ukrainian anti air missile. President Zelensky was not happy with this claim leading to our own Nick Palmer to conclude that he had made a rare error. However all Zelensky asked for was evidence that it was Ukrainian. So far I have not seen any evidence although that didn't stop some people like the appalling Dominic Cummings from accusing Zelensky of lying. He also responded to a tweet by Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba by saying that we should be focusing on Ukrainian gangsters as well as Russian gangsters - perhaps implying that the rather urbane Mr Kuleba is a gangster himself. No evidence was provided. 'Serious' people like Dom can be surprisingly slapdash when they feel like it.

    The Ukrainians have not been allowed access to the investigation.
  • pingping Posts: 3,297
    edited November 2022

    TOPPING said:

    This game is now about as much fun as watching a colonoscopy.....

    Watching your own colonoscopy is of course an intensely "interesting" experience.
    The nurse overseeing mine said it was one the cleanest colons she’d seen.

    Probly says that to all the guys.
    Lol

    I had a bone-anchored hearing aid fitted, with a local anaesthetic. It involved drilling a small titanium stud into the back of my head.

    The thing I wasn’t prepared for was the smell. The drill, at 2000RPM, was actually burning part of my skull.

    I lay there thinking: I’m experiencing my own cremation, here!
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,570
    ping said:

    TOPPING said:

    This game is now about as much fun as watching a colonoscopy.....

    Watching your own colonoscopy is of course an intensely "interesting" experience.
    The nurse overseeing mine said it was one the cleanest colons she’d seen.

    Probly says that to all the guys.
    Lol

    I had a bone-anchored hearing aid fitted, with a local anaesthetic. It involved drilling a small titanium stud into the back of my head.

    The thing I wasn’t prepared for was the smell. The drill, at 2000RPM, was actually burning part of my skull.

    I lay there thinking: I’m experiencing my own cremation, here!
    ,
    Similar. I’ve had carpal tunnel surgery on both hands. Local anaesthetic, followed by the cutting and burning to cauterise. Don’t inhale!
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,307
    The government has been accused of not having a plan for growth. But have they not promised a big increase in capital spending or has that been shelved as well? Do people really believe that large scale migration to do minimum wage jobs is a growth plan but capital spending isn't?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,260
    FT UK: Business and unions demand @RishiSunak scraps planned bonfire of EU rules #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1595528145465139231/photo/1
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506
    edited November 2022
    EPG said:

    I don't think May was incompetent, but she was rejected for trying to minimise the damage of Brexit while also carrying out Brexit. Harsh in a way, but she just didn't have a democratic majority for it. Subsequently a majority was elected to deliver a more macho, self-harming version of Brexit. Johnson was your typical rich-country populist delivering the macho feel-good self-harming policies. That wasn't incompetence, it was intentional. Truss and Sunak are the real dregs who seem to think things are possible which aren't.

    She was incompetent, because she and Spreadsheet Phil failed to prepare for the fabled 'no deal', meaning that there was no possibility of the UK walking away from the negotiating table if it didn't get what it wanted. I am not saying that we should have ever walked away, but it was absolutely essential that we 'could'. I think Hammond's reasoning at the time was 'cost', which is absurd given what has happened since. He was basically a dyed in the wool remainer who had no interest in enhancing our negotiating position. That meant all of May's resets and speeches and 'no deal is better than a bad deal' were silly, empty posturing, and the EU knew it.

    Boris's deal was the same story. Christ knows what Boris's reason was. Time I suppose. He just wanted to get it done quickly.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,272

    EPG said:

    I don't think May was incompetent, but she was rejected for trying to minimise the damage of Brexit while also carrying out Brexit. Harsh in a way, but she just didn't have a democratic majority for it. Subsequently a majority was elected to deliver a more macho, self-harming version of Brexit. Johnson was your typical rich-country populist delivering the macho feel-good self-harming policies. That wasn't incompetence, it was intentional. Truss and Sunak are the real dregs who seem to think things are possible which aren't.

