'Wow Cooper making May look incredibly incompetent'
If you keep on repeating that enough times ,you'll even believe that yourself.
I'm watching BBC parliament and I can agree that this is Theresa May's worst day so far. Cooper and the Tory backbenchers, are not losing a single moment into embarrassing May repeatedly.
There was an unfortunate juxtaposition in the news tonight, with the Ronald Reagan - Maggie Thatcher tapes about Grenada. Ronald had signed off their exchange with "All right. Go get 'em, eat 'em alive."
The story followed on from the south Wales cannibal story.....
If David Cameron can't command the support of the Commons then he needs to man up and resign, rather than play little games to force legislation through (or flounce à la Syria vote) . He will get to spend more time playing Fruit Ninja and we can get on with electing a government with a popular mandate.
The Home Secreatry seems to be succeeding in by alienating the oppostion and the eurosceptic rebels who actually support the 11 pieces of legislation before the House. If she's not careful she will lose a vote she should be winning overwhelmingly.
All because she is making parliament go through hoops to avoid a debate on the EAW which she and the prime minister promised.
And these are the people who will lead the Tories into the election......
Has Richard Nabavi defended this yet? Cameron promised a vote on the EAW, and now he's just putting two fingers up to eurosceptics. After he just lied about getting half off the EU shakedown, we just can't trust him on any EU promises any more. His referendum promise has zero credibility yet.
Yep already on here defending the indefensible. To their credit there are Tories on here who are calling this the fraud it is.
It's only a matter of time before every Tory with an independent thought ends up defecting to other parties, mainly UKIP. With one lie and abuse after another, the only ones that stay defending Cameron and May are those that put loyalty above all. It's a bit like creationists: they'll toss out arguments all day, but it's obvious to all what fig leaves they are: not arguments to persuade but merely to obfuscate to avoid embarrassment.
'I'm watching BBC parliament and I can agree that this is Theresa May's worst day so far. Cooper and the Tory backbenchers, are not losing a single moment into embarrassing May repeatedly.'
I was watching earlier and agree with your point about Tory back benchers,but Cooper was her usual ineffectual self.
some pb-ers will remember a big debate we had on here about the robotisation of work. My thesis was that a load of jobs were at risk from robots and digital technology (obviously true) and that one of them was translater/interpreter, so I would no longer be advising my 8 year old daughters to learn Mandarin.
At the time many fiercely objected, saying computers could never be translators, blah blah, the Lib Dem Switchers are crucial, yada yada, you're a Nazi whoremongering pedo, etc etc
"One in three UK jobs will be performed by machine in as little as 20 years, according to a new study carried out the University of Oxford and Deloitte...
With constantly improving machine translation, foreign language skills also take a hit."
the fundamental semantic problems have been addressed, and agencies are generally retreating again and sending un-pretranslated material at full rates, except for very simple texts.
Barring huge technological leaps (highly possible in themselves) the digitisation of translation will work the way that, say, Apple Maps gets better and better (after a terrible start), by crowdsourcing information, and gathering feedback, and slowly yet relentlessly removing errors, as perfection is slowly neared.
Eventually the software will have encountered almost every conceivable sentence in English and will remember the very best translation, and they will give you that translation, pretty much for free. And so the vast majority of interpreters and translators lose their jobs.
I agree that a few translators with unique skills will be required for very niche (or luxurious - look we can afford a human translator!) interpreting jobs, but otherwise they're doomed. I will not be advising my daughters to learn Mandarin.
I find it surprising that you - a writer - should think that it is possible to determine a meaning for "every conceivable sentence in English" and "remember the best translation".
Presumably in the world you envisage no-one ever talks to anyone else in a language not their own?
There is an Italian phrase "E una buona cristiana." Google Translate will give you a good enough (though not accurate) translation of the words but you will still have no idea of its meaning.
One of many reasons I would not vote Tory if I could vote.
Shameless when you consider under the EAW the Germans refused to deport the Dr who killed a patient in the UK through incompetence and we ship anyone off the Americans ask for.
BBC to "out" the fake sheikh this evening on Panorama. They are going to show current images of him. That's his career definitely down the tubes then, some might say quite rightly.
I do wonder if that is necessary though.
Channel 4 did a perfectly good expose about him a few years ago, where they laid out how he hadn't been shall we say as straight as he should have been with some people he caught out (although often the individual's stories, who were claiming innocence, didn't always quite stack up either).
I don't remember them outing him though, rather just laying out the methods he has used to entrap individuals, and how often things aren't quite as they have been reported.
IT is about time Bercow got his marching orders. He is meant to be an impartial arbiter of events, getting involved in the politics shows what a contemptible little man he is.
Bercow is not getting involved in the politics. He is explaining and enforcing parliamentary procedure, including quoting Erskin May, the procedure bible.
Some MPs (including May) struggling to understand what to do when the question being put is that the question not be put - and the implications for the legislation before the House. She doesn't know whether to agree or not.
May started with what she thought was a great wheeze to swerve around the rebels but has now lost control of the Commons procedures which could go anywhere now.
Can someone explain to me why on earth the Tories have done this?
As it stood they were going to be faced with a rebellion on a direct vote on the EAW that most people were suggesting this morning would be in the region of 50 - well down from what they had feared a few days ago. It was almost certain to pass anyway because the Lib Dems and Labour had already said they would support it. There would have been some minor embarrassment for sure but they could at least point out they had kept their promise.
