She said that the UK would introduce a bill of rights. The UK under the sainted Theresa will not withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights so will therefore be bound, whatever our bill of rights contains, by the European Court of Human Rights.
You are perhaps confusing this with the Human Rights Act?
Yes, I probably am! Don't have a source for May saying we are not leaving the ECHR? Would be interesting to read it.
Ta! I still fail to see we need to be under the jurisdiction of a foreign court in these matters.
It's like the single market and the ECJ. If we are signed up to the idea of either a single market on the one hand, or a convention on human rights on the other, we need a supranational institution that enforces the laws of each.
The EC(ourt)HR does for the E(convention)HR what the ECJ does for the single market.
Surely we can just replicate exactly the same rights, but have our own Supreme Court sit in judgment?
gah! (at me answering and not eating, not you!)
We can, if we withdraw from the ECHR. Then we can construct any HRA we want, and have our courts opine on it and its violations.
But we have decided not to withdraw from the ECHR so our courts will continue to be bound by the EC(ourt of)HR.
In other words, in the cold light of day we realised that the ECHR is a Good Thing and if you are going to have the ECHR then you need the ECHR. If you see what I mean.
Or May decided not to spend her political capital on it because of all the inevitable shrieking about Tories taking away human rights.
Fine. I get that. But surely it is the sort of thing that gets the @MaxPBs and @Casino_Royales of this world apoplectic. And this is after we've voted to leave the EU!
Again you are completely conflating the ECHR and charter of fundamental rights on purpose. They are completely different.
To sum it up in one sentence. We didn't go through what we went through in the 20th century so that an unelected Belgian could tell us what weed killer we could or couldnt put on the marigold beds in our garden.
It really is strange just how much the EU has wanted to interfere in the small things. In some ways, it has provoked more ire than interfering in big things. Pooling sovereignty for grand ideals, grand projects, can seem worth it. The dream of the EU was not unattractive. But it was so obsessed with minutiae, with grubby detail and suffocating control of the mundane. Why? Was it because it did not have control of the truly powerful areas, defence, foreign affairs, etc? So the bureaucracy sought to exert influence everywhere else that it could, without asking how it truly added to the dream of a grand, united Europe?
That's how you get from not wanting to have murderous wars to the EU telling people what kinds of light bulbs they can and can't buy.
Do you think Brexit is going to reverse the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs?
Most of the rest of the world is phasing them out or already has done so. Its not some sort of EU plot and it would have happened whether we were in the EU or not.
It's going to add quite a burden to our political process having to suddenly get involved in all this minutiae that we had been previously able to subcontract to the EU. MPs are going to get quite bored. One of the advantages of the EU was the amount of WTO etc regulations that the EU Parliament dealt with that Parliament was able to pass through on the nod as secondary legislation. This was the source of a large chunk of the misleading statistics about a large percentage of our laws "originating in the EU". I guess it might all have to be done as primary legislation in future.
To sum it up in one sentence. We didn't go through what we went through in the 20th century so that an unelected Belgian could tell us what weed killer we could or couldnt put on the marigold beds in our garden.
It really is strange just how much the EU has wanted to interfere in the small things. In some ways, it has provoked more ire than interfering in big things. Pooling sovereignty for grand ideals, grand projects, can seem worth it. The dream of the EU was not unattractive. But it was so obsessed with minutiae, with grubby detail and suffocating control of the mundane. Why? Was it because it did not have control of the truly powerful areas, defence, foreign affairs, etc? So the bureaucracy sought to exert influence everywhere else that it could, without asking how it truly added to the dream of a grand, united Europe?
That's how you get from not wanting to have murderous wars to the EU telling people what kinds of light bulbs they can and can't buy.
Do you think Brexit is going to reverse the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs?
Most of the rest of the world is phasing them out or already has done so. Its not some sort of EU plot and it would have happened whether we were in the EU or not.
I couldn't care less about light bulbs. I'm quite capable of making my own mind up about what type of light bulbs (and, indeed, lots of other goods) I want to buy, taking into account a number of factors. I'm an adult not a child who needs to be bossed around. And I rather resent being bossed around by people I can't vote out of power, not even nominally.
It's an example of unnecessary interference in matters which could and should have been decided by national governments or even the market. I think the EU even had a word for it - subsidiarity - though funnily enough very little was ever devolved down. There was always a reason for power to be concentrated at the centre.
In the end, politics is about power: who has it, who wants it. The EU wanted more power for itself and this meant less power for Britain within the EU. Both de facto and de jure.
Post-Brexit we will have regained de jure power and what that means in reality depends on what we do with it. It's up to us. We'll have to hope that we have politicians and others who are up to the task.
