Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
This may be an unpopular view, but I think Pope Benedict's feet will be getting rather warm now, when many (most?) seem to think he'll be up in Heaven (and I don't mean the establishment in Charing Cross...)
Show some respect.
Surely - Patron Saint of anti-tank weapon users....
Given Ratzinger was an anti-Nazi who joined the HJ only because his father would have been shot if he didn't that's a bit tasteless.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
Please name a king of England (or indeed Scotland) who beheaded his own brother.
I can only think of one who was executed in any form - Edward IV with the Duke of Clarence. And that was at the fifth attempt after he'd actually tried to murder the King using witchcraft.
As well as Edward IV executing his brother Clarence, James IInd had his half brother the Duke of Monmouth beheaded.
Elizabeth Ist had her cousin Mary Queen of Scots executed.
Henry Ist had his brother Robert Curthose imprisoned until he died
Monmouth was James VII and II's nephew, illegitimately born, not his son. Also, that wasn't in the Middle Ages.
You could have added Richard II to the list of royal victims, or Henry VI. Or indeed the Earl of Cambridge in 1415, but that's complicated by the fact in the real world he wasn't of royal birth.
Prison doesn't count, because that wasn't in your comment, which also lets out Dafydd ap Llewelyn and Llewelyn ap Gruffudd imprisoning their brothers.
I think the only other examples I can come up with are Hywel ab Owain in the 1170s and Maredudd ap Rhys in c.1200, both in minor kingdoms in Wales, and both in battle.
But the fact remains, you said traitors of royal birth were executed, and between us we have come up with two or three examples.That doesn't suggest it was widespread.
Clarence clearly was executed for treason and indeed had changed sides in the Wars of the Roses.
So quite clearly royal birth didn't protect you for treachery against the English crown. See also Mary Queen of Scots, Elizabeth's cousin.
Monmouth's father was Charles II, didn't stop him being executed. As his been mentioned Richard II had his uncle murdered and was in turn starved to death by his cousin Henry IV when he became King.
Robert Curthose as mentioned too was imprisoned for life by his brother Henry Ist. So even if Harry was not beheaded he would at least have been thrown into jail had he done this centuries ago
I don't really understand the fixation with the treason laws and what would have happened centuries ago. Centuries ago you could be hanged for theft of a loaf of bread, or hunting in the Kings forest. You could be boiled alive if convicted of poisoning.
None of this has any relevance in 2023.
Treason still has life in prison as the maximum penalty and death was the maximum until 1998 in the UK
Anyway, can't the rozzers look into Willy attacking Harry, as they do like to act on historical crimes? Harry must surely want to prosecute as he was physical injured and he's confident enough in the truth to commit it to the public record. Wouldn't it be in William's interest to clear his name after being accused of assault? This could get tasty!
No evidence of any injuries, more likely William could sue for libel
We don't know there's lack of evidence, do we? That's why the coppers need to investigate this heinous crime.
Surely Wills's barrister would have Harry for breakfast: an ex-Marine having his 'necklace' ripped off and being tipped into a bowl of dog food? The jury would be tittering.
"I ambushed you with a bowl of dog food. What is the colour of boat house at Hereford?"
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
This may be an unpopular view, but I think Pope Benedict's feet will be getting rather warm now, when many (most?) seem to think he'll be up in Heaven (and I don't mean the establishment in Charing Cross...)
Show some respect.
Surely - Patron Saint of anti-tank weapon users....
Given Ratzinger was an anti-Nazi who joined the HJ only because his father would have been shot if he didn't that's a bit tasteless.
I think it was quite cool we had a Pope who was a trained anti-tank specialist.
Almost as cool as having a Pope who used to be a the bouncer at a youth club in a dodgy area...
EDIT: You are talking to someone who treasures the Holocaust jokes told by rabbis. Bad taste is *required*
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
Please name a king of England (or indeed Scotland) who beheaded his own brother.
I can only think of one who was executed in any form - Edward IV with the Duke of Clarence. And that was at the fifth attempt after he'd actually tried to murder the King using witchcraft.
As well as Edward IV executing his brother Clarence, James IInd had his half brother the Duke of Monmouth beheaded.
Elizabeth Ist had her cousin Mary Queen of Scots executed.
Henry Ist had his brother Robert Curthose imprisoned until he died
Monmouth was James VII and II's nephew, illegitimately born, not his son. Also, that wasn't in the Middle Ages.
You could have added Richard II to the list of royal victims, or Henry VI. Or indeed the Earl of Cambridge in 1415, but that's complicated by the fact in the real world he wasn't of royal birth.
Prison doesn't count, because that wasn't in your comment, which also lets out Dafydd ap Llewelyn and Llewelyn ap Gruffudd imprisoning their brothers.
I think the only other examples I can come up with are Hywel ab Owain in the 1170s and Maredudd ap Rhys in c.1200, both in minor kingdoms in Wales, and both in battle.
But the fact remains, you said traitors of royal birth were executed, and between us we have come up with two or three examples.That doesn't suggest it was widespread.
Clarence clearly was executed for treason and indeed had changed sides in the Wars of the Roses.
So quite clearly royal birth didn't protect you for treachery against the English crown. See also Mary Queen of Scots, Elizabeth's cousin.
Monmouth's father was Charles II, didn't stop him being executed. As his been mentioned Richard II had his uncle murdered and was in turn starved to death by his cousin Henry IV when he became King.
Robert Curthose as mentioned too was imprisoned for life by his brother Henry Ist. So even if Harry was not beheaded he would at least have been thrown into jail had he done this centuries ago
I don't really understand the fixation with the treason laws and what would have happened centuries ago. Centuries ago you could be hanged for theft of a loaf of bread, or hunting in the Kings forest. You could be boiled alive if convicted of poisoning.
None of this has any relevance in 2023.
Possibly inspired by recent US Supreme Court decisions, which referenced equally odd and long defunct English laws.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
1372 called. They want their Village Idiot back. Now.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
Ummm - you didn't have high streets. That's a Georgian thing at the earliest.
You had guild streets, but only in boroughs. Most people lived a long way from boroughs and did their own butchering, baking and smithing, and even leatherwork and cloth making.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
I've always assumed the Tories' goal is the return of the workhouse, but now I see I have failed to understand the extent of their ambition - a full on return to serfdom.
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
I've always assumed the Tories' goal is the return of the workhouse, but now I see I have failed to understand the extent of their ambition - a full on return to serfdom.
Bring back Jus Primae Noctis.
(Yes, I know it really didn't happen in the UK, in your face Braveheart.)
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
All these common serfs getting ideas above their station. They don't know what's good for them!
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
Why are you such a cap doffing fore lock tugger? I bet you'd even call someone Sir or Lord/Lady. Just because that someone's distant male relative was a mate of William the bastard back in '66! I just don't get it.
