Ok, entirely without humour: 'referendum' translates as "issue to be referred (to the people). 'Referenda' is not a word in Latin (there's no such thing as a plural gerund), if it were it would best translate as 'issues to be referred (to the people)'. So it pluralises the issues to be voted on, not the voting occasions themselves. Which makes 'referendums', not 'referenda', the best plural form of 'referendum'. Brexeo, brexis, brexit..
All these environmental issues - rivers, beaches, air quality - were a hang over from a time when people didn't care about such things and it had been that way since the industrial revolution. There is no reason at all to believe that, starting from a position of having clean beaches and rivers and with a population that is strongly environmentally aware, we will revert to polluting them again.
This is the trouble with the Remaniacs. They treat the population like children who have to be badgered and forced to do the right thing all the time. This is why you deserve to lose.
Oh and on the subject of the environment, it is Britain which has been leading the way with the establishment of Marine reserves and protected areas around the world. We are responsible for the creation of the largest marine reserves in the world. Likewise the establishment of National Parks which happened long before we ever even considered joining the EEC. This is not driven by any EU ruling or directive but by the willingness of the British government and British people to do the right thing.
I see "The EU was good for us THEREFORE it will be good for us" as the Remain equivalent of the Out argument "The EU was built for another time THEREFORE it can't help us now".
Except I have seen no one on the Brexit side making that argument. We are arguing that the EU as it was designed and has developed is not good for us and never would have been good for us at any time.
Perhaps I put it badly, but I've seen it regularly argued in some form amount people who voted Yes in 1975.
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
There are adverse consequences for Britain if we stay or if we leave. They are different adverse consequences and they have to be balanced against the advantages of staying or leaving.
I have to say that if someone in my team wanted to leave and I thought they were of value I would be doing everything possible to keep them. I would not threaten them with horrors if they left - never burn your bridges is a useful maxim in the political as in the business world - and I certainly would not seek to keep the rest of the team by showing them how awfully I'd treated their departing colleague.
I accept - like any grown up - that if we leave our relationship with the EU will change. There will be downsides, potentially quite significant ones. But when I hear threats like this or from Junker or others, I ask myself why I would want to stay in an organisation which talks to a fellow member state - and one which contributes a very great deal to the organisation - in such threatening and hostile terms.
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. For all the EU-solidarity bollocks, it seems to me that the EU feels very vinegary towards us. I'm inclined to respond in kind.
Why do we want to stay in a political union with people who threaten us like that?
The more curious question is why people think they will bend over backwards for us if we tell them to FCK OFF?
I'm pretty sure they showed us the door themselves when they denied us: treaty change, social chapter returned, said free movement was sacrosanct, no CAP reform, they still move pointlessly between Brussels and Strasbourg and that whether nor not our deal is legally binding is highly contentious.
Trade deals are bad, we should be able to trade freely with everybody and anybody.
But most trade deals these days are about the elimination of NTBs. For example, should Indian lawyers be able to offer conveyancing services to people in the UK?
If the property is owned by an offshore company, in effect they already can.
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
Why do we want to stay in a political union with people who threaten us like that?
How is it a threat? If you want to restrict migration from the EU to Britain how can you object to the EU restricting migration from Britain? I mean, you think restricting people's movement is good and desirable, don't you? Surely you should be cheering the Dutch PM's words.
Ok, entirely without humour: 'referendum' translates as "issue to be referred (to the people). 'Referenda' is not a word in Latin (there's no such thing as a plural gerund), if it were it would best translate as 'issues to be referred (to the people)'. So it pluralises the issues to be voted on, not the voting occasions themselves. Which makes 'referendums', not 'referenda', the best plural form of 'referendum'. Brexeo, brexis, brexit..
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
Why do we want to stay in a political union with people who threaten us like that?
How is it a threat? If you want to restrict migration from the EU to Britain how can you object to the EU restricting migration from Britain? I mean, you think restricting people's movement is good and desirable, don't you? Surely you should be cheering the Dutch PM's words.
I wonder why the Aussies haven't been on the receiving end.
Trade deals are bad, we should be able to trade freely with everybody and anybody.
But most trade deals these days are about the elimination of NTBs. For example, should Indian lawyers be able to offer conveyancing services to people in the UK?
Why not? Call centres are outsourced. I'm a free marketeer
Why do we want to stay in a political union with people who threaten us like that?
The more curious question is why people think they will bend over backwards for us if we tell them to FCK OFF?
The more important question for the EU to ask itself is this: if the EU is as wonderful as they claim, why is it that after 40 years or so such a very significant proportion of the British electorate, possibly a majority is so out of love with the EU?
Is it possible that the problem is with the EU and not just Britain's attitude to it? Is it possible that the EU is not as wonderful as it thinks it is?
A bit of self-awareness and self-questioning by the EU would not come amiss, frankly.
That said, referendums is an ugly word. Treating referendum as a second declension neuter word (stadium becomes stadia) seems sensible even if it's not technically correct.
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
Why do we want to stay in a political union with people who threaten us like that?