Elected politicians, people responsible for making laws, must live by different standards to those who vote for them. As plenty of MPs have discovered in the past, they have to pay a price for the privileges they enjoy.
Part of that price is the need to sacrifice an absolute right to privacy.
Because it is a European institution which governs our courts' judgements. Surely the very definition of sovereignty-abusing. The very stuff that Brexiters got so het up about.
Oh, and it is something that in April Theresa May said we must leave, while in June she said we would stay.
It's a court we founded, the issue is the charter of fundamental rights which we were supposed to have opted out of, but didn't. That coupled with the ill written HRA has turned the ECHR into a criminal's charter. Leaving the EU means no more ECJ/charter and rewriting the HRA will shift the balance back to human rights.
It might well do but we are staying in the European Convention of Human Rights and therefore the European Court of Human Rights will outrank our own courts. And you are happy with that. I thought the whole point of Brexit was sovereignty. And that Brexiters didn't like that sort of national-overruling type of European institution.
It doesn't though, the ECHR doesn't outrank our court. Only the ECJ does.
The ECHR opines on the ECHR. The ECJ opines on the Single Market.
Please google yourself senseless. While we are a signatory of the ECHR then we fall under the remit of the ECHR. As a signatory we write its articles into our own law and will continue to do so until or unless we withdraw.
OK I'm off please have the last word; I'm starving.
She said that the UK would introduce a bill of rights. The UK under the sainted Theresa will not withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights so will therefore be bound, whatever our bill of rights contains, by the European Court of Human Rights.
You are perhaps confusing this with the Human Rights Act?
Yes, I probably am! Don't have a source for May saying we are not leaving the ECHR? Would be interesting to read it.
She said it during the speech she gave announcing her nomination for the leadership election.
"Neither had Ron Davies. But Blair’s autobiography reveals the prime minister’s logic and also his angst in insisting that the Welsh Secretary resign immediately. “It was… someone’s career and life just about to disappear down the drain. That is what is so unbelievably cruel about political life. Of course it was the dumbest thing. In Ron’s statement, which I helped to draft, I described it as ‘a moment of madness’, but I knew his career couldn’t be salvaged. The problem was not anything to do with sex or not, it was the misjudgment.”
Indeed. It is not politicians’ personal moral code that we, the public, depend upon when we task them with scrutinizing our laws and our executive; it is their judgment we’re paying for and relying upon.
She said that the UK would introduce a bill of rights. The UK under the sainted Theresa will not withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights so will therefore be bound, whatever our bill of rights contains, by the European Court of Human Rights.
You are perhaps confusing this with the Human Rights Act?
Yes, I probably am! Don't have a source for May saying we are not leaving the ECHR? Would be interesting to read it.
She said it during the speech she gave announcing her nomination for the leadership election.
Elected politicians, people responsible for making laws, must live by different standards to those who vote for them. As plenty of MPs have discovered in the past, they have to pay a price for the privileges they enjoy.
Part of that price is the need to sacrifice an absolute right to privacy.
Wow, most unexpected from the Grauniad. A rare outbreak of sensible.
I suspect that newspapers know quite a lot that they are not publishing. And that this may inform what they are saying in the stuff that they are publishing.
Because it is a European institution which governs our courts' judgements. Surely the very definition of sovereignty-abusing. The very stuff that Brexiters got so het up about.
Oh, and it is something that in April Theresa May said we must leave, while in June she said we would stay.
It's a court we founded, the issue is the charter of fundamental rights which we were supposed to have opted out of, but didn't. That coupled with the ill written HRA has turned the ECHR into a criminal's charter. Leaving the EU means no more ECJ/charter and rewriting the HRA will shift the balance back to human rights.
It might well do but we are staying in the European Convention of Human Rights and therefore the European Court of Human Rights will outrank our own courts. And you are happy with that. I thought the whole point of Brexit was sovereignty. And that Brexiters didn't like that sort of national-overruling type of European institution.
Increasingly, member governments are ignoring the ECHR.
To sum it up in one sentence. We didn't go through what we went through in the 20th century so that an unelected Belgian could tell us what weed killer we could or couldnt put on the marigold beds in our garden.
blockquote>
That's how you get from not wanting to have murderous wars to the EU telling people what kinds of light bulbs they can and can't buy.
Do you think Brexit is going to reverse the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs?
Most of the rest of the world is phasing them out or already has done so. Its not some sort of EU plot and it would have happened whether we were in the EU or not.
It's going to add quite a burden to our political process having to suddenly get involved in all this minutiae that we had been previously able to subcontract to the EU. MPs are going to get quite bored. One of the advantages of the EU was the amount of WTO etc regulations that the EU Parliament dealt with that Parliament was able to pass through on the nod as secondary legislation. This was the source of a large chunk of the misleading statistics about a large percentage of our laws "originating in the EU". I guess it might all have to be done as primary legislation in future.