    The greatest damage May did was to try to push a solution to social care by ‘robbing’ peoples inheritance. You only need to see hyfuds reaction to see why that failed so badly. She allowed an opinion poll lead to make her feel invincible, when in reality she was a poor campaigner trying to sell something a lot of natural Tories hated, and with a large nimbe4 of remainers looking to overturn the vote, she ballsed it up.
    Yes. Notably the eventual fraction of a solution was cancelled by Kwarteng and notionally deferred by Hunt until after the next GE. In other words, nobody wants to do this.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    edited November 2022
    ping said:

    TOPPING said:

    This game is now about as much fun as watching a colonoscopy.....

    Watching your own colonoscopy is of course an intensely "interesting" experience.
    The nurse overseeing mine said it was one the cleanest colons she’d seen.

    Probly says that to all the guys.
    Lol

    I had a bone-anchored hearing aid fitted, with a local anaesthetic. It involved drilling a small titanium stud into the back of my head.

    The thing I wasn’t prepared for was the smell. The drill, at 2000RPM, was actually burning part of my skull.

    I lay there thinking: I’m experiencing my own cremation, here!

    ping said:

    TOPPING said:

    This game is now about as much fun as watching a colonoscopy.....

    Watching your own colonoscopy is of course an intensely "interesting" experience.
    The nurse overseeing mine said it was one the cleanest colons she’d seen.

    Probly says that to all the guys.
    Lol

    I had a bone-anchored hearing aid fitted, with a local anaesthetic. It involved drilling a small titanium stud into the back of my head.

    The thing I wasn’t prepared for was the smell. The drill, at 2000RPM, was actually burning part of my skull.

    I lay there thinking: I’m experiencing my own cremation, here!
    ,
    Similar. I’ve had carpal tunnel surgery on both hands. Local anaesthetic, followed by the cutting and burning to cauterise. Don’t inhale!
    Well, thank you both for my nightmares tonight.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,343
    Leon said:

    DJ41 said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Absolutely ideal result in the Supreme Court today for Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. There'll be celebrations tonight among leading nationalists.[*]

    "They stop us. Those 'Westminsters', they always stop us. They tell us what we can and can't do. We need to..."

    Note
    * And not just in the Lubyanka and Trump Tower.

    Edit: *checks whether TASS have reported the court judgment.* Yes, they have. Trebles all round at the Russian consulate in Edinburgh.

    Oh really, Wings is furious. 'Nicola Sturgeon has single-handedly undone generations of work by people who spent their whole lives bringing the Scottish National Party to the position that she’s so abysmally squandered. It’s not just the last eight years she’s wasted, but the eight decades before them. She will be remembered as Scottish politics’ worst failure, and its gravest betrayer for 315 years.

    If she had a shred of decency or dignity she would resign today over her fatal delay in obtaining this ruling. But she won’t, and between now and 2024 her toxic, incompetent, arrogant and divisive administration will destroy the last tattered hopes of the independence movement as she clings desperately to power for its own sake.'

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-thief-of-time/
    What do you deduce from that enraged purple prose written by a reverend who seems more suited to producing Christmas round robins?

    When Sturgeon does a Catalonia, those who say such things will be well placed to help sell the line that Yes doesn't necessarily mean YeSNP. Some of them may even believe what comes out of their own mouths.

    "Had the matter been put to the Court and decided in 2016, the Scottish Government would have known where it stood. It could have conducted either the 2017 or 2019 UK general elections, or the 2021 Scottish election, as the plebiscite it now belatedly says it will hold in two years’ time."

    No it couldn't. It could have had an unequivocal referendum rerun pledge in its manifesto, yes. That's different. I wouldn't assume the reverend has great facility with using the word "plebiscite". Anyway the SNP failed to score 50% in any of those elections. (Scotland has always voted unionist, in every election either to Holyrood or Westminster.) Had it said "A vote for us is a vote for a referendum", or even a vote for UDI, its voteshare would have been even lower. Any they can always trigger a Scottish general election any time they want anyway. (The opposition parties will help them.) Nope, HYUFD - sadly things are going the way the SNP want right now.
    The SNP are fucked. There is no way you can sensibly declare a "UK election" a de facto plebiscite

    It's over. If the SCOTUK decision had been even vague today, there was maybe a route. No more

    Sturgeon will retire after a good result in the 24 election, and then the SNP will have to regroup and rethink - or split
    Sounds like SNP are going to storm to victory and there will be an imminent indy ref with Nicola staying leader until her 100th birthday then.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    DJ41 said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Absolutely ideal result in the Supreme Court today for Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. There'll be celebrations tonight among leading nationalists.[*]

    "They stop us. Those 'Westminsters', they always stop us. They tell us what we can and can't do. We need to..."