Instead they have pulled this trick which means they have blatantly broken the promise they gave that there would be a vote on the EAW with the result that they won by less than 10 votes and have infuriated many of their back benchers. They have also allowed their opponents and their supporters alike to justifiably claim that they have broken their promise.
May clearly had this in mind during her interview on the Today programme this morning when she stumbled over her reply, almost repeating the word 'promise' and then changing it rapidly to 'comment'.
IT is about time Bercow got his marching orders. He is meant to be an impartial arbiter of events, getting involved in the politics shows what a contemptible little man he is.
He is also meant to represent the rights of back-benchers and minority views in Parliament if they are not being properly addressed by the Government. Further he is supposed to ensure that procedures are followed - something he is clearly doing by clarifying the position (or lack of it) of the EAW within the vote today.
Personally I don't like Bercow's style but his behaviour today is entirely in keeping with the duties of his office.
I met Bercow recently at an awards dinner. He was much nicer in private than he appears to be on television. And he bothered to give me - a completely unimportant nonentity as far as he was concerned - his full attention for the time we were speaking. That is rarer than one might think or hope.
Will there or will there not be a vote on this package of 35 measures, including the EAW?
If there will then surely MPs will have the chance to reject the entire package if they feel strongly enough about the EAW.
What am I missing that's pissing so many people off?
May's refused to hold a vote, and interpreting ad-hoc the will of parliament without parliament's say.
May has not refused to have a vote. Cooper has proposed that the question not be put which (probably) means debate would stop tonight allowing them to reconvene tomorrow when the government have worked out how to extricate themselves from the procedural mess.
If May's original motion is pushed through tonight, as thigs stand it seems unlikely the EAW would survive a challenge in court.
Will there or will there not be a vote on this package of 35 measures, including the EAW?
If there will then surely MPs will have the chance to reject the entire package if they feel strongly enough about the EAW.
What am I missing that's pissing so many people off?
It's an EU stitch-up. The EU has already stated that the opt-outs have no status in EU law and will be tested.
The current talking shop is confected bollocks. They are the regional Gauleiters.
If true, that rather blows Mr Nabavi's claims that the government has improved the measures. So we can be extradited for offences which aren't offences in Britain, for investigations rather than to face charges and for trivial offences.
We should just stay out. The biggest lie of all is that without this measure there would be no extradition at all.
RE racism,I am a scouser,and brought up a Catholic,we were officially taught to hate Prody dogs,to cross the road if we saw one,to date one was a mortal sin. I eventually married someone from another religion and there were huge problems,mixed marriage etc,how things have changed. I am now what is termed lapsed,but will never forget the brutal school life of a Christian Brother school, Rod Crosby will understand.
Will there or will there not be a vote on this package of 35 measures, including the EAW?
If there will then surely MPs will have the chance to reject the entire package if they feel strongly enough about the EAW.
What am I missing that's pissing so many people off?
May's refused to hold a vote, and interpreting ad-hoc the will of parliament without parliament's say.
May has not refused to have a vote. Cooper has proposed that the question not be put which (probably) means debate would stop tonight allowing them to reconvene tomorrow when the government have worked out how to extricate themselves from the procedural mess.
If May's original motion is pushed through tonight, as thigs stand it seems unlikely the EAW would survive a challenge in court.
May's motion is not a vote for the EAW, only 11 out of 35 regulations she says that if parliament votes for the 11 it will be the same as voting for the 35. Parliament demands a vote on the EAW as a whole and the Speaker has rejected May's interpretation of the vote on the 11 counting as a vote for the 35.
Will there or will there not be a vote on this package of 35 measures, including the EAW?
If there will then surely MPs will have the chance to reject the entire package if they feel strongly enough about the EAW.
What am I missing that's pissing so many people off?
It's an EU stitch-up. The EU has already stated that the opt-outs have no status in EU law and will be tested.
The current talking shop is confected bollocks. They are the regional Gauleiters.
Do you have a link on the opt-out issue?
I have searched my history to find the reference and can't find an obvious link, I may have heard it on the Daily Politics.
I found this on today's Telegraph which does confirm what I say, slightly obliquely:
If the UK opts in, it will forfeit to the ECJ the ultimate ability to say no to the extradition of its citizens – a step that even states within the US are able to take. Stay out, and we will fall back on previous arrangements that were slower, less reliable and therefore may allow some criminals to escape justice. And yes, the UK Government has made some welcome domestic reforms to how the EAW operates, but time will tell whether these will withstand future ECJ interpretation.
Will there or will there not be a vote on this package of 35 measures, including the EAW?
If there will then surely MPs will have the chance to reject the entire package if they feel strongly enough about the EAW.
What am I missing that's pissing so many people off?
Think the vote is on 11 measures rather than 35
But we can't accept the 11 without accepting the other 24, right? So it's effectively a vote on all 35..
The legislation being voted on is only the 11. The Speaker has said that he has taken legal advice that nothing can be implied from the 11 about the EAW which amonst the other measures not being voted on.
The Home Sec says she can assume parliament agrees with the EAW if they vote on the 11 which exclude the EAW. Parliament say not and the law will no doubt agree when/if it has to go to court.
Paul Waugh retweeted Tracey Crouch @tracey_crouch · 50 mins50 minutes ago Told Chief I'd bet on a Tory hold in Rochester. He whipped out some dosh & asked me to put bet on for him too. Back to bookies tomorrow..