To be fair the UK government got quite excited about the minutia of the incandescent light bulb withdrawal.
"The Labour Government made voluntary agreement with retailers to end their sale by 2011. Hilary Benn, the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, announced on 27 September 2007 that retailers had agreed to phase out traditional bulbs from shops before the final ban agreed at EU level (see below). Mr Benn said: Britain is leading the way in getting rid of energy-guzzling light bulbs and helping consumers reduce their carbon footprint. "
Mr Davis’ comments came after an Italian minister threatened to start a trade war with the UK if the British Government attempts to curb free movement rules.
With the rise of 5* the Italian government is facing anti-EU pressure of its own and of course the UK would respond with tariffs of its own
Because it is a European institution which governs our courts' judgements. Surely the very definition of sovereignty-abusing. The very stuff that Brexiters got so het up about.
Oh, and it is something that in April Theresa May said we must leave, while in June she said we would stay.
It's a court we founded, the issue is the charter of fundamental rights which we were supposed to have opted out of, but didn't. That coupled with the ill written HRA has turned the ECHR into a criminal's charter. Leaving the EU means no more ECJ/charter and rewriting the HRA will shift the balance back to human rights.
It might well do but we are staying in the European Convention of Human Rights and therefore the European Court of Human Rights will outrank our own courts. And you are happy with that. I thought the whole point of Brexit was sovereignty. And that Brexiters didn't like that sort of national-overruling type of European institution.
It doesn't though, the ECHR doesn't outrank our court. Only the ECJ does.
The ECHR opines on the ECHR. The ECJ opines on the Single Market.
Please google yourself senseless. While we are a signatory of the ECHR then we fall under the remit of the ECHR. As a signatory we write its articles into our own law and will continue to do so until or unless we withdraw.
OK I'm off please have the last word; I'm starving.
Did this before the vote: the Lisbon Treaty incorporated the European Convention of Human Rights into the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, which basically means, as we are signatories to the EU treaties, that the CJEU can now rule on it.
If we leave the EU, only the UK Supreme Court can do so, and the parameters of that could be modified by a British HRA, and any appeals over and above that would be to the ECtHR alone.
She said that the UK would introduce a bill of rights. The UK under the sainted Theresa will not withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights so will therefore be bound, whatever our bill of rights contains, by the European Court of Human Rights.
You are perhaps confusing this with the Human Rights Act?
Yes, I probably am! Don't have a source for May saying we are not leaving the ECHR? Would be interesting to read it.
Ta! I still fail to see we need to be under the jurisdiction of a foreign court in these matters.
It's like the single market and the ECJ. If we are signed up to the idea of either a single market on the one hand, or a convention on human rights on the other, we need a supranational institution that enforces the laws of each.
The EC(ourt)HR does for the E(convention)HR what the ECJ does for the single market.
Surely we can just replicate exactly the same rights, but have our own Supreme Court sit in judgment?
gah! (at me answering and not eating, not you!)
We can, if we withdraw from the ECHR. Then we can construct any HRA we want, and have our courts opine on it and its violations.
But we have decided not to withdraw from the ECHR so our courts will continue to be bound by the EC(ourt of)HR.
In other words, in the cold light of day we realised that the ECHR is a Good Thing and if you are going to have the ECHR then you need the ECHR. If you see what I mean.
Or May decided not to spend her political capital on it because of all the inevitable shrieking about Tories taking away human rights.
Fine. I get that. But surely it is the sort of thing that gets the @MaxPBs and @Casino_Royales of this world apoplectic. And this is after we've voted to leave the EU!
Eh? Where have I been apoplectic? Citation please.
The Open Britain document which you can download on the website calls this brilliantly. Accept Brexit is happening but then list gazillions of negative outcomes that must be guaranteed not to happen. But crucially these are negative outcomes that will affect many people in particular who voted Leave in general. You win campaigns by changing the minds of people who didn't vote for you.
While Operation Session has breached the south coast and it's national disaster we *can* run a very credible and successful resistance movement. We need shifting alliances with individual groups who cheered the invasion but will come to hate the occupation. We can't defeat the Referendum militarily, we lost, but we can make a huge chunk of softer Brexiteers feel the long term cost of occupation is too high so they sue for a peaceful compromise.
Exactly 48% voted Remain only 3% is needed from Leave to ensure softish Brexit
Apart from the slight catch of half of remauners now wishing they had voted leave now they have seen that the armageddon warnings were bollocks.
