Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
This is the entirety of the woke debate. I think this I am right Other people are wrong Anyone who thinks they are right and I am wrong are woke
No, that is not the "entirety of the woke debate"
You surely know this, so why trot out this gibberish?
The BBC has an interesting take on the dismissal/resignation of Claudine Gay from Harvard after the scandalous testimony then plagiarism.
Basically it’s all down to the far right, Trump and pandering to fascists. Including a quote from someone giving that view.
BBC journalism is astonishingly poor and somewhat partisan.
The response in Germany to a scandal where a number of politicians were discovered to have plagiarised their theses was interesting.
A journalist realised that you could have a lot of fun by downloading the theses of various people and running them through a plagiarism detector.
A number of universities sequestered the theses of “notable” people, in response.
The plagiarism criticisms of Gay that I've seen were pretty trivial stuff, blown out of all proportion. There were, of course, other criticisms of Gay that are of more significance.
A, lot of "plagiarism" in academia is just careless footnoting. Any academic work typically, by convention, has to include a summary of the existing literature and debate, which by definition is not original work. Cribbing parts of that from an existing review article and failing to fully credit that is not a crime IMHO. Passing off someone else's original contribution as one's own is quite different. I've not seen the details of the criticism of Gay but it certainly, from a distance, has more than a whiff of a witch hunt about it.
There may be an agenda to get her, but it has been shown - indisputably - that Harvard STUDENTS have been rusticated for less serious examples of plagiarism than hers, and hers extend over several years and her entire output (and there is now querying of her data, as well)
You cannot have a situation where the President of Harvard is held to a less high standard of academic rigour than Harvard students. For a start it invites law suits from students if they get booted out, unlike Gay who stays (as was)
However I agree that her greater crime was her idiotic, offensive remarks in Congress
All three women should have resigned next day
AIUI (and I've not been following this very closely because I'm not American and don't really care what happens at Harvard) they were asked a factual question about whether certain remarks were against their university codes of conduct, and they said it was context specific - while they personally abhorred the comments. What if that is just factually accurate? America has remarkably robust free speech laws, and academic freedom is important, and perhaps it is the case that there is no hard and fast ban on any specific comment. Indeed I would imagine there isn't any such ban, how could there be, given the infinite array of potentially offensive comments one could make. Just seems like a gotcha tactic, an attempt to exercise power over an area of American life Republican politicians feel they have no control over.
No, that's complete bollocks. US universities generally have little interest in protecting free speech, and Harvard is among the worst in this respect. In particular, see here:
...this year, Harvard completed its downward spiral in dramatic fashion, coming in dead last with the worst score ever: 0.00 out of a possible 100.00. This earns it the notorious distinction of being the only school ranked this year with an “Abysmal” speech climate.
The article summarises the general issues with free speech pretty well, but for those who can't be bothered to click, here is a summary: - disinviting or banning guest speakers from campus whose views they don't agree with (and failing to stop protesters from actively disrupting the events that do go ahead) - sanctioning students who have expressed particular views on social media - hostile atmospheres in lectures and other academic contexts whereby right wing students are made afraid to express views that go against that of their professor
If I could sum it up in one sentence, it would be as follows: there are no other minority groupings for whom Claudine Gay and the other two imbeciles would have had any trouble saying that calling for their genocide was against university code of conduct.
John Gray made a good observation to the effect that freedom of thought at university is being replaced people seeking freedom from thought.
This observation is probably true of both sides , the right and the left; but those on the left cannot be shocked when the right enact its own version of cancel culture. It is a product of universities being so weak on free speech and caving in to "woke" mobs as they have done for the last decade or so. The correction was inevitable and probably necessary but the most successful and resilient institutions will be the ones who don't bow to the demands of either side.
This is the usual narrative that the Left is at fault and the Right are just reacting, and possibly over-reacting, to that. Which is nonsense.
There is a long debate about who should get to say what. We didn't live in some free speech utopia and then the Left came along and corrupted it. The Left and Right have both spent years going back and forth on what is a difficult matter. I'm old enough to remember when the Conservatives introduced laws in the UK that meant Gerry Adams' voice had to be replaced by an actor's.