How is it a threat? If you want to restrict migration from the EU to Britain how can you object to the EU restricting migration from Britain? I mean, you think restricting people's movement is good and desirable, don't you? Surely you should be cheering the Dutch PM's words.
I wonder why the Aussies haven't been on the receiving end.
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
Why do we want to stay in a political union with people who threaten us like that?
In all seriousness do you expect them to say: fine, we'll give you all the freedoms you had previously, but we will accept a restriction on our freedoms?
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
Why do we want to stay in a political union with people who threaten us like that?
How is it a threat? If you want to restrict migration from the EU to Britain how can you object to the EU restricting migration from Britain? I mean, you think restricting people's movement is good and desirable, don't you? Surely you should be cheering the Dutch PM's words.
I wonder why the Aussies haven't been on the receiving end.
Not sure anyone should be surprised about this. Just another dishonest politician who will say and do anything to get elected. Hopefully another one destined for the scrapheap of history.
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
Why do we want to stay in a political union with people who threaten us like that?
How is it a threat? If you want to restrict migration from the EU to Britain how can you object to the EU restricting migration from Britain? I mean, you think restricting people's movement is good and desirable, don't you? Surely you should be cheering the Dutch PM's words.
Its great that the EU plan to restrict immigration from Britain whilst they are letting in millions from Syria.
I'm sure it would down in a country where Geert Wilders is rather popular at the moment.
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
I'm sure we'll be able to live with that.
If you want to live and work elsewhere in the EU then it is, at least potentially, a showstopper.
Nonsense. Unadulterated tripe. There is not a chance that the EU will stop UK citizens from going there and spending money.
Hold on a second.
Aren't we talking about net immigration?
If no-one let's us in, we're going to have a very tight immigration limit.
Not that I'm complaining, though. I've always thought net immigration was an attempt to disguise the scale of immigration. I also think the same of our net EU contributions.
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
There are adverse consequences for Britain if we stay or if we leave. They are different adverse consequences and they have to be balanced against the advantages of staying or leaving.
I have to say that if someone in my team wanted to leave and I thought they were of value I would be doing everything possible to keep them. I would not threaten them with horrors if they left - never burn your bridges is a useful maxim in the political as in the business world - and I certainly would not seek to keep the rest of the team by showing them how awfully I'd treated their departing colleague.
I accept - like any grown up - that if we leave our relationship with the EU will change. There will be downsides, potentially quite significant ones. But when I hear threats like this or from Junker or others, I ask myself why I would want to stay in an organisation which talks to a fellow member state - and one which contributes a very great deal to the organisation - in such threatening and hostile terms.
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. For all the EU-solidarity bollocks, it seems to me that the EU feels very vinegary towards us. I'm inclined to respond in kind.
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
Why do we want to stay in a political union with people who threaten us like that?
In all seriousness do you expect them to say: fine, we'll give you all the freedoms you had previously, but we will accept a restriction on our freedoms?
Nah. People need to be realistic about this. A deal will eventually be done but it won't be the absolute freedom of movement enjoyed up until now. That said if you have something to offer the country then you will have no real problem. I have worked in something around 2 dozen countries outside of the EU and never had a problem at all. It is nowhere near as onerous and difficult as people pretend.
Why do we want to stay in a political union with people who threaten us like that?
The more curious question is why people think they will bend over backwards for us if we tell them to FCK OFF?
The more important question for the EU to ask itself is this: if the EU is as wonderful as they claim, why is it that after 40 years or so such a very significant proportion of the British electorate, possibly a majority is so out of love with the EU?
Is it possible that the problem is with the EU and not just Britain's attitude to it? Is it possible that the EU is not as wonderful as it thinks it is?
A bit of self-awareness and self-questioning by the EU would not come amiss, frankly.
First off, we Brits are bolshy. Always have been. You only have to ask the French ambassador to the court of Henry VIII. Secondly, the world is getting easier - shopping, making phone calls, using bank accounts, letting everyone see pictures of your breakfast.
But the EU is getting more complicated. As we have discussed ad infinitum on here, there may not be 2,000 pages of regulations on broccoli, but there are at least that on cross-border share trading. I'm sure there are a few lines on vacuum cleaners and kettles also.
Plus there are the incontrovertible "marquee" issues: VAT on home energy supplies, droit de suite, etc.
There is also immigration.
In fact, these latter issues are soundbite-able and appeal to many Brits. Telling them that guaranteeing pre-trade transparency to ensure a fair stockmarket for consumers, less so.
Finally, or latterly, there of course is the fabled "other". It was a Conservative government that put up VAT on home energy supplies in 1991, and no one has ever in the past 25 years considered zero-rating it. But that we can't zero-rate it now, is seen as "the other" oppressing us and considered a lack of sovereignty. There are of course many other examples of the UK leading in EU regulations which, when implemented, are cited as examples of a European superstate throwing its weight about.
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
The tribespeople kick out the explorer, build a giant wall around their territory, and hold a referendum to prevent future visits from foreigners. The motion is carried by a landslide, all immigrants are banned, and the tribe live in blissful ignorance of their flaws thereafter, until starving to death due to lack of trade with the outside world.
But are they happier, that is what you have to ask yourself. And their suicide rate indicates they may well be.