The polls show no such shift and of course we cannot know what will happen until BREXIT, what we do know is the best route for the UK is some single market membership, if not Japanese and South Korean companies, Lloyds of London etc are already threatening to move operations to the continent
To sum it up in one sentence. We didn't go through what we went through in the 20th century so that an unelected Belgian could tell us what weed killer we could or couldnt put on the marigold beds in our garden.
It really is strange just how much the EU has wanted to interfere in the small things. In some ways, it has provoked more ire than interfering in big things. Pooling sovereignty for grand ideals, grand projects, can seem worth it. The dream of the EU was not unattractive. But it was so obsessed with minutiae, with grubby detail and suffocating control of the mundane. Why? Was it because it did not have control of the truly powerful areas, defence, foreign affairs, etc? So the bureaucracy sought to exert influence everywhere else that it could, without asking how it truly added to the dream of a grand, united Europe?
That's how you get from not wanting to have murderous wars to the EU telling people what kinds of light bulbs they can and can't buy.
Do you think Brexit is going to reverse the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs?
Most of the rest of the world is phasing them out or already has done so. Its not some sort of EU plot and it would have happened whether we were in the EU or not.
It's an example of unnecessary interference in matters which could and should have been decided by national governments or even the market.
The UK government brought forward the start date of the EU ban on incandescents and were loudly in favour of the ban in the first place. It would have happened anyway whether we were in the UK or not.
To sum it up in one sentence. We didn't go through what we went through in the 20th century so that an unelected Belgian could tell us what weed killer we could or couldnt put on the marigold beds in our garden.
It really is strange just how much the EU has wanted to interfere in the small things. In some ways, it has provoked more ire than interfering in big things. Pooling sovereignty for grand ideals, grand projects, can seem worth it. The dream of the EU was not unattractive. But it was so obsessed with minutiae, with grubby detail and suffocating control of the mundane. Why? Was it because it did not have control of the truly powerful areas, defence, foreign affairs, etc? So the bureaucracy sought to exert influence everywhere else that it could, without asking how it truly added to the dream of a grand, united Europe?
That's how you get from not wanting to have murderous wars to the EU telling people what kinds of light bulbs they can and can't buy.
Do you think Brexit is going to reverse the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs?
Most of the rest of the world is phasing them out or already has done so. Its not some sort of EU plot and it would have happened whether we were in the EU or not.
It's going to add quite a burden to our political process having to suddenly get involved in all this minutiae that we had been previously able to subcontract to the EU. MPs are going to get quite bored. One of the advantages of the EU was the amount of WTO etc regulations that the EU Parliament dealt with that Parliament was able to pass through on the nod as secondary legislation. This was the source of a large chunk of the misleading statistics about a large percentage of our laws "originating in the EU". I guess it might all have to be done as primary legislation in future.
Heaven forbid our MPs have a say in our laws.
Nothing wrong with outsourcing the dull stuff to someone else. I'd far rather our MPs spent their time on legislation that solves the many problems that face this country than having to pore over dusty WTO manuals.
Mr Davis’ comments came after an Italian minister threatened to start a trade war with the UK if the British Government attempts to curb free movement rules.
With the rise of 5* the Italian government is facing anti-EU pressure of its own and of course the UK would respond with tariffs of its own
The next Italian election is due in 21 months. The 5 stars have a steady 5 point lead in the opinion polls for the second round, which would give them an absolute majority to do whatever they want.
So the question is not what Renzi demands (he could even resign in a few weeks if he loses his referendum), but what Beppe Grillo would demand.
You must always take into account the next government that is going to be in place before 2019.
Because it is a European institution which governs our courts' judgements. Surely the very definition of sovereignty-abusing. The very stuff that Brexiters got so het up about.
Oh, and it is something that in April Theresa May said we must leave, while in June she said we would stay.
It's a court we founded, the issue is the charter of fundamental rights which we were supposed to have opted out of, but didn't. That coupled with the ill written HRA has turned the ECHR into a criminal's charter. Leaving the EU means no more ECJ/charter and rewriting the HRA will shift the balance back to human rights.
It might well do but we are staying in the European Convention of Human Rights and therefore the European Court of Human Rights will outrank our own courts. And you are happy with that. I thought the whole point of Brexit was sovereignty. And that Brexiters didn't like that sort of national-overruling type of European institution.
It doesn't though, the ECHR doesn't outrank our court. Only the ECJ does.
The ECHR opines on the ECHR. The ECJ opines on the Single Market.
Please google yourself senseless. While we are a signatory of the ECHR then we fall under the remit of the ECHR. As a signatory we write its articles into our own law and will continue to do so until or unless we withdraw.
OK I'm off please have the last word; I'm starving.
Russia and Belarus are also signatories to the ECHR, just saying
Hello all - hope you have enjoyed your summer holidays!!
