Ciaran: 90mph gust already recorded in Western Brittany, and we are hours from the peak there. Highest winds of the storm will be slap bang over Guernsey and Alderney around 4am. Likely to peak at 110-115mph. Near record speeds.
The strongest mainland winds will be around rush-hour time in Sussex, likely to reach 85-90mph. Damaging especially with trees in leaf, but not the worst we've seen. However, there is a definite sting-jet forming, which could give us a arrow ribbon of higher winds dragged down from aloft. Signs of the characteristic hook and sting shape on the NW of the depression and evaporative subsidence.
EDIT: 59mph gust recorded just now on the Isle of Portland. Many hours away from the peak still.
Don't most of the leaves just shed as the wind rises?
Not yet. If this were mid November then yes, but at the moment there's enough sticking power for them to act as sails on the trees. Most of the trees around here are still largely green.
"There have been many claims that the damage to forestry was made worse by broadleaf trees still being in leaf at the time of the storm, though this was not borne out by an analysis by the Forestry Commission.[25]"
The most surprising thing about that (to me) is the Tory figure. Given that their vote in the Central Belt must surely be haemmorrhaging , their vote in their rural heartlands must be rock hard. Then again, maybe this is an outlier. Humza must hope so otherwise he's gonna find himself a soft kernel in an electoral nutcracker.
According to R& W, the Tories are down 20% overall, but over performing in Scotland, Wales, and the Red Wall seats.
From 1997-2016, the Tories’ floor was 15% in Scotland, now more like 20%.
Biden leads 47% to 46% for Trump without Kennedy, so RFK now hitting Trump more than Biden. Kennedy wins 36% of Independents, 14% of Republicans but just 12% of Democrats. Kennedy also leads with voters aged 18-34 on 38% to 32% for Biden and 27% for Trump.
'In the Republican primary race, former President Donald Trump receives 64 percent support among Republican and Republican leaning voters, followed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis with 15 percent support; former United Nations Ambassador and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley with 8 percent support; and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy with 3 percent support each.'
It always seemed pretty likely to me that this would be the case, and I was a bit surprised by some of the initial findings that it would hurt Biden more.
Kennedy appeals to that anti-politics, conspiracist mentality that MAGA chimes so closely with.
Ciaran: 90mph gust already recorded in Western Brittany, and we are hours from the peak there. Highest winds of the storm will be slap bang over Guernsey and Alderney around 4am. Likely to peak at 110-115mph. Near record speeds.
The strongest mainland winds will be around rush-hour time in Sussex, likely to reach 85-90mph. Damaging especially with trees in leaf, but not the worst we've seen. However, there is a definite sting-jet forming, which could give us a arrow ribbon of higher winds dragged down from aloft. Signs of the characteristic hook and sting shape on the NW of the depression and evaporative subsidence.
And instead so far all the focus seems to be on how rude Big Dom was to people etc and lots of people all pointing at a) Boris and b) everybody but themselves. And the media lapping up the drawm.
I haven't followed the enquiry, but judging from what's been in the news the last few days it appears to be descending into a farce. If this is considered a good use of time I wonder if there's really any point to it at all.
If it only concludes that Boris and those in Downing Street was useless then yes it will have been a huge wasted opportunity. Maybe in the further phases will we get past the soap opera stuff, but we will see.
Because if we get another national emergency and even an anti-Boris is in charge, unless there is significant reform, most of the same shit will happen.
I have no doubt we will learn lessons about how to deal with coronavirus pandemics, but I doubt that we will learn much about how to prepare for large scale emergencies more generally, and give it a few decades I'm sure that in the name of cost savings we will undo whatever good does come out of it all.
Already have. The vaccine etc research/innovation centre was shut down and scrapped alarmingly quickly.
I don't think it was shut down, it was sold off.
Now I was very critical of this, but MaxPB, who I think knows more about this stuff (and no Boris fan), said actually this wasn't a crazy decision, as it will allow continued private / public partnerships to develop with funding that wouldn't otherwise be forthcoming.
Kate Bingham is not a fan of the decision, and she may know even more than our MaxPB about it (possibly).
Biden leads 47% to 46% for Trump without Kennedy, so RFK now hitting Trump more than Biden. Kennedy wins 36% of Independents, 14% of Republicans but just 12% of Democrats. Kennedy also leads with voters aged 18-34 on 38% to 32% for Biden and 27% for Trump. Kennedy also beats Trump with Black and Hispanic voters.
'In the Republican primary race, former President Donald Trump receives 64 percent support among Republican and Republican leaning voters, followed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis with 15 percent support; former United Nations Ambassador and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley with 8 percent support; and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy with 3 percent support each.'
If RFK is taking more votes off Trump than Biden, for the sake of the world I hope he stays in the race.
We are a nation of Martyrs...says bloke living in luxury in Qatar.
And if so, Israel will bomb the shit out of Gaza “a 2nd, 3rd & 4th time again” in order to teach Hamas a lesson.
Although, I suspect the Spokesman's words are cheap. As Israel will set up a 2km kill zone inside Gaza - anything moving inside it will be shot. Or hit a mine. Or both, just to make sure.
Ciaran: 90mph gust already recorded in Western Brittany, and we are hours from the peak there. Highest winds of the storm will be slap bang over Guernsey and Alderney around 4am. Likely to peak at 110-115mph. Near record speeds.
The strongest mainland winds will be around rush-hour time in Sussex, likely to reach 85-90mph. Damaging especially with trees in leaf, but not the worst we've seen. However, there is a definite sting-jet forming, which could give us a arrow ribbon of higher winds dragged down from aloft. Signs of the characteristic hook and sting shape on the NW of the depression and evaporative subsidence.
EDIT: 59mph gust recorded just now on the Isle of Portland. Many hours away from the peak still.
Don't most of the leaves just shed as the wind rises?
Not yet. If this were mid November then yes, but at the moment there's enough sticking power for them to act as sails on the trees. Most of the trees around here are still largely green.
My beech trees are largely bare.
The ash are largely moribund from Ash Die Back
My trees are still largely in leaf, so I hope the storm misses us. Sorry to hear about your Ash trees. I have quite a few and all are still healthy. From the girths I age nearly all of them at over 150 years and one at about 300 years, which is about as old as they get. I do have one that is probably no more than 25 years old and still well. Just over a mile away are the Surrey Hills. Every Ash tree has died, although I note that there are no old ones, which I assume were all lost in the 87 storm. Does anyone know if maturity provides protection?
Biden leads 47% to 46% for Trump without Kennedy, so RFK now hitting Trump more than Biden. Kennedy wins 36% of Independents, 14% of Republicans but just 12% of Democrats. Kennedy also leads with voters aged 18-34 on 38% to 32% for Biden and 27% for Trump. Kennedy also beats Trump with Black and Hispanic voters.
'In the Republican primary race, former President Donald Trump receives 64 percent support among Republican and Republican leaning voters, followed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis with 15 percent support; former United Nations Ambassador and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley with 8 percent support; and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy with 3 percent support each.'
Well at least we can take comfort that Ramaswamy is propping up the heap.
Ciaran: 90mph gust already recorded in Western Brittany, and we are hours from the peak there. Highest winds of the storm will be slap bang over Guernsey and Alderney around 4am. Likely to peak at 110-115mph. Near record speeds.
The strongest mainland winds will be around rush-hour time in Sussex, likely to reach 85-90mph. Damaging especially with trees in leaf, but not the worst we've seen. However, there is a definite sting-jet forming, which could give us a arrow ribbon of higher winds dragged down from aloft. Signs of the characteristic hook and sting shape on the NW of the depression and evaporative subsidence.
I feel like this would really irritate me as a juror, but surprisingly it seems to work sometimes. I do actually appreciate passionate campaigners who have pushed boundaries to get attention, but when they basically say their beliefs mean the law does not apply even on pretty basic things, confidently asserting things like expression and belief mean they could not be found guilty (rather than simply insisting it was justified.
'Duty of care' is a similarly misused concept, which people assert means any body they like must do everything they want.
During the preparations for Gail Bradbrook's trial in July this year, the former scientist, who did not have a lawyer, said she intended to tell jurors that she could not be found guilty because of her right to freedom of expression and that she was also trying to prevent a greater crime of climate destruction.
She also argued that breaking the glass had been legally necessary and it was possible that government officials may have consented had they known why she was doing it.
Judge Martin Edmunds KC ruled none of these arguments were valid legal defences that a jury could consider - but Dr Bradbrook then repeatedly tried to turn to them in her evidence, arguing that she was otherwise being silenced.
The judge stopped the hearing and gave a rare warning that he may have to decide the case alone under seldom-used powers originally drawn up to prevent gangsters influencing juries.
"It is evident that Dr Bradbrook, by reference to her beliefs, considers either that the rules that apply to every other criminal defendant do not apply to her or that she is entitled to disregard them," said the judge in his July ruling. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67288289
Biden leads 47% to 46% for Trump without Kennedy, so RFK now hitting Trump more than Biden. Kennedy wins 36% of Independents, 14% of Republicans but just 12% of Democrats. Kennedy also leads with voters aged 18-34 on 38% to 32% for Biden and 27% for Trump. Kennedy also beats Trump with Black and Hispanic voters.
'In the Republican primary race, former President Donald Trump receives 64 percent support among Republican and Republican leaning voters, followed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis with 15 percent support; former United Nations Ambassador and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley with 8 percent support; and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy with 3 percent support each.'
If RFK is taking more votes off Trump than Biden, for the sake of the world I hope he stays in the race.
If he did get 22% it would also beat Perot's 19% in 1992 and be the highest 3rd party vote since the 27% for Teddy Roosevelt in 1912
Ciaran: 90mph gust already recorded in Western Brittany, and we are hours from the peak there. Highest winds of the storm will be slap bang over Guernsey and Alderney around 4am. Likely to peak at 110-115mph. Near record speeds.
The strongest mainland winds will be around rush-hour time in Sussex, likely to reach 85-90mph. Damaging especially with trees in leaf, but not the worst we've seen. However, there is a definite sting-jet forming, which could give us a arrow ribbon of higher winds dragged down from aloft. Signs of the characteristic hook and sting shape on the NW of the depression and evaporative subsidence.
EDIT: 59mph gust recorded just now on the Isle of Portland. Many hours away from the peak still.
Don't most of the leaves just shed as the wind rises?
Not yet. If this were mid November then yes, but at the moment there's enough sticking power for them to act as sails on the trees. Most of the trees around here are still largely green.
My beech trees are largely bare.
The ash are largely moribund from Ash Die Back
All of mine - Ash, beech, Oak and Sycamore - are largely still in leaf. The only ones that have had large scale defoliation so far are the Horse Chestnuts. I am very much hoping the high winds stay down south.
We are a nation of Martyrs...says bloke living in luxury in Qatar.
i doubt he is that safe even in Qatar saying stuff like that - I think the Israelis are after hamas full stop
Perhaps his might have a funny reaction to his tea or slip and fall off a balcony...
I think that generally speaking the Israelis are not too bothered about making things look like an accident, they are quite happy to shoot, bomb, or throttle terrorists that they can get their hands on. I suppose they are keen to send a message. And they do not forgive or forget.
My view that Yousaf is doing ok is not reflected in the data... 😬
Does that make you a Scotch Expert?
I'm trying to think of a reason why the SNP are doing badly despite the effectiveness of Yousaf, but struggling somewhat.
I'll cling to the idea that there is a slow, seismic shift away from Indy and Yousaf is a victim of it.
OTOH, given Labour's rather lacklustre defence of Net Zero, I'm surprised they haven't made a bigger deal of Scotland's green energy supply, which is looking increasingly good. I reckon that's the escape route for Indy supporters.
The basic problem for Yousaf I think is that he lacks the personal loyalty of voters or his colleagues that Sturgeon or before her, Salmond, engendered by having taken the SNP so far. That skated over all manner of differences of opinion and personal rivalries. Few ever questioned Sturgeon's decisions but with Yousaf, because he wasn't an architect of the party's success lots think they know better where the party should go. There have also been chickens coming home to roost.
Parties often have issues when they have to move to the next generation after a successful one. Look at Labour when New Labour's SpAd cast took over. It's exacerbated by the fact that on some pretty big issues the SNP is divided. And there are now plausible alternatives in Labour looking like they may form a UK government, or now Alba if you're pro-indy but uncomfortable with its progressive turn. Plus internally Forbes and her supporters are clearly smarting and would love to put the knife in when appropriate.