They are, for a time. But their happiness is very short-lived!
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
I'm sure we'll be able to live with that.
If you want to live and work elsewhere in the EU then it is, at least potentially, a showstopper.
Nonsense. Unadulterated tripe. There is not a chance that the EU will stop UK citizens from going there and spending money.
You have absolutely no idea what retaliatory measures the other 27 will take if we Brexit, particularly as Leave have now pretty much tied themselves to ending free movement rather than the more sensible EFTA/EEA routes.
There are enough signals coming from the EU that they will make it as difficult as possible for the UK to deter others and hold the EU together.
We need to re-think about how we deal with peadophiles. There must be many thousands of people in our country who have a sexual prefrence for children/underage people but have no intention of comitting a crime or taking advantage of children, but know themselves and the feelings and thoughts they have. At the moment all we do is react AFTER a crime is commited instead of trying to find out what is it that pushes them to criminality, I don't see anyone coming up with ideas of how to treat (if that is possible) or prevent these crimes from happening in the first place because they will always have access to children one way or another no matter how much we vet etc especially with the technology available today.
So please can we have some actual scientific research on what pushes people into peadophilia first then criminality later, and what if anything we can stop it from happening.
Or we could just continue as now and react after these sickos have abused someone and deal with the repercussions and the fallout after.
Edit: I am not some wooly liberal if they commit a crim we should throw away the key including this guy.
Why do we want to stay in a political union with people who threaten us like that?
The more curious question is why people think they will bend over backwards for us if we tell them to FCK OFF?
The more important question for the EU to ask itself is this: if the EU is as wonderful as they claim, why is it that after 40 years or so such a very significant proportion of the British electorate, possibly a majority is so out of love with the EU?
Is it possible that the problem is with the EU and not just Britain's attitude to it? Is it possible that the EU is not as wonderful as it thinks it is?
A bit of self-awareness and self-questioning by the EU would not come amiss, frankly.
First off, we Brits are bolshy. Always have been. You only have to ask the French ambassador to the court of Henry VIII. Secondly, the world is getting easier - shopping, making phone calls, using bank accounts, letting everyone see pictures of your breakfast.
But the EU is getting more complicated. As we have discussed ad infinitum on here, there may not be 2,000 pages of regulations on broccoli, but there are at least that on cross-border share trading. I'm sure there are a few lines on vacuum cleaners and kettles also.
Plus there are the incontrovertible "marquee" issues: VAT on home energy supplies, droit de suite, etc.
There is also immigration.
In fact, these latter issues are soundbite-able and appeal to many Brits. Telling them that guaranteeing pre-trade transparency to ensure a fair stockmarket for consumers, less so.
Finally, or latterly, there of course is the fabled "other". It was a Conservative government that put up VAT on home energy supplies in 1991, and no one has ever in the past 25 years considered zero-rating it. But that we can't zero-rate it now, is seen as "the other" oppressing us and considered a lack of sovereignty. There are of course many other examples of the UK leading in EU regulations which, when implemented, are cited as examples of a European superstate throwing its weight about.
You don't know that no one has considered zero rating it. As soon as VAT was put on to home energy it could not be zero rated under EU law so why would anyone even raise it given all it would do would be to highlight how impotent they were.
Nor is this a case of people suddenly discovering this. It has been an issue raised by Eurosceptics ever since the VAT was first imposed.
Your attempts to claim this as a British problem rather than an EU one are as laughable as they are ill informed.
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
Why do we want to stay in a political union with people who threaten us like that?
So it's not a threat if we ban free movement & impose quotas but it is a threat if the other 27 do the same to us? Naive or what.
If half Lab supporters don't know Lab supports Remain that could be very good news for Remain - in the sense that it gives Remain a lot of upside from here.
ie If (some of) those people get the message over the next 3 weeks that Lab supports Remain then they will be more inclined to back Remain.
Could argue if they don't know Lab's position now they never will. But remember we are going to have 3 weeks of TV blitz on the Referendum, TV debates etc etc - so quite a few new people should get the message.
The more important question for the EU to ask itself is this: if the EU is as wonderful as they claim, why is it that after 40 years or so such a very significant proportion of the British electorate, possibly a majority is so out of love with the EU?
Is it possible that the problem is with the EU and not just Britain's attitude to it? Is it possible that the EU is not as wonderful as it thinks it is?
A bit of self-awareness and self-questioning by the EU would not come amiss, frankly.
First off, we Brits are bolshy. Always have been. You only have to ask the French ambassador to the court of Henry VIII. Secondly, the world is getting easier - shopping, making phone calls, using bank accounts, letting everyone see pictures of your breakfast.
But the EU is getting more complicated. As we have discussed ad infinitum on here, there may not be 2,000 pages of regulations on broccoli, but there are at least that on cross-border share trading. I'm sure there are a few lines on vacuum cleaners and kettles also.
Plus there are the incontrovertible "marquee" issues: VAT on home energy supplies, droit de suite, etc.
There is also immigration.
In fact, these latter issues are soundbite-able and appeal to many Brits. Telling them that guaranteeing pre-trade transparency to ensure a fair stockmarket for consumers, less so.