Currently in the rather mediocre Emirates lounge in Colombo en-route back to London. Anything much happen over the Summer?
Have a safe trip back. Labour are still tearing themselves apart, two very unsuitable candidates are in the POTUS race, lots of athletes did well at sport in Rio.
You'll find the Emirates lounge in Dubai somewhat more agreeable
WRT Brexit, I think we've reached the limit, not just in this country, but in several other countries, of political integration to achieve economic gains - in part because the economic gains are so paltry for so many people. I think that people increasingly cherish sovereignty and democracy over and above slight economic gains.
Not when they lose their job and can't pay the mortgage they don't!
There's a real unreality about this. People write as if the EU is in the midst of an economic boom, which we're going to miss out on, whereas the reality is one of low economic growth which won't anytime soon. Where is the advantage in pursuing integration with a low -growth region of the world?
You don't get it, Sean. Our entire economic policy post 90s has been about being a friendly, low regulation and low tax base for FDI that wants to be in the EU.
The growth or otherwise of the EU is not entirely relevant.
You have a point that a lot of people have not seen the gains, but that is our fault, not the EUs. We have one of the most lopsided growth models, regionally speaking, in the OECD.
Then we have to change the model, since it delivers low growth and a gigantic trade deficit with the EU (whereas we have a healthy surplus with the rest of the world).
Again, my point is that the EU does not deliver low growth; individual countries may not have been growing much but that is different.
Membership of the EU has assisted in delivering massive FDI for the UK since the 90s; but we failed to get our own house in order, watched London race away while everywhere else lagged, and we are trying to blame the EU.
There is no other *trade* model which helps balance between London and the rest. We have to do it ourselves.
Hard BREXIT would not balance the UK out between London and the regions, it would make both worst off with the poorest region, the North East, worst hit of all
To sum it up in one sentence. We didn't go through what we went through in the 20th century so that an unelected Belgian could tell us what weed killer we could or couldnt put on the marigold beds in our garden.
It
That's how you get from not wanting to have murderous wars to the EU telling people what kinds of light bulbs they can and can't buy.
Do you think Brexit is going to reverse the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs?
Most of the rest of the world is phasing them out or already has done so. Its not some sort of EU plot and it would have happened whether we were in the EU or not.
It's going to add quite a burden to our political process having to suddenly get involved in all this minutiae that we had been previously able to subcontract to the EU. MPs are going to get quite bored. One of the advantages of the EU was the amount of WTO etc regulations that the EU Parliament dealt with that Parliament was able to pass through on the nod as secondary legislation. This was the source of a large chunk of the misleading statistics about a large percentage of our laws "originating in the EU". I guess it might all have to be done as primary legislation in future.
Heaven forbid our MPs have a say in our laws.
Nothing wrong with outsourcing the dull stuff to someone else. I'd far rather our MPs spent their time on legislation that solves the many problems that face this country than having to pore over dusty WTO manuals.
They wont do most of the poring , civil servants will.
At the moment no one does any poring it just gets nodded through as secondary legislation under the EEC Act 1972 enabling clauses.
Mr Davis’ comments came after an Italian minister threatened to start a trade war with the UK if the British Government attempts to curb free movement rules.
With the rise of 5* the Italian government is facing anti-EU pressure of its own and of course the UK would respond with tariffs of its own
I find it difficult to take any party seriously with the same name as a pallid eigties pop group. What next, the Shakatak party vying for power in Spain? The Level 42 movement in Finland?
Mr Davis’ comments came after an Italian minister threatened to start a trade war with the UK if the British Government attempts to curb free movement rules.
With the rise of 5* the Italian government is facing anti-EU pressure of its own and of course the UK would respond with tariffs of its own
I find it difficult to take any party seriously with the same name as a pallid eigties pop group. What next, the Shakatak party vying for power in Spain? The Level 42 movement in Finland?
My thanks to those who offered advice. I found a mirror to hold by his nose, as per Dr Sox, and whilst I was trying to work out where in the bundle of curled fur his nose actually was and how I could get a mirror close to it I saw an ear flicker. So the old boy is still alive and just not ready for his tea yet (age and too many prawns at lunchtime I suppose).
Phew, thanks to all.
@Pulpstar Simba's 6.8kg seems an awful lot. The chap across the road has a Siamese that got into that range (mainly I think because at least two of the neighbours were also feeding his cat) and it has cost him an arm and a leg on Vet's bills.
Glad to hear Thomas is still going. A gentle tickle on the whiskers or ears would not be much of a shock, even for a veteran moggie.
My grandfathers last words were "I am a little sleepy after that lunch, I will go have a nap in my chair".
At the age of 94 a pretty good way to go, though a shock to my grandmother when she brought him a cup of tea an hour later.