More evidence that a big Ukrainian counteroffensive may be just around the corner, and/or Russian military positions are weakening: the Russians are playing games again.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
I've always assumed the Tories' goal is the return of the workhouse, but now I see I have failed to understand the extent of their ambition - a full on return to serfdom.
@HYUFD is a slacker. Bring back the Orders of the Roman Empire.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
All these common serfs getting ideas above their station. They don't know what's good for them!
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
I've always assumed the Tories' goal is the return of the workhouse, but now I see I have failed to understand the extent of their ambition - a full on return to serfdom.
@HYUFD is a slacker. Bring back the Orders of the Roman Empire.
I always hope somebody will bring in an order of the Persian empire.
So when somebody renounces it they can say they've given up OPE.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
There was less computer crime and graffiti too.
And fare-dodging on the trains was unhead of.
There were fucktons of graffiti all over the place.
There was masses of accountancy fraud as well - bet mucking with the abacuses was a thing.
More evidence that a big Ukrainian counteroffensive may be just around the corner, and/or Russian military positions are weakening: the Russians are playing games again.
Of course the nuclear blackmail may simply be because they now realise the energy blackmail that was going to change things over the winter has failed.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
I've always assumed the Tories' goal is the return of the workhouse, but now I see I have failed to understand the extent of their ambition - a full on return to serfdom.
@HYUFD is a slacker. Bring back the Orders of the Roman Empire.
I always hope somebody will bring in an order of the Persian empire.
So when somebody renounces it they can say they've given up OPE.
Don't be such a Proletarian.
I'll get my coat - it's the one with the registration of land in excess of the Senatorial census in the pocket.
More evidence that a big Ukrainian counteroffensive may be just around the corner, and/or Russian military positions are weakening: the Russians are playing games again.
Of course the nuclear blackmail may simply be because they now realise the energy blackmail that was going to change things over the winter has failed.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
All these common serfs getting ideas above their station. They don't know what's good for them!
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
A simpler life, dying at 43 with rotten teeth.
Due to a lack of sugar, generally dental health was pretty good, IIRC. Apart from when it killed you, of course.
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Been following the numeracy debate with interest and thank you to @JosiasJessop for pointing out that the most severe problem in education today is the lack of progress made by less able pupils on literacy and numeracy. It’s not, as @HYUFD would claim a lack of grammar school places for high ability, working class pupils.
At the non-selective secondary school where I am a Governor, we see a sharp decline in literacy skills among pupils starting in year seven. Unlike numeracy, this has an impact across the whole curriculum: pupils struggle to access subject texts, find written work difficult, suffer worse behaviour and teachers, especially those less experienced, are stretched to manage widening ability gaps and the poorer behaviour.
The root causes for the poor literacy are, of course, arguable. The two thought to be likely are the loss of learning during the pandemic, which should be temporary, and the way in which English is now taught in primary schools. It’s the latter that should, as a matter of priority, be “reimagined”.
Literacy teaching is really odd these days in primary school. They seem to do far less comprehension than before, yet they come home talking about fronted adverbials. Is this a Gove legacy?
Yes, Gove et al meddled deeply in teaching english in primary school. No one anywhere needs to needs able to spot a “fronted adverbial” at ten paces, yet seven year olds are graded on their ability to do exactly that, amongst a litany of other pointless pieces of english grammar, some of which appears to have been entirely made up by Gove & his cronies.
This syntax & grammar-obssessed curriculum sucks any joy there might be out of the experience entirely, especially for the lower ability kids who can tell that they’re being taught something useless & resent being judged for not being able to master it.
It's tragic what they've done to English teaching at school, completely ripping the joy out of the subject. It makes me quite angry actually when I compare my kids' experience of it to my own back in the 80s/90s. This really has been an absolutely ruinous period of Tory government, on so many levels.
There is nothing wrong with learning proper grammar, often I find foreigners know English grammar better than we do
There are also people who could be helped by learning the appropriate circumstances in which to use a semi-colon, rather than a comma.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
A simpler life, dying at 43 with rotten teeth.
Due to a lack of sugar, generally dental health was pretty good, IIRC. Apart from when it killed you, of course.
You got worn teeth, rather than rotten ones.
Wheat was ground between stones so you got lots of essentially rock dust in your bread, which wore the teeth down.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
There was less computer crime and graffiti too.
And fare-dodging on the trains was unhead of.
There were fucktons of graffiti all over the place.
There was masses of accountancy fraud as well - bet mucking with the abacuses was a thing.
Fiddling with the tally notches. The "hanging chad" of their day.
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Making us join the euro could well be the EU's insurance against us deciding to leave again.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
A simpler life, dying at 43 with rotten teeth.
A common misconception. Medieval peasant teeth were actually less likely to be bad than modern as there was little sugar in the diet.
More evidence that a big Ukrainian counteroffensive may be just around the corner, and/or Russian military positions are weakening: the Russians are playing games again.
I suspect I will be proved wrong instantly by the idiots who thought a war in Ukraine was a good thing, but surely it would be mad for Belarus to get involved. There would be a high probability of the leadership getting overthrown or civil war that the incumbent would likely lose or Russia would have to put its depleted forces in to Belarus to prop up the regime.
This may be an unpopular view, but I think Pope Benedict's feet will be getting rather warm now, when many (most?) seem to think he'll be up in Heaven (and I don't mean the establishment in Charing Cross...)
If I ended up in the same place as Pope Benedict in the afterlife I'd certainly assume I was being punished for something.
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Making us join the euro could well be the EU's insurance against us deciding to leave again.
If the UK gets to Brejoin, I doubt that the stars will align for Brexit again anyway. Partly because Remain 2070 will be able to point to the shambles of 2016-whenever, but mostly because Brexit is largely (not entirely) but largely the project of a specific generation whose formative experiences won't be repeated.
Which is why "want to rejoin but finding it logistically impossible" would be such an unpleasant place to end up. Especially for the Conservatives.
Meanwhile, Alister Heath in today's Brexitgraph;
The sorry truth is that Britain's fall from grace has been more extreme, more sudden, less explicable and far less forgiveable. We should be doing so much better, especially after Brexit..."
More evidence that a big Ukrainian counteroffensive may be just around the corner, and/or Russian military positions are weakening: the Russians are playing games again.
I suspect I will be proved wrong instantly by the idiots who thought a war in Ukraine was a good thing, but surely it would be mad for Belarus to get involved. There would be a high probability of the leadership getting overthrown or civil war that the incumbent would likely lose or Russia would have to put its depleted forces in to Belarus to prop up the regime.
Seems like there has been some progress in the last 24 hours in The Speaker Saga, but no-one seems to know if it will be enough to make anyone change their vote, and there also seems to be a hardcore subset of the 20 rebels who are simply digging their heels in and refusing to back McCarthy come what may.
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Making us join the euro could well be the EU's insurance against us deciding to leave again.