There is an Italian phrase "E una buona cristiana." Google Translate will give you a good enough (though not accurate) translation of the words but you will still have no idea of its meaning.
Oi! You can't just leave us hanging like that!
(Presumably it is a cynical comment that negates the previous, glowing praise about someone)
some pb-ers will remember a big debate we had on here about the robotisation of work. My thesis was that a load of jobs were at risk from robots and digital technology (obviously true) and that one of them was translater/interpreter, so I would no longer be advising my 8 year old daughters to learn Mandarin.
At the time many fiercely objected, saying computers could never be translators, blah blah, the Lib Dem Switchers are crucial, yada yada, you're a Nazi whoremongering pedo, etc etc
"One in three UK jobs will be performed by machine in as little as 20 years, according to a new study carried out the University of Oxford and Deloitte...
With constantly improving machine translation, foreign language skills also take a hit."
Computers can't do automatic translation. In that they can often do decent enough stabs at conversational stuff but they fall over immediately at any language task that requires precision.
You'll never be able to translate a legal document or a scientific paper from one language to another and unambiguously retain meaning.
Barring huge technological leaps (highly possible in themselves) the digitisation of translation will work the way that, say, Apple Maps gets better and better (after a terrible start), by crowdsourcing information, and gathering feedback, and slowly yet relentlessly removing errors, as perfection is slowly neared.
Eventually the software will have encountered almost every conceivable sentence in English and will remember the very best translation, and they will give you that translation, pretty much for free. And so the vast majority of interpreters and translators lose their jobs.
I agree that a few translators with unique skills will be required for very niche (or luxurious - look we can afford a human translator!) interpreting jobs, but otherwise they're doomed. I will not be advising my daughters to learn Mandarin.
I agree that it will happen, but there is a question of the timeframe. Language may take longer than some things simply because computers will struggle with things like context and nuance. Even with human translations it is interesting that there are often several different translations of famous non-English works of literature. This is because choosing the translation is often a matter of judgement and style, rather than a simple 1:1 correlation of sentences and words.
Another example is with automated driving. This was an item on the old Tomorrow's World, of course, and I was very disappointed to learn that the much touted Google version relies on creating minutely accurate maps of roads - thus a self-driving Google car can't cope when there is a temporary traffic light at roadworks, and certainly can't go anywhere that doesn't have very detailed up-to-date maps.
So a lot of this sort of stuff is going to take much longer than we might hope. It will still happen, but I wouldn't care to say when.
Having made some negative points, though, I will make one positive observation. I'm currently looking for a job [Edinburgh area, maths/physics degree, computer modelling if you know of anything] and it is very notable that where the recruitment buzzword a year or two ago was "Big Data", the new cool kid in town is "machine learning".
Rather than creating a program that analyses data or makes judgement on the basis of human instruction, the objective now is for the human to create a program that will work a lot more out all by itself.
Computers can't do automatic translation. In that they can often do decent enough stabs at conversational stuff but they fall over immediately at any language task that requires precision.
You'll never be able to translate a legal document or a scientific paper from one language to another and unambiguously retain meaning.
By Never I mean "Unless we develop human level machine intelligence". That is not happening for a good long while.
More evidence of Theresa May's authoritarianism: she's upset that we sometimes can't get phone signals, because then GCHQ can't monitor our every movement.
IT is about time Bercow got his marching orders. He is meant to be an impartial arbiter of events, getting involved in the politics shows what a contemptible little man he is.
He is also meant to represent the rights of back-benchers and minority views in Parliament if they are not being properly addressed by the Government. Further he is supposed to ensure that procedures are followed - something he is clearly doing by clarifying the position (or lack of it) of the EAW within the vote today.
Personally I don't like Bercow's style but his behaviour today is entirely in keeping with the duties of his office.
I met Bercow recently at an awards dinner. He was much nicer in private than he appears to be on television. And he bothered to give me - a completely unimportant nonentity as far as he was concerned - his full attention for the time we were speaking. That is rarer than one might think or hope.
Bercow's very engaging in person, and IMO funny in the Commons - I voted for him not because of any real or imagined bias but just because I thought he'd do a good job without the pompositiy of some of his predecessors.
Kenneth Clarke trying to come to the rescue of the Home Sec who he can see is driving the opposition to vote against the legislation which he and they agree with.
IT is about time Bercow got his marching orders. He is meant to be an impartial arbiter of events, getting involved in the politics shows what a contemptible little man he is.
He is also meant to represent the rights of back-benchers and minority views in Parliament if they are not being properly addressed by the Government. Further he is supposed to ensure that procedures are followed - something he is clearly doing by clarifying the position (or lack of it) of the EAW within the vote today.
Personally I don't like Bercow's style but his behaviour today is entirely in keeping with the duties of his office.
I met Bercow recently at an awards dinner. He was much nicer in private than he appears to be on television. And he bothered to give me - a completely unimportant nonentity as far as he was concerned - his full attention for the time we were speaking. That is rarer than one might think or hope.
Bercow's very engaging in person, and IMO funny in the Commons - I voted for him not because of any real or imagined bias but just because I thought he'd do a good job without the pompositiy of some of his predecessors.
Hear hear. I actually agree with NPxMP on something.... on that bombshell.
I reckon that for 95% of translation tasks, computers will be doing the job just fine, within 15-20 years (the time scale of the original article, and the time my daughters will be starting careers).
I do agree computers will never be able to satisfactorily translate foreign poetry. But then, neither can humans.