Salmond and Sturgeon, whatever one thinks of them, were top notch political operators. Yousaf doesn't appear to be. It's rare to get three in a row for any Party.
Yup. Though he's performed maybe a little better than expected - not been quite the walking disaster some were predicting. It's just the nature of things. When you have two big figures who were so integral in their party's rise, they have a certain authority that means mistakes and divisions are glossed over or parked. Yousaf now has to deal with all those and lacks the authority to get away with it.
My view that Yousaf is doing ok is not reflected in the data... 😬
Does that make you a Scotch Expert?
I'm trying to think of a reason why the SNP are doing badly despite the effectiveness of Yousaf, but struggling somewhat.
I'll cling to the idea that there is a slow, seismic shift away from Indy and Yousaf is a victim of it.
OTOH, given Labour's rather lacklustre defence of Net Zero, I'm surprised they haven't made a bigger deal of Scotland's green energy supply, which is looking increasingly good. I reckon that's the escape route for Indy supporters.
The basic problem for Yousaf I think is that he lacks the personal loyalty of voters or his colleagues that Sturgeon or before her, Salmond, engendered by having taken the SNP so far. That skated over all manner of differences of opinion and personal rivalries. Few ever questioned Sturgeon's decisions but with Yousaf, because he wasn't an architect of the party's success lots think they know better where the party should go. There have also been chickens coming home to roost.
Parties often have issues when they have to move to the next generation after a successful one. Look at Labour when New Labour's SpAd cast took over. It's exacerbated by the fact that on some pretty big issues the SNP is divided. And there are now plausible alternatives in Labour looking like they may form a UK government, or now Alba if you're pro-indy but uncomfortable with its progressive turn. Plus internally Forbes and her supporters are clearly smarting and would love to put the knife in when appropriate.
Salmond and Sturgeon, whatever one thinks of them, were top notch political operators. Yousaf doesn't appear to be. It's rare to get three in a row for any Party.
I think his fundamental problem is he pretty much said during his leadership campaign that if 'Nicola Sturgeon couldn't get independence/indyref2, who could?' If she couldn't, does anybody really believe Humsa Yousaf could? The result is the SNP just look tired and out of ideas, and he's inherited the iffy (if not outright dodgy) legacy Sturgeon left behind. Combine that with the fact voters in the central belt very much want the Tories out of office in Westminster, and you see why we are where we are.
"There have been many claims that the damage to forestry was made worse by broadleaf trees still being in leaf at the time of the storm, though this was not borne out by an analysis by the Forestry Commission.[25]"
Ciaran: 90mph gust already recorded in Western Brittany, and we are hours from the peak there. Highest winds of the storm will be slap bang over Guernsey and Alderney around 4am. Likely to peak at 110-115mph. Near record speeds.
The strongest mainland winds will be around rush-hour time in Sussex, likely to reach 85-90mph. Damaging especially with trees in leaf, but not the worst we've seen. However, there is a definite sting-jet forming, which could give us a arrow ribbon of higher winds dragged down from aloft. Signs of the characteristic hook and sting shape on the NW of the depression and evaporative subsidence.
EDIT: 59mph gust recorded just now on the Isle of Portland. Many hours away from the peak still.
Don't most of the leaves just shed as the wind rises?
Not yet. If this were mid November then yes, but at the moment there's enough sticking power for them to act as sails on the trees. Most of the trees around here are still largely green.
My beech trees are largely bare.
The ash are largely moribund from Ash Die Back
My trees are still largely in leaf, so I hope the storm misses us. Sorry to hear about your Ash trees. I have quite a few and all are still healthy. From the girths I age nearly all of them at over 150 years and one at about 300 years, which is about as old as they get. I do have one that is probably no more than 25 years old and still well. Just over a mile away are the Surrey Hills. Every Ash tree has died, although I note that there are no old ones, which I assume were all lost in the 87 storm. Does anyone know if maturity provides protection?
Don’t know about that although I know the latest tree disease killing olives in Southern Europe has been killing old and young alike.
If you’re as far inland as the Surrey Hills then you won’t get much wind. This is sticking to the coast and channel.
Biden leads 47% to 46% for Trump without Kennedy, so RFK now hitting Trump more than Biden. Kennedy wins 36% of Independents, 14% of Republicans but just 12% of Democrats. Kennedy also leads with voters aged 18-34 on 38% to 32% for Biden and 27% for Trump.
'In the Republican primary race, former President Donald Trump receives 64 percent support among Republican and Republican leaning voters, followed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis with 15 percent support; former United Nations Ambassador and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley with 8 percent support; and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy with 3 percent support each.'
It always seemed pretty likely to me that this would be the case, and I was a bit surprised by some of the initial findings that it would hurt Biden more.
Kennedy appeals to that anti-politics, conspiracist mentality that MAGA chimes so closely with.
The polling showing him taking votes from Biden was just people confusing him with a different Kennedy.
My view that Yousaf is doing ok is not reflected in the data... 😬
Does that make you a Scotch Expert?
I'm trying to think of a reason why the SNP are doing badly despite the effectiveness of Yousaf, but struggling somewhat.
I'll cling to the idea that there is a slow, seismic shift away from Indy and Yousaf is a victim of it.
OTOH, given Labour's rather lacklustre defence of Net Zero, I'm surprised they haven't made a bigger deal of Scotland's green energy supply, which is looking increasingly good. I reckon that's the escape route for Indy supporters.
The basic problem for Yousaf I think is that he lacks the personal loyalty of voters or his colleagues that Sturgeon or before her, Salmond, engendered by having taken the SNP so far. That skated over all manner of differences of opinion and personal rivalries. Few ever questioned Sturgeon's decisions but with Yousaf, because he wasn't an architect of the party's success lots think they know better where the party should go. There have also been chickens coming home to roost.
Parties often have issues when they have to move to the next generation after a successful one. Look at Labour when New Labour's SpAd cast took over. It's exacerbated by the fact that on some pretty big issues the SNP is divided. And there are now plausible alternatives in Labour looking like they may form a UK government, or now Alba if you're pro-indy but uncomfortable with its progressive turn. Plus internally Forbes and her supporters are clearly smarting and would love to put the knife in when appropriate.
Salmond and Sturgeon, whatever one thinks of them, were top notch political operators. Yousaf doesn't appear to be. It's rare to get three in a row for any Party.
Yup. Though he's performed maybe a little better than expected - not been quite the walking disaster some were predicting. It's just the nature of things. When you have two big figures who were so integral in their party's rise, they have a certain authority that means mistakes and divisions are glossed over or parked. Yousaf now has to deal with all those and lacks the authority to get away with it.
Also, I suspect (from many miles away) that some of the drive for Sindy was the feeling that it was the only way of getting away from a country run by the Conservatives. EdM (too dweeby) and Jez (too... where to begin?) weren't seen as being able to save anyone from anything.
Now that Starmer looks like winning, the calculation changes. Sometimes the difference between success and failure is just being in the right place at the right time. How many Conservative politicians are going to miss out on a significant ministerial career because their prime years are going to be spent in opposition? Claire Coutinho, for example?
Biden leads 47% to 46% for Trump without Kennedy, so RFK now hitting Trump more than Biden. Kennedy wins 36% of Independents, 14% of Republicans but just 12% of Democrats. Kennedy also leads with voters aged 18-34 on 38% to 32% for Biden and 27% for Trump.
'In the Republican primary race, former President Donald Trump receives 64 percent support among Republican and Republican leaning voters, followed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis with 15 percent support; former United Nations Ambassador and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley with 8 percent support; and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy with 3 percent support each.'
It always seemed pretty likely to me that this would be the case, and I was a bit surprised by some of the initial findings that it would hurt Biden more.
Kennedy appeals to that anti-politics, conspiracist mentality that MAGA chimes so closely with.
The polling showing him taking votes from Biden was just people confusing him with a different Kennedy.
From many previous threads: "Supreme Court justices across the ideological divide seemed skeptical Wednesday that a California lawyer has a free-speech right to trademark the double-entendre phrase “Trump Too Small” for use on T-shirts criticizing former president Donald Trump." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/01/trump-too-small-supreme-court-elster/
Regardless of the Court's decision, you'll be able to buy a T-shirt here: Trumptoosmall.com
(If, like me, you don't like Trump, and have a dirty mind, you'll enjoy the picture they use on their T-shirts.)
My view that Yousaf is doing ok is not reflected in the data... 😬
Does that make you a Scotch Expert?
I'm trying to think of a reason why the SNP are doing badly despite the effectiveness of Yousaf, but struggling somewhat.
I'll cling to the idea that there is a slow, seismic shift away from Indy and Yousaf is a victim of it.
OTOH, given Labour's rather lacklustre defence of Net Zero, I'm surprised they haven't made a bigger deal of Scotland's green energy supply, which is looking increasingly good. I reckon that's the escape route for Indy supporters.
The basic problem for Yousaf I think is that he lacks the personal loyalty of voters or his colleagues that Sturgeon or before her, Salmond, engendered by having taken the SNP so far. That skated over all manner of differences of opinion and personal rivalries. Few ever questioned Sturgeon's decisions but with Yousaf, because he wasn't an architect of the party's success lots think they know better where the party should go. There have also been chickens coming home to roost.
Parties often have issues when they have to move to the next generation after a successful one. Look at Labour when New Labour's SpAd cast took over. It's exacerbated by the fact that on some pretty big issues the SNP is divided. And there are now plausible alternatives in Labour looking like they may form a UK government, or now Alba if you're pro-indy but uncomfortable with its progressive turn. Plus internally Forbes and her supporters are clearly smarting and would love to put the knife in when appropriate.
Plus, the SNP as ThePluckyOppositionButInGovernment thing has run out of road. They’ve been in charge and are obviously responsible for a lot of stuff.
And instead so far all the focus seems to be on how rude Big Dom was to people etc and lots of people all pointing at a) Boris and b) everybody but themselves. And the media lapping up the drawm.
I haven't followed the enquiry, but judging from what's been in the news the last few days it appears to be descending into a farce. If this is considered a good use of time I wonder if there's really any point to it at all.
If it only concludes that Boris and those in Downing Street was useless then yes it will have been a huge wasted opportunity. Maybe in the further phases will we get past the soap opera stuff, but we will see.
Because if we get another national emergency and even an anti-Boris is in charge, unless there is significant reform, most of the same shit will happen.
I have no doubt we will learn lessons about how to deal with coronavirus pandemics, but I doubt that we will learn much about how to prepare for large scale emergencies more generally, and give it a few decades I'm sure that in the name of cost savings we will undo whatever good does come out of it all.
Already have. The vaccine etc research/innovation centre was shut down and scrapped alarmingly quickly.
I don't think it was shut down, it was sold off.
Now I was very critical of this, but MaxPB, who I think knows more about this stuff (and no Boris fan), said actually this wasn't a crazy decision, as it will allow continued private / public partnerships to develop with funding that wouldn't otherwise be forthcoming.
Hmm. But sold off = out of state control. So it can be shut down, or diverted to producing some Viagra substitute, whenever some venture capitalist wants, no? And bugger the imperatives of public health.
The company who bought it develop and manufacture biologic therapies and vaccines, including mRNA, proteins, and other advanced modalities. So no they won't be making Viagra.
But yes, I personally think it was a wasted opportunity. Just like the scraping of the task force to reduce our reliance on China for crucial products like precursor chemicals.
The latter too - as a basic security measure, whatever the supplier. No matter which state is the current provider.
Brief bit of Mac geekery. Macbook currently rendering this week's Just Get A Tesla video and it is slightly warm to the touch. I think the Max chip is probably overkill for what I render (though it makes it fast!) - but as it keeps using 20-22GB of RAM, the upgrade from 16 was needed.
I feel like this would really irritate me as a juror, but surprisingly it seems to work sometimes. I do actually appreciate passionate campaigners who have pushed boundaries to get attention, but when they basically say their beliefs mean the law does not apply even on pretty basic things, confidently asserting things like expression and belief mean they could not be found guilty (rather than simply insisting it was justified.
'Duty of care' is a similarly misused concept, which people assert means any body they like must do everything they want.
During the preparations for Gail Bradbrook's trial in July this year, the former scientist, who did not have a lawyer, said she intended to tell jurors that she could not be found guilty because of her right to freedom of expression and that she was also trying to prevent a greater crime of climate destruction.