I flew to the EU and back last week. Queueing to get into Finland and back into the UK was no more than 3 or 4 minutes in either direction. Cutting out a 3 or 4 minute queue once every few years doesn't seem a massive gain to me.
Seems like there has been some progress in the last 24 hours in The Speaker Saga, but no-one seems to know if it will be enough to make anyone change their vote, and there also seems to be a hardcore subset of the 20 rebels who are simply digging their heels in and refusing to back McCarthy come what may.
If the House follows precedent, switches to plurality voting and the Dems win the Speakership as a result, will those twenty get primaried?
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
A simpler life, dying at 43 with rotten teeth.
A common misconception. Medieval peasant teeth were actually less likely to be bad than modern as there was little sugar in the diet.
And, once you factor out child mortality, life expectancy was about 55-60. Roughly the same as a male from Glasgow today.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
A simpler life, dying at 43 with rotten teeth.
A common misconception. Medieval peasant teeth were actually less likely to be bad than modern as there was little sugar in the diet.
And, once you factor out child mortality, life expectancy was about 55-60. Roughly the same as a male from Glasgow today.
Aaaand we're back onto the length of a Scottish generation.
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Making us join the euro could well be the EU's insurance against us deciding to leave again.
I flew to the EU and back last week. Queueing to get into Finland and back into the UK was no more than 3 or 4 minutes in either direction. Cutting out a 3 or 4 minute queue once every few years doesn't seem a massive gain to me.
How very representative of typical UK to EU travel patterns
More evidence that a big Ukrainian counteroffensive may be just around the corner, and/or Russian military positions are weakening: the Russians are playing games again.
I suspect I will be proved wrong instantly by the idiots who thought a war in Ukraine was a good thing, but surely it would be mad for Belarus to get involved. There would be a high probability of the leadership getting overthrown or civil war that the incumbent would likely lose or Russia would have to put its depleted forces in to Belarus to prop up the regime.
Putin is pretty desperate and in need of more men, especially trained men, and equipment.
I'm surprised that Belarus has managed to avoid sending its own army in to Ukraine.
More evidence that a big Ukrainian counteroffensive may be just around the corner, and/or Russian military positions are weakening: the Russians are playing games again.
I suspect I will be proved wrong instantly by the idiots who thought a war in Ukraine was a good thing, but surely it would be mad for Belarus to get involved. There would be a high probability of the leadership getting overthrown or civil war that the incumbent would likely lose or Russia would have to put its depleted forces in to Belarus to prop up the regime.
Putin is pretty desperate and in need of more men, especially trained men, and equipment.
I'm surprised that Belarus has managed to avoid sending its own army in to Ukraine.
Lukashenko has realised that he is playing the part of a cheap, third world imitation of Mussolini? And has actually read what happens next?
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
A simpler life, dying at 43 with rotten teeth.
A common misconception. Medieval peasant teeth were actually less likely to be bad than modern as there was little sugar in the diet.
And, once you factor out child mortality, life expectancy was about 55-60. Roughly the same as a male from Glasgow today.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
Did serfs own their own hut, do we know?
They did typically (in England) yes. They would own a small parcel of land, a small (often courtyarded) single-story cottage, a few animals etc. They were not free, in that their labour was indentured to the Lord, and rarely had freedom of movement (because they were tied to their parcel of land), but they weren't slaves (their person was not owned). Their status would be inherited by their children.
Interestingly, one of the main reasons for their disappearance was the growth of towns and the labour demands of the mercantile class in the late medieval period, and the re-emergence of coinage as an abstracted currency of exchange.
More evidence that a big Ukrainian counteroffensive may be just around the corner, and/or Russian military positions are weakening: the Russians are playing games again.
I suspect I will be proved wrong instantly by the idiots who thought a war in Ukraine was a good thing, but surely it would be mad for Belarus to get involved. There would be a high probability of the leadership getting overthrown or civil war that the incumbent would likely lose or Russia would have to put its depleted forces in to Belarus to prop up the regime.
Is there anyone not named Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin who thought a war in Ukraine was a good thing?
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
A simpler life, dying at 43 with rotten teeth.
A common misconception. Medieval peasant teeth were actually less likely to be bad than modern as there was little sugar in the diet.
And, once you factor out child mortality, life expectancy was about 55-60. Roughly the same as a male from Glasgow today.
Aaaand we're back onto the length of a Scottish generation.
Seems like there has been some progress in the last 24 hours in The Speaker Saga, but no-one seems to know if it will be enough to make anyone change their vote, and there also seems to be a hardcore subset of the 20 rebels who are simply digging their heels in and refusing to back McCarthy come what may.
If the House follows precedent, switches to plurality voting and the Dems win the Speakership as a result, will those twenty get primaried?
Indeed, could they be recalled?
To switch to plurality voting there will need to be a majority of Reps who are willing to do so. So it requires cross-party buy in (assuming the awkward squad don’t back it - and why would they?
The rest of the GOP won’t switch to plurality unless it guarantees a GOP speaker.
So unless McCarthy steps aside or manages to broker a deal in the next couple of days I think this saga still has a bit to run.
Recall I think depends on whether the particular state allows it but someone with greater knowledge of US politics will probably set me right on that.
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
The games that Sweden and others have played to avoid becoming part of the Euro are now explicitly outlawed when you join the EU.
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Making us join the euro could well be the EU's insurance against us deciding to leave again.
I flew to the EU and back last week. Queueing to get into Finland and back into the UK was no more than 3 or 4 minutes in either direction. Cutting out a 3 or 4 minute queue once every few years doesn't seem a massive gain to me.
I had the same experience in the summer. The most noticeable difference was that EU passport holders could use our priority queues (along with Americans, Aussies, Kiwis and (iirc) Singaporeans amongst others). That this is not repciprocated is clearly neither the fault of Brexit nor the UK government...
Seems like there has been some progress in the last 24 hours in The Speaker Saga, but no-one seems to know if it will be enough to make anyone change their vote, and there also seems to be a hardcore subset of the 20 rebels who are simply digging their heels in and refusing to back McCarthy come what may.
If the House follows precedent, switches to plurality voting and the Dems win the Speakership as a result, will those twenty get primaried?
Indeed, could they be recalled?
What's the procedure for unseating a Speaker during the term?
Seems like there has been some progress in the last 24 hours in The Speaker Saga, but no-one seems to know if it will be enough to make anyone change their vote, and there also seems to be a hardcore subset of the 20 rebels who are simply digging their heels in and refusing to back McCarthy come what may.
If the House follows precedent, switches to plurality voting and the Dems win the Speakership as a result, will those twenty get primaried?
Indeed, could they be recalled?
To switch to plurality voting there will need to be a majority of Reps who are willing to do so. So it requires cross-party buy in (assuming the awkward squad don’t back it - and why would they?
The rest of the GOP won’t switch to plurality unless it guarantees a GOP speaker.