It is a long debate and the howl of 'free speech' is usually a tactical one by the losing side. But instances of overreach by the left in academia over the past few years are well documented, for instance in 'the coddling of the American Mind' by Haidt and Lukiankoff. It was inevitable that the right would eventually popularise this and find a way of using it to their political advantage, even if the eventual outcome has little to do with free speech, it probably sets its cause backwards.
Ultimately something like 'critical race theory' should be studied, not censored (as is the case in florida), but without the influence of grand politicised assumptions about 'social justice'. But if universities redefine their mission as seeking 'justice' rather than 'truth' then the situation can easily get confused.
Saying the Right did "eventually popularise this and find a way of using it to their political advantage" is ahistorical. You write as if the Right hadn't ever entered the arena before. We can go back to 2001 and the first laws trying to curtail the teaching of evolution, including the ironically named Academic Freedom Acts in Alabama. Then jump back to 1911 and the four professors forced out of Brigham Young University for teaching on evolution. Or there's the firing of Edward Ross from Stanford in 1900. We can talk about McCarthyism and fears of communism being smuggled in through academic freedoms.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy
The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave). A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly. Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street. I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.
Agree with all of that, except the first line of the final paragraph.
Our economic performance if we'd Remained in the EU as opposed to how it is now, today, would be utterly indistinguishable and no-one spun round from 2015 and inserted in 2024 would be able to tell any difference.
I believe the kids call it “copium”.
This claim is commonly made by Brexity posters, because the alternative is conceding that you voted to economically damage your own country.
The claim from Brexit supporters at the time was that it would actively improve economic performance (breaking free from shackles of Brussels, trade deals etc).
In a sense, that's fair enough - I don't agree with it but get the argument.
Casino's argument is the really odd one - essentially saying without evidence that fundamentally changing the trading relationship with by far our most significant trading partner would make no discernible difference one way or the other. Nobody was arguing a major policy intervention would basically have zero economic impact - it's a bizarre view.
I was and continue to do so. Those who claimed otherwise claimed that we would suffer long term declines in our exports and trade performance with the EU.
The statistics simply do not bear that out. In fact other than a very short term effect at the end of the transition period both our exports and imports from the EU have remained remarkably stable. There is a table on p31 of this report which shows the month by month figures:https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7851/CBP-7851.pdf
Anyone who thought about our trade with non EU countries would have realised that this was likely to be the case, even in a no deal scenario, let alone the deals we currently have. The lack of a trade deal with the US did not stop them being our largest single trading partner or indeed us running a surplus with them.
The really grim thing is that the chronic trade deficit we built up whilst in the EU single market has not materially diminished. We continue to import far more (roughly £90bn a year) from them than we export. This continues to impoverish our country in a frankly unsustainable way.
Doubling the number of foreign students would get rid of about a third of that......just saying......
Which is a major reason why the government are so reluctant to act in respect of our largest single source of legal immigrants. Bluntly, we need the money.
They act by working hard to increase the number of foreign students and then blame it on courts, liberal lawyers and scapegoat immigrants. And don't seem reluctant about any of it as they keep repeating the plan.
Oh, I agree. Hypocrites to a man or woman. But lets talk about the comparatively trivial numbers getting here by boat instead.
In the cricket India currently doing an England after South Africa did one earlier in the same match
6 wickets lost at the end of the India innings for no runs. England would look on in awe. Still quite a big advantage for India though. SA are going to need to bat out of their skins to save this.
Headset audio guides at historical tourist attractions. Very annoying things. The crème eggs of the heritage industry.
- Tinny mediaeval soundtracks of excitable Shawm and lute playing - long monologues by hammy sub-blackadder-the-first narrators, usually featuring Brian Blessed or an impersonator - Inevitable warfare sound effects featuring shouting, galloping hooves, whinnying horses and clashing swords. Usually fading in and out - extended period where they don’t actually provide any facts, preferring to engage in weak role play
They offer kids’ versions, so why can’t they also offer a “give me the basic facts in a clipped RP voice with no clopping hooves or lute” version?