My favourite joke on this subject is a Bob Monkhouse one:
"I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my father did. Not screaming in terror like the passengers on his bus!"
My favourite was the New Yorker cartoon.
Two old codgers sitting next to each other in their club. One is peacefully asleep, the other is reading the obituary column.
Second turns to the first: "Good Lord, Fentiman! I had no idea you'd died!"
Whilst you're about - do you know anything about the development of squirrel virus vaccines? A friend is distantly involved re Scottish red one protection.
Not really. If assume it's the same people who make mink vaccines but it's a very niche market so haven't really thought about it in the past.
It's in the article. 11% of the total insurance market is underwritten in the SM. About £2.75bn p.a.
So they open an office in Paris to front end some of the SM business. Dosent mean that the frogs get the whole 2.75bn. And over time with EU tariff walls etc gone from rest of world it might be cheaper to get it underwritten elsewhere.
@Gardenwalker has it. The reality will be that Brexit means we will have to face up to ourselves and that it is and has been our own decisions that have been responsible for much of the woes that eg. the poor have suffered.
OK that's fine - evidently no political system, or colour of government was going to fix it, not Lab, not Cons so the UK had to do something drastic; like cutting down your apple tree to get the ball back that was stuck in the branches.
It's a shame, though, because it really was not the EU that was responsible for the poverty in the UK, nor for taking our "sovereignty" and forcing us to do very much against our will that we might not have done anyway.
I think the EU's political culture did not help and had, in some cases, a baleful influence on British politics. The top down somewhat elitist approach, the contempt for democracy, the endless reiteration of there being no alternative, of the destination being irreversible, the refusal to deal with people's concerns, the elevation of principles and currencies into sacred cows all led to the referendum result. EU politicians have their share of the blame, even if British politicians also do. Fundamentally, I think British democracy has particular roots which being in the EU were not nurtured and were in some cases harmed. Where the EU was good at helping to reinforce democracy in former Warsaw Pact countries, it harmed or was indifferent to British political culture and British democracy, from which it could have learnt much.
To sum it up in one sentence. We didn't go through what we went through in the 20th century so that an unelected Belgian could tell us what weed killer we could or couldnt put on the marigold beds in our garden.
Perhaps what continental Europeans went through in the 20th century makes them feel that an unelected Belgian (or Pole or Irishman) making decisions on weedkiller is an entirely acceptable price to pay to prevent it happening again.
The Open Britain document which you can download on the website calls this brilliantly. Accept Brexit is happening but then list gazillions of negative outcomes that must be guaranteed not to happen. But crucially these are negative outcomes that will affect many people in particular who voted Leave in general. You win campaigns by changing the minds of people who didn't vote for you.
While Operation Session has breached the south coast and it's national disaster we *can* run a very credible and successful resistance movement. We need shifting alliances with individual groups who cheered the invasion but will come to hate the occupation. We can't defeat the Referendum militarily, we lost, but we can make a huge chunk of softer Brexiteers feel the long term cost of occupation is too high so they sue for a peaceful compromise.
Lol. Got to love that negative campaigning. Worked so well last time...
Open Britain are a talking shop for Europhiles. Their "pamplet" is trash. Whoever wrote it did not do their homework.
Open Britain is the half-hearted attempt of Europhiles to move from the Denial/Anger to Bargaining stage, whilst still having one very big foot grounded in Denial/Anger.
Kubler-Ross is an amusing and literate put down but it's not an accurate assessment of the situation. The UK's membership of the EU is dead. But neither the UK nor the EU is dead. So not only is the ' Bargaining ' stage unavoidable it's entirely necessary and will go on for years. If you don't like bargaining stages don't vote for the world's biggest and most complex divorce.
Oh, I'm not Bargaining: I'm delighted.
It's the spasms of emotion from the Remain camp as they come to terms with their grief that entertain me.
The spasms of cold hard fact from the government are entertaining me.
EAW? In ECHR? In Points-based immigration system? Out
Freedom!
EAW just politics. May already decided to opt back in when she was at Home.
ECHR I think you're confused. Big difference between ECHR while in the EU (rulings on the ECHR mandate via the ECO are binding) and being a member of the ECHR as an independent country where decisions are advisory only.
@Gardenwalker has it. The reality will be that Brexit means we will have to face up to ourselves and that it is and has been our own decisions that have been responsible for much of the woes that eg. the poor have suffered.
OK that's fine - evidently no political system, or colour of government was going to fix it, not Lab, not Cons so the UK had to do something drastic; like cutting down your apple tree to get the ball back that was stuck in the branches.
It's a shame, though, because it really was not the EU that was responsible for the poverty in the UK, nor for taking our "sovereignty" and forcing us to do very much against our will that we might not have done anyway.