So unless McCarthy steps aside or manages to broker a deal in the next couple of days I think this saga still has a bit to run.
Recall I think depends on whether the particular state allows it but someone with greater knowledge of US politics will probably set me right on that.
Why would you need a majority of Republicans? You just need 10 of them.
If the senate is deadlocked like this after a Presidential election, they can't certify the winner...
You mean the house?
I believe it’s the outgoing congress that certifies the electoral vote as it’s final action, so that would happen before the new house meets and hence you wouldn’t encounter that issue.
Not sure of the situation if a speaker hasn’t been elected by that previous outgoing congress - though that would mean 2 years without a speaker and I think they would have a lot more to worry about in that situation.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
A simpler life, dying at 43 with rotten teeth.
A common misconception. Medieval peasant teeth were actually less likely to be bad than modern as there was little sugar in the diet.
And, once you factor out child mortality, life expectancy was about 55-60. Roughly the same as a male from Glasgow today.
Also the child mortality, of ones children and siblings, was one of the most shit aspects of life even for the survivors
Child mortality was definitely shit. As was non-fatal disease. But I think the point is that the difference between 1222 and 1922 is minimal, whereas the difference between 1922 and 2022 is massive (in England).
More evidence that a big Ukrainian counteroffensive may be just around the corner, and/or Russian military positions are weakening: the Russians are playing games again.
I suspect I will be proved wrong instantly by the idiots who thought a war in Ukraine was a good thing, but surely it would be mad for Belarus to get involved. There would be a high probability of the leadership getting overthrown or civil war that the incumbent would likely lose or Russia would have to put its depleted forces in to Belarus to prop up the regime.
Putin is pretty desperate and in need of more men, especially trained men, and equipment.
I'm surprised that Belarus has managed to avoid sending its own army in to Ukraine.
Lukashenko has realised that he is playing the part of a cheap, third world imitation of Mussolini? And has actually read what happens next?
Even self-aware leaders of weak client states are the leaders of weak client states. I would have thought that his capacity to resist Putin's wishes was limited.
Seems like there has been some progress in the last 24 hours in The Speaker Saga, but no-one seems to know if it will be enough to make anyone change their vote, and there also seems to be a hardcore subset of the 20 rebels who are simply digging their heels in and refusing to back McCarthy come what may.
If the House follows precedent, switches to plurality voting and the Dems win the Speakership as a result, will those twenty get primaried?
Indeed, could they be recalled?
To switch to plurality voting there will need to be a majority of Reps who are willing to do so. So it requires cross-party buy in (assuming the awkward squad don’t back it - and why would they?
The rest of the GOP won’t switch to plurality unless it guarantees a GOP speaker.
So unless McCarthy steps aside or manages to broker a deal in the next couple of days I think this saga still has a bit to run.
Recall I think depends on whether the particular state allows it but someone with greater knowledge of US politics will probably set me right on that.
Why would you need a majority of Republicans? You just need 10 of them.
I should have written representatives (which is what I meant) rather than Reps, that muddied the water somewhat!
Not sure how you get those 10 to do so though unless it guarantees a GOP speaker. Otherwise they are de facto voting for a Democratic speaker which I cant see.
I suppose if they force through plurality with democratic help they can try and call Boebert et als bluff by saying “vote McCarthy or get Jeffreys,” but it’s a high risk strategy.
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Making us join the euro could well be the EU's insurance against us deciding to leave again.
I flew to the EU and back last week. Queueing to get into Finland and back into the UK was no more than 3 or 4 minutes in either direction. Cutting out a 3 or 4 minute queue once every few years doesn't seem a massive gain to me.
The idea that "absolutely no checks on anyone coming in from Romania" is going to be anything but a big vote loser for Rejoin is laughable.
The thing is the British are a cynical lot, and tend to be skeptical about whatever you are talking about. You have a debate about the EU, there is a tendency to say the EU is bullshit. You have a debate about Brexit, there is a tendency to say Brexit is bullshit. The current polling reflects the latter. An actual Rejoin campaign would reflect the former.
Anyway, can't the rozzers look into Willy attacking Harry, as they do like to act on historical crimes? Harry must surely want to prosecute as he was physical injured and he's confident enough in the truth to commit it to the public record. Wouldn't it be in William's interest to clear his name after being accused of assault? This could get tasty!
Nether of them have made stupid threats on Twitter. Why would the police be interested?
Police Superintendent Savage is far more interested in the numbers of people arrested for asking for black coffee. While wearing a loud shirt in a built up area.
If he were interested in actual crimes, he’d still be Sargeant Savage.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
A simpler life, dying at 43 with rotten teeth.
A common misconception. Medieval peasant teeth were actually less likely to be bad than modern as there was little sugar in the diet.
And, once you factor out child mortality, life expectancy was about 55-60. Roughly the same as a male from Glasgow today.
Aaaand we're back onto the length of a Scottish generation.
Got me wondering what the origin of the "Aaaand we're back" meme is. From the hypnotist in Little Britain perhaps ("aaand you're back in the room")?
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
Ummm - you didn't have high streets. That's a Georgian thing at the earliest.
You had guild streets, but only in boroughs. Most people lived a long way from boroughs and did their own butchering, baking and smithing, and even leatherwork and cloth making.
There were plenty of professional butchers, bakers and blacksmiths in the Middle Ages, more probably percentage wise of the population than now
Seems like there has been some progress in the last 24 hours in The Speaker Saga, but no-one seems to know if it will be enough to make anyone change their vote, and there also seems to be a hardcore subset of the 20 rebels who are simply digging their heels in and refusing to back McCarthy come what may.
If the House follows precedent, switches to plurality voting and the Dems win the Speakership as a result, will those twenty get primaried?
Indeed, could they be recalled?
To switch to plurality voting there will need to be a majority of Reps who are willing to do so. So it requires cross-party buy in (assuming the awkward squad don’t back it - and why would they?
The rest of the GOP won’t switch to plurality unless it guarantees a GOP speaker.
So unless McCarthy steps aside or manages to broker a deal in the next couple of days I think this saga still has a bit to run.
Recall I think depends on whether the particular state allows it but someone with greater knowledge of US politics will probably set me right on that.
Why would you need a majority of Republicans? You just need 10 of them.
I should have written representatives (which is what I meant) rather than Reps, that muddied the water somewhat!
Not sure how you get those 10 to do so though unless it guarantees a GOP speaker. Otherwise they are de facto voting for a Democratic speaker which I cant see.
I suppose if they force through plurality with democratic help they can try and call Boebert et als bluff by saying “vote McCarthy or get Jeffreys,” but it’s a high risk strategy.
But project this forward. McCarthy has offered everything that is even halfway reasonable. Still it's not enough for them. The centrist Republicans won't vote for an actual freedom caucus nutter. So the 20 aren't going to get anything more. So they are going to do a week of this.