In the cricket India currently doing an England after South Africa did one earlier in the same match
6 wickets lost at the end of the India innings for no runs. England would look on in awe. Still quite a big advantage for India though. SA are going to need to bat out of their skins to save this.
save ??? Is Newlands going to get England's weather as well as our batting collapses ?
The firm consensus amongst the British population is that Brexit was a mistake. The only relevant question now is what, if anything, you are going to do to fix or mitigate that mistake?
It’s what it leads to. Particularly if there’s a Mossad angle (which there may or may not be).
I bet the Ayatollah will be really miffed if it turns out Israel has been sponsoring terrorist attacks in other countries.
And rightly so - it just isn't cricket.
Has anyone credible actually suggested a Mossad link? While Mossad has assassinated people in Israel, something like this is not their usual approach. There are lots of other people in Iran who have set off bombs before, ISIS particularly. It seems much more likely to be one of them.
Headset audio guides at historical tourist attractions. Very annoying things. The crème eggs of the heritage industry.
- Tinny mediaeval soundtracks of excitable Shawm and lute playing - long monologues by hammy sub-blackadder-the-first narrators, usually featuring Brian Blessed or an impersonator - Inevitable warfare sound effects featuring shouting, galloping hooves, whinnying horses and clashing swords. Usually fading in and out - extended period where they don’t actually provide any facts, preferring to engage in weak role play
They offer kids’ versions, so why can’t they also offer a “give me the basic facts in a clipped RP voice with no clopping hooves or lute” version?
They're great in galleries for keeping most of the tourists quiet while true art lovers can appreciate the works in comparative silence (without tendentious explanations).
It’s what it leads to. Particularly if there’s a Mossad angle (which there may or may not be).
I bet the Ayatollah will be really miffed if it turns out Israel has been sponsoring terrorist attacks in other countries.
And rightly so - it just isn't cricket.
Has anyone credible actually suggested a Mossad link? While Mossad has assassinated people in Israel, something like this is not their usual approach. There are lots of other people in Iran who have set off bombs before, ISIS particularly. It seems much more likely to be one of them.
Israel does seem very unlikely as this really isn’t their MO. That’s not stopping the entirety of Middle East Twitter already deciding it’s them of course.
The 2019 tory intake ukippified the party and definitively changed both the intra party dynamic, but also its culture and ethical orientation. It not only became decidedly corrupt and low brow but also dysfunctional. If the tories get kicked out it is not because of the leader, but because the party itself is broken. In my mind these byelections are the key symptom of this development.
It’s what it leads to. Particularly if there’s a Mossad angle (which there may or may not be).
I bet the Ayatollah will be really miffed if it turns out Israel has been sponsoring terrorist attacks in other countries.
And rightly so - it just isn't cricket.
Has anyone credible actually suggested a Mossad link? While Mossad has assassinated people in Israel, something like this is not their usual approach. There are lots of other people in Iran who have set off bombs before, ISIS particularly. It seems much more likely to be one of them.
Israel does seem very unlikely as this really isn’t their MO. That’s not stopping the entirety of Middle East Twitter already deciding it’s them of course.
It would seem a stupid thing for Israel to do at this point.
Never buy a brand-new car. Just don't. It's throwing money out of the window.
3 years ago we bought a brand new car. It was an outgoing model, so we got it with such a big discount that we paid less than we were expecting to pay for a 1 year old vehicle.
Only car I bought new was a grey import Renault .Megane 19 years ago.
And that was after a large payout from my previous car being written off and a few grand of winnings from an onlin Casino when you could play blackjack for bonuses
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy
The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave). A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly. Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street. I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.
Agree with all of that, except the first line of the final paragraph.
Our economic performance if we'd Remained in the EU as opposed to how it is now, today, would be utterly indistinguishable and no-one spun round from 2015 and inserted in 2024 would be able to tell any difference.
I believe the kids call it “copium”.
This claim is commonly made by Brexity posters, because the alternative is conceding that you voted to economically damage your own country.
The claim from Brexit supporters at the time was that it would actively improve economic performance (breaking free from shackles of Brussels, trade deals etc).
In a sense, that's fair enough - I don't agree with it but get the argument.