She also argued that breaking the glass had been legally necessary and it was possible that government officials may have consented had they known why she was doing it.
Judge Martin Edmunds KC ruled none of these arguments were valid legal defences that a jury could consider - but Dr Bradbrook then repeatedly tried to turn to them in her evidence, arguing that she was otherwise being silenced.
The judge stopped the hearing and gave a rare warning that he may have to decide the case alone under seldom-used powers originally drawn up to prevent gangsters influencing juries.
"It is evident that Dr Bradbrook, by reference to her beliefs, considers either that the rules that apply to every other criminal defendant do not apply to her or that she is entitled to disregard them," said the judge in his July ruling. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67288289
Although I'm uneasy about judge only trials, it is a real shame if he took that forthright view on guilt tripping that Edmunds wasn't the judge for the Colston Four.
On the subject of Bradbrook, however, she doesn't really care that much about the environment so her defence was a nonsense anyway.
I know RFK is a loon, and all, but at 20% he gets a seat in the debates. And if he's in the debates, he's likely to be by far the most compis mentis candidate.
I know RFK is a loon, and all, but at 20% he gets a seat in the debates. And if he's in the debates, he's likely to be by far the most compis mentis candidate.
Cheeky scenario:
The Republicans have a lucid moment and ditch Trump.
He runs as an independent and taps RFKJ as his Veep.
Well, why not? They're both former Democrats. They're both crooks. They're both in Putin's arsehole if not his back pocket. They both owe their position to their fathers rather than any merits of their own. They're both completely crazy.
Ciaran: 90mph gust already recorded in Western Brittany, and we are hours from the peak there. Highest winds of the storm will be slap bang over Guernsey and Alderney around 4am. Likely to peak at 110-115mph. Near record speeds.
The strongest mainland winds will be around rush-hour time in Sussex, likely to reach 85-90mph. Damaging especially with trees in leaf, but not the worst we've seen. However, there is a definite sting-jet forming, which could give us a arrow ribbon of higher winds dragged down from aloft. Signs of the characteristic hook and sting shape on the NW of the depression and evaporative subsidence.
Courthouse News - Fight to trademark ‘Trump too small’ fizzles at Supreme Court The justices were leery of giving one individual a monopoly over a name that wasn’t his own.
he Supreme Court seemed uninterested Wednesday in altering decades of trademark law to allow a lawyer to have exclusive use of the slogan “Trump too small.”
“Some things you’re just not able to monopolize,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said.
Steve Elster wants the justices to overturn a government decision to block his trademark of “Trump too small,” which he planned to plaster on T-shirts and hats for a profit. The phrase harkens back to a viral moment during the 2016 Republican primary debate when Senator Marco Rubio made a joke about the size of Donald Trump’s hands. Trump took the insult personally, addressing the insult during a presidential debate.
The joke inspired Elster to use the double entendre as political commentary. Elster wanted to trademark the phrase, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied his application because marks with public officials’ names require consent.
An appeals board affirmed the office’s decision, but a federal circuit court reversed, finding Elster had a First Amendment claim. The government then turned to the Supreme Court to revive its policy.
The majority of justices appeared to be of the same mind as Gorsuch, favoring the government’s policy of not allowing trademarks on names without consent. Chief Justice John Roberts worried a ruling in favor of Elster would set off a trademark race.
“Presumably there will be a race for people to trademark Trump too this, Trump too that, whatever, and then particularly in the area of political expression, that really cuts off a lot of expressions other people might regard as important,” the George W. Bush appointee said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the government was not restricting Elster’s speech because he could sell as many shirts with “Trump too small” on them as he wanted — he just couldn’t prevent others from doing so.
“It’s almost as if we’re becoming strait-jacketed by labels instead of looking at this as I do from first principles,” the Obama appointee said. “The question is, is this an infringement on speech? And the answer is no.”
I feel like this would really irritate me as a juror, but surprisingly it seems to work sometimes. I do actually appreciate passionate campaigners who have pushed boundaries to get attention, but when they basically say their beliefs mean the law does not apply even on pretty basic things, confidently asserting things like expression and belief mean they could not be found guilty (rather than simply insisting it was justified.
'Duty of care' is a similarly misused concept, which people assert means any body they like must do everything they want.
During the preparations for Gail Bradbrook's trial in July this year, the former scientist, who did not have a lawyer, said she intended to tell jurors that she could not be found guilty because of her right to freedom of expression and that she was also trying to prevent a greater crime of climate destruction.
She also argued that breaking the glass had been legally necessary and it was possible that government officials may have consented had they known why she was doing it.
Judge Martin Edmunds KC ruled none of these arguments were valid legal defences that a jury could consider - but Dr Bradbrook then repeatedly tried to turn to them in her evidence, arguing that she was otherwise being silenced.
The judge stopped the hearing and gave a rare warning that he may have to decide the case alone under seldom-used powers originally drawn up to prevent gangsters influencing juries.
"It is evident that Dr Bradbrook, by reference to her beliefs, considers either that the rules that apply to every other criminal defendant do not apply to her or that she is entitled to disregard them," said the judge in his July ruling. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67288289
Although I'm uneasy about judge only trials, it is a real shame if he took that forthright view on guilt tripping that Edmunds wasn't the judge for the Colston Four.
On the subject of Bradbrook, however, she doesn't really care that much about the environment so her defence was a nonsense anyway.
The arguments remind me of the Sovereign Citizen stuff. All it needs is some references to poor old Magna Carta.
I wonder how many of the Extinction Rebellion types will fall down that wormhole and emerge as blood and soil types?
My view that Yousaf is doing ok is not reflected in the data... 😬
Does that make you a Scotch Expert?
I'm trying to think of a reason why the SNP are doing badly despite the effectiveness of Yousaf, but struggling somewhat.
I'll cling to the idea that there is a slow, seismic shift away from Indy and Yousaf is a victim of it.
OTOH, given Labour's rather lacklustre defence of Net Zero, I'm surprised they haven't made a bigger deal of Scotland's green energy supply, which is looking increasingly good. I reckon that's the escape route for Indy supporters.
The basic problem for Yousaf I think is that he lacks the personal loyalty of voters or his colleagues that Sturgeon or before her, Salmond, engendered by having taken the SNP so far. That skated over all manner of differences of opinion and personal rivalries. Few ever questioned Sturgeon's decisions but with Yousaf, because he wasn't an architect of the party's success lots think they know better where the party should go. There have also been chickens coming home to roost.
Parties often have issues when they have to move to the next generation after a successful one. Look at Labour when New Labour's SpAd cast took over. It's exacerbated by the fact that on some pretty big issues the SNP is divided. And there are now plausible alternatives in Labour looking like they may form a UK government, or now Alba if you're pro-indy but uncomfortable with its progressive turn. Plus internally Forbes and her supporters are clearly smarting and would love to put the knife in when appropriate.
Salmond and Sturgeon, whatever one thinks of them, were top notch political operators. Yousaf doesn't appear to be. It's rare to get three in a row for any Party.
Yup. Though he's performed maybe a little better than expected - not been quite the walking disaster some were predicting. It's just the nature of things. When you have two big figures who were so integral in their party's rise, they have a certain authority that means mistakes and divisions are glossed over or parked. Yousaf now has to deal with all those and lacks the authority to get away with it.
Also, I suspect (from many miles away) that some of the drive for Sindy was the feeling that it was the only way of getting away from a country run by the Conservatives. EdM (too dweeby) and Jez (too... where to begin?) weren't seen as being able to save anyone from anything.
Now that Starmer looks like winning, the calculation changes. Sometimes the difference between success and failure is just being in the right place at the right time. How many Conservative politicians are going to miss out on a significant ministerial career because their prime years are going to be spent in opposition? Claire Coutinho, for example?
Yes. Timing (and luck) matter. The SNP, unwisely hitched the independence wagon to centre left politics. They could have reversed that by appointing Forbes - who sees the long term point about independence - it's about competence not wokery. They missed the chance and may not get another.
'Remain' (and the EU) missed the chance to sell the EU as a matter of principle, ideals and vision in 2016. Brexit prevailed; but couldn't now after war in Europe and the threat of Trumpian isolationism.
One mystery remains about 2016. The EU exempted the UK from the Euro under Major. This was massive, and drove a coach and horses through the whole meaning of the plan. But in 2015/16 they wouldn't give situational derogations from FOM to the UK, which was by comparison trivial in constitutional terms. Remain would have won. What were they up to?
Biden leads 47% to 46% for Trump without Kennedy, so RFK now hitting Trump more than Biden. Kennedy wins 36% of Independents, 14% of Republicans but just 12% of Democrats. Kennedy also leads with voters aged 18-34 on 38% to 32% for Biden and 27% for Trump. Kennedy also beats Trump with Black and Hispanic voters.
'In the Republican primary race, former President Donald Trump receives 64 percent support among Republican and Republican leaning voters, followed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis with 15 percent support; former United Nations Ambassador and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley with 8 percent support; and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy with 3 percent support each.'
If RFK is taking more votes off Trump than Biden, for the sake of the world I hope he stays in the race.
While he continues to make money off it, he'll stay in. The biggest danger to that is his Republican funders deciding it's counterproductive to have him run.
I feel like this would really irritate me as a juror, but surprisingly it seems to work sometimes. I do actually appreciate passionate campaigners who have pushed boundaries to get attention, but when they basically say their beliefs mean the law does not apply even on pretty basic things, confidently asserting things like expression and belief mean they could not be found guilty (rather than simply insisting it was justified.
'Duty of care' is a similarly misused concept, which people assert means any body they like must do everything they want.
During the preparations for Gail Bradbrook's trial in July this year, the former scientist, who did not have a lawyer, said she intended to tell jurors that she could not be found guilty because of her right to freedom of expression and that she was also trying to prevent a greater crime of climate destruction.
She also argued that breaking the glass had been legally necessary and it was possible that government officials may have consented had they known why she was doing it.
Judge Martin Edmunds KC ruled none of these arguments were valid legal defences that a jury could consider - but Dr Bradbrook then repeatedly tried to turn to them in her evidence, arguing that she was otherwise being silenced.
The judge stopped the hearing and gave a rare warning that he may have to decide the case alone under seldom-used powers originally drawn up to prevent gangsters influencing juries.
"It is evident that Dr Bradbrook, by reference to her beliefs, considers either that the rules that apply to every other criminal defendant do not apply to her or that she is entitled to disregard them," said the judge in his July ruling. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67288289
Although I'm uneasy about judge only trials, it is a real shame if he took that forthright view on guilt tripping that Edmunds wasn't the judge for the Colston Four.
On the subject of Bradbrook, however, she doesn't really care that much about the environment so her defence was a nonsense anyway.
It seems to me unlikely that the non-jury trial provisions cover a case such as this.
"Conservatives losing more 2019 voters to Reform UK than Labour, poll suggests An exclusive survey carried out by YouGov for Sky News shows that 2019 Conservative voters are more likely to switch to the Reform UK party than Labour."
"Conservatives losing more 2019 voters to Reform UK than Labour, poll suggests An exclusive survey carried out by YouGov for Sky News shows that 2019 Conservative voters are more likely to switch to the Reform UK party than Labour."
Courthouse News - Fight to trademark ‘Trump too small’ fizzles at Supreme Court The justices were leery of giving one individual a monopoly over a name that wasn’t his own.
he Supreme Court seemed uninterested Wednesday in altering decades of trademark law to allow a lawyer to have exclusive use of the slogan “Trump too small.”
“Some things you’re just not able to monopolize,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said.
Steve Elster wants the justices to overturn a government decision to block his trademark of “Trump too small,” which he planned to plaster on T-shirts and hats for a profit. The phrase harkens back to a viral moment during the 2016 Republican primary debate when Senator Marco Rubio made a joke about the size of Donald Trump’s hands. Trump took the insult personally, addressing the insult during a presidential debate.
The joke inspired Elster to use the double entendre as political commentary. Elster wanted to trademark the phrase, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied his application because marks with public officials’ names require consent.
An appeals board affirmed the office’s decision, but a federal circuit court reversed, finding Elster had a First Amendment claim. The government then turned to the Supreme Court to revive its policy.
The majority of justices appeared to be of the same mind as Gorsuch, favoring the government’s policy of not allowing trademarks on names without consent. Chief Justice John Roberts worried a ruling in favor of Elster would set off a trademark race.