At that point might a handful of the most reasonable Republicans think screw this, my party is a joke. I will punish these nutters by showing them what they get. If the base hates them over it, they can defect to the Dems.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
I've always assumed the Tories' goal is the return of the workhouse, but now I see I have failed to understand the extent of their ambition - a full on return to serfdom.
It was the Whigs who denied poor relief to anyone not in the workhouse not the Tories
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Making us join the euro could well be the EU's insurance against us deciding to leave again.
I flew to the EU and back last week. Queueing to get into Finland and back into the UK was no more than 3 or 4 minutes in either direction. Cutting out a 3 or 4 minute queue once every few years doesn't seem a massive gain to me.
The idea that "absolutely no checks on anyone coming in from Romania" is going to be anything but a big vote loser for Rejoin is laughable.
The thing is the British are a cynical lot, and tend to be skeptical about whatever you are talking about. You have a debate about the EU, there is a tendency to say the EU is bullshit. You have a debate about Brexit, there is a tendency to say Brexit is bullshit. The current polling reflects the latter. An actual Rejoin campaign would reflect the former.
Yes, I think we probably need a few more years of Brexit first to allow time for Brits to get relatively poorer and new accession countries to get relatively richer. Ideally a situation where Brits are desperate to move to the EU in order to get well paid jobs, but the language barrier is a bit of an issue there.
Seems like there has been some progress in the last 24 hours in The Speaker Saga, but no-one seems to know if it will be enough to make anyone change their vote, and there also seems to be a hardcore subset of the 20 rebels who are simply digging their heels in and refusing to back McCarthy come what may.
Allowing open amendments on appropriations bills would not necessarily give the Gaetz crew the power they imagine. It's not inconceivable that we could see cross party agreements on popular spending measures.
At that point might a handful of the most reasonable Republicans think screw this, my party is a joke. I will punish these nutters by showing them what they get. If the base hates them over it, they can defect to the Dems.
The danger has to be they end up with someone they want even less than McCarthy, although I don't know who that is.
More evidence that a big Ukrainian counteroffensive may be just around the corner, and/or Russian military positions are weakening: the Russians are playing games again.
I suspect I will be proved wrong instantly by the idiots who thought a war in Ukraine was a good thing, but surely it would be mad for Belarus to get involved. There would be a high probability of the leadership getting overthrown or civil war that the incumbent would likely lose or Russia would have to put its depleted forces in to Belarus to prop up the regime.
Also, Belarus would be seen as fair game for direct attacks from Poland (and by proxy, NATO), in a way that Russia couldn’t be.
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Making us join the euro could well be the EU's insurance against us deciding to leave again.
I flew to the EU and back last week. Queueing to get into Finland and back into the UK was no more than 3 or 4 minutes in either direction. Cutting out a 3 or 4 minute queue once every few years doesn't seem a massive gain to me.
How very representative of typical UK to EU travel patterns
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Making us join the euro could well be the EU's insurance against us deciding to leave again.
I flew to the EU and back last week. Queueing to get into Finland and back into the UK was no more than 3 or 4 minutes in either direction. Cutting out a 3 or 4 minute queue once every few years doesn't seem a massive gain to me.
How very representative of typical UK to EU travel patterns
Well what is representative? It doesn't seem to me that massive queues to get into the EU and again to get back into the UK are typical. Certainly not if one excludes journeys which involve entering France.
More evidence that a big Ukrainian counteroffensive may be just around the corner, and/or Russian military positions are weakening: the Russians are playing games again.
I suspect I will be proved wrong instantly by the idiots who thought a war in Ukraine was a good thing, but surely it would be mad for Belarus to get involved. There would be a high probability of the leadership getting overthrown or civil war that the incumbent would likely lose or Russia would have to put its depleted forces in to Belarus to prop up the regime.
Also, Belarus would be seen as fair game for direct attacks from Poland (and by proxy, NATO), in a way that Russia couldn’t be.
A Belarus entry into the war potentially leads to the positive but dangerous scenario of violent revolution in Belarus, newly Western facing government and Russian intervention. Russia then fighting on 2 fronts in 2 countries at once. But unlike Ukraine, who are ready, Belarus would be rolled over quickly without external support.
I'm not sure Poland could intervene in that scenario though as it would still be directly in conflict with Russian forces. Ukraine could be invited in by the new government but that would stretch them too.
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Making us join the euro could well be the EU's insurance against us deciding to leave again.
I flew to the EU and back last week. Queueing to get into Finland and back into the UK was no more than 3 or 4 minutes in either direction. Cutting out a 3 or 4 minute queue once every few years doesn't seem a massive gain to me.
How very representative of typical UK to EU travel patterns
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Making us join the euro could well be the EU's insurance against us deciding to leave again.
I flew to the EU and back last week. Queueing to get into Finland and back into the UK was no more than 3 or 4 minutes in either direction. Cutting out a 3 or 4 minute queue once every few years doesn't seem a massive gain to me.
How very representative of typical UK to EU travel patterns
Well what is representative? It doesn't seem to me that massive queues to get into the EU and again to get back into the UK are typical. Certainly not if one excludes journeys which involve entering France.
I've travelled to a variety of EU countries well over a dozen times since Brexit and have noticed no delays over and above what would be expected pre-Brexit. It is a fake story.
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Making us join the euro could well be the EU's insurance against us deciding to leave again.
I flew to the EU and back last week. Queueing to get into Finland and back into the UK was no more than 3 or 4 minutes in either direction. Cutting out a 3 or 4 minute queue once every few years doesn't seem a massive gain to me.
How very representative of typical UK to EU travel patterns
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Making us join the euro could well be the EU's insurance against us deciding to leave again.
I flew to the EU and back last week. Queueing to get into Finland and back into the UK was no more than 3 or 4 minutes in either direction. Cutting out a 3 or 4 minute queue once every few years doesn't seem a massive gain to me.
How very representative of typical UK to EU travel patterns
Well what is representative? It doesn't seem to me that massive queues to get into the EU and again to get back into the UK are typical. Certainly not if one excludes journeys which involve entering France.
Anyway, can't the rozzers look into Willy attacking Harry, as they do like to act on historical crimes? Harry must surely want to prosecute as he was physical injured and he's confident enough in the truth to commit it to the public record. Wouldn't it be in William's interest to clear his name after being accused of assault? This could get tasty!
Nether of them have made stupid threats on Twitter. Why would the police be interested?
Police Superintendent Savage is far more interested in the numbers of people arrested for asking for black coffee. While wearing a loud shirt in a built up area.
If he were interested in actual crimes, he’d still be Sargeant Savage.
Exactly. Though more likely Constable Savage.
Some years ago, in Oxford, there was a constable who tried to beat the system. By staying late to do paperwork, he kept arresting people for crimes. Non fucking stop. Some people he arrested multiple times in the day. Each time he saw them do a crime, he arrested them. On one occasion he followed a car thief out of the magistrates court, when granted bail. In the car park of the court, the car thief attempted to steal a car....