    Note
    * And not just in the Lubyanka and Trump Tower.

    Edit: *checks whether TASS have reported the court judgment.* Yes, they have. Trebles all round at the Russian consulate in Edinburgh.

    Oh really, Wings is furious. 'Nicola Sturgeon has single-handedly undone generations of work by people who spent their whole lives bringing the Scottish National Party to the position that she’s so abysmally squandered. It’s not just the last eight years she’s wasted, but the eight decades before them. She will be remembered as Scottish politics’ worst failure, and its gravest betrayer for 315 years.

    If she had a shred of decency or dignity she would resign today over her fatal delay in obtaining this ruling. But she won’t, and between now and 2024 her toxic, incompetent, arrogant and divisive administration will destroy the last tattered hopes of the independence movement as she clings desperately to power for its own sake.'

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-thief-of-time/
    What do you deduce from that enraged purple prose written by a reverend who seems more suited to producing Christmas round robins?

    When Sturgeon does a Catalonia, those who say such things will be well placed to help sell the line that Yes doesn't necessarily mean YeSNP. Some of them may even believe what comes out of their own mouths.

    "Had the matter been put to the Court and decided in 2016, the Scottish Government would have known where it stood. It could have conducted either the 2017 or 2019 UK general elections, or the 2021 Scottish election, as the plebiscite it now belatedly says it will hold in two years’ time."

    No it couldn't. It could have had an unequivocal referendum rerun pledge in its manifesto, yes. That's different. I wouldn't assume the reverend has great facility with using the word "plebiscite". Anyway the SNP failed to score 50% in any of those elections. (Scotland has always voted unionist, in every election either to Holyrood or Westminster.) Had it said "A vote for us is a vote for a referendum", or even a vote for UDI, its voteshare would have been even lower. Any they can always trigger a Scottish general election any time they want anyway. (The opposition parties will help them.) Nope, HYUFD - sadly things are going the way the SNP want right now.
    The SNP are fucked. There is no way you can sensibly declare a "UK election" a de facto plebiscite

    It's over. If the SCOTUK decision had been even vague today, there was maybe a route. No more

    Sturgeon will retire after a good result in the 24 election, and then the SNP will have to regroup and rethink - or split
    Sounds like SNP are going to storm to victory and there will be an imminent indy ref with Nicola staying leader until her 100th birthday then.
    Today's ruling makes clear legally and constitutionally there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,307
    Hi guys. You can find me over on a new thread.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,260
    Starmer leads Sunak by 4% in the Red Wall.

    At this moment, which of the following do Red Wall voters think would be the better PM for the UK? (21-22 November)

    Keir Starmer 40% (+2)
    Rishi Sunak 36% (-1)
    Don't Know 24% (-1)

    Changes +/- 5-6 November

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-red-wall-voting-intention-21-22-november-2022 https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1595530399656075269/photo/1

    Sunak leads Starmer by 9% in the Blue Wall.

    At this moment, which of the following do Blue Wall voters think would be the better PM for the UK? (21-22 Nov.)

    Rishi Sunak 44% (-5)
    Keir Starmer 35% (+4)
    Don't Know 21% (+1)

    Changes +/- 14-15 Nov.

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-blue-wall-voting-intention-21-22-november-2022 https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1595530421923635202/photo/1
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,570
    kle4 said:

    ping said:

    TOPPING said:

    This game is now about as much fun as watching a colonoscopy.....

    Watching your own colonoscopy is of course an intensely "interesting" experience.
    The nurse overseeing mine said it was one the cleanest colons she’d seen.

    Probly says that to all the guys.
    Lol

    I had a bone-anchored hearing aid fitted, with a local anaesthetic. It involved drilling a small titanium stud into the back of my head.

    The thing I wasn’t prepared for was the smell. The drill, at 2000RPM, was actually burning part of my skull.

    I lay there thinking: I’m experiencing my own cremation, here!

    ping said:

    TOPPING said:

    This game is now about as much fun as watching a colonoscopy.....

    Watching your own colonoscopy is of course an intensely "interesting" experience.
    The nurse overseeing mine said it was one the cleanest colons she’d seen.