I think the EU's political culture did not help and had, in some cases, a baleful influence on British politics. The top down somewhat elitist approach, the contempt for democracy, the endless reiteration of there being no alternative, of the destination being irreversible, the refusal to deal with people's concerns, the elevation of principles and currencies into sacred cows all led to the referendum result. EU politicians have their share of the blame, even if British politicians also do. Fundamentally, I think British democracy has particular roots which being in the EU were not nurtured and were in some cases harmed. Where the EU was good at helping to reinforce democracy in former Warsaw Pact countries, it harmed or was indifferent to British political culture and British democracy, from which it could have learnt much.
To sum it up in one sentence. We didn't go through what we went through in the 20th century so that an unelected Belgian could tell us what weed killer we could or couldnt put on the marigold beds in our garden.
Perhaps what continental Europeans went through in the 20th Century makes them feel that an unelected Belgian (or Pole or Irishman) making decisions on weedkiller is an entirely acceptable price to pay to prevent it happening again.
Yes, we would be on the brink of war if it weren't for the EU...
Hello all - hope you have enjoyed your summer holidays!!
Currently in the rather mediocre Emirates lounge in Colombo en-route back to London. Anything much happen over the Summer?
Have a safe trip back. Labour are still tearing themselves apart, two very unsuitable candidates are in the POTUS race, lots of athletes did well at sport in Rio.
You'll find the Emirates lounge in Dubai somewhat more agreeable
Thanks and yes looking forward to the DXB lounge!!
It's in the article. 11% of the total insurance market is underwritten in the SM. About £2.75bn p.a.
So they open an office in Paris to front end some of the SM business. Dosent mean that the frogs get the whole 2.75bn. And over time with EU tariff walls etc gone from rest of world it might be cheaper to get it underwritten elsewhere.
Paul, I'm not bothered one way or another. Brexit is a complex example of linear programming. There are many constraints, opportunity costs and difficulties for May to navigate. I'm leaving it up to her and her 450k-odd civil servants.
I'm interested in the process, but freely admit that I can't hope to comprehend all the impacts on the 50 odd industrial sectors Davis wishes to consult.
I do agree that there is no mythical status quo; Asia and the US would still be trying to steal City business no matter what happened. Remain have the blessing of being able to describe Bremain Britain as a pre-lapsarian idyll, where nothing adverse would ever happen. Them's the breaks.
@Gardenwalker has it. The reality will be that Brexit means we will have to face up to ourselves and that it is and has been our own decisions that have been responsible for much of the woes that eg. the poor have suffered.
OK that's fine - evidently no political system, or colour of government was going to fix it, not Lab, not Cons so the UK had to do something drastic; like cutting down your apple tree to get the ball back that was stuck in the branches.
It's a shame, though, because it really was not the EU that was responsible for the poverty in the UK, nor for taking our "sovereignty" and forcing us to do very much against our will that we might not have done anyway.
To sum it up in one sentence. We didn't go through what we went through in the 20th century so that an unelected Belgian could tell us what weed killer we could or couldnt put on the marigold beds in our garden.
Perhaps what continental Europeans went through in the 20th century makes them feel that an unelected Belgian (or Pole or Irishman) making decisions on weedkiller is an entirely acceptable price to pay to prevent it happening again.
If they wish to give up freedom for security that is their choice. Were a virtually uninvadable island under a single sovereign. Thats why we stayed free throughout the twentieth century and why we have no need trade freedom for protection as a shopkeeper in sicily will to mafiosa.
Alas one day they will, too late, wake up and realise that without freedom, there can be no security in the long term.
Mr Davis’ comments came after an Italian minister threatened to start a trade war with the UK if the British Government attempts to curb free movement rules.
With the rise of 5* the Italian government is facing anti-EU pressure of its own and of course the UK would respond with tariffs of its own
The next Italian election is due in 21 months. The 5 stars have a steady 5 point lead in the opinion polls for the second round, which would give them an absolute majority to do whatever they want.
So the question is not what Renzi demands (he could even resign in a few weeks if he loses his referendum), but what Beppe Grillo would demand.
You must always take into account the next government that is going to be in place before 2019.
Which is why May would be sensible to have 2019 as a target for final BREXIT
@Gardenwalker has it. The reality will be that Brexit means we will have to face up to ourselves and that it is and has been our own decisions that have been responsible for much of the woes that eg. the poor have suffered.
OK that's fine - evidently no political system, or colour of government was going to fix it, not Lab, not Cons so the UK had to do something drastic; like cutting down your apple tree to get the ball back that was stuck in the branches.
It's a shame, though, because it really was not the EU that was responsible for the poverty in the UK, nor for taking our "sovereignty" and forcing us to do very much against our will that we might not have done anyway.