Finally, or latterly, there of course is the fabled "other". It was a Conservative government that put up VAT on home energy supplies in 1991, and no one has ever in the past 25 years considered zero-rating it. But that we can't zero-rate it now, is seen as "the other" oppressing us and considered a lack of sovereignty. There are of course many other examples of the UK leading in EU regulations which, when implemented, are cited as examples of a European superstate throwing its weight about.
I think the EU needs a mite more self-awareness than that. It has problems not just with Britain. Austria is a bit out of love with the EU. So is Poland. And Greece. And the Czech Republic. The French have said "non". And the Danes. And Ireland. That might just suggest a systemic issue.
All the steps taken to ensure a common market I could live with. It's the EU's determination to make the EU something more, much more than a common market which is the sticking point for me.
And, speaking personally, being bolshy is a good thing. Making those in charge realise that the plebs are in charge and cannot always be pushed around is a good thing. Making sure the rulers don't take the ruled for granted is a good thing.
The EU seems to think these things are a bug. I view them as a feature. A very desirable one.
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
The tribespeople kick out the explorer, build a giant wall around their territory, and hold a referendum to prevent future visits from foreigners. The motion is carried by a landslide, all immigrants are banned, and the tribe live in blissful ignorance of their flaws thereafter, until starving to death due to lack of trade with the outside world.
But are they happier, that is what you have to ask yourself. And their suicide rate indicates they may well be.
They are, for a time. But their happiness is very short-lived!
I think they might well argue that they got on quite well before the "civilised" world with its weird obsession on eye defects found them. I feel an analogy coming on....
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
Why do we want to stay in a political union with people who threaten us like that?
So it's not a threat if we ban free movement & impose quotas but it is a threat if the other 27 do the same to us? Naive or what.
The British PM has not said what the British government will do in the event of a Leave vote...
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
Not sure, but do 20 people jump off the cliff 20 days later? Because if there were 2 people who had the flaw, each of them would expect the other to jump the next morning. When no-one does, they must figure that they ALSO have the flaw - so jump.
Too lazy to figure it out more, but does it scale up to 20, so when no-one jumps on day 19, the 20 then know they have the flaw as well?
Well done! Yes.
Despite the explorer seemingly telling the tribespeople what they all already know "there is at least one with the flaw" this fact was not previously Common Knowledge in its logical sense.
A version of this puzzle is used in job interviews at Google, I understand!
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
I'm sure we'll be able to live with that.
If you want to live and work elsewhere in the EU then it is, at least potentially, a showstopper.
Nonsense. Unadulterated tripe. There is not a chance that the EU will stop UK citizens from going there and spending money.
There are enough signals coming from the EU that they will make it as difficult as possible for the UK to deter others and hold the EU together.
Do you know I could swear that there have been other instances in recent European history or supranational organisations taking steps to stop its members from leaving. I'm sure they will come to me eventually.
Mr. Nunu, there's a new approach being taken somewhere (a Scandinavian country, I think) whereby men with such thoughts {I'd guess women too] are urged to come forward and basically undergo therapy to try and either control or end such desires.
I believe it started last year. No idea if it'll work.
Not sure anyone should be surprised about this. Just another dishonest politician who will say and do anything to get elected. Hopefully another one destined for the scrapheap of history.
Her rival for the nomination, Anna Firth, has been actively campaigning for Brexit in Sevenoaks and beyond.
Why do we want to stay in a political union with people who threaten us like that?
The more curious question is why people think they will bend over backwards for us if we tell them to FCK OFF?
Someone up thread raised the point that similar restrictions hadn't been imposed on Australians. Why would they do it to us but not to them?
Maybe because the other 27 are going to be pretty p1ssed off at the economic upheaval we have visited on them. With the tone of the Leave campaign and Johnson insulting most of his future negotiating partners why anyone is expecting the EU to slap us on the back and send us happily on our way with great trade deals etc if we Leave is beyond me.
I expect the rest of the EU to remain pretty quiet while the referendum is ongoing but I expect it will turn very nasty on June 24th if we are on our way out. That's no reason not to support Brexit if those are your inclinations but pretending it will all be sweetness and light thereafter is naive in the extreme.
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
Not sure, but do 20 people jump off the cliff 20 days later? Because if there were 2 people who had the flaw, each of them would expect the other to jump the next morning. When no-one does, they must figure that they ALSO have the flaw - so jump.
Too lazy to figure it out more, but does it scale up to 20, so when no-one jumps on day 19, the 20 then know they have the flaw as well?
Well done! Yes.
Despite the explorer seemingly telling the tribespeople what they all already know "there is at least one with the flaw" this fact was not previously Common Knowledge in its logical sense.
All the debate today is about immigration. Taken with the polling yesterday this has been the best 48 hours Leave have had to date. Can they keep it up for another 22 days?
My gut still feels that the undecided will weigh towards what is wrongly believed to be the status quo of Remain but Nicky Campbell's program this morning was an eye opener. They found 1 Labour MP and one person possibly not the full shilling who thought that immigration was not a serious problem. Pretty much everyone else was on a scale between a problem and a calamity. There was one other Labour supporter who did not think it was a problem but she was for Leave anyway! Possibly the most one sided debate/phone in I have heard to date.