His paperwork was top notch. He had the criminals bang to rights. So they eventually dealt with him as having poor fitness reports.
It was Hot Fuzz made real, but long before Hot Fuzz.
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Making us join the euro could well be the EU's insurance against us deciding to leave again.
I flew to the EU and back last week. Queueing to get into Finland and back into the UK was no more than 3 or 4 minutes in either direction. Cutting out a 3 or 4 minute queue once every few years doesn't seem a massive gain to me.
How very representative of typical UK to EU travel patterns
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Making us join the euro could well be the EU's insurance against us deciding to leave again.
I flew to the EU and back last week. Queueing to get into Finland and back into the UK was no more than 3 or 4 minutes in either direction. Cutting out a 3 or 4 minute queue once every few years doesn't seem a massive gain to me.
How very representative of typical UK to EU travel patterns
Well what is representative? It doesn't seem to me that massive queues to get into the EU and again to get back into the UK are typical. Certainly not if one excludes journeys which involve entering France.
Spain, Italy, Greece, Switzerland
Well from limited anecdotal experience, there haven't been massive queues entering Spain or Italy from the UK since Brexit (or returning). I don't know anyone who's been to Greece or Switzerland.
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Making us join the euro could well be the EU's insurance against us deciding to leave again.
I flew to the EU and back last week. Queueing to get into Finland and back into the UK was no more than 3 or 4 minutes in either direction. Cutting out a 3 or 4 minute queue once every few years doesn't seem a massive gain to me.
How very representative of typical UK to EU travel patterns
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Making us join the euro could well be the EU's insurance against us deciding to leave again.
I flew to the EU and back last week. Queueing to get into Finland and back into the UK was no more than 3 or 4 minutes in either direction. Cutting out a 3 or 4 minute queue once every few years doesn't seem a massive gain to me.
How very representative of typical UK to EU travel patterns
Well what is representative? It doesn't seem to me that massive queues to get into the EU and again to get back into the UK are typical. Certainly not if one excludes journeys which involve entering France.
Spain, Italy, Greece, Switzerland
Well from limited anecdotal experience, there haven't been massive queues entering Spain or Italy from the UK since Brexit (or returning). I don't know anyone who's been to Greece or Switzerland.
Been to Hamburg. The queues were all at security and effected all travellers.
This seems to be because all the passport booths were occupied by actual people.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
Ummm - you didn't have high streets. That's a Georgian thing at the earliest.
You had guild streets, but only in boroughs. Most people lived a long way from boroughs and did their own butchering, baking and smithing, and even leatherwork and cloth making.
There were plenty of professional butchers, bakers and blacksmiths in the Middle Ages, more probably percentage wise of the population than now
Did you just make that up? I doubt it with butchery: poshos ate a lot of hunted game which would be fealt with by hunt staff, not butchers. Peasants couldn't afford proper meat and what they got, they could butcher themselves. Bakers and blacksmiths are less likely to be DIY because it is cost ineffective to run a lot of little individual fires vs one central one.
More evidence that a big Ukrainian counteroffensive may be just around the corner, and/or Russian military positions are weakening: the Russians are playing games again.
I suspect I will be proved wrong instantly by the idiots who thought a war in Ukraine was a good thing, but surely it would be mad for Belarus to get involved. There would be a high probability of the leadership getting overthrown or civil war that the incumbent would likely lose or Russia would have to put its depleted forces in to Belarus to prop up the regime.
Also, Belarus would be seen as fair game for direct attacks from Poland (and by proxy, NATO), in a way that Russia couldn’t be.
Belarus and Russia have mutual defence obligations through membership of the Union State.
I suspect, if Belarus join the SMO, they will be leveraged into the Russian Federation by whatever quasi-legal artifice is necessary.
Seems like there has been some progress in the last 24 hours in The Speaker Saga, but no-one seems to know if it will be enough to make anyone change their vote, and there also seems to be a hardcore subset of the 20 rebels who are simply digging their heels in and refusing to back McCarthy come what may.
If the House follows precedent, switches to plurality voting and the Dems win the Speakership as a result, will those twenty get primaried?
Indeed, could they be recalled?
To switch to plurality voting there will need to be a majority of Reps who are willing to do so. So it requires cross-party buy in (assuming the awkward squad don’t back it - and why would they?
The rest of the GOP won’t switch to plurality unless it guarantees a GOP speaker.
So unless McCarthy steps aside or manages to broker a deal in the next couple of days I think this saga still has a bit to run.
Recall I think depends on whether the particular state allows it but someone with greater knowledge of US politics will probably set me right on that.
Why would you need a majority of Republicans? You just need 10 of them.
I should have written representatives (which is what I meant) rather than Reps, that muddied the water somewhat!
Not sure how you get those 10 to do so though unless it guarantees a GOP speaker. Otherwise they are de facto voting for a Democratic speaker which I cant see.
I suppose if they force through plurality with democratic help they can try and call Boebert et als bluff by saying “vote McCarthy or get Jeffreys,” but it’s a high risk strategy.
But project this forward. McCarthy has offered everything that is even halfway reasonable. Still it's not enough for them. The centrist Republicans won't vote for an actual freedom caucus nutter. So the 20 aren't going to get anything more. So they are going to do a week of this.
At that point might a handful of the most reasonable Republicans think screw this, my party is a joke. I will punish these nutters by showing them what they get. If the base hates them over it, they can defect to the Dems.
In a protracted crisis I suppose the above is possible, but it is probably worth reiterating that there are very few moderate Republicans left in the House caucus. Pretty much all of them would rather saw off their right foot with a rusty saw than be seen to be working in the interests of the Democratic Party.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
Ummm - you didn't have high streets. That's a Georgian thing at the earliest.
You had guild streets, but only in boroughs. Most people lived a long way from boroughs and did their own butchering, baking and smithing, and even leatherwork and cloth making.
There were plenty of professional butchers, bakers and blacksmiths in the Middle Ages, more probably percentage wise of the population than now
Did you just make that up? I doubt it with butchery: poshos ate a lot of hunted game which would be fealt with by hunt staff, not butchers. Peasants couldn't afford proper meat and what they got, they could butcher themselves. Bakers and blacksmiths are less likely to be DIY because it is cost ineffective to run a lot of little individual fires vs one central one.
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
The games that Sweden and others have played to avoid becoming part of the Euro are now explicitly outlawed when you join the EU.
So if we rejoin we would need to join the Euro.
Since 1999 all new EU members are obliged to commit to joining the euro *once certain criteria are met*. However, the mechanism by which Sweden has avoided joining is *by ensuring these criteria are not met*, namely by not joining ERM2. That mechanism is still available to any EU member old or new who wants to delay Euro membership, possibly indefinitely. More broadly, no EU member will ever be forced to join the Euro against its will for the simple reason that that would be far more damaging to the EU and the Euro than a country not joining.