Casino's argument is the really odd one - essentially saying without evidence that fundamentally changing the trading relationship with by far our most significant trading partner would make no discernible difference one way or the other. Nobody was arguing a major policy intervention would basically have zero economic impact - it's a bizarre view.
I was and continue to do so. Those who claimed otherwise claimed that we would suffer long term declines in our exports and trade performance with the EU.
The statistics simply do not bear that out. In fact other than a very short term effect at the end of the transition period both our exports and imports from the EU have remained remarkably stable. There is a table on p31 of this report which shows the month by month figures:https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7851/CBP-7851.pdf
Anyone who thought about our trade with non EU countries would have realised that this was likely to be the case, even in a no deal scenario, let alone the deals we currently have. The lack of a trade deal with the US did not stop them being our largest single trading partner or indeed us running a surplus with them.
The really grim thing is that the chronic trade deficit we built up whilst in the EU single market has not materially diminished. We continue to import far more (roughly £90bn a year) from them than we export. This continues to impoverish our country in a frankly unsustainable way.
Perhaps you meant to reference a different report, as the one linked does not contain that graph.
In any case, the relevant analysis is to compare the UK with other economies.
As for the long-standing trade deficit, that is a result of the UK preferring consumption to savings. It has essentially been Britain’s economic model for the last 40 years; I agree it’s effects are pernicious.
Sorry, its on p12/31. And I agree with you as to the cause. It was not nasty foreigners taking advantage, it was our own incompetence and reluctance to accept that our standard of living has to be earned.
The problem is that a lot of the votes of 2016 and 2019 were to continue ignoring that problem. Vote Leave, Vote Boris and it will release a huge amount of money and solve our problems. Which was never going to happen because £350 million a week across a country is one of those sums that sounds bigger than it is (£5 a head a week is nice to have, but not game changing).
Meanwhile, quoting myself this graph gets worse the more I look at it.
The kink in the red line is 2002, there's been slow to no growth in household income minus housing costs since then. That's basically my entire working life.
It’s what it leads to. Particularly if there’s a Mossad angle (which there may or may not be).
I bet the Ayatollah will be really miffed if it turns out Israel has been sponsoring terrorist attacks in other countries.
And rightly so - it just isn't cricket.
Has anyone credible actually suggested a Mossad link? While Mossad has assassinated people in Israel, something like this is not their usual approach. There are lots of other people in Iran who have set off bombs before, ISIS particularly. It seems much more likely to be one of them.
Israel does seem very unlikely as this really isn’t their MO. That’s not stopping the entirety of Middle East Twitter already deciding it’s them of course.
Zemblaninous timing for Mossad so soon after their Lebanese hit job, mind.
It’s what it leads to. Particularly if there’s a Mossad angle (which there may or may not be).
I bet the Ayatollah will be really miffed if it turns out Israel has been sponsoring terrorist attacks in other countries.
And rightly so - it just isn't cricket.
Has anyone credible actually suggested a Mossad link? While Mossad has assassinated people in Israel, something like this is not their usual approach. There are lots of other people in Iran who have set off bombs before, ISIS particularly. It seems much more likely to be one of them.
Israel does seem very unlikely as this really isn’t their MO. That’s not stopping the entirety of Middle East Twitter already deciding it’s them of course.
Zemblaninous timing for Mossad so soon after their Lebanese hit job, mind.
But completely different MO: indiscriminate bomb versus targeted assassination.
The 2019 tory intake ukippified the party and definitively changed both the intra party dynamic, but also its culture and ethical orientation. It not only became decidedly corrupt and low brow but also dysfunctional. If the tories get kicked out it is not because of the leader, but because the party itself is broken. In my mind these byelections are the key symptom of this development.
That's right. Is there a drug that gives you superpowers for a short period and after that utterly ruins you? If there is, it's a good analogy for the Tories and Brexit.
Headset audio guides at historical tourist attractions. Very annoying things. The crème eggs of the heritage industry.