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
I'm sure we'll be able to live with that.
If you want to live and work elsewhere in the EU then it is, at least potentially, a showstopper.
Nonsense. Unadulterated tripe. There is not a chance that the EU will stop UK citizens from going there and spending money.
Why? You think it makes eminent sense for us to have a points system for them but not for them to have a points system for us?
But doesn't that contradict what the europhiles are telling us? If introducing such a system is supposedly bad for the economy why would other countries introduce it out of spite, hurting themselves?
Individual countries have their own rules regarding visas and settlement for non-EU countries.
I suspect the flow of low to moderately skilled Britons to the Netherlands for work is negligible, while very few retired people end up there.
As ever, the 27 will scale down to under ten that actually matter for either work or retirment.
Besides, the Dutch PM would have to ask the EU first, otherwise the Brits in question just apply for a Schengen Visa at any other EU state and then travel to Holland at their leisure.
Why do we want to stay in a political union with people who threaten us like that?
The more curious question is why people think they will bend over backwards for us if we tell them to FCK OFF?
The more important question for the EU to ask d not justit is?
A bit of self-awareness and self-questioning by the EU would not come amiss, frankly.
First off, we Brits are bolshy. Always have been. You only have to ask the French ambassador to the court of Henry VIII. Secondly, the world is getting easier - shopping, making phone calls, using bank accounts, letting everyone see pictures of your breakfast.
But the EU is getting more complicated. As we have discussed ad infinitum on here, there may not be 2,000 pages of regulations on broccoli, but there are at least that on cross-border share trading. I'm sure there are a few lines on vacuum cleaners and kettles also.
Plus there are the incontrovertible "marquee" issues: VAT on home energy supplies, droit de suite, etc.
There is also immigration.
In fact, these latter issues are soundbite-able and appeal to many Brits. Telling them that guaranteeing pre-trade transparency to ensure a fair stockmarket for consumers, less so.
Finally, or latterly, there of course is the fabled "other". It was a Conservative government that put up VAT on home energy supplies in 1991, and no one has ever in the past 25 years considered zero-rating it. But that we can't zero-rate it now, is seen as "the other" oppressing us and considered a lack of sovereignty. There are of course many other examples of the UK leading in EU regulations which, when implemented, are cited as examples of a European superstate throwing its weight about.
You don't know that no one has considered zero rating it. As soon as VAT was put on to home energy it could not be zero rated under EU law so why would anyone even raise it given all it would do would be to highlight how impotent they were.
Nor is this a case of people suddenly discovering this. It has been an issue raised by Eurosceptics ever since the VAT was first imposed.
Your attempts to claim this as a British problem rather than an EU one are as laughable as they are ill informed.
Has the issue of zero-rating VAT on home energy supplies ever appeared in any GE election manifesto, of any party, since 1991?
Eurosceptics raise all kinds of tinfoil hat-related lunacy, as a quick recap of any of your posts will attest, so they can be dismissed pretty easily.
I am saying that we are in a complicated world and people such as yourself (and, to be fair, eight year-old children) feel overwhelmed by it all and seek an easy way out. Sadly, reality is not always so compliant.
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
Not sure, but do 20 people jump off the cliff 20 days later? Because if there were 2 people who had the flaw, each of them would expect the other to jump the next morning. When no-one does, they must figure that they ALSO have the flaw - so jump.
Too lazy to figure it out more, but does it scale up to 20, so when no-one jumps on day 19, the 20 then know they have the flaw as well?
Well done! Yes.
Despite the explorer seemingly telling the tribespeople what they all already know "there is at least one with the flaw" this fact was not previously Common Knowledge in its logical sense.
A version of this puzzle is used in job interviews at Google, I understand!
I'm not good at this sort of stuff but surely they know from the start that there are at least 19 other people with the eye defect so why does it build up in the way you are describing?
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
Not sure, but do 20 people jump off the cliff 20 days later? Because if there were 2 people who had the flaw, each of them would expect the other to jump the next morning. When no-one does, they must figure that they ALSO have the flaw - so jump.
Too lazy to figure it out more, but does it scale up to 20, so when no-one jumps on day 19, the 20 then know they have the flaw as well?
Well done! Yes.
Despite the explorer seemingly telling the tribespeople what they all already know "there is at least one with the flaw" this fact was not previously Common Knowledge in its logical sense.
A version of this puzzle is used in job interviews at Google, I understand!
I don't get this one. You said that there were 20 tribesmen with the flaw which means that anyone with the flaw can see 19 other people who have it. So why would anyone be surprised by the statement that at least one person has it. They can all see 19 others who have it.
Why do we want to stay in a political union with people who threaten us like that?
The more curious question is why people think they will bend over backwards for us if we tell them to FCK OFF?
I'm pretty sure they showed us the door themselves when they denied us: treaty change, social chapter returned, said free movement was sacrosanct, no CAP reform, they still move pointlessly between Brussels and Strasbourg and that whether nor not our deal is legally binding is highly contentious.