It's not the poetry, it's the precision language tasks. They just can't do it and there is no satisfactory avenues for them to be able to do so even with exponential increase in computing power over the next 20 years.
If I happened to choose as a lifelong Tory voter to vote UKIP then does that somehow make me a 'kipper'?
I'm not thinking that I'll do so, but if I happened to intellectually ingest the odd UKIP opinion or two, and if they agreed with me - well then the one thing that I'd not expect would be some torrent of vitriol.
If anyone imagines that their opinion is worth more than that of a UKIP voter then they are mistaken. One vote each.
You are a voter. You can and will look at the options in the round. In '97 Blair persuaded many people to vote for him, they were not socialists as a result. There are many swing voters. I suspect many people if not most will take bits of policies and personalities from all the parties, but in the end they have to vote on a balance of them. I suspect many people have only a glancing knowledge of the detail and political and personalities of it all. I can imagine, with some difficulty, voting for Frank Field. I could just about justify that as a tory by rationalising that his views would create difficulties in the Labour Party and/or that his opinions on say welfare were sound and deserved support. However if it meant letting in Ed Miliband I would think twice. So agreeing with some of what Field says does not make me a socialist any more than disagreeing with Cameron on say climate change does.
You may think, like me, that immigration has helped the UK recover and keep inflation and wage inflation down, give us good service and a willing workforce, yet still be unhappy that there are still far too many Brits stuck on benefits who could and should have taken many of those jobs. But whilst you can be concerned about immigration and ashamed of all the Brits still on benefits in a growing economy you can still divorced from all the UKIP inspired hysteria they whip up to further their own position. You can look at Ed and look at Nigel and look at their apologists see them both offering a different kind of extremist disaster and vote for something to prevent that.
Scott_P Posts: 7:38PM Ken Clarke puts the boot into Cooper
Speedy Posts: 7:38PM Ken Clarke has emptied a bucket on Theresa May citing the danger of the way she's doing things are a boon for UKIP.
Two posts at 7.38pm --- Wouldn't have thought the old duffer had so much energy to be able to fight both flanks the opposite way at the same time.
Its a car crash for all. They really should have figured this out and been organised. it does not reflect well on Parliament meanwhile the unelected in the EU fall about laughing. That's the main downside.
If I happened to choose as a lifelong Tory voter to vote UKIP then does that somehow make me a 'kipper'?
I'm not thinking that I'll do so, but if I happened to intellectually ingest the odd UKIP opinion or two, and if they agreed with me - well then the one thing that I'd not expect would be some torrent of vitriol.
If anyone imagines that their opinion is worth more than that of a UKIP voter then they are mistaken. One vote each.
It may be. A value of a person's opinion is a quality issue. The value of their vote, however, is a different matter - that depends on whether they're in a marginal seat.
I wonder whether the Home Secs procedural car crash is because of her not getting on with the Chief Whip. The relationship between the two is going to be worse after today.
No one is going to be sure which way to vote on the question or the question about the question.
I think their best move is to say yes to not answer the question tonight (which has to be unanimous) so they can work out what has happened and what to do overnight.
Bercow is probably the only one who knows what is happening because he doesn't have to think about political advantage but just concentrate on the double negatives and what are the correct procedures.
If I happened to choose as a lifelong Tory voter to vote UKIP then does that somehow make me a 'kipper'?
I'm not thinking that I'll do so, but if I happened to intellectually ingest the odd UKIP opinion or two, and if they agreed with me - well then the one thing that I'd not expect would be some torrent of vitriol.
If anyone imagines that their opinion is worth more than that of a UKIP voter then they are mistaken. One vote each.
You are a voter. You can and will look at the options in the round. In '97 Blair persuaded many people to vote for him, they were not socialists as a result. There are many swing voters. I suspect many people if not most will take bits of policies and personalities from all the parties, but in the end they have to vote on a balance of them. I suspect many people have only a glancing knowledge of the detail and political and personalities of it all. I can imagine, with some difficulty, voting for Frank Field. I could just about justify that as a tory by rationalising that his views would create difficulties in the Labour Party and/or that his opinions on say welfare were sound and deserved support. However if it meant letting in Ed Miliband I would think twice. So agreeing with some of what Field says does not make me a socialist any more than disagreeing with Cameron on say climate change does.
You may think, like me, that immigration has helped the UK recover and keep inflation and wage inflation down, give us good service and a willing workforce, yet still be unhappy that there are still far too many Brits stuck on benefits who could and should have taken many of those jobs. But whilst you can be concerned about immigration and ashamed of all the Brits still on benefits in a growing economy you can still divorced from all the UKIP inspired hysteria they whip up to further their own position. You can look at Ed and look at Nigel and look at their apologists see them both offering a different kind of extremist disaster and vote for something to prevent that.
I would have sworn you were a Labour voter before you declared your allegiance to the Tory party, I'm sure they're chuffed. You have that mad certainty and conviction I associate with the left, that everyone is evil except you.
Stand back, he's going to blow...talking of which what's happening on Betfair re the pigdog?