To sum it up in one sentence. We didn't go through what we went through in the 20th century so that an unelected Belgian could tell us what weed killer we could or couldnt put on the marigold beds in our garden.
Perhaps what continental Europeans went through in the 20th century makes them feel that an unelected Belgian (or Pole or Irishman) making decisions on weedkiller is an entirely acceptable price to pay to prevent it happening again.
If they wish to give up freedom for security that is their choice. Were a virtually uninvadable island under a single sovereign. Thats why we stayed free throughout the twentieth century and why we have no need trade freedom for protection as a shopkeeper in sicily will to mafiosa.
Alas one day they will, too late, wake up and realise that without freedom, there can be no security in the long term.
If you feel freedom resides in your choice of weedkiller, there's no 'we' as far as I'm concerned.
Comments
It's an example of unnecessary interference in matters which could and should have been decided by national governments or even the market. I think the EU even had a word for it - subsidiarity - though funnily enough very little was ever devolved down. There was always a reason for power to be concentrated at the centre.
In the end, politics is about power: who has it, who wants it. The EU wanted more power for itself and this meant less power for Britain within the EU. Both de facto and de jure.
Post-Brexit we will have regained de jure power and what that means in reality depends on what we do with it. It's up to us. We'll have to hope that we have politicians and others who are up to the task.
Please google yourself senseless. While we are a signatory of the ECHR then we fall under the remit of the ECHR. As a signatory we write its articles into our own law and will continue to do so until or unless we withdraw.
OK I'm off please have the last word; I'm starving.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/05/it-is-not-tenable-for-jeremy-corbyn-to-take-no-position-on-the-a/
"Neither had Ron Davies. But Blair’s autobiography reveals the prime minister’s logic and also his angst in insisting that the Welsh Secretary resign immediately. “It was… someone’s career and life just about to disappear down the drain. That is what is so unbelievably cruel about political life. Of course it was the dumbest thing. In Ron’s statement, which I helped to draft, I described it as ‘a moment of madness’, but I knew his career couldn’t be salvaged. The problem was not anything to do with sex or not, it was the misjudgment.”
Indeed. It is not politicians’ personal moral code that we, the public, depend upon when we task them with scrutinizing our laws and our executive; it is their judgment we’re paying for and relying upon.
https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/772795369168175104
Currently in the rather mediocre Emirates lounge in Colombo en-route back to London. Anything much happen over the Summer?
"The Labour Government made voluntary agreement with retailers to end their sale by 2011. Hilary Benn, the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, announced on 27 September 2007 that retailers had agreed to phase out traditional bulbs from shops before the final ban agreed at EU level (see below). Mr Benn said:
Britain is leading the way in getting rid of energy-guzzling light bulbs and helping consumers reduce their carbon footprint. "
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04958/SN04958.pdf
Now the burka is banned... by ISIS! Terror group outlaws the Islamic garb from their buildings because they are a SECURITY RISK.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3774539/Now-burka-banned-ISIS-Terror-group-outlaws-Islamic-garb-buildings-SECURITY-RISK.html
If we leave the EU, only the UK Supreme Court can do so, and the parameters of that could be modified by a British HRA, and any appeals over and above that would be to the ECtHR alone.
Next.
You are wrong though on the ECHR.
Sorry.
The 5 stars have a steady 5 point lead in the opinion polls for the second round, which would give them an absolute majority to do whatever they want.
So the question is not what Renzi demands (he could even resign in a few weeks if he loses his referendum), but what Beppe Grillo would demand.
You must always take into account the next government that is going to be in place before 2019.
You'll find the Emirates lounge in Dubai somewhat more agreeable
http://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-lloyd-s-of-london-idUKKCN11B0ZZ
I don't think banning the burka is the way to go except in common sense areas like driving etc.
At the moment no one does any poring it just gets nodded through as secondary legislation under the EEC Act 1972 enabling clauses.
(Ps sorry J if you're reading this
ECHR I think you're confused. Big difference between ECHR while in the EU (rulings on the ECHR mandate via the ECO are binding) and being a member of the ECHR as an independent country where decisions are advisory only.
He doesn't understand how dangerous his words are.
I'm interested in the process, but freely admit that I can't hope to comprehend all the impacts on the 50 odd industrial sectors Davis wishes to consult.
I do agree that there is no mythical status quo; Asia and the US would still be trying to steal City business no matter what happened. Remain have the blessing of being able to describe Bremain Britain as a pre-lapsarian idyll, where nothing adverse would ever happen. Them's the breaks.
NEW THREAD
https://twitter.com/davieclegg/status/772803372927811584
Alas one day they will, too late, wake up and realise that without freedom, there can be no security in the long term.