"Dr Tina Peers graduated from Guys Hospital, London University, in 1983. She then qualified as a GP in 1987, working part time in General Practice for 7 years, whilst she had her 3 children. She then became lead clinician for Contraceptive Services, initially for East Surrey, then for the whole of Surrey, running the services from 1994 to 2018. She was particularly instrumental in developing the Young Peoples Contraception and Sexual Health Services in Surrey.
Dr Peers became a Consultant in Contraception and Reproductive Healthcare in 1996, and has years of experience managing complex contraceptive cases and helping women manage and maintain good health during and after the menopause. She started working with Mr Nick Panay at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital Menopause Clinic in 2016, being recognised by the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health as a Menopause Specialist in 2017."
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Making us join the euro could well be the EU's insurance against us deciding to leave again.
I flew to the EU and back last week. Queueing to get into Finland and back into the UK was no more than 3 or 4 minutes in either direction. Cutting out a 3 or 4 minute queue once every few years doesn't seem a massive gain to me.
How very representative of typical UK to EU travel patterns
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Making us join the euro could well be the EU's insurance against us deciding to leave again.
I flew to the EU and back last week. Queueing to get into Finland and back into the UK was no more than 3 or 4 minutes in either direction. Cutting out a 3 or 4 minute queue once every few years doesn't seem a massive gain to me.
How very representative of typical UK to EU travel patterns
Well what is representative? It doesn't seem to me that massive queues to get into the EU and again to get back into the UK are typical. Certainly not if one excludes journeys which involve entering France.
Spain, Italy, Greece, Switzerland
Well from limited anecdotal experience, there haven't been massive queues entering Spain or Italy from the UK since Brexit (or returning). I don't know anyone who's been to Greece or Switzerland.
I think the lanes thing is a bit of a red herring and is really just a choice for the airport. The more structural issue is the need for a passport officer to check the entry and exit dates of the tourist against the 90 day limit (even if cursory), and then find a clean page and stamp the passport. It adds let's say 10-20 seconds on to each check.
The issue seems to be with peak periods in peak locations where the time per passport is critical to whether a queue is manageable or massive.
Passport check with no entry-exit date check or stamping = a few seconds, passport check with the stamping = a few seconds more. If only 100 people are arriving off one flight and there are 3 or 4 booths open then no problem. If hundreds are arriving from different airlines then suddenly it's a problem.
That's the issue with queues - they have a tipping point. A bit like the Dickens quote about income and expenses.
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
The games that Sweden and others have played to avoid becoming part of the Euro are now explicitly outlawed when you join the EU.
"Dr Tina Peers graduated from Guys Hospital, London University, in 1983. She then qualified as a GP in 1987, working part time in General Practice for 7 years, whilst she had her 3 children. She then became lead clinician for Contraceptive Services, initially for East Surrey, then for the whole of Surrey, running the services from 1994 to 2018. She was particularly instrumental in developing the Young Peoples Contraception and Sexual Health Services in Surrey.
Dr Peers became a Consultant in Contraception and Reproductive Healthcare in 1996, and has years of experience managing complex contraceptive cases and helping women manage and maintain good health during and after the menopause. She started working with Mr Nick Panay at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital Menopause Clinic in 2016, being recognised by the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health as a Menopause Specialist in 2017."
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
Ummm - you didn't have high streets. That's a Georgian thing at the earliest.
You had guild streets, but only in boroughs. Most people lived a long way from boroughs and did their own butchering, baking and smithing, and even leatherwork and cloth making.
There were plenty of professional butchers, bakers and blacksmiths in the Middle Ages, more probably percentage wise of the population than now
Did you just make that up? I doubt it with butchery: poshos ate a lot of hunted game which would be fealt with by hunt staff, not butchers. Peasants couldn't afford proper meat and what they got, they could butcher themselves. Bakers and blacksmiths are less likely to be DIY because it is cost ineffective to run a lot of little individual fires vs one central one.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
A simpler life, dying at 43 with rotten teeth.
A common misconception. Medieval peasant teeth were actually less likely to be bad than modern as there was little sugar in the diet.
And, once you factor out child mortality, life expectancy was about 55-60. Roughly the same as a male from Glasgow today.
Aaaand we're back onto the length of a Scottish generation.
Noooooo! What have I done?!
Is ok. Nothing to worry about. @HYUFD won’t permit you to die as long as the Tories are in power; even if you want to.
.@beisgovuk confirms new legislation to ensure "minimum safety levels" in event of future strikes in blue light services, transport, education. Anti-strike legislation likely to be viewed as antagonistic comes with invitation to unions to join "honest" talks over 2023-24 pay https://twitter.com/pkelso/status/1611011761179607042/photo/1
Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.
In what other way could its popularity decline?
There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.
There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.
As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.
There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding
I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔
There's plenty of reason to think it, starting with the fact that there's been effectively no public disucssion of what rejoin would actually mean.
It's also not irreversible - but the Rejoin campaign would need to be a lot better than the Remain campaign was. Which shouldn't be hard, but if they have to sell the euro and Schengen...
Selling Schengen is easy - no queuing when you land at your holiday destination - just collect your bag and walk out the day.
Indeed. Travel issues are one of the drivers of changing opinion, as people encounter an annoying (if minor) downside which sets them thinking as to whether there is any actual upside.
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
The games that Sweden and others have played to avoid becoming part of the Euro are now explicitly outlawed when you join the EU.
So if we rejoin we would need to join the Euro.
Yes, I agree. And sans rebate.
Not going to happen.
But the Swedish tactic of not joining ERM2 is still available to any new member. The rebate has gone, of course, as has the explicit Euro opt-out, since we stupidly threw away the great deal that we had.
John Bull @garius · 16s Replying to @garius QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...
...does that get us back into the EU?
Yes.
Harry for King!
Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth
To be fair we nearly all are. Being a commoner I would likely be living in a mud hut, if I was lucky.
The Crown, aristocracy and Church (then still Roman Catholic here) had more power then so it was better for them.
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
Ummm - you didn't have high streets. That's a Georgian thing at the earliest.
You had guild streets, but only in boroughs. Most people lived a long way from boroughs and did their own butchering, baking and smithing, and even leatherwork and cloth making.
There were plenty of professional butchers, bakers and blacksmiths in the Middle Ages, more probably percentage wise of the population than now
Did you just make that up? I doubt it with butchery: poshos ate a lot of hunted game which would be fealt with by hunt staff, not butchers. Peasants couldn't afford proper meat and what they got, they could butcher themselves. Bakers and blacksmiths are less likely to be DIY because it is cost ineffective to run a lot of little individual fires vs one central one.