“Presumably there will be a race for people to trademark Trump too this, Trump too that, whatever, and then particularly in the area of political expression, that really cuts off a lot of expressions other people might regard as important,” the George W. Bush appointee said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the government was not restricting Elster’s speech because he could sell as many shirts with “Trump too small” on them as he wanted — he just couldn’t prevent others from doing so.
“It’s almost as if we’re becoming strait-jacketed by labels instead of looking at this as I do from first principles,” the Obama appointee said. “The question is, is this an infringement on speech? And the answer is no.”
A timely reminder from Sotomayor. Her colleagues have form in confusing money with speech.
One mystery remains about 2016. The EU exempted the UK from the Euro under Major. This was massive, and drove a coach and horses through the whole meaning of the plan. But in 2015/16 they wouldn't give situational derogations from FOM to the UK, which was by comparison trivial in constitutional terms. Remain would have won. What were they up to?
I mean, they did do the "emergency brake" thing, it wasn't nothing. But on why the EU wouldn't (and won't) compromise on freedom of movement as a core principle while they didn't mind if Britain didn't join the Euro:
1) Freedom of movement was part of the deal under which much of the EU had joined, and a quid quo pro for opening their markets.
2) Everyone has a populist party so if one country starts getting silly populist things to appease them then you'll be dealing with it anywhere, and if freedom of movement unravels and you lose labour mobility then the economic basis of the Euro also unravels.
3) Most countries didn't particularly want Britain to be in the Euro since it has weird housing markets and things that make it complicated.
4) Going from no-Euro to Euro was a negotiation where everyone had to agree or there would be no Euro, so if the British said no it was Euro-without-Britain or No Euro, whereas renegotiating freedom of movement would have needed a new treaty where everyone agreed, and the default position if any member state wanted to be difficult about it would have been No Change.
PS I don't think it's at all clear that Remain would have won if the EU had agreed to abolish FoM for Britain. The Leave side hung their campaign on pictures of refugees from Syria, who would never have been affected by anything Cameron was ever asking for.
"Conservatives losing more 2019 voters to Reform UK than Labour, poll suggests An exclusive survey carried out by YouGov for Sky News shows that 2019 Conservative voters are more likely to switch to the Reform UK party than Labour."
Brief bit of Mac geekery. Macbook currently rendering this week's Just Get A Tesla video and it is slightly warm to the touch. I think the Max chip is probably overkill for what I render (though it makes it fast!) - but as it keeps using 20-22GB of RAM, the upgrade from 16 was needed.
I have no idea what you're doing in particular. But I guy I know who runs a very successful video course website just renders one version of his video then uploads it to youtube as unlisted - then lets youtube re-render it in every format known to humankind and downloads it to suit his needs.
"Conservatives losing more 2019 voters to Reform UK than Labour, poll suggests An exclusive survey carried out by YouGov for Sky News shows that 2019 Conservative voters are more likely to switch to the Reform UK party than Labour."
One mystery remains about 2016. The EU exempted the UK from the Euro under Major. This was massive, and drove a coach and horses through the whole meaning of the plan. But in 2015/16 they wouldn't give situational derogations from FOM to the UK, which was by comparison trivial in constitutional terms. Remain would have won. What were they up to?
I mean, they did do the "emergency brake" thing, it wasn't nothing. But on why the EU wouldn't (and won't) compromise on freedom of movement as a core principle while they didn't mind if Britain didn't join the Euro:
1) Freedom of movement was part of the deal under which much of the EU had joined, and a quid quo pro for opening their markets.
2) Everyone has a populist party so if one country starts getting silly populist things to appease them then you'll be dealing with it anywhere, and if freedom of movement unravels and you lose labour mobility then the economic basis of the Euro also unravels.
3) Most countries didn't particularly want Britain to be in the Euro since it has weird housing markets and things that make it complicated.
4) Going from no-Euro to Euro was a negotiation where everyone had to agree or there would be no Euro, so if the British said no it was Euro-without-Britain or No Euro, whereas renegotiating freedom of movement would have needed a new treaty where everyone agreed, and the default position if any member state wanted to be difficult about it would have been No Change.
PS I don't think it's at all clear that Remain would have won if the EU had agreed to abolish FoM for Britain. The Leave side hung their campaign on pictures of refugees from Syria, who would never have been affected by anything Cameron was ever asking for.
Much more simply, it would have required a treaty renegotiation and they weren't willing to do that.
Tactically, Cameron should have held the referendum first and framed it as a choice between the status quo and leaving *if the renegotiation is unsatisfactory*. That would have forced the pro-EU side to oppose the idea of renegotiation and he would have put himself in the driving seat.
I know RFK is a loon, and all, but at 20% he gets a seat in the debates. And if he's in the debates, he's likely to be by far the most compis mentis candidate.
Cheeky scenario:
The Republicans have a lucid moment and ditch Trump.
He runs as an independent and taps RFKJ as his Veep.
Well, why not? They're both former Democrats. They're both crooks. They're both in Putin's arsehole if not his back pocket. They both owe their position to their fathers rather than any merits of their own. They're both completely crazy.
RFK is a crook? I presume he is grifting off the anti-vax stuff/semi-demi-presidential bid - anything else?
One mystery remains about 2016. The EU exempted the UK from the Euro under Major. This was massive, and drove a coach and horses through the whole meaning of the plan. But in 2015/16 they wouldn't give situational derogations from FOM to the UK, which was by comparison trivial in constitutional terms. Remain would have won. What were they up to?
I mean, they did do the "emergency brake" thing, it wasn't nothing. But on why the EU wouldn't (and won't) compromise on freedom of movement as a core principle while they didn't mind if Britain didn't join the Euro:
1) Freedom of movement was part of the deal under which much of the EU had joined, and a quid quo pro for opening their markets.
2) Everyone has a populist party so if one country starts getting silly populist things to appease them then you'll be dealing with it anywhere, and if freedom of movement unravels and you lose labour mobility then the economic basis of the Euro also unravels.
3) Most countries didn't particularly want Britain to be in the Euro since it has weird housing markets and things that make it complicated.
4) Going from no-Euro to Euro was a negotiation where everyone had to agree or there would be no Euro, so if the British said no it was Euro-without-Britain or No Euro, whereas renegotiating freedom of movement would have needed a new treaty where everyone agreed, and the default position if any member state wanted to be difficult about it would have been No Change.
PS I don't think it's at all clear that Remain would have won if the EU had agreed to abolish FoM for Britain. The Leave side hung their campaign on pictures of refugees from Syria, who would never have been affected by anything Cameron was ever asking for.
I’ve got a new passport. Ironically the last one filled up after 5 years (despite its jumbo size) partly due to Brexit. I travel so much I got stamps eveywhere. I do have another passport but I always need two and so I got another one
It’s my first post Brexit passport
Here’s the weird thing. It is genuinely handsome. A much more attractive passport than the old EU one. Distinctive and sombre and kinda lovely in its dark dark blueness
So there you have it. There’s another Brexit benefit. I readily confess it is nanoscopic in size and essentially meaningless but it is the case. The brexiteers got what they wanted. Nicer passports with a definite Britishness
Kids will grow up with these just as they grow up with Brexit and it will feel totally normal that we’re not part of the EU
One mystery remains about 2016. The EU exempted the UK from the Euro under Major. This was massive, and drove a coach and horses through the whole meaning of the plan. But in 2015/16 they wouldn't give situational derogations from FOM to the UK, which was by comparison trivial in constitutional terms. Remain would have won. What were they up to?
I mean, they did do the "emergency brake" thing, it wasn't nothing. But on why the EU wouldn't (and won't) compromise on freedom of movement as a core principle while they didn't mind if Britain didn't join the Euro:
1) Freedom of movement was part of the deal under which much of the EU had joined, and a quid quo pro for opening their markets.
2) Everyone has a populist party so if one country starts getting silly populist things to appease them then you'll be dealing with it anywhere, and if freedom of movement unravels and you lose labour mobility then the economic basis of the Euro also unravels.
3) Most countries didn't particularly want Britain to be in the Euro since it has weird housing markets and things that make it complicated.
4) Going from no-Euro to Euro was a negotiation where everyone had to agree or there would be no Euro, so if the British said no it was Euro-without-Britain or No Euro, whereas renegotiating freedom of movement would have needed a new treaty where everyone agreed, and the default position if any member state wanted to be difficult about it would have been No Change.
PS I don't think it's at all clear that Remain would have won if the EU had agreed to abolish FoM for Britain. The Leave side hung their campaign on pictures of refugees from Syria, who would never have been affected by anything Cameron was ever asking for.
Much more simply, it would have required a treaty renegotiation and they weren't willing to do that.
Tactically, Cameron should have held the referendum first and framed it as a choice between the status quo and leaving *if the renegotiation is unsatisfactory*. That would have forced the pro-EU side to oppose the idea of renegotiation and he would have put himself in the driving seat.
The influx of A8 workers into low paid jobs was just about the only tangible thing most people knew the EU had done. No doubt it did many good things too, but I’m pretty confident that had Cameron managed to negotiate us out of FOM, it would have been an easy victory for Remain.
My view that Yousaf is doing ok is not reflected in the data... 😬
Does that make you a Scotch Expert?
I'm trying to think of a reason why the SNP are doing badly despite the effectiveness of Yousaf, but struggling somewhat.
I'll cling to the idea that there is a slow, seismic shift away from Indy and Yousaf is a victim of it.
OTOH, given Labour's rather lacklustre defence of Net Zero, I'm surprised they haven't made a bigger deal of Scotland's green energy supply, which is looking increasingly good. I reckon that's the escape route for Indy supporters.
The basic problem for Yousaf I think is that he lacks the personal loyalty of voters or his colleagues that Sturgeon or before her, Salmond, engendered by having taken the SNP so far. That skated over all manner of differences of opinion and personal rivalries. Few ever questioned Sturgeon's decisions but with Yousaf, because he wasn't an architect of the party's success lots think they know better where the party should go. There have also been chickens coming home to roost.
Parties often have issues when they have to move to the next generation after a successful one. Look at Labour when New Labour's SpAd cast took over. It's exacerbated by the fact that on some pretty big issues the SNP is divided. And there are now plausible alternatives in Labour looking like they may form a UK government, or now Alba if you're pro-indy but uncomfortable with its progressive turn. Plus internally Forbes and her supporters are clearly smarting and would love to put the knife in when appropriate.
Salmond and Sturgeon, whatever one thinks of them, were top notch political operators. Yousaf doesn't appear to be. It's rare to get three in a row for any Party.
Yup. Though he's performed maybe a little better than expected - not been quite the walking disaster some were predicting. It's just the nature of things. When you have two big figures who were so integral in their party's rise, they have a certain authority that means mistakes and divisions are glossed over or parked. Yousaf now has to deal with all those and lacks the authority to get away with it.
Also, I suspect (from many miles away) that some of the drive for Sindy was the feeling that it was the only way of getting away from a country run by the Conservatives. EdM (too dweeby) and Jez (too... where to begin?) weren't seen as being able to save anyone from anything.
Now that Starmer looks like winning, the calculation changes. Sometimes the difference between success and failure is just being in the right place at the right time. How many Conservative politicians are going to miss out on a significant ministerial career because their prime years are going to be spent in opposition? Claire Coutinho, for example?
Yes. Timing (and luck) matter. The SNP, unwisely hitched the independence wagon to centre left politics. They could have reversed that by appointing Forbes - who sees the long term point about independence - it's about competence not wokery. They missed the chance and may not get another.
'Remain' (and the EU) missed the chance to sell the EU as a matter of principle, ideals and vision in 2016. Brexit prevailed; but couldn't now after war in Europe and the threat of Trumpian isolationism.
One mystery remains about 2016. The EU exempted the UK from the Euro under Major. This was massive, and drove a coach and horses through the whole meaning of the plan. But in 2015/16 they wouldn't give situational derogations from FOM to the UK, which was by comparison trivial in constitutional terms. Remain would have won. What were they up to?
If we had won concessions on FOM you can bet that others would have wanted it too. Quite conceivably, the French and possibly the Germans. And once one of those states wants out then the concept of it on a pan-European level is dead.
I know RFK is a loon, and all, but at 20% he gets a seat in the debates. And if he's in the debates, he's likely to be by far the most compis mentis candidate.
Cheeky scenario:
The Republicans have a lucid moment and ditch Trump.
He runs as an independent and taps RFKJ as his Veep.