You don't really get the idea of how 28 nations agree common rules do you? The days when the UK bullied its way into getting everything it wants irrespective of what anyone else wants petty much went out with the Empire.
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
Not sure, but do 20 people jump off the cliff 20 days later? Because if there were 2 people who had the flaw, each of them would expect the other to jump the next morning. When no-one does, they must figure that they ALSO have the flaw - so jump.
Too lazy to figure it out more, but does it scale up to 20, so when no-one jumps on day 19, the 20 then know they have the flaw as well?
Well done! Yes.
Despite the explorer seemingly telling the tribespeople what they all already know "there is at least one with the flaw" this fact was not previously Common Knowledge in its logical sense.
A version of this puzzle is used in job interviews at Google, I understand!
I don't get this one. You said that there were 20 tribesmen with the flaw which means that anyone with the flaw can see 19 other people who have it. So why would anyone be surprised by the statement that at least one person has it. They can all see 19 others who have it.
Has the issue of zero-rating VAT on home energy supplies ever appeared in any GE election manifesto, of any party, since 1991?
Eurosceptics raise all kinds of tinfoil hat-related lunacy, as a quick recap of any of your posts will attest, so they can be dismissed pretty easily.
I am saying that we are in a complicated world and people such as yourself (and, to be fair, eight year-old children) feel overwhelmed by it all and seek an easy way out. Sadly, reality is not always so compliant.
Why would anyone put something in a manifesto they know is impossible? No one has ever promised everlasting life and free money for everyone as well. It doesn't mean they wouldn't like to offer it, just tat they know it is beyond their abilities to do so.
And Brown in the Commons debate on VAT in 1996 did make the promise to reduce VAT on fuel to "its lowest possible level".
In fact during the 1997 election campaign the EU Commission threatened to take the UK to court if it reduced fuel duty below 5% and said even that cut was counter to the spirit of unifying VAT across the EU.
Mr. Nunu, there's a new approach being taken somewhere (a Scandinavian country, I think) whereby men with such thoughts {I'd guess women too] are urged to come forward and basically undergo therapy to try and either control or end such desires.
I believe it started last year. No idea if it'll work.
There must be people out there who have these feelings and go out of their way to make sure they are never in a situation where they are tempted.
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
I'm sure we'll be able to live with that.
If you want to live and work elsewhere in the EU then it is, at least potentially, a showstopper.
Nonsense. Unadulterated tripe. There is not a chance that the EU will stop UK citizens from going there and spending money.
You have absolutely no idea what retaliatory measures the other 27 will take if we Brexit, particularly as Leave have now pretty much tied themselves to ending free movement rather than the more sensible EFTA/EEA routes.
There are enough signals coming from the EU that they will make it as difficult as possible for the UK to deter others and hold the EU together.
If that's true, then the EU is a protection racket. I want no part in it.
Has the issue of zero-rating VAT on home energy supplies ever appeared in any GE election manifesto, of any party, since 1991?
Eurosceptics raise all kinds of tinfoil hat-related lunacy, as a quick recap of any of your posts will attest, so they can be dismissed pretty easily.
I am saying that we are in a complicated world and people such as yourself (and, to be fair, eight year-old children) feel overwhelmed by it all and seek an easy way out. Sadly, reality is not always so compliant.
By the way Topping a few nights ago you made some rather stupid comments about Cameron's non-negotiation and then ran away when I answered them. Would you care for me to repeat my reply or will you just run away again?
Has the issue of zero-rating VAT on home energy supplies ever appeared in any GE election manifesto, of any party, since 1991?
Eurosceptics raise all kinds of tinfoil hat-related lunacy, as a quick recap of any of your posts will attest, so they can be dismissed pretty easily.
I am saying that we are in a complicated world and people such as yourself (and, to be fair, eight year-old children) feel overwhelmed by it all and seek an easy way out. Sadly, reality is not always so compliant.
Why would anyone put something in a manifesto they know is impossible? No one has ever promised everlasting life and free money for everyone as well. It doesn't mean they wouldn't like to offer it, just tat they know it is beyond their abilities to do so.
And Brown in the Commons debate on VAT in 1996 did make the promise to reduce VAT on fuel to "its lowest possible level".
In fact during the 1997 election campaign the EU Commission threatened to take the UK to court if it reduced fuel duty below 5% and said even that cut was counter to the spirit of unifying VAT across the EU.
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
Why do we want to stay in a political union with people who threaten us like that?
So it's not a threat if we ban free movement & impose quotas but it is a threat if the other 27 do the same to us? Naive or what.
The British PM has not said what the British government will do in the event of a Leave vote...
As Leave has now pretty much degenerated into an anti-immigration campaign it is inconceivable that any post-Brexit deal will involve freedom of movement.
Has the issue of zero-rating VAT on home energy supplies ever appeared in any GE election manifesto, of any party, since 1991?
Eurosceptics raise all kinds of tinfoil hat-related lunacy, as a quick recap of any of your posts will attest, so they can be dismissed pretty easily.
I am saying that we are in a complicated world and people such as yourself (and, to be fair, eight year-old children) feel overwhelmed by it all and seek an easy way out. Sadly, reality is not always so compliant.