Comments
Even serfs arguably had a simpler life, working in the fields all day with a hut with a piece of land for their own basic needs even with lower life expectancy and provided they did not get into trouble with the law.
High streets in most towns also had a butcher and baker and blacksmith etc which not all of them have now
Almost as cool as having a Pope who used to be a the bouncer at a youth club in a dodgy area...
EDIT: You are talking to someone who treasures the Holocaust jokes told by rabbis. Bad taste is *required*
You had guild streets, but only in boroughs. Most people lived a long way from boroughs and did their own butchering, baking and smithing, and even leatherwork and cloth making.
(Yes, I know it really didn't happen in the UK, in your face Braveheart.)
Exhibits 1 and 2: Nuclear blackmail (bad cop)
https://twitter.com/noelreports/status/1610981422952595457?s=46&t=GwKjW-3HBy82zilJXgDH9w
https://twitter.com/ap/status/1610749164350017538?s=46&t=GwKjW-3HBy82zilJXgDH9w
Plus a bit of Belarus waylaying
https://twitter.com/deitaone/status/1610985965195038721?s=46&t=GwKjW-3HBy82zilJXgDH9w
Exhibits 3 and 4: Truce and ceasefire noises (good cop)
https://twitter.com/kyivindependent/status/1610978581449940993?s=46&t=GwKjW-3HBy82zilJXgDH9w
https://twitter.com/kyivindependent/status/1610984359707938817?s=46&t=GwKjW-3HBy82zilJXgDH9w
And fare-dodging on the trains was unhead of.
So when somebody renounces it they can say they've given up OPE.
There was masses of accountancy fraud as well - bet mucking with the abacuses was a thing.
I'll get my coat - it's the one with the registration of land in excess of the Senatorial census in the pocket.
Is there a "y" in the name of the day, again?
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and still isn’t in the Euro. If we didn’t want to join, I doubt we would be obliged to - in extremis rules can be changed or bent - the bigger question is whether we’d be welcome.
Wheat was ground between stones so you got lots of essentially rock dust in your bread, which wore the teeth down.
Which is why "want to rejoin but finding it logistically impossible" would be such an unpleasant place to end up. Especially for the Conservatives.
Meanwhile, Alister Heath in today's Brexitgraph;
The sorry truth is that Britain's fall from grace has been more extreme, more sudden, less explicable and far less forgiveable. We should be doing so much better, especially after Brexit..."
https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/1610860209420787715
Indeed, could they be recalled?
I'm surprised that Belarus has managed to avoid sending its own army in to Ukraine.
https://www.sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-not-a-modern-phenomenon.php#.Y7bX3n3LdQE
Also the child mortality, of ones children and siblings, was one of the most shit aspects of life even for the survivors
If the senate is deadlocked like this after a Presidential election, they can't certify the winner...
Interestingly, one of the main reasons for their disappearance was the growth of towns and the labour demands of the mercantile class in the late medieval period, and the re-emergence of coinage as an abstracted currency of exchange.
Those kind of numbers are what drives strong tactical voting, providing the alternative doesn't look too scary (and it doesn't).
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1611000636170014720
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1610999673455611906
The rest of the GOP won’t switch to plurality unless it guarantees a GOP speaker.
So unless McCarthy steps aside or manages to broker a deal in the next couple of days I think this saga still has a bit to run.
Recall I think depends on whether the particular state allows it but someone with greater knowledge of US politics will probably set me right on that.
So if we rejoin we would need to join the Euro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOMrgFYfDIE
I believe it’s the outgoing congress that certifies the electoral vote as it’s final action, so that would happen before the new house meets and hence you wouldn’t encounter that issue.
Not sure of the situation if a speaker hasn’t been elected by that previous outgoing congress - though that would mean 2 years without a speaker and I think they would have a lot more to worry about in that situation.
Not sure how you get those 10 to do so though unless it guarantees a GOP speaker. Otherwise they are de facto voting for a Democratic speaker which I cant see.
I suppose if they force through plurality with democratic help they can try and call Boebert et als bluff by saying “vote McCarthy or get Jeffreys,” but it’s a high risk strategy.
The thing is the British are a cynical lot, and tend to be skeptical about whatever you are talking about. You have a debate about the EU, there is a tendency to say the EU is bullshit. You have a debate about Brexit, there is a tendency to say Brexit is bullshit. The current polling reflects the latter. An actual Rejoin campaign would reflect the former.
At that point might a handful of the most reasonable Republicans think screw this, my party is a joke. I will punish these nutters by showing them what they get. If the base hates them over it, they can defect to the Dems.
https://www.politico.com/playbook
Allowing open amendments on appropriations bills would not necessarily give the Gaetz crew the power they imagine.
It's not inconceivable that we could see cross party agreements on popular spending measures.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes...
I'm not sure Poland could intervene in that scenario though as it would still be directly in conflict with Russian forces. Ukraine could be invited in by the new government but that would stretch them too.
http://thepeoplesflag.blogspot.com/2023/01/opinion-polling-for-december-2022.html
Some years ago, in Oxford, there was a constable who tried to beat the system. By staying late to do paperwork, he kept arresting people for crimes. Non fucking stop. Some people he arrested multiple times in the day. Each time he saw them do a crime, he arrested them. On one occasion he followed a car thief out of the magistrates court, when granted bail. In the car park of the court, the car thief attempted to steal a car....
His paperwork was top notch. He had the criminals bang to rights. So they eventually dealt with him as having poor fitness reports.
It was Hot Fuzz made real, but long before Hot Fuzz.
This seems to be because all the passport booths were occupied by actual people.
I suspect, if Belarus join the SMO, they will be leveraged into the Russian Federation by whatever quasi-legal artifice is necessary.
https://hormonehealth.co.uk/team/dr-tina-peers
"Dr Tina Peers graduated from Guys Hospital, London University, in 1983. She then qualified as a GP in 1987, working part time in General Practice for 7 years, whilst she had her 3 children. She then became lead clinician for Contraceptive Services, initially for East Surrey, then for the whole of Surrey, running the services from 1994 to 2018. She was particularly instrumental in developing the Young Peoples Contraception and Sexual Health Services in Surrey.
Dr Peers became a Consultant in Contraception and Reproductive Healthcare in 1996, and has years of experience managing complex contraceptive cases and helping women manage and maintain good health during and after the menopause. She started working with Mr Nick Panay at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital Menopause Clinic in 2016, being recognised by the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health as a Menopause Specialist in 2017."
The issue seems to be with peak periods in peak locations where the time per passport is critical to whether a queue is manageable or massive.
Passport check with no entry-exit date check or stamping = a few seconds, passport check with the stamping = a few seconds more. If only 100 people are arriving off one flight and there are 3 or 4 booths open then no problem. If hundreds are arriving from different airlines then suddenly it's a problem.
That's the issue with queues - they have a tipping point. A bit like the Dickens quote about income and expenses.
Not going to happen.