Well, why not? They're both former Democrats. They're both crooks. They're both in Putin's arsehole if not his back pocket. They both owe their position to their fathers rather than any merits of their own. They're both completely crazy.
RFK is a crook? I presume he is grifting off the anti-vax stuff/semi-demi-presidential bid - anything else?
Apart from the multiple drugs offences and various acts of criminal trespass?
"Pointe du Raz in west Brittany has gusted to 170 km/h (106 mph) with a mean wind speed of 134 km/h (83 mph) at 2324 UTC. The mean wind speed seen here is hurricane force. #StormCiarán"
One mystery remains about 2016. The EU exempted the UK from the Euro under Major. This was massive, and drove a coach and horses through the whole meaning of the plan. But in 2015/16 they wouldn't give situational derogations from FOM to the UK, which was by comparison trivial in constitutional terms. Remain would have won. What were they up to?
I mean, they did do the "emergency brake" thing, it wasn't nothing. But on why the EU wouldn't (and won't) compromise on freedom of movement as a core principle while they didn't mind if Britain didn't join the Euro:
1) Freedom of movement was part of the deal under which much of the EU had joined, and a quid quo pro for opening their markets.
2) Everyone has a populist party so if one country starts getting silly populist things to appease them then you'll be dealing with it anywhere, and if freedom of movement unravels and you lose labour mobility then the economic basis of the Euro also unravels.
3) Most countries didn't particularly want Britain to be in the Euro since it has weird housing markets and things that make it complicated.
4) Going from no-Euro to Euro was a negotiation where everyone had to agree or there would be no Euro, so if the British said no it was Euro-without-Britain or No Euro, whereas renegotiating freedom of movement would have needed a new treaty where everyone agreed, and the default position if any member state wanted to be difficult about it would have been No Change.
PS I don't think it's at all clear that Remain would have won if the EU had agreed to abolish FoM for Britain. The Leave side hung their campaign on pictures of refugees from Syria, who would never have been affected by anything Cameron was ever asking for.
Much more simply, it would have required a treaty renegotiation and they weren't willing to do that.
Tactically, Cameron should have held the referendum first and framed it as a choice between the status quo and leaving *if the renegotiation is unsatisfactory*. That would have forced the pro-EU side to oppose the idea of renegotiation and he would have put himself in the driving seat.
Yes that would have been much smarter. Devious and conniving and he would have annoyed all his EU chums. But actual Brexit annoyed them far more
I hope people have been following the Sam Bankman-Fried trial going on in New York, around the fraud going on at FTX - if he's not convicted it'll be a travesty, his whole defence consists of 'I remember nothing' 'I was the boss but had nothing to do with anything going on' 'Also, I am still a genius and there was nothing wrong with what was going on, but that nothing wrong was still other people's fault'.
Notably efficient landing at Stansted. 10 minutes from plane to passports. Passport took 5 mins. As soon as we arrived in the baggage areas the luggage was there. Straight down to the station. A clean and sleek train waiting. Left 5 minutes later
We like to diss British infrastructure but if you’d arrived from chaotic Sicily and you didn’t know Britain you’d think Ooh what an efficient well run country, a bit like a much bigger Switzerland
I know that’s a false impression but it’s good to see the positive sometimes
Notably efficient landing at Stansted. 10 minutes from plane to passports. Passport took 5 mins. As soon as we arrived in the baggage areas the luggage was there. Straight down to the station. A clean and sleek train waiting. Left 5 minutes later
We like to diss British infrastructure but if you’d arrived from chaotic Sicily and you didn’t know Britain you’d think Ooh what an efficient well run country, a bit like a much bigger Switzerland
I know that’s a false impression but it’s good to see the positive sometimes
Oh, I regularly do touchdown to my flat in an hour from Heathrow. (So long as I'm not get checked baggage)
If you are on the Elizabeth Line, then the journey is a total breeze.
I know RFK is a loon, and all, but at 20% he gets a seat in the debates. And if he's in the debates, he's likely to be by far the most compis mentis candidate.
Cheeky scenario:
The Republicans have a lucid moment and ditch Trump.
He runs as an independent and taps RFKJ as his Veep.
Well, why not? They're both former Democrats. They're both crooks. They're both in Putin's arsehole if not his back pocket. They both owe their position to their fathers rather than any merits of their own. They're both completely crazy.
Notably efficient landing at Stansted. 10 minutes from plane to passports. Passport took 5 mins. As soon as we arrived in the baggage areas the luggage was there. Straight down to the station. A clean and sleek train waiting. Left 5 minutes later
We like to diss British infrastructure but if you’d arrived from chaotic Sicily and you didn’t know Britain you’d think Ooh what an efficient well run country, a bit like a much bigger Switzerland
I know that’s a false impression but it’s good to see the positive sometimes
Oh, I regularly do touchdown to my flat in an hour from Heathrow. (So long as I'm not get checked baggage)
If you are on the Elizabeth Line, then the journey is a total breeze.
Sure. LHR is brilliant
But this is STANSTED. My least favourite London airport (slightly worse than Gatwick)
I reckon touchdown to key in door will be about 80 minutes
Notably efficient landing at Stansted. 10 minutes from plane to passports. Passport took 5 mins. As soon as we arrived in the baggage areas the luggage was there. Straight down to the station. A clean and sleek train waiting. Left 5 minutes later
We like to diss British infrastructure but if you’d arrived from chaotic Sicily and you didn’t know Britain you’d think Ooh what an efficient well run country, a bit like a much bigger Switzerland
I know that’s a false impression but it’s good to see the positive sometimes
Only thing Stansted Airport station lacks is Contactless payment to London.
Notably efficient landing at Stansted. 10 minutes from plane to passports. Passport took 5 mins. As soon as we arrived in the baggage areas the luggage was there. Straight down to the station. A clean and sleek train waiting. Left 5 minutes later
We like to diss British infrastructure but if you’d arrived from chaotic Sicily and you didn’t know Britain you’d think Ooh what an efficient well run country, a bit like a much bigger Switzerland
I know that’s a false impression but it’s good to see the positive sometimes
Only thing Stansted Airport station lacks is Contactless payment to London.
Notably efficient landing at Stansted. 10 minutes from plane to passports. Passport took 5 mins. As soon as we arrived in the baggage areas the luggage was there. Straight down to the station. A clean and sleek train waiting. Left 5 minutes later
We like to diss British infrastructure but if you’d arrived from chaotic Sicily and you didn’t know Britain you’d think Ooh what an efficient well run country, a bit like a much bigger Switzerland
I know that’s a false impression but it’s good to see the positive sometimes
Oh, I regularly do touchdown to my flat in an hour from Heathrow. (So long as I'm not get checked baggage)
If you are on the Elizabeth Line, then the journey is a total breeze.
Sure. LHR is brilliant
But this is STANSTED. My least favourite London airport (slightly worse than Gatwick)
I reckon touchdown to key in door will be about 80 minutes
Stansted is in north Essex close to Bishop's Stortford and nearer Cambridge than London, Gatwick is in Sussex near Crawley.
Notably efficient landing at Stansted. 10 minutes from plane to passports. Passport took 5 mins. As soon as we arrived in the baggage areas the luggage was there. Straight down to the station. A clean and sleek train waiting. Left 5 minutes later
We like to diss British infrastructure but if you’d arrived from chaotic Sicily and you didn’t know Britain you’d think Ooh what an efficient well run country, a bit like a much bigger Switzerland
I know that’s a false impression but it’s good to see the positive sometimes
Oh, I regularly do touchdown to my flat in an hour from Heathrow. (So long as I'm not get checked baggage)
If you are on the Elizabeth Line, then the journey is a total breeze.
Sure. LHR is brilliant
But this is STANSTED. My least favourite London airport (slightly worse than Gatwick)
I reckon touchdown to key in door will be about 80 minutes
Stansted is in north Essex close to Bishop's Stortford and nearer Cambridge than London, Gatwick is in Sussex near Crawley.
LHR is the only 1 of the 3 actually in London
Cambridge now has direct Gatwick trains. A long journey, but an improvement nonetheless.
Having to fly RyanAir...and for work....how awful....
Ryanair is fine. People moan way too much. They serve a trillion destinations, they are good value, they’re actually quite punctual. For short haul European flights I probably prefer Ryanair or EasyJet. Esp now they have apps for boarding passes and a quicker bag drop check in process
Notably efficient landing at Stansted. 10 minutes from plane to passports. Passport took 5 mins. As soon as we arrived in the baggage areas the luggage was there. Straight down to the station. A clean and sleek train waiting. Left 5 minutes later
We like to diss British infrastructure but if you’d arrived from chaotic Sicily and you didn’t know Britain you’d think Ooh what an efficient well run country, a bit like a much bigger Switzerland
I know that’s a false impression but it’s good to see the positive sometimes
Oh, I regularly do touchdown to my flat in an hour from Heathrow. (So long as I'm not get checked baggage)
If you are on the Elizabeth Line, then the journey is a total breeze.
I wonder whether the Heathrow Express is under threat from the Elizabeth Line.
I know RFK is a loon, and all, but at 20% he gets a seat in the debates. And if he's in the debates, he's likely to be by far the most compis mentis candidate.
Cheeky scenario:
The Republicans have a lucid moment and ditch Trump.
He runs as an independent and taps RFKJ as his Veep.
Well, why not? They're both former Democrats. They're both crooks. They're both in Putin's arsehole if not his back pocket. They both owe their position to their fathers rather than any merits of their own. They're both completely crazy.
RFK is a crook? I presume he is grifting off the anti-vax stuff/semi-demi-presidential bid - anything else?
Apart from the multiple drugs offences and various acts of criminal trespass?
Have less than zero esteem for RFK Jr, but he is NOT a crook.
The "criminal trespass" was during a protest against US military misuse of Puerto Rican island of Vieques.
Notably efficient landing at Stansted. 10 minutes from plane to passports. Passport took 5 mins. As soon as we arrived in the baggage areas the luggage was there. Straight down to the station. A clean and sleek train waiting. Left 5 minutes later
We like to diss British infrastructure but if you’d arrived from chaotic Sicily and you didn’t know Britain you’d think Ooh what an efficient well run country, a bit like a much bigger Switzerland
I know that’s a false impression but it’s good to see the positive sometimes
Oh, I regularly do touchdown to my flat in an hour from Heathrow. (So long as I'm not get checked baggage)
If you are on the Elizabeth Line, then the journey is a total breeze.
I wonder whether the Heathrow Express is under threat from the Elizabeth Line.
It'll make less money for sure, because it's an alternative route into Central London, but it's still by far the fastest way to Northwest London, so it's not going to die.
Having to fly RyanAir...and for work....how awful....
Ryanair is fine. People moan way too much. They serve a trillion destinations, they are good value, they’re actually quite punctual. For short haul European flights I probably prefer Ryanair or EasyJet. Esp now they have apps for boarding passes and a quicker bag drop check in process
I personally prefer easy jet, but each to their own.
Courthouse News - Fight to trademark ‘Trump too small’ fizzles at Supreme Court The justices were leery of giving one individual a monopoly over a name that wasn’t his own.
he Supreme Court seemed uninterested Wednesday in altering decades of trademark law to allow a lawyer to have exclusive use of the slogan “Trump too small.”
“Some things you’re just not able to monopolize,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said.
Steve Elster wants the justices to overturn a government decision to block his trademark of “Trump too small,” which he planned to plaster on T-shirts and hats for a profit. The phrase harkens back to a viral moment during the 2016 Republican primary debate when Senator Marco Rubio made a joke about the size of Donald Trump’s hands. Trump took the insult personally, addressing the insult during a presidential debate.
The joke inspired Elster to use the double entendre as political commentary. Elster wanted to trademark the phrase, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied his application because marks with public officials’ names require consent.
An appeals board affirmed the office’s decision, but a federal circuit court reversed, finding Elster had a First Amendment claim. The government then turned to the Supreme Court to revive its policy.
The majority of justices appeared to be of the same mind as Gorsuch, favoring the government’s policy of not allowing trademarks on names without consent. Chief Justice John Roberts worried a ruling in favor of Elster would set off a trademark race.
“Presumably there will be a race for people to trademark Trump too this, Trump too that, whatever, and then particularly in the area of political expression, that really cuts off a lot of expressions other people might regard as important,” the George W. Bush appointee said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the government was not restricting Elster’s speech because he could sell as many shirts with “Trump too small” on them as he wanted — he just couldn’t prevent others from doing so.