    Probly says that to all the guys.
    Lol

    I had a bone-anchored hearing aid fitted, with a local anaesthetic. It involved drilling a small titanium stud into the back of my head.

    The thing I wasn’t prepared for was the smell. The drill, at 2000RPM, was actually burning part of my skull.

    I lay there thinking: I’m experiencing my own cremation, here!
    ,
    Similar. I’ve had carpal tunnel surgery on both hands. Local anaesthetic, followed by the cutting and burning to cauterise. Don’t inhale!
    Well, thank you both for my nightmares tonight.
    My pleasure. As someone who is not bothered by graphic scenes of surgery on TV etc it was fascinating to watch the surgery on my own hands (well wrists really). My sister, who had similar surgery, was much less sanguine about the whole affair.
    Also the lidocaine is amazing stuff. No pain at all for an hour and then it kicks in. Astonishing really, to think what people went through before aneasthetics.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,716
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    DJ41 said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Absolutely ideal result in the Supreme Court today for Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. There'll be celebrations tonight among leading nationalists.[*]

    "They stop us. Those 'Westminsters', they always stop us. They tell us what we can and can't do. We need to..."

    Note
    * And not just in the Lubyanka and Trump Tower.

    Edit: *checks whether TASS have reported the court judgment.* Yes, they have. Trebles all round at the Russian consulate in Edinburgh.

    Oh really, Wings is furious. 'Nicola Sturgeon has single-handedly undone generations of work by people who spent their whole lives bringing the Scottish National Party to the position that she’s so abysmally squandered. It’s not just the last eight years she’s wasted, but the eight decades before them. She will be remembered as Scottish politics’ worst failure, and its gravest betrayer for 315 years.

    If she had a shred of decency or dignity she would resign today over her fatal delay in obtaining this ruling. But she won’t, and between now and 2024 her toxic, incompetent, arrogant and divisive administration will destroy the last tattered hopes of the independence movement as she clings desperately to power for its own sake.'

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-thief-of-time/
    What do you deduce from that enraged purple prose written by a reverend who seems more suited to producing Christmas round robins?

    When Sturgeon does a Catalonia, those who say such things will be well placed to help sell the line that Yes doesn't necessarily mean YeSNP. Some of them may even believe what comes out of their own mouths.

    "Had the matter been put to the Court and decided in 2016, the Scottish Government would have known where it stood. It could have conducted either the 2017 or 2019 UK general elections, or the 2021 Scottish election, as the plebiscite it now belatedly says it will hold in two years’ time."

    No it couldn't. It could have had an unequivocal referendum rerun pledge in its manifesto, yes. That's different. I wouldn't assume the reverend has great facility with using the word "plebiscite". Anyway the SNP failed to score 50% in any of those elections. (Scotland has always voted unionist, in every election either to Holyrood or Westminster.) Had it said "A vote for us is a vote for a referendum", or even a vote for UDI, its voteshare would have been even lower. Any they can always trigger a Scottish general election any time they want anyway. (The opposition parties will help them.) Nope, HYUFD - sadly things are going the way the SNP want right now.
    The SNP are fucked. There is no way you can sensibly declare a "UK election" a de facto plebiscite

    It's over. If the SCOTUK decision had been even vague today, there was maybe a route. No more

    Sturgeon will retire after a good result in the 24 election, and then the SNP will have to regroup and rethink - or split
    Sounds like SNP are going to storm to victory and there will be an imminent indy ref with Nicola staying leader until her 100th birthday then.
    I think the biggest threat to the SNP is probably a large Labour Westminster majority. Which tbh looks like we’re edging ever closer toward now
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,343
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    DJ41 said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Absolutely ideal result in the Supreme Court today for Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. There'll be celebrations tonight among leading nationalists.[*]

    "They stop us. Those 'Westminsters', they always stop us. They tell us what we can and can't do. We need to..."

    Note
    * And not just in the Lubyanka and Trump Tower.

    Edit: *checks whether TASS have reported the court judgment.* Yes, they have. Trebles all round at the Russian consulate in Edinburgh.

    Oh really, Wings is furious. 'Nicola Sturgeon has single-handedly undone generations of work by people who spent their whole lives bringing the Scottish National Party to the position that she’s so abysmally squandered. It’s not just the last eight years she’s wasted, but the eight decades before them. She will be remembered as Scottish politics’ worst failure, and its gravest betrayer for 315 years.