Douglas Carswell MP ✔ @DouglasCarswell The govt whips are all working the phones in panic. "I know we said go to Rochester, but we need you back here now"
Twitter Andrew Hawkins @Andrew_ComRes 2 mins2 minutes ago ComRes/ITV News: forced choice of preferred PM - 45% prefer Cameron, 26% prefer Ed M
Andrew Hawkins @Andrew_ComRes 1 min1 minute ago ComRes/ITV News poll sums up Ed M's problem - 53% say party leader is important to vote choice, on making good PM Ed scores -34, Cam +1
LDs joining in by criticiseing both May and Coopers motion to suspend
The lines are getting drawn now, Labour has refused to support the government, without Labour's support May's plan maybe defeated by parliament. The government knows this and are pressuring Labour to support the government if the EAW is to pass in government's eyes.
Stand back, he's going to blow...talking of which what's happening on Betfair re the pigdog?
Douglas Carswell MP ✔ @DouglasCarswell The govt whips are all working the phones in panic. "I know we said go to Rochester, but we need you back here now"
I'll give you a clue - Douglas isn't the only one getting over excited about tweets...
There is an Italian phrase "E una buona cristiana." Google Translate will give you a good enough (though not accurate) translation of the words but you will still have no idea of its meaning.
Oi! You can't just leave us hanging like that!
(Presumably it is a cynical comment that negates the previous, glowing praise about someone)
No - you presume wrong. If you come to Dirty Dick's I will explain.
Douglas Carswell MP @DouglasCarswell · 16m 16 minutes ago PM promised a vote on EAW today. He has failed to honour his word. Responsibility for Commons farce 100% with his whips office
some pb-ers will remember a big debate we had on here about the robotisation of work. My thesis was that a load of jobs were at risk from robots and digital technology (obviously true) and that one of them was translater/interpreter, so I would no longer be advising my 8 year old daughters to learn Mandarin.
At the time many fiercely objected, saying computers could never be translators, blah blah, the Lib Dem Switchers are crucial, yada yada, you're a Nazi whoremongering pedo, etc etc
"One in three UK jobs will be performed by machine in as little as 20 years, according to a new study carried out the University of Oxford and Deloitte...
With constantly improving machine translation, foreign language skills also take a hit."
Computers can't do automatic translation. In that they can often do decent enough stabs at conversational stuff but they fall over immediately at any language task that requires precision.
You'll never be able to translate a legal document or a scientific paper from one language to another and unambiguously retain meaning.
Who could have guessed that apps and computers would replace maps, and the Knowledge, rendering trained London taxi drivers entirely pointless?
Computers are now better than humans at chess. Up to the 1980s this was considered impossible. And computers surpassed humans mainly by sheer brute force, the increasing speed and power of their calculations, not any major technological innovation.
Computers are now threatening the lower levels of journalism: they can churn out decent copy if you're not too fussed about style.
The idea computers won't be able to tackle language coz it's just too uniquely hard is nuts. And any 8 year old who is now contemplating a career as a translator or interpreter is very badly advised.
Would you tell your infant kids to aim for these professions? I doubt it. Et voila.
Mr T,
Most of what you say about what 'people couldn't foresee' was in fact foreseen.
The future is 'free' energy, probably not that far away, eternal life of sorts, not that far away and then the big question. What the hell do we do with it.
On the 2nd of November 2009 Cameron announced there would be no retrospective vote on the Lisbon Treaty.
On the 10th of November 2014 the Cameron Government throws away 700 years of British Justice for the sake of his Government's Europhile aspirations in the most treacherous of manners.
What is with the Tories and November (they stabbed Thatcher in the back over the EU in November too)?
PS In much of Eastern Europe same-sex marriage (often constitutionally) and same sex adoption are banned . What price the first real EAW scandal is about such issues?
IT is about time Bercow got his marching orders. He is meant to be an impartial arbiter of events, getting involved in the politics shows what a contemptible little man he is.
He is also meant to represent the rights of back-benchers and minority views in Parliament if they are not being properly addressed by the Government. Further he is supposed to ensure that procedures are followed - something he is clearly doing by clarifying the position (or lack of it) of the EAW within the vote today.
Personally I don't like Bercow's style but his behaviour today is entirely in keeping with the duties of his office.
I met Bercow recently at an awards dinner. He was much nicer in private than he appears to be on television. And he bothered to give me - a completely unimportant nonentity as far as he was concerned - his full attention for the time we were speaking. That is rarer than one might think or hope.
Bercow's very engaging in person, and IMO funny in the Commons - I voted for him not because of any real or imagined bias but just because I thought he'd do a good job without the pompositiy of some of his predecessors.
Hear hear. I actually agree with NPxMP on something.... on that bombshell.
Mr Palmer does little regain any favour with me I'm afraid. Bercow is as funny as a boil on the wotsit. And of course he is the same man who was so concerned about parliamentary privilige that he secured the resignation of one assistant and went about the replacement process in the dubious way he did. I presume PBers have not got that short a memory. Thus, he having been suitably savaged by the tories over that, I will smile and not be fooled by his subsequent attitudes. Oh no.
And The other thing to ask both you and Mr Palmer is - just who are these pompous 'some of his predecessors'? Plural. Betty Boothroyd? Bernard Whetherill? George Thomas? Selwyn Lloyd then.
She has managed to turn the Tories worst rebels into supporters of May.
Outstanding work
The good thing about deliberately or inadvertently causing a procedural mess is that whoever is principally at fault for causing it, no-one comes out looking positive, so you cannot lose more than your opponent at least unless you are really unlucky. Being uninvolved in the proceedings the only way to win.