“It’s almost as if we’re becoming strait-jacketed by labels instead of looking at this as I do from first principles,” the Obama appointee said. “The question is, is this an infringement on speech? And the answer is no.”
A timely reminder from Sotomayor. Her colleagues have form in confusing money with speech.
Notably efficient landing at Stansted. 10 minutes from plane to passports. Passport took 5 mins. As soon as we arrived in the baggage areas the luggage was there. Straight down to the station. A clean and sleek train waiting. Left 5 minutes later
We like to diss British infrastructure but if you’d arrived from chaotic Sicily and you didn’t know Britain you’d think Ooh what an efficient well run country, a bit like a much bigger Switzerland
I know that’s a false impression but it’s good to see the positive sometimes
Oh, I regularly do touchdown to my flat in an hour from Heathrow. (So long as I'm not get checked baggage)
If you are on the Elizabeth Line, then the journey is a total breeze.
Sure. LHR is brilliant
But this is STANSTED. My least favourite London airport (slightly worse than Gatwick)
I reckon touchdown to key in door will be about 80 minutes
Stansted is in north Essex close to Bishop's Stortford and nearer Cambridge than London, Gatwick is in Sussex near Crawley.
LHR is the only 1 of the 3 actually in London
Cambridge now has direct Gatwick trains. A long journey, but an improvement nonetheless.
And Luton to Garwick has been available for a number of years of course on Thameslink.
Notably efficient landing at Stansted. 10 minutes from plane to passports. Passport took 5 mins. As soon as we arrived in the baggage areas the luggage was there. Straight down to the station. A clean and sleek train waiting. Left 5 minutes later
We like to diss British infrastructure but if you’d arrived from chaotic Sicily and you didn’t know Britain you’d think Ooh what an efficient well run country, a bit like a much bigger Switzerland
I know that’s a false impression but it’s good to see the positive sometimes
Oh, I regularly do touchdown to my flat in an hour from Heathrow. (So long as I'm not get checked baggage)
If you are on the Elizabeth Line, then the journey is a total breeze.
I wonder whether the Heathrow Express is under threat from the Elizabeth Line.
It'll make less money for sure, because it's an alternative route into Central London, but it's still by far the fastest way to Northwest London, so it's not going to die.
Notably efficient landing at Stansted. 10 minutes from plane to passports. Passport took 5 mins. As soon as we arrived in the baggage areas the luggage was there. Straight down to the station. A clean and sleek train waiting. Left 5 minutes later
We like to diss British infrastructure but if you’d arrived from chaotic Sicily and you didn’t know Britain you’d think Ooh what an efficient well run country, a bit like a much bigger Switzerland
I know that’s a false impression but it’s good to see the positive sometimes
Oh, I regularly do touchdown to my flat in an hour from Heathrow. (So long as I'm not get checked baggage)
If you are on the Elizabeth Line, then the journey is a total breeze.
I wonder whether the Heathrow Express is under threat from the Elizabeth Line.
It'll make less money for sure, because it's an alternative route into Central London, but it's still by far the fastest way to Northwest London, so it's not going to die.
Northwest London?
Paddington is sort of in north-west central London, or at least it's the best mainline train station for it.
Notably efficient landing at Stansted. 10 minutes from plane to passports. Passport took 5 mins. As soon as we arrived in the baggage areas the luggage was there. Straight down to the station. A clean and sleek train waiting. Left 5 minutes later
We like to diss British infrastructure but if you’d arrived from chaotic Sicily and you didn’t know Britain you’d think Ooh what an efficient well run country, a bit like a much bigger Switzerland
I know that’s a false impression but it’s good to see the positive sometimes
Oh, I regularly do touchdown to my flat in an hour from Heathrow. (So long as I'm not get checked baggage)
If you are on the Elizabeth Line, then the journey is a total breeze.
I wonder whether the Heathrow Express is under threat from the Elizabeth Line.
It'll make less money for sure, because it's an alternative route into Central London, but it's still by far the fastest way to Northwest London, so it's not going to die.
Northwest London?
Paddington is sort of in north-west central London, or at least it's the best mainline train station for it.
Well, yes, but by "Northwest London" I was thinking more on the lines of Harrow or Willesden.
Notably efficient landing at Stansted. 10 minutes from plane to passports. Passport took 5 mins. As soon as we arrived in the baggage areas the luggage was there. Straight down to the station. A clean and sleek train waiting. Left 5 minutes later
We like to diss British infrastructure but if you’d arrived from chaotic Sicily and you didn’t know Britain you’d think Ooh what an efficient well run country, a bit like a much bigger Switzerland
I know that’s a false impression but it’s good to see the positive sometimes
Oh, I regularly do touchdown to my flat in an hour from Heathrow. (So long as I'm not get checked baggage)
If you are on the Elizabeth Line, then the journey is a total breeze.
I wonder whether the Heathrow Express is under threat from the Elizabeth Line.
It'll make less money for sure, because it's an alternative route into Central London, but it's still by far the fastest way to Northwest London, so it's not going to die.
Northwest London?
Paddington is sort of in north-west central London, or at least it's the best mainline train station for it.
Well, yes, but by "Northwest London" I was thinking more on the lines of Harrow or Willesden.
Courthouse News - Fight to trademark ‘Trump too small’ fizzles at Supreme Court The justices were leery of giving one individual a monopoly over a name that wasn’t his own.
The Supreme Court seemed uninterested Wednesday in altering decades of trademark law to allow a lawyer to have exclusive use of the slogan “Trump too small.”
“Some things you’re just not able to monopolize,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said.
Steve Elster wants the justices to overturn a government decision to block his trademark of “Trump too small,” which he planned to plaster on T-shirts and hats for a profit. The phrase harkens back to a viral moment during the 2016 Republican primary debate when Senator Marco Rubio made a joke about the size of Donald Trump’s hands. Trump took the insult personally, addressing the insult during a presidential debate.
The joke inspired Elster to use the double entendre as political commentary. Elster wanted to trademark the phrase, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied his application because marks with public officials’ names require consent.
An appeals board affirmed the office’s decision, but a federal circuit court reversed, finding Elster had a First Amendment claim. The government then turned to the Supreme Court to revive its policy.
The majority of justices appeared to be of the same mind as Gorsuch, favoring the government’s policy of not allowing trademarks on names without consent. Chief Justice John Roberts worried a ruling in favor of Elster would set off a trademark race.
“Presumably there will be a race for people to trademark Trump too this, Trump too that, whatever, and then particularly in the area of political expression, that really cuts off a lot of expressions other people might regard as important,” the George W. Bush appointee said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the government was not restricting Elster’s speech because he could sell as many shirts with “Trump too small” on them as he wanted — he just couldn’t prevent others from doing so.
“It’s almost as if we’re becoming strait-jacketed by labels instead of looking at this as I do from first principles,” the Obama appointee said. “The question is, is this an infringement on speech? And the answer is no.”
A rare case of the SC judges both uniting and making the right decision.
How did he think that the court would allow a trademark on someone else’s name? Imagine the activists all seeking to trademark anything memorable any politician said in a debate. As Justice Sotomayor said, no-one is preventing him from selling his T-shirts.
That’s one from the Joylon school of fox-bashing legal thinking, hopefully Mr Elster also has some silly benefactors to pay his costs.
Courthouse News - Fight to trademark ‘Trump too small’ fizzles at Supreme Court The justices were leery of giving one individual a monopoly over a name that wasn’t his own.
The Supreme Court seemed uninterested Wednesday in altering decades of trademark law to allow a lawyer to have exclusive use of the slogan “Trump too small.”
“Some things you’re just not able to monopolize,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said.
Steve Elster wants the justices to overturn a government decision to block his trademark of “Trump too small,” which he planned to plaster on T-shirts and hats for a profit. The phrase harkens back to a viral moment during the 2016 Republican primary debate when Senator Marco Rubio made a joke about the size of Donald Trump’s hands. Trump took the insult personally, addressing the insult during a presidential debate.
The joke inspired Elster to use the double entendre as political commentary. Elster wanted to trademark the phrase, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied his application because marks with public officials’ names require consent.
An appeals board affirmed the office’s decision, but a federal circuit court reversed, finding Elster had a First Amendment claim. The government then turned to the Supreme Court to revive its policy.
The majority of justices appeared to be of the same mind as Gorsuch, favoring the government’s policy of not allowing trademarks on names without consent. Chief Justice John Roberts worried a ruling in favor of Elster would set off a trademark race.
“Presumably there will be a race for people to trademark Trump too this, Trump too that, whatever, and then particularly in the area of political expression, that really cuts off a lot of expressions other people might regard as important,” the George W. Bush appointee said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the government was not restricting Elster’s speech because he could sell as many shirts with “Trump too small” on them as he wanted — he just couldn’t prevent others from doing so.
“It’s almost as if we’re becoming strait-jacketed by labels instead of looking at this as I do from first principles,” the Obama appointee said. “The question is, is this an infringement on speech? And the answer is no.”
A rare case of the SC judges both uniting and making the right decision.
How did he think that the court would allow a trademark on someone else’s name? Imagine the activists all seeking to trademark anything memorable any politician said in a debate. As Justice Sotomayor said, no-one is preventing him from selling his T-shirts.
That’s one from the Joylon school of fox-bashing legal thinking, hopefully Mr Elster also has some silly benefactors to pay his costs.
The Supreme Court is often rather sensible, and the most interesting verdicts are those that cross the liberal-conservative divide.
One mystery remains about 2016. The EU exempted the UK from the Euro under Major. This was massive, and drove a coach and horses through the whole meaning of the plan. But in 2015/16 they wouldn't give situational derogations from FOM to the UK, which was by comparison trivial in constitutional terms. Remain would have won. What were they up to?
I mean, they did do the "emergency brake" thing, it wasn't nothing. But on why the EU wouldn't (and won't) compromise on freedom of movement as a core principle while they didn't mind if Britain didn't join the Euro:
1) Freedom of movement was part of the deal under which much of the EU had joined, and a quid quo pro for opening their markets.
2) Everyone has a populist party so if one country starts getting silly populist things to appease them then you'll be dealing with it anywhere, and if freedom of movement unravels and you lose labour mobility then the economic basis of the Euro also unravels.
3) Most countries didn't particularly want Britain to be in the Euro since it has weird housing markets and things that make it complicated.
4) Going from no-Euro to Euro was a negotiation where everyone had to agree or there would be no Euro, so if the British said no it was Euro-without-Britain or No Euro, whereas renegotiating freedom of movement would have needed a new treaty where everyone agreed, and the default position if any member state wanted to be difficult about it would have been No Change.
PS I don't think it's at all clear that Remain would have won if the EU had agreed to abolish FoM for Britain. The Leave side hung their campaign on pictures of refugees from Syria, who would never have been affected by anything Cameron was ever asking for.
I’ve got a new passport. Ironically the last one filled up after 5 years (despite its jumbo size) partly due to Brexit. I travel so much I got stamps eveywhere. I do have another passport but I always need two and so I got another one
It’s my first post Brexit passport
Here’s the weird thing. It is genuinely handsome. A much more attractive passport than the old EU one. Distinctive and sombre and kinda lovely in its dark dark blueness
So there you have it. There’s another Brexit benefit. I readily confess it is nanoscopic in size and essentially meaningless but it is the case. The brexiteers got what they wanted. Nicer passports with a definite Britishness
Kids will grow up with these just as they grow up with Brexit and it will feel totally normal that we’re not part of the EU
Brexit benefit my arse.
Do you really think that our young people, growing up in a poorer, isolated Britain cowering behind the trade barriers it has decided to erect around itself because Cameron was frit of his nutters, won’t look at their peers across the Channel, merrily traversing Europe with no impediments, enjoying the clean beaches and environmental and worker protections the EU brings, the economic benefits the huge market can strike in advantageous trade deals without selling industries out in favour of fleeting positive headlines in the client press, and will be mollified because, in your opinion, their passport is a better design than the old EU one?
One mystery remains about 2016. The EU exempted the UK from the Euro under Major. This was massive, and drove a coach and horses through the whole meaning of the plan. But in 2015/16 they wouldn't give situational derogations from FOM to the UK, which was by comparison trivial in constitutional terms. Remain would have won. What were they up to?