Why would anyone put something in a manifesto they know is impossible? No one has ever promised everlasting life and free money for everyone as well. It doesn't mean they wouldn't like to offer it, just tat they know it is beyond their abilities to do so.
And Brown in the Commons debate on VAT in 1996 did make the promise to reduce VAT on fuel to "its lowest possible level".
In fact during the 1997 election campaign the EU Commission threatened to take the UK to court if it reduced fuel duty below 5% and said even that cut was counter to the spirit of unifying VAT across the EU.
So no, then.
So you are too thick to understand the basic concept. Glad we have cleared that up.
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
I'm sure we'll be able to live with that.
If you want to live and work elsewhere in the EU then it is, at least potentially, a showstopper.
Nonsense. Unadulterated tripe. There is not a chance that the EU will stop UK citizens from going there and spending money.
There are enough signals coming from the EU that they will make it as difficult as possible for the UK to deter others and hold the EU together.
Do you know I could swear that there have been other instances in recent European history or supranational organisations taking steps to stop its members from leaving. I'm sure they will come to me eventually.
I am not talking about them stopping us leaving I am talking about the deal we negotiate afterwards.
Has the issue of zero-rating VAT on home energy supplies ever appeared in any GE election manifesto, of any party, since 1991?
Eurosceptics raise all kinds of tinfoil hat-related lunacy, as a quick recap of any of your posts will attest, so they can be dismissed pretty easily.
I am saying that we are in a complicated world and people such as yourself (and, to be fair, eight year-old children) feel overwhelmed by it all and seek an easy way out. Sadly, reality is not always so compliant.
Why would anyone put something in a manifesto they know is impossible? No one has ever promised everlasting life and free money for everyone as well. It doesn't mean they wouldn't like to offer it, just tat they know it is beyond their abilities to do so.
And Brown in the Commons debate on VAT in 1996 did make the promise to reduce VAT on fuel to "its lowest possible level".
In fact during the 1997 election campaign the EU Commission threatened to take the UK to court if it reduced fuel duty below 5% and said even that cut was counter to the spirit of unifying VAT across the EU.
So no, then.
So you are too thick to understand the basic concept. Glad we have cleared that up.
The basic concept that no political party has ever seriously wanted to zero-rate home energy supplies, it having been raised in the first place by a Conservative government is....correct.
Edit: I'm going over to the other thread, Richard. Typical Brexiteer, living in the past.
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
I'm sure we'll be able to live with that.
If you want to live and work elsewhere in the EU then it is, at least potentially, a showstopper.
Nonsense. Unadulterated tripe. There is not a chance that the EU will stop UK citizens from going there and spending money.
You have absolutely no idea what retaliatory measures the other 27 will take if we Brexit, particularly as Leave have now pretty much tied themselves to ending free movement rather than the more sensible EFTA/EEA routes.
There are enough signals coming from the EU that they will make it as difficult as possible for the UK to deter others and hold the EU together.
If that's true, then the EU is a protection racket. I want no part in it.
I actually think there is no chance of retaliatory measures because it's in no one's interest to make things difficult!
And where there will be disagreements, like on passportng for financial services, we can deal with them in follow up talks.
There will be losers from Brexit . There will be winners. It's important not to belittle others who are - like us - only acting in self interest.
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
Not sure, but do 20 people jump off the cliff 20 days later? Because if there were 2 people who had the flaw, each of them would expect the other to jump the next morning. When no-one does, they must figure that they ALSO have the flaw - so jump.
Too lazy to figure it out more, but does it scale up to 20, so when no-one jumps on day 19, the 20 then know they have the flaw as well?
Well done! Yes.
Despite the explorer seemingly telling the tribespeople what they all already know "there is at least one with the flaw" this fact was not previously Common Knowledge in its logical sense.
Comments
I have to say that if someone in my team wanted to leave and I thought they were of value I would be doing everything possible to keep them. I would not threaten them with horrors if they left - never burn your bridges is a useful maxim in the political as in the business world - and I certainly would not seek to keep the rest of the team by showing them how awfully I'd treated their departing colleague.
I accept - like any grown up - that if we leave our relationship with the EU will change. There will be downsides, potentially quite significant ones. But when I hear threats like this or from Junker or others, I ask myself why I would want to stay in an organisation which talks to a fellow member state - and one which contributes a very great deal to the organisation - in such threatening and hostile terms.
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. For all the EU-solidarity bollocks, it seems to me that the EU feels very vinegary towards us. I'm inclined to respond in kind.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/738043758793613314
Is it possible that the problem is with the EU and not just Britain's attitude to it? Is it possible that the EU is not as wonderful as it thinks it is?
A bit of self-awareness and self-questioning by the EU would not come amiss, frankly.
Isn't referendes a possibility?
My own Latin is dire, so I could well be wrong.
That said, referendums is an ugly word. Treating referendum as a second declension neuter word (stadium becomes stadia) seems sensible even if it's not technically correct.
I'm sure it would down in a country where Geert Wilders is rather popular at the moment.
Aren't we talking about net immigration?