    If she had a shred of decency or dignity she would resign today over her fatal delay in obtaining this ruling. But she won’t, and between now and 2024 her toxic, incompetent, arrogant and divisive administration will destroy the last tattered hopes of the independence movement as she clings desperately to power for its own sake.'

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-thief-of-time/
    What do you deduce from that enraged purple prose written by a reverend who seems more suited to producing Christmas round robins?

    When Sturgeon does a Catalonia, those who say such things will be well placed to help sell the line that Yes doesn't necessarily mean YeSNP. Some of them may even believe what comes out of their own mouths.

    "Had the matter been put to the Court and decided in 2016, the Scottish Government would have known where it stood. It could have conducted either the 2017 or 2019 UK general elections, or the 2021 Scottish election, as the plebiscite it now belatedly says it will hold in two years’ time."

    No it couldn't. It could have had an unequivocal referendum rerun pledge in its manifesto, yes. That's different. I wouldn't assume the reverend has great facility with using the word "plebiscite". Anyway the SNP failed to score 50% in any of those elections. (Scotland has always voted unionist, in every election either to Holyrood or Westminster.) Had it said "A vote for us is a vote for a referendum", or even a vote for UDI, its voteshare would have been even lower. Any they can always trigger a Scottish general election any time they want anyway. (The opposition parties will help them.) Nope, HYUFD - sadly things are going the way the SNP want right now.
    The SNP are fucked. There is no way you can sensibly declare a "UK election" a de facto plebiscite

    It's over. If the SCOTUK decision had been even vague today, there was maybe a route. No more

    Sturgeon will retire after a good result in the 24 election, and then the SNP will have to regroup and rethink - or split
    Sounds like SNP are going to storm to victory and there will be an imminent indy ref with Nicola staying leader until her 100th birthday then.
    Today's ruling makes clear legally and constitutionally there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent
    It was a joke. Referencing the slightly unfair joke of Leon getting his predictions always wrong. I don't actually believe what I posted.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,754

    Was it a Russian missile that hit Poland on 15 November? If you remember the initial response from Russia (unsurprisingly) was to claim it was a Ukrainian missile and the US said it was probably a Ukrainian anti air missile. President Zelensky was not happy with this claim leading to our own Nick Palmer to conclude that he had made a rare error. However all Zelensky asked for was evidence that it was Ukrainian. So far I have not seen any evidence although that didn't stop some people like the appalling Dominic Cummings from accusing Zelensky of lying. He also responded to a tweet by Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba by saying that we should be focusing on Ukrainian gangsters as well as Russian gangsters - perhaps implying that the rather urbane Mr Kuleba is a gangster himself. No evidence was provided. 'Serious' people like Dom can be surprisingly slapdash when they feel like it.

    The Ukrainians have not been allowed access to the investigation.

    Dominic Cummings is not, and never has been, a serious person. He is a failed think tank operator, mediocre intellect and raging egomaniac with but a shaky grasp of reality who has failed in every task he ever set himself while claiming what credit he can for the achievements of actually talented people and persistently lying about his own role.

    That he was appointed to any position in government is the clearest sign imaginable that Boris Johnson should actually be sectioned.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,677
    edited November 2022

    Andy_JS said:

    According to the Fifa rankings Belgium are number 2 and Canada number 41 in the world.

    https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/men?dateId=id13792

    Belgium is consistently slightly more dangerous, though it's not a walkover. Canada not really looking close to scoring.
    Weird grammatical tick slipping on PB whereby people say Canada is; England is; instead of Canada are; England are. I’ve seen it a few times now.

    Stop it please! We aren’t American.
    Either can be acceptable in British English, depending on context. For a collective with a shared sense of purpose, British English would use the singular, like American English. Where disunity or difference is being stressed, British English would use a plural. Thus “the committee is committed to this course of action” but “the committee are having a lot of disagreements tonight”. For a football team that is playing purposefully and well, use of the singular is both appropriate and acceptable.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,299
    Even after the 2:1: Japanese fans stayed back to clean
    https://mobile.twitter.com/AmichaiStein1/status/1595495444339380224
This discussion has been closed.