I mean, they did do the "emergency brake" thing, it wasn't nothing. But on why the EU wouldn't (and won't) compromise on freedom of movement as a core principle while they didn't mind if Britain didn't join the Euro:
1) Freedom of movement was part of the deal under which much of the EU had joined, and a quid quo pro for opening their markets.
2) Everyone has a populist party so if one country starts getting silly populist things to appease them then you'll be dealing with it anywhere, and if freedom of movement unravels and you lose labour mobility then the economic basis of the Euro also unravels.
3) Most countries didn't particularly want Britain to be in the Euro since it has weird housing markets and things that make it complicated.
4) Going from no-Euro to Euro was a negotiation where everyone had to agree or there would be no Euro, so if the British said no it was Euro-without-Britain or No Euro, whereas renegotiating freedom of movement would have needed a new treaty where everyone agreed, and the default position if any member state wanted to be difficult about it would have been No Change.
PS I don't think it's at all clear that Remain would have won if the EU had agreed to abolish FoM for Britain. The Leave side hung their campaign on pictures of refugees from Syria, who would never have been affected by anything Cameron was ever asking for.
I’ve got a new passport. Ironically the last one filled up after 5 years (despite its jumbo size) partly due to Brexit. I travel so much I got stamps eveywhere. I do have another passport but I always need two and so I got another one
It’s my first post Brexit passport
Here’s the weird thing. It is genuinely handsome. A much more attractive passport than the old EU one. Distinctive and sombre and kinda lovely in its dark dark blueness
So there you have it. There’s another Brexit benefit. I readily confess it is nanoscopic in size and essentially meaningless but it is the case. The brexiteers got what they wanted. Nicer passports with a definite Britishness
Kids will grow up with these just as they grow up with Brexit and it will feel totally normal that we’re not part of the EU
Brexit benefit my arse.
Do you really think that our young people, growing up in a poorer, isolated Britain cowering behind the trade barriers it has decided to erect around itself because Cameron was frit of his nutters, won’t look at their peers across the Channel, merrily traversing Europe with no impediments, enjoying the clean beaches and environmental and worker protections the EU brings, the economic benefits the huge market can strike in advantageous trade deals without selling industries out in favour of fleeting positive headlines in the client press, and will be mollified because, in your opinion, their passport is a better design than the old EU one?
Are there two EUs ? I never got to join the one you described. I was in the one where you closed factories because brits were easy to sack and moved all their jobs to France or Germany.
One mystery remains about 2016. The EU exempted the UK from the Euro under Major. This was massive, and drove a coach and horses through the whole meaning of the plan. But in 2015/16 they wouldn't give situational derogations from FOM to the UK, which was by comparison trivial in constitutional terms. Remain would have won. What were they up to?
I mean, they did do the "emergency brake" thing, it wasn't nothing. But on why the EU wouldn't (and won't) compromise on freedom of movement as a core principle while they didn't mind if Britain didn't join the Euro:
1) Freedom of movement was part of the deal under which much of the EU had joined, and a quid quo pro for opening their markets.
2) Everyone has a populist party so if one country starts getting silly populist things to appease them then you'll be dealing with it anywhere, and if freedom of movement unravels and you lose labour mobility then the economic basis of the Euro also unravels.
3) Most countries didn't particularly want Britain to be in the Euro since it has weird housing markets and things that make it complicated.
4) Going from no-Euro to Euro was a negotiation where everyone had to agree or there would be no Euro, so if the British said no it was Euro-without-Britain or No Euro, whereas renegotiating freedom of movement would have needed a new treaty where everyone agreed, and the default position if any member state wanted to be difficult about it would have been No Change.
PS I don't think it's at all clear that Remain would have won if the EU had agreed to abolish FoM for Britain. The Leave side hung their campaign on pictures of refugees from Syria, who would never have been affected by anything Cameron was ever asking for.
I’ve got a new passport. Ironically the last one filled up after 5 years (despite its jumbo size) partly due to Brexit. I travel so much I got stamps eveywhere. I do have another passport but I always need two and so I got another one
It’s my first post Brexit passport
Here’s the weird thing. It is genuinely handsome. A much more attractive passport than the old EU one. Distinctive and sombre and kinda lovely in its dark dark blueness
So there you have it. There’s another Brexit benefit. I readily confess it is nanoscopic in size and essentially meaningless but it is the case. The brexiteers got what they wanted. Nicer passports with a definite Britishness
Kids will grow up with these just as they grow up with Brexit and it will feel totally normal that we’re not part of the EU
Brexit benefit my arse.
Do you really think that our young people, growing up in a poorer, isolated Britain cowering behind the trade barriers it has decided to erect around itself because Cameron was frit of his nutters, won’t look at their peers across the Channel, merrily traversing Europe with no impediments, enjoying the clean beaches and environmental and worker protections the EU brings, the economic benefits the huge market can strike in advantageous trade deals without selling industries out in favour of fleeting positive headlines in the client press, and will be mollified because, in your opinion, their passport is a better design than the old EU one?
Are there two EUs ? I never got to join the one you described. I was in the one where you closed factories because brits were easy to sack and moved all their jobs to France or Germany.
The problem is, factories are still being closed, and business move to the EU, even after Brexit. Perhaps membership of the EU was not the main problem; and instead it was our own business and economic environment?
76 minutes from wheels on the runway to keying my door. And on a Ryanair plane with checked luggage landing at stansted
That’s incredible
Bravo, London
Stansted, like Gatwick, needs a second runway. The flightpaths are over mostly empty country and you don't have to knock down whole towns to build them. Also they'd provide competition for Heathrow as a hub airport.
One mystery remains about 2016. The EU exempted the UK from the Euro under Major. This was massive, and drove a coach and horses through the whole meaning of the plan. But in 2015/16 they wouldn't give situational derogations from FOM to the UK, which was by comparison trivial in constitutional terms. Remain would have won. What were they up to?
I mean, they did do the "emergency brake" thing, it wasn't nothing. But on why the EU wouldn't (and won't) compromise on freedom of movement as a core principle while they didn't mind if Britain didn't join the Euro:
1) Freedom of movement was part of the deal under which much of the EU had joined, and a quid quo pro for opening their markets.
2) Everyone has a populist party so if one country starts getting silly populist things to appease them then you'll be dealing with it anywhere, and if freedom of movement unravels and you lose labour mobility then the economic basis of the Euro also unravels.
3) Most countries didn't particularly want Britain to be in the Euro since it has weird housing markets and things that make it complicated.
4) Going from no-Euro to Euro was a negotiation where everyone had to agree or there would be no Euro, so if the British said no it was Euro-without-Britain or No Euro, whereas renegotiating freedom of movement would have needed a new treaty where everyone agreed, and the default position if any member state wanted to be difficult about it would have been No Change.
PS I don't think it's at all clear that Remain would have won if the EU had agreed to abolish FoM for Britain. The Leave side hung their campaign on pictures of refugees from Syria, who would never have been affected by anything Cameron was ever asking for.
I’ve got a new passport. Ironically the last one filled up after 5 years (despite its jumbo size) partly due to Brexit. I travel so much I got stamps eveywhere. I do have another passport but I always need two and so I got another one
It’s my first post Brexit passport
Here’s the weird thing. It is genuinely handsome. A much more attractive passport than the old EU one. Distinctive and sombre and kinda lovely in its dark dark blueness
So there you have it. There’s another Brexit benefit. I readily confess it is nanoscopic in size and essentially meaningless but it is the case. The brexiteers got what they wanted. Nicer passports with a definite Britishness
Kids will grow up with these just as they grow up with Brexit and it will feel totally normal that we’re not part of the EU
Brexit benefit my arse.
Do you really think that our young people, growing up in a poorer, isolated Britain cowering behind the trade barriers it has decided to erect around itself because Cameron was frit of his nutters, won’t look at their peers across the Channel, merrily traversing Europe with no impediments, enjoying the clean beaches and environmental and worker protections the EU brings, the economic benefits the huge market can strike in advantageous trade deals without selling industries out in favour of fleeting positive headlines in the client press, and will be mollified because, in your opinion, their passport is a better design than the old EU one?
Are there two EUs ? I never got to join the one you described. I was in the one where you closed factories because brits were easy to sack and moved all their jobs to France or Germany.
The problem is, factories are still being closed, and business move to the EU, even after Brexit. Perhaps membership of the EU was not the main problem; and instead it was our own business and economic environment?
Well NM was in a different EU.
In my EU the UK tried to have an anglo capitalist economy in a social market economy. The result was great for big corporations but bad for UK workers. And both Labour and Conservatives were happy with the results.
76 minutes from wheels on the runway to keying my door. And on a Ryanair plane with checked luggage landing at stansted
That’s incredible
Bravo, London
Stansted, like Gatwick, needs a second runway. The flightpaths are over mostly empty country and you don't have to knock down whole towns to build them. Also they'd provide competition for Heathrow as a hub airport.
Can’t do that. You’ve got to ‘save the planet’ by making empty gestures to the rest of the world.
76 minutes from wheels on the runway to keying my door. And on a Ryanair plane with checked luggage landing at stansted
That’s incredible
Bravo, London
Stansted, like Gatwick, needs a second runway. The flightpaths are over mostly empty country and you don't have to knock down whole towns to build them. Also they'd provide competition for Heathrow as a hub airport.
Can’t do that. You’ve got to ‘save the planet’ by making empty gestures to the rest of the world.
Put the manufacturing all in China or India, or at best Turkey, and then say how much better you are than everyone else with your Net Zero targets. Who cares about the skilled jobs lost forever?
Johnson has been exposed to all as the charlatan he always was.
Meanwhile the worst of this storm has passed; I think it has tracked further south than it might have, putting the most dangerous winds out to sea, thankfully.
One mystery remains about 2016. The EU exempted the UK from the Euro under Major. This was massive, and drove a coach and horses through the whole meaning of the plan. But in 2015/16 they wouldn't give situational derogations from FOM to the UK, which was by comparison trivial in constitutional terms. Remain would have won. What were they up to?
I mean, they did do the "emergency brake" thing, it wasn't nothing. But on why the EU wouldn't (and won't) compromise on freedom of movement as a core principle while they didn't mind if Britain didn't join the Euro:
1) Freedom of movement was part of the deal under which much of the EU had joined, and a quid quo pro for opening their markets.
2) Everyone has a populist party so if one country starts getting silly populist things to appease them then you'll be dealing with it anywhere, and if freedom of movement unravels and you lose labour mobility then the economic basis of the Euro also unravels.
3) Most countries didn't particularly want Britain to be in the Euro since it has weird housing markets and things that make it complicated.
4) Going from no-Euro to Euro was a negotiation where everyone had to agree or there would be no Euro, so if the British said no it was Euro-without-Britain or No Euro, whereas renegotiating freedom of movement would have needed a new treaty where everyone agreed, and the default position if any member state wanted to be difficult about it would have been No Change.
PS I don't think it's at all clear that Remain would have won if the EU had agreed to abolish FoM for Britain. The Leave side hung their campaign on pictures of refugees from Syria, who would never have been affected by anything Cameron was ever asking for.
I’ve got a new passport. Ironically the last one filled up after 5 years (despite its jumbo size) partly due to Brexit. I travel so much I got stamps eveywhere. I do have another passport but I always need two and so I got another one
It’s my first post Brexit passport
Here’s the weird thing. It is genuinely handsome. A much more attractive passport than the old EU one. Distinctive and sombre and kinda lovely in its dark dark blueness
So there you have it. There’s another Brexit benefit. I readily confess it is nanoscopic in size and essentially meaningless but it is the case. The brexiteers got what they wanted. Nicer passports with a definite Britishness
Kids will grow up with these just as they grow up with Brexit and it will feel totally normal that we’re not part of the EU
Brexit benefit my arse.
Do you really think that our young people, growing up in a poorer, isolated Britain cowering behind the trade barriers it has decided to erect around itself because Cameron was frit of his nutters, won’t look at their peers across the Channel, merrily traversing Europe with no impediments, enjoying the clean beaches and environmental and worker protections the EU brings, the economic benefits the huge market can strike in advantageous trade deals without selling industries out in favour of fleeting positive headlines in the client press, and will be mollified because, in your opinion, their passport is a better design than the old EU one?
Are there two EUs ? I never got to join the one you described. I was in the one where you closed factories because brits were easy to sack and moved all their jobs to France or Germany.
The problem is, factories are still being closed, and business move to the EU, even after Brexit. Perhaps membership of the EU was not the main problem; and instead it was our own business and economic environment?