I'm reminded this evening of the kipper fury at Cameron's inability to time travel to back before Brown signed the Lisbon treaty (that, or their inability to understand his "cast-iron" guarantee)
IT is about time Bercow got his marching orders. He is meant to be an impartial arbiter of events, getting involved in the politics shows what a contemptible little man he is.
He is also meant to represent the rights of back-benchers and minority views in Parliament if they are not being properly addressed by the Government. Further he is supposed to ensure that procedures are followed - something he is clearly doing by clarifying the position (or lack of it) of the EAW within the vote today.
Personally I don't like Bercow's style but his behaviour today is entirely in keeping with the duties of his office.
I met Bercow recently at an awards dinner. He was much nicer in private than he appears to be on television. And he bothered to give me - a completely unimportant nonentity as far as he was concerned - his full attention for the time we were speaking. That is rarer than one might think or hope.
Bercow's very engaging in person, and IMO funny in the Commons - I voted for him not because of any real or imagined bias but just because I thought he'd do a good job without the pompositiy of some of his predecessors.
Hear hear. I actually agree with NPxMP on something.... on that bombshell.
And of course he is the same man who was so concerned about parliamentary privilige that he secured the resignation of one assistant and went about the replacement process in the dubious way he did.
I hope he has staff and advisers present with a firm grounding in parliamentary procedure right now.
In the event that the bill does not pass and the EAW is not established in law, is there any other mechanism in place that would allow someone to be extradited to another EU partner?
A point was made recently that in the event that we did not have the EAW then we would become a haven for those trying to escape justice. Personally I would find Brazil or even Cuba more preferable in such a circumstance than blighty but who knows? On the other hand given this has the EU stamped all over it I am minded to prefer the US stance where we never extradite. I do also see some issues with that as well.
The telling failure is the inability to identify at what level the EAW kicks in? This appeared not to have been known. Will it be murder or suspected jaywalking? Not having the definitive answer to that question rather makes the whole thing look totally amateur and the proposer the wrong side of incompetent.
One things for certain its a gift from both parties to UKIP.
I reckon that for 95% of translation tasks, computers will be doing the job just fine, within 15-20 years (the time scale of the original article, and the time my daughters will be starting careers).
I do agree computers will never be able to satisfactorily translate foreign poetry. But then, neither can humans.
Maybe there is already an app for this, but for the translation task one needs on a typical foreign holiday something like google translate is probably better than a phrasebook already.
I'm not sure when I'd be willing to sign a contract that had been machine-translated, though. Also, if brought before a foreign court, would you want a human or a machine translator? Likewise, I remember my Uncle, who is a tunnelling engineer, bringing some technical German documents to my Grandad for translation. Would you trust a multi-million pound engineering project to the accuracy of machine translation?
Some sorts of translation tasks will no doubt be automated. Maybe they already are? Things like ingredient lists on the very multi-lingual packaging of a European supermarket like Lidl. But most translation tasks where people are currently prepared to pay whatever barmy rates per hour that Nick Palmer charges are just going to be too important to be automated in any sort of timeframe.
Also, for a lot of business partnerships, human contact and relationships will prove surprisingly important. For that you need a shared language - which gives any employee with good language skills a career advantage, because they will be able to build a human relationship with the client.
@paulwaugh: DD now being unusually helpful to T May. Opposes Cooper. Worth remembering Davis cdve been Home Secretary, not May, but for his resignation
In the event that the bill does not pass and the EAW is not established in law, is there any other mechanism in place that would allow someone to be extradited to another EU partner?
A point was made recently that in the event that we did not have the EAW then we would become a haven for those trying to escape justice. Personally I would find Brazil or even Cuba more preferable in such a circumstance than blighty but who knows? On the other hand given this has the EU stamped all over it I am minded to prefer the US stance where we never extradite. I do also see some issues with that as well.
The telling failure is the inability to identify at what level the EAW kicks in? This appeared not to have been known. Will it be murder or suspected jaywalking? Not having the definitive answer to that question rather makes the whole thing look totally amateur and the proposer the wrong side of incompetent.
One things for certain its a gift from both parties to UKIP.
What did we do previously? Surely the obvious answer would be to reinstate that.
Comments
The story followed on from the south Wales cannibal story.....
All because she is making parliament go through hoops to avoid a debate on the EAW which she and the prime minister promised.
ICM Cameron bad PM clearly means no case has been made
Whereas COMRES 50% Ed would be bad PM is a nail in the Ed is Crap coffin.
Typical Tory PBer logic.
Typical Tory PBer logic
'I'm watching BBC parliament and I can agree that this is Theresa May's worst day so far.
Cooper and the Tory backbenchers, are not losing a single moment into embarrassing May repeatedly.'
I was watching earlier and agree with your point about Tory back benchers,but Cooper was her usual ineffectual self.
Presumably in the world you envisage no-one ever talks to anyone else in a language not their own?
There is an Italian phrase "E una buona cristiana." Google Translate will give you a good enough (though not accurate) translation of the words but you will still have no idea of its meaning.
Or people from Sheffield.
One of many reasons I would not vote Tory if I could vote.
Shameless when you consider under the EAW the Germans refused to deport the Dr who killed a patient in the UK through incompetence and we ship anyone off the Americans ask for.
I agree with Davidevershed
If there will then surely MPs will have the chance to reject the entire package if they feel strongly enough about the EAW.
What am I missing that's pissing so many people off?
'If there will then surely MPs will have the chance to reject the entire package if they feel strongly enough about the EAW.'
Yes, that's right.