- Tinny mediaeval soundtracks of excitable Shawm and lute playing - long monologues by hammy sub-blackadder-the-first narrators, usually featuring Brian Blessed or an impersonator - Inevitable warfare sound effects featuring shouting, galloping hooves, whinnying horses and clashing swords. Usually fading in and out - extended period where they don’t actually provide any facts, preferring to engage in weak role play
They offer kids’ versions, so why can’t they also offer a “give me the basic facts in a clipped RP voice with no clopping hooves or lute” version?
Just been on another 2.5k power walk. I know that HIIT training is about smashing your heartrate up for short intense bursts with cool down spells in-between. I think my village 2.5k walk does that. There are several short but steep bits, so lets just say my heart is pumping hard having got to here from low street just out of shot in the distance...
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy
The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave). A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly. Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street. I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.
Agree with all of that, except the first line of the final paragraph.
Our economic performance if we'd Remained in the EU as opposed to how it is now, today, would be utterly indistinguishable and no-one spun round from 2015 and inserted in 2024 would be able to tell any difference.
I believe the kids call it “copium”.
This claim is commonly made by Brexity posters, because the alternative is conceding that you voted to economically damage your own country.
The claim from Brexit supporters at the time was that it would actively improve economic performance (breaking free from shackles of Brussels, trade deals etc).
In a sense, that's fair enough - I don't agree with it but get the argument.
Casino's argument is the really odd one - essentially saying without evidence that fundamentally changing the trading relationship with by far our most significant trading partner would make no discernible difference one way or the other. Nobody was arguing a major policy intervention would basically have zero economic impact - it's a bizarre view.
I was and continue to do so. Those who claimed otherwise claimed that we would suffer long term declines in our exports and trade performance with the EU.
The statistics simply do not bear that out. In fact other than a very short term effect at the end of the transition period both our exports and imports from the EU have remained remarkably stable. There is a table on p31 of this report which shows the month by month figures:https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7851/CBP-7851.pdf
Anyone who thought about our trade with non EU countries would have realised that this was likely to be the case, even in a no deal scenario, let alone the deals we currently have. The lack of a trade deal with the US did not stop them being our largest single trading partner or indeed us running a surplus with them.
The really grim thing is that the chronic trade deficit we built up whilst in the EU single market has not materially diminished. We continue to import far more (roughly £90bn a year) from them than we export. This continues to impoverish our country in a frankly unsustainable way.
Perhaps you meant to reference a different report, as the one linked does not contain that graph.
In any case, the relevant analysis is to compare the UK with other economies.
As for the long-standing trade deficit, that is a result of the UK preferring consumption to savings. It has essentially been Britain’s economic model for the last 40 years; I agree it’s effects are pernicious.
Sorry, its on p12/31. And I agree with you as to the cause. It was not nasty foreigners taking advantage, it was our own incompetence and reluctance to accept that our standard of living has to be earned.
The problem is that a lot of the votes of 2016 and 2019 were to continue ignoring that problem. Vote Leave, Vote Boris and it will release a huge amount of money and solve our problems. Which was never going to happen because £350 million a week across a country is one of those sums that sounds bigger than it is (£5 a head a week is nice to have, but not game changing).
Meanwhile, quoting myself this graph gets worse the more I look at it.
The kink in the red line is 2002, there's been slow to no growth in household income minus housing costs since then. That's basically my entire working life.
The firm consensus amongst the British population is that Brexit was a mistake. The only relevant question now is what, if anything, you are going to do to fix or mitigate that mistake?
Elect a Labour government.
Labour's EU policy - damage limitation where low cost - makes sense, but their rhetoric is wrong. They sell it as making Brexit work when most people think, and will continue to think, Brexit doesn't work. Rhetoric matters.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy
The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave). A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly. Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street. I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.
Agree with all of that, except the first line of the final paragraph.
Our economic performance if we'd Remained in the EU as opposed to how it is now, today, would be utterly indistinguishable and no-one spun round from 2015 and inserted in 2024 would be able to tell any difference.
I believe the kids call it “copium”.
This claim is commonly made by Brexity posters, because the alternative is conceding that you voted to economically damage your own country.
The claim from Brexit supporters at the time was that it would actively improve economic performance (breaking free from shackles of Brussels, trade deals etc).
In a sense, that's fair enough - I don't agree with it but get the argument.