Well NM was in a different EU.
In my EU the UK tried to have an anglo capitalist economy in a social market economy. The result was great for big corporations but bad for UK workers. And both Labour and Conservatives were happy with the results.
The EU isn't monolithic like that I've done a fair amount of business in Brussels over the years. DG-MARKT and its successors and DG-COMP, which are actually pretty good, do indeed try to have a centrist market economy. But other parts of the EU, like DG-AGRI and DG-ENER and most of the European Parliament, basically want to drown Europe in interventionism and red tape. And there are divisions even within the different departments - you can get a very different answer from a pro-market Dutch official than from a protectionist socialist Romanian, whatever the policy of their organisation is.
So trying to paint a coherent ideology on the sprawling bureaucracy there is almost certainly a waste of time. The only thing that unites them is a desire to keep the show somehow on the road, which they interpret in the tired old bicycle analogy - go forward (i.e. get more power and status) or fall over.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_storm_of_1987
It's amazing what people will turn a blind eye to when money is being chucked around. See also Saudi and UAE.
https://x.com/WxNB_/status/1719804190292070836?s=20
From 1997-2016, the Tories’ floor was 15% in Scotland, now more like 20%.
Kennedy appeals to that anti-politics, conspiracist mentality that MAGA chimes so closely with.
Although, I suspect the Spokesman's words are cheap. As Israel will set up a 2km kill zone inside Gaza - anything moving inside it will be shot. Or hit a mine. Or both, just to make sure.
You only get one surprise attack.
'Duty of care' is a similarly misused concept, which people assert means any body they like must do everything they want.
During the preparations for Gail Bradbrook's trial in July this year, the former scientist, who did not have a lawyer, said she intended to tell jurors that she could not be found guilty because of her right to freedom of expression and that she was also trying to prevent a greater crime of climate destruction.
She also argued that breaking the glass had been legally necessary and it was possible that government officials may have consented had they known why she was doing it.
Judge Martin Edmunds KC ruled none of these arguments were valid legal defences that a jury could consider - but Dr Bradbrook then repeatedly tried to turn to them in her evidence, arguing that she was otherwise being silenced.
The judge stopped the hearing and gave a rare warning that he may have to decide the case alone under seldom-used powers originally drawn up to prevent gangsters influencing juries.
"It is evident that Dr Bradbrook, by reference to her beliefs, considers either that the rules that apply to every other criminal defendant do not apply to her or that she is entitled to disregard them," said the judge in his July ruling.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67288289
The result is the SNP just look tired and out of ideas, and he's inherited the iffy (if not outright dodgy) legacy Sturgeon left behind. Combine that with the fact voters in the central belt very much want the Tories out of office in Westminster, and you see why we are where we are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_storm_of_1987
If you’re as far inland as the Surrey Hills then you won’t get much wind. This is sticking to the coast and channel.
An enterprising pollster tested this by showing their sample a picture and asking them to identify him:
https://echeloninsights.com/in-the-news/which-kennedy-is-it/
Now that Starmer looks like winning, the calculation changes. Sometimes the difference between success and failure is just being in the right place at the right time. How many Conservative politicians are going to miss out on a significant ministerial career because their prime years are going to be spent in opposition? Claire Coutinho, for example?
Wales' Covid "firebreak" lockdown in October 2020 was the "correct decision", according to Boris Johnson's former communications chief.
Lee Cain told the UK Covid Inquiry that the Welsh government was right to impose the "decisive" and "politically advantageous" three-week action.
During it people were told to stay at home and pubs, restaurants, hotels and non-essential shops had to shut.
Gatherings, indoors and out, with those not in your household were also banned.
Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford called it a "short, sharp, shock to turn back the clock, slow down the virus and buy us more time".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67289154
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/01/trump-too-small-supreme-court-elster/
Regardless of the Court's decision, you'll be able to buy a T-shirt here: Trumptoosmall.com
(If, like me, you don't like Trump, and have a dirty mind, you'll enjoy the picture they use on their T-shirts.)
Which surprised me, as I expected it to be a success.
On the subject of Bradbrook, however, she doesn't really care that much about the environment so her defence was a nonsense anyway.
But, the Welsh seem to like him.
The Republicans have a lucid moment and ditch Trump.
He runs as an independent and taps RFKJ as his Veep.
Well, why not? They're both former Democrats. They're both crooks. They're both in Putin's arsehole if not his back pocket. They both owe their position to their fathers rather than any merits of their own. They're both completely crazy.
The justices were leery of giving one individual a monopoly over a name that wasn’t his own.
he Supreme Court seemed uninterested Wednesday in altering decades of trademark law to allow a lawyer to have exclusive use of the slogan “Trump too small.”
“Some things you’re just not able to monopolize,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said.
Steve Elster wants the justices to overturn a government decision to block his trademark of “Trump too small,” which he planned to plaster on T-shirts and hats for a profit. The phrase harkens back to a viral moment during the 2016 Republican primary debate when Senator Marco Rubio made a joke about the size of Donald Trump’s hands. Trump took the insult personally, addressing the insult during a presidential debate.
The joke inspired Elster to use the double entendre as political commentary. Elster wanted to trademark the phrase, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied his application because marks with public officials’ names require consent.
An appeals board affirmed the office’s decision, but a federal circuit court reversed, finding Elster had a First Amendment claim. The government then turned to the Supreme Court to revive its policy.
The majority of justices appeared to be of the same mind as Gorsuch, favoring the government’s policy of not allowing trademarks on names without consent. Chief Justice John Roberts worried a ruling in favor of Elster would set off a trademark race.
“Presumably there will be a race for people to trademark Trump too this, Trump too that, whatever, and then particularly in the area of political expression, that really cuts off a lot of expressions other people might regard as important,” the George W. Bush appointee said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the government was not restricting Elster’s speech because he could sell as many shirts with “Trump too small” on them as he wanted — he just couldn’t prevent others from doing so.
“It’s almost as if we’re becoming strait-jacketed by labels instead of looking at this as I do from first principles,” the Obama appointee said. “The question is, is this an infringement on speech? And the answer is no.”
I wonder how many of the Extinction Rebellion types will fall down that wormhole and emerge as blood and soil types?
'Remain' (and the EU) missed the chance to sell the EU as a matter of principle, ideals and vision in 2016. Brexit prevailed; but couldn't now after war in Europe and the threat of Trumpian isolationism.
One mystery remains about 2016. The EU exempted the UK from the Euro under Major. This was massive, and drove a coach and horses through the whole meaning of the plan. But in 2015/16 they wouldn't give situational derogations from FOM to the UK, which was by comparison trivial in constitutional terms. Remain would have won. What were they up to?
The biggest danger to that is his Republican funders deciding it's counterproductive to have him run.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/non-jury-trials
An exclusive survey carried out by YouGov for Sky News shows that 2019 Conservative voters are more likely to switch to the Reform UK party than Labour."
https://news.sky.com/story/conservatives-losing-more-2019-voters-to-reform-uk-than-labour-poll-suggests-12998337
Her colleagues have form in confusing money with speech.
1) Freedom of movement was part of the deal under which much of the EU had joined, and a quid quo pro for opening their markets.
2) Everyone has a populist party so if one country starts getting silly populist things to appease them then you'll be dealing with it anywhere, and if freedom of movement unravels and you lose labour mobility then the economic basis of the Euro also unravels.
3) Most countries didn't particularly want Britain to be in the Euro since it has weird housing markets and things that make it complicated.
4) Going from no-Euro to Euro was a negotiation where everyone had to agree or there would be no Euro, so if the British said no it was Euro-without-Britain or No Euro, whereas renegotiating freedom of movement would have needed a new treaty where everyone agreed, and the default position if any member state wanted to be difficult about it would have been No Change.
PS I don't think it's at all clear that Remain would have won if the EU had agreed to abolish FoM for Britain. The Leave side hung their campaign on pictures of refugees from Syria, who would never have been affected by anything Cameron was ever asking for.
Tactically, Cameron should have held the referendum first and framed it as a choice between the status quo and leaving *if the renegotiation is unsatisfactory*. That would have forced the pro-EU side to oppose the idea of renegotiation and he would have put himself in the driving seat.
It’s my first post Brexit passport
Here’s the weird thing. It is genuinely handsome. A much more attractive passport than the old EU one. Distinctive and sombre and kinda lovely in its dark dark blueness
So there you have it. There’s another Brexit benefit. I readily confess it is nanoscopic in size and essentially meaningless but it is the case. The brexiteers got what they wanted. Nicer passports with a definite Britishness
Kids will grow up with these just as they grow up with Brexit and it will feel totally normal that we’re not part of the EU
https://x.com/MetJam_/status/1719846486043963414?s=20
"Pointe du Raz in west Brittany has gusted to 170 km/h (106 mph) with a mean wind speed of 134 km/h (83 mph) at 2324 UTC. The mean wind speed seen here is hurricane force. #StormCiarán"
And this would likely have avoided that
Is it not a Cold Conveyor rather than a Sting Jet? A Norwegian type low?
Edit: In any case, I'm amazed the Met Office hasn't issued a Red Warning.
We like to diss British infrastructure but if you’d arrived from chaotic Sicily and you didn’t know Britain you’d think Ooh what an efficient well run country, a bit like a much bigger Switzerland
I know that’s a false impression but it’s good to see the positive sometimes
Well done London
👏
If you are on the Elizabeth Line, then the journey is a total breeze.
It would be a completely unpredictable race.
But this is STANSTED. My least favourite London airport (slightly worse than Gatwick)
I reckon touchdown to key in door will be about 80 minutes
LHR is the only 1 of the 3 actually in London
76 minutes from wheels on the runway to keying my door. And on a Ryanair plane with checked luggage landing at stansted
That’s incredible
Bravo, London
2019 Tory voters today:
Still Con 40%
Don't Know 23%
RefUK 12%
Lab 11%
Wouldn't vote 7%
Other Party 7%
https://news.sky.com/story/conservatives-losing-more-2019-voters-to-reform-uk-than-labour-poll-suggests-12998337
What percentage of 1992 Tory voters did Blair obtain in 1997?
The "criminal trespass" was during a protest against US military misuse of Puerto Rican island of Vieques.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vieques,_Puerto_Rico
And dredging up his past drug abuse is pretty fucking lame IMHO.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-67272152
How did he think that the court would allow a trademark on someone else’s name? Imagine the activists all seeking to trademark anything memorable any politician said in a debate. As Justice Sotomayor said, no-one is preventing him from selling his T-shirts.
That’s one from the Joylon school of fox-bashing legal thinking, hopefully Mr Elster also has some silly benefactors to pay his costs.
Indeed, the only Justice I have no time for is Clarence Thomas, who combines fairly weak jurisprudence (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf) with suspect ethics.
The others, even Alito, all produce interesting judgements from time to time make one think and make one reconsider ones' opinions.
"This is an official from Hamas committing to repeat the atrocities from 07/10 again and again."
https://twitter.com/JamesCleverly/status/1719718109739688143
Note he defines the land as Arab and Islamic. No mention of Jews. And he refers to Palestinians as martyrs.
Are you at the AI conference that Elon Musk is at, or at the SEMA car show?
Do you really think that our young people, growing up in a poorer, isolated Britain cowering behind the trade barriers it has decided to erect around itself because Cameron was frit of his nutters, won’t look at their peers across the Channel, merrily traversing Europe with no impediments, enjoying the clean beaches and environmental and worker protections the EU brings, the economic benefits the huge market can strike in advantageous trade deals without selling industries out in favour of fleeting positive headlines in the client press, and will be mollified because, in your opinion, their passport is a better design than the old EU one?
The problem is, factories are still being closed, and business move to the EU, even after Brexit. Perhaps membership of the EU was not the main problem; and instead it was our own business and economic environment?
Their spineless craven apology only shows them in a bad light.
https://x.com/arfdy12/status/1719923377744585134?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
In my EU the UK tried to have an anglo capitalist economy in a social market economy. The result was great for big corporations but bad for UK workers. And both Labour and Conservatives were happy with the results.
Meanwhile the worst of this storm has passed; I think it has tracked further south than it might have, putting the most dangerous winds out to sea, thankfully.
So trying to paint a coherent ideology on the sprawling bureaucracy there is almost certainly a waste of time. The only thing that unites them is a desire to keep the show somehow on the road, which they interpret in the tired old bicycle analogy - go forward (i.e. get more power and status) or fall over.