The current talking shop is confected bollocks. They are the regional Gauleiters.
I do wonder if that is necessary though.
Channel 4 did a perfectly good expose about him a few years ago, where they laid out how he hadn't been shall we say as straight as he should have been with some people he caught out (although often the individual's stories, who were claiming innocence, didn't always quite stack up either).
I don't remember them outing him though, rather just laying out the methods he has used to entrap individuals, and how often things aren't quite as they have been reported.
Some MPs (including May) struggling to understand what to do when the question being put is that the question not be put - and the implications for the legislation before the House. She doesn't know whether to agree or not.
May started with what she thought was a great wheeze to swerve around the rebels but has now lost control of the Commons procedures which could go anywhere now.
As long as Cooper stops mucking about
As it stood they were going to be faced with a rebellion on a direct vote on the EAW that most people were suggesting this morning would be in the region of 50 - well down from what they had feared a few days ago. It was almost certain to pass anyway because the Lib Dems and Labour had already said they would support it. There would have been some minor embarrassment for sure but they could at least point out they had kept their promise.
Instead they have pulled this trick which means they have blatantly broken the promise they gave that there would be a vote on the EAW with the result that they won by less than 10 votes and have infuriated many of their back benchers. They have also allowed their opponents and their supporters alike to justifiably claim that they have broken their promise.
May clearly had this in mind during her interview on the Today programme this morning when she stumbled over her reply, almost repeating the word 'promise' and then changing it rapidly to 'comment'.
This is utter political incompetence.
By the way I am from Derbyshire not Sheffield so subtlety is not my strong point
May is a tosser
Douglas Carswell MP @DouglasCarswell 41m41 minutes ago
Ex colleagues busy selling shares in Theresa May.
If May's original motion is pushed through tonight, as thigs stand it seems unlikely the EAW would survive a challenge in court.
We should just stay out. The biggest lie of all is that without this measure there would be no extradition at all.
I eventually married someone from another religion and there were huge problems,mixed marriage etc,how things have changed.
I am now what is termed lapsed,but will never forget the brutal school life of a Christian Brother school,
Rod Crosby will understand.
We could have a separate vote on just the EAW, but we can't ditch that without ditching the other 34.
In that case, why would they waste time having separate votes?
Parliament demands a vote on the EAW as a whole and the Speaker has rejected May's interpretation of the vote on the 11 counting as a vote for the 35.
I found this on today's Telegraph which does confirm what I say, slightly obliquely:
If the UK opts in, it will forfeit to the ECJ the ultimate ability to say no to the extradition of its citizens – a step that even states within the US are able to take. Stay out, and we will fall back on previous arrangements that were slower, less reliable and therefore may allow some criminals to escape justice. And yes, the UK Government has made some welcome domestic reforms to how the EAW operates, but time will tell whether these will withstand future ECJ interpretation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11198850/Why-is-the-European-Arrest-Warrant-so-controversial.html
The Home Sec says she can assume parliament agrees with the EAW if they vote on the 11 which exclude the EAW. Parliament say not and the law will no doubt agree when/if it has to go to court.
Paul Waugh retweeted
Tracey Crouch @tracey_crouch · 50 mins50 minutes ago
Told Chief I'd bet on a Tory hold in Rochester. He whipped out some dosh & asked me to put bet on for him too. Back to bookies tomorrow..
(Presumably it is a cynical comment that negates the previous, glowing praise about someone)
Jacob Rees Mogg, Edward Leigh and loads of other Tories criticiseing the motion
You'll never be able to translate a legal document or a scientific paper from one language to another and unambiguously retain meaning.
This is a car crash right? This is total and utter car crash for all involved?
Another example is with automated driving. This was an item on the old Tomorrow's World, of course, and I was very disappointed to learn that the much touted Google version relies on creating minutely accurate maps of roads - thus a self-driving Google car can't cope when there is a temporary traffic light at roadworks, and certainly can't go anywhere that doesn't have very detailed up-to-date maps.
So a lot of this sort of stuff is going to take much longer than we might hope. It will still happen, but I wouldn't care to say when.
Having made some negative points, though, I will make one positive observation. I'm currently looking for a job [Edinburgh area, maths/physics degree, computer modelling if you know of anything] and it is very notable that where the recruitment buzzword a year or two ago was "Big Data", the new cool kid in town is "machine learning".
Rather than creating a program that analyses data or makes judgement on the basis of human instruction, the objective now is for the human to create a program that will work a lot more out all by itself.
Douglas Carswell MP@DouglasCarswell · 52 mins52 minutes ago
Ex colleagues busy selling shares in Theresa May.
Douglas Carswell MP ✔ @DouglasCarswell
Commons catches ministers off guards. Whips operation floundering. Panic
Douglas Carswell MP ✔ @DouglasCarswell
Massive mood gap between whips / T May cluster on frontbench and sullen, mutinous MPs behind. Ominous
Douglas Carswell MP@DouglasCarswell · 6m 6 minutes ago
Govt whips mouthing insults across the chamber. Discipline breaking down. Shambles
Douglas Carswell MP ✔ @DouglasCarswell
Greg Hands back in his chair. Hushed, rushed whispers with whips. Perhaps they're asking "where's George?"
Ken Clarke agrees with Cooper that their should be a vote on EAW.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/09/theresa-may-enthusiasm-not-spots-david-mitchell
I think he prefers to stay quiet and enjoy the spectacle of the government making a mess.