Casino's argument is the really odd one - essentially saying without evidence that fundamentally changing the trading relationship with by far our most significant trading partner would make no discernible difference one way or the other. Nobody was arguing a major policy intervention would basically have zero economic impact - it's a bizarre view.
I was and continue to do so. Those who claimed otherwise claimed that we would suffer long term declines in our exports and trade performance with the EU.
The statistics simply do not bear that out. In fact other than a very short term effect at the end of the transition period both our exports and imports from the EU have remained remarkably stable. There is a table on p31 of this report which shows the month by month figures:https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7851/CBP-7851.pdf
Anyone who thought about our trade with non EU countries would have realised that this was likely to be the case, even in a no deal scenario, let alone the deals we currently have. The lack of a trade deal with the US did not stop them being our largest single trading partner or indeed us running a surplus with them.
The really grim thing is that the chronic trade deficit we built up whilst in the EU single market has not materially diminished. We continue to import far more (roughly £90bn a year) from them than we export. This continues to impoverish our country in a frankly unsustainable way.
Perhaps you meant to reference a different report, as the one linked does not contain that graph.
In any case, the relevant analysis is to compare the UK with other economies.
As for the long-standing trade deficit, that is a result of the UK preferring consumption to savings. It has essentially been Britain’s economic model for the last 40 years; I agree it’s effects are pernicious.
Sorry, its on p12/31. And I agree with you as to the cause. It was not nasty foreigners taking advantage, it was our own incompetence and reluctance to accept that our standard of living has to be earned.
The problem is that a lot of the votes of 2016 and 2019 were to continue ignoring that problem. Vote Leave, Vote Boris and it will release a huge amount of money and solve our problems. Which was never going to happen because £350 million a week across a country is one of those sums that sounds bigger than it is (£5 a head a week is nice to have, but not game changing).
Meanwhile, quoting myself this graph gets worse the more I look at it.
The kink in the red line is 2002, there's been slow to no growth in household income minus housing costs since then. That's basically my entire working life.
The Government does not like you, does not care about you, and only uses you as a resource to create growth to impress their friends. "Their friends" do not include you.
Comments
- Tinny mediaeval soundtracks of excitable Shawm and lute playing
- long monologues by hammy sub-blackadder-the-first narrators, usually featuring Brian Blessed or an impersonator
- Inevitable warfare sound effects featuring shouting, galloping hooves, whinnying horses and clashing swords. Usually fading in and out
- extended period where they don’t actually provide any facts, preferring to engage in weak role play
They offer kids’ versions, so why can’t they also offer a “give me the basic facts in a clipped RP voice with no clopping hooves or lute” version?
Recent terrorist attacks in Iran:
2022 Shah Cheragh attack: 15 dead, ISIS
2022 Imam Reza shrine stabbings: 2 dead, Sunni jihadist
2018 Chabahar suicide bombing: 2 dead, Sunni jihadist
2018 Ahvaz military parade attack: 25 dead, ISIS-related
2017 Tehran attacks: 17 dead, ISIL
2010 Chabahar suicide bombing: 39 dead, Sunni jihadist
2007 Zahedan bombings: 18 dead, Al-Qaeda-related
2005–06 Ahvaz bombings: 28+ dead, Arab separatists
While I cannot support NUFC under the current ownership, I make a one-off exception when it comes to this fixture.
I just purchased a Jump Start Machine for the 2l diesel car - and I discover it is itself charged up via a USB lead, not a 3 pin socket.
How times change.
LibDem photo op has Ed Davey standing in front of a "Tory Removals" van: https://twitter.com/HenryRiley1/status/1742494933074726936
If you look closely at the image on the van, it has an image credit to a user called Parrot Of Doom.
Thatcher's "dead parrot" has become the Liberal Democrat Parrot Of Doom.
And that was after a large payout from my previous car being written off and a few grand of winnings from an onlin Casino when you could play blackjack for bonuses
Meanwhile, quoting myself this graph gets worse the more I look at it.
The kink in the red line is 2002, there's been slow to no growth in household income minus housing costs since then. That's basically my entire working life.
NEW THREAD