If no-one let's us in, we're going to have a very tight immigration limit.
Not that I'm complaining, though. I've always thought net immigration was an attempt to disguise the scale of immigration. I also think the same of our net EU contributions.
From 1000 simulations each way I got:
Keep choice: 326 cars
Change choice: 674 cars.
So either the solution is correct or the sim is rigged...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36427629
But the EU is getting more complicated. As we have discussed ad infinitum on here, there may not be 2,000 pages of regulations on broccoli, but there are at least that on cross-border share trading. I'm sure there are a few lines on vacuum cleaners and kettles also.
Plus there are the incontrovertible "marquee" issues: VAT on home energy supplies, droit de suite, etc.
There is also immigration.
In fact, these latter issues are soundbite-able and appeal to many Brits. Telling them that guaranteeing pre-trade transparency to ensure a fair stockmarket for consumers, less so.
Finally, or latterly, there of course is the fabled "other". It was a Conservative government that put up VAT on home energy supplies in 1991, and no one has ever in the past 25 years considered zero-rating it. But that we can't zero-rate it now, is seen as "the other" oppressing us and considered a lack of sovereignty. There are of course many other examples of the UK leading in EU regulations which, when implemented, are cited as examples of a European superstate throwing its weight about.
There are enough signals coming from the EU that they will make it as difficult as possible for the UK to deter others and hold the EU together.
Individual countries have their own rules regarding visas and settlement for non-EU countries.
I suspect the flow of low to moderately skilled Britons to the Netherlands for work is negligible, while very few retired people end up there.
As ever, the 27 will scale down to under ten that actually matter for either work or retirment.
So please can we have some actual scientific research on what pushes people into peadophilia first then criminality later, and what if anything we can stop it from happening.
Or we could just continue as now and react after these sickos have abused someone and deal with the repercussions and the fallout after.
Edit: I am not some wooly liberal if they commit a crim we should throw away the key including this guy.
Nor is this a case of people suddenly discovering this. It has been an issue raised by Eurosceptics ever since the VAT was first imposed.
Your attempts to claim this as a British problem rather than an EU one are as laughable as they are ill informed.
ie If (some of) those people get the message over the next 3 weeks that Lab supports Remain then they will be more inclined to back Remain.
Could argue if they don't know Lab's position now they never will. But remember we are going to have 3 weeks of TV blitz on the Referendum, TV debates etc etc - so quite a few new people should get the message.
All the steps taken to ensure a common market I could live with. It's the EU's determination to make the EU something more, much more than a common market which is the sticking point for me.
And, speaking personally, being bolshy is a good thing. Making those in charge realise that the plebs are in charge and cannot always be pushed around is a good thing. Making sure the rulers don't take the ruled for granted is a good thing.
The EU seems to think these things are a bug. I view them as a feature. A very desirable one.
Despite the explorer seemingly telling the tribespeople what they all already know "there is at least one with the flaw" this fact was not previously Common Knowledge in its logical sense.
A version of this puzzle is used in job interviews at Google, I understand!
I believe it started last year. No idea if it'll work.
Maybe because the other 27 are going to be pretty p1ssed off at the economic upheaval we have visited on them. With the tone of the Leave campaign and Johnson insulting most of his future negotiating partners why anyone is expecting the EU to slap us on the back and send us happily on our way with great trade deals etc if we Leave is beyond me.
I expect the rest of the EU to remain pretty quiet while the referendum is ongoing but I expect it will turn very nasty on June 24th if we are on our way out. That's no reason not to support Brexit if those are your inclinations but pretending it will all be sweetness and light thereafter is naive in the extreme.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge_(logic)
My gut still feels that the undecided will weigh towards what is wrongly believed to be the status quo of Remain but Nicky Campbell's program this morning was an eye opener. They found 1 Labour MP and one person possibly not the full shilling who thought that immigration was not a serious problem. Pretty much everyone else was on a scale between a problem and a calamity. There was one other Labour supporter who did not think it was a problem but she was for Leave anyway! Possibly the most one sided debate/phone in I have heard to date.
It's the hope that kills you of course.
Eurosceptics raise all kinds of tinfoil hat-related lunacy, as a quick recap of any of your posts will attest, so they can be dismissed pretty easily.
I am saying that we are in a complicated world and people such as yourself (and, to be fair, eight year-old children) feel overwhelmed by it all and seek an easy way out. Sadly, reality is not always so compliant.
You don't really get the idea of how 28 nations agree common rules do you? The days when the UK bullied its way into getting everything it wants irrespective of what anyone else wants petty much went out with the Empire.
And Brown in the Commons debate on VAT in 1996 did make the promise to reduce VAT on fuel to "its lowest possible level".
In fact during the 1997 election campaign the EU Commission threatened to take the UK to court if it reduced fuel duty below 5% and said even that cut was counter to the spirit of unifying VAT across the EU.
Edit: I'm going over to the other thread, Richard. Typical Brexiteer, living in the past.
And where there will be disagreements, like on passportng for financial services, we can deal with them in follow up talks.
There will be losers from Brexit . There will be winners. It's important not to belittle others who are - like us - only acting in self interest.