I suspect many people if not most will take bits of policies and personalities from all the parties, but in the end they have to vote on a balance of them. I suspect many people have only a glancing knowledge of the detail and political and personalities of it all.
I can imagine, with some difficulty, voting for Frank Field. I could just about justify that as a tory by rationalising that his views would create difficulties in the Labour Party and/or that his opinions on say welfare were sound and deserved support.
However if it meant letting in Ed Miliband I would think twice. So agreeing with some of what Field says does not make me a socialist any more than disagreeing with Cameron on say climate change does.
You may think, like me, that immigration has helped the UK recover and keep inflation and wage inflation down, give us good service and a willing workforce, yet still be unhappy that there are still far too many Brits stuck on benefits who could and should have taken many of those jobs. But whilst you can be concerned about immigration and ashamed of all the Brits still on benefits in a growing economy you can still divorced from all the UKIP inspired hysteria they whip up to further their own position. You can look at Ed and look at Nigel and look at their apologists see them both offering a different kind of extremist disaster and vote for something to prevent that.
That's today
7:38PM
Ken Clarke puts the boot into Cooper
Speedy Posts:
7:38PM
Ken Clarke has emptied a bucket on Theresa May citing the danger of the way she's doing things are a boon for UKIP.
Two posts at 7.38pm --- Wouldn't have thought the old duffer had so much energy to be able to fight both flanks the opposite way at the same time.
Its a car crash for all. They really should have figured this out and been organised. it does not reflect well on Parliament meanwhile the unelected in the EU fall about laughing. That's the main downside.
Outside the bubble no one will really notice
No one is going to be sure which way to vote on the question or the question about the question.
I think their best move is to say yes to not answer the question tonight (which has to be unanimous) so they can work out what has happened and what to do overnight.
Bercow is probably the only one who knows what is happening because he doesn't have to think about political advantage but just concentrate on the double negatives and what are the correct procedures.
Nutter.
'I'm just worried that Carswell may ejaculate in front of everyone... he's got a right frenzy on..'
At least it makes him feel important.
Douglas Carswell MP ✔ @DouglasCarswell
The govt whips are all working the phones in panic. "I know we said go to Rochester, but we need you back here now"
Andrew Hawkins @Andrew_ComRes 2 mins2 minutes ago
ComRes/ITV News: forced choice of preferred PM - 45% prefer Cameron, 26% prefer Ed M
Andrew Hawkins @Andrew_ComRes 1 min1 minute ago
ComRes/ITV News poll sums up Ed M's problem - 53% say party leader is important to vote choice, on making good PM Ed scores -34, Cam +1
The government knows this and are pressuring Labour to support the government if the EAW is to pass in government's eyes.
PM promised a vote on EAW today. He has failed to honour his word. Responsibility for Commons farce 100% with his whips office
Quite. Tell them to become robot maintenance workers instead, we'll need those.
She has managed to turn the Tories worst rebels into supporters of May.
Outstanding work
Most of what you say about what 'people couldn't foresee' was in fact foreseen.
The future is 'free' energy, probably not that far away, eternal life of sorts, not that far away and then the big question. What the hell do we do with it.
On the 10th of November 2014 the Cameron Government throws away 700 years of British Justice for the sake of his Government's Europhile aspirations in the most treacherous of manners.
What is with the Tories and November (they stabbed Thatcher in the back over the EU in November too)?
PS In much of Eastern Europe same-sex marriage (often constitutionally) and same sex adoption are banned . What price the first real EAW scandal is about such issues?
And of course he is the same man who was so concerned about parliamentary privilige that he secured the resignation of one assistant and went about the replacement process in the dubious way he did.
I presume PBers have not got that short a memory.
Thus, he having been suitably savaged by the tories over that, I will smile and not be fooled by his subsequent attitudes. Oh no.
And
The other thing to ask both you and Mr Palmer is - just who are these pompous 'some of his predecessors'? Plural. Betty Boothroyd? Bernard Whetherill? George Thomas? Selwyn Lloyd then.
David Davis throwing the bucket on Theresa May.
A point was made recently that in the event that we did not have the EAW then we would become a haven for those trying to escape justice. Personally I would find Brazil or even Cuba more preferable in such a circumstance than blighty but who knows? On the other hand given this has the EU stamped all over it I am minded to prefer the US stance where we never extradite. I do also see some issues with that as well.
The telling failure is the inability to identify at what level the EAW kicks in? This appeared not to have been known. Will it be murder or suspected jaywalking? Not having the definitive answer to that question rather makes the whole thing look totally amateur and the proposer the wrong side of incompetent.
One things for certain its a gift from both parties to UKIP.
I'm not sure when I'd be willing to sign a contract that had been machine-translated, though. Also, if brought before a foreign court, would you want a human or a machine translator? Likewise, I remember my Uncle, who is a tunnelling engineer, bringing some technical German documents to my Grandad for translation. Would you trust a multi-million pound engineering project to the accuracy of machine translation?
Some sorts of translation tasks will no doubt be automated. Maybe they already are? Things like ingredient lists on the very multi-lingual packaging of a European supermarket like Lidl. But most translation tasks where people are currently prepared to pay whatever barmy rates per hour that Nick Palmer charges are just going to be too important to be automated in any sort of timeframe.
Also, for a lot of business partnerships, human contact and relationships will prove surprisingly important. For that you need a shared language - which gives any employee with good language skills a career advantage, because they will be able to build a human relationship with the client.