Metaphorical example - the eu can and does involve itself in innumerable minor things to very little purpose and the people in charge of the bureaucrats doing it are unelected commissioners.the eu should have stayed with grand dreams or nothing, it just became grubby and diminished when in people's eyes it was less about peace and grand cooperation and more about restrictions on vacuum cleaners.
Yes but the point is that if you national government bans the spray for potato blight if you can organise with enough others you can prevail upon them to either not ban it or reverse the ban because they are elected every 5 years and don't want to lose their seats - a full enough postbag works wonders on an mp.
When it is decided at supranational level they are too remote to be got at.
You want to have a government that can be 'got at'.
Our MPs are much more vulnerable to the electorate now that they can no longer say Sorry it is an EU regulation we have no choice 'under the treaties other than to implement'
You can't get at any government if you live in a safe FPTP seat.
There is no such thing. Ask Scottish Labour.
Wasn't aware the SNP were the Westminster Govenrment.
Haltemprice and Howden (with minor boundary changes) has been Tory since 1837 What a glorious place to live that must be.
ECJ rules which incorporate the ECHR have priority over UK law.
If we are outside the ECHR the government is supposed to implement ECHR rulings but there are no consequences of not doing so.
The HRA requires UK courts to "take into account" ECHR rulings.
So while in the EU we have no say. Outside the EU but with the HRA we have some flexibility but it is at the court's discretion. Outside the EU and with an amended HRA it reverts to Parliament's discretion whether to amend our laws in response to a judgement. That's called "sovereignty"
Yes and no.
Article 46 of the Convention states that signatories, ie Parliament, must abide by, ie follow, the judgements of the ECtHR. However, as you say, our courts must only take into account the ECtHR judgements so can effectively ignore them.
But our courts cannot ignore Parliament!
So if Parliament passes a law that incorporates an ECHR measure (as the HRA did!) , the Supreme Court cannot strike it down.
All of which of course has nothing to do with the EU, but is a consequence of our adherence to the ECHR. It also has a lot to do, however, with a supranational body interfering with our lives and I would have thought was the thing which would have driven Brexiters bonkers.
I think you are restating what I said: the courts follow parliament.
I will take your word for it on what the treaty says. In any event it is a negative power - they told us to think again on prisonners rights, for instance, but they didn't tell us what to do. This is very different to the positive power that the ECJ aggrogated to themselved
I think Westmorland in varying firms had been Tory from 1832 until Tim Farron. Montgomeryshire had been Liberal from the 1880's with one exception until Lembit Opik. It seems almost every group of voters can be pushed too far eventually !
I think Westmorland in varying firms had been Tory from 1832 until Tim Farron. Montgomeryshire had been Liberal from the 1880's with one exception until Lembit Opik. It seems almost every group of voters can be pushed too far eventually !
Blimey, and at least one of the two members in the two-member seat was a Tory since 1774! Before then it was held by those filthy neutrals.....
I think Westmorland in varying firms had been Tory from 1832 until Tim Farron. Montgomeryshire had been Liberal from the 1880's with one exception until Lembit Opik. It seems almost every group of voters can be pushed too far eventually !
ECJ rules which incorporate the ECHR have priority over UK law.
If we are outside the ECHR the government is supposed to implement ECHR rulings but there are no consequences of not doing so.
The HRA requires UK courts to "take into account" ECHR rulings.
So while in the EU we have no say. Outside the EU but with the HRA we have some flexibility but it is at the court's discretion. Outside the EU and with an amended HRA it reverts to Parliament's discretion whether to amend our laws in response to a judgement. That's called "sovereignty"
Yes and no.
Article 46 of the Convention states that signatories, ie Parliament, must abide by, ie follow, the judgements of the ECtHR. However, as you say, our courts must only take into account the ECtHR judgements so can effectively ignore them.
But our courts cannot ignore Parliament!
So if Parliament passes a law that incorporates an ECHR measure (as the HRA did!) , the Supreme Court cannot strike it down.
All of which of course has nothing to do with the EU, but is a consequence of our adherence to the ECHR. It also has a lot to do, however, with a supranational body interfering with our lives and I would have thought was the thing which would have driven Brexiters bonkers.
I think you are restating what I said: the courts follow parliament.
I will take your word for it on what the treaty says. In any event it is a negative power - they told us to think again on prisonners rights, for instance, but they didn't tell us what to do. This is very different to the positive power that the ECJ aggrogated to themselved
The courts follow parliament and parliament follows the ECHR (and would do so again with any new BoR) and we are staying in the ECHR. It seems Brexiters have a strange idea of which supranational bodies they like and which ones they dislike.
In fact, to broaden the discussion, our interaction with the ECHR and ECtHR has been a textbook example of where we can work within and together with a European body to bring about mutual benefit. As David Davis, if you remember, made clear. So why not with the EU?
But of course that is hypothetical as we are leaving according to the man himself yesterday.
I accept Weedkiller was a rhetorical device on Paul's part. But nobody unelected in the EU budget noises bans on anything. As for Vacuum Cleaners you mean setting market rules for energy efficiency. Entirely copied from the US car fuel efficiency approach from the '60s onwards. set the standards then Smith's invisible hand does the technological innovation and enforcement. It's actually a very small state solution to our environmental crisis. And supranational level s absolutely the best and only way to do it. Economies of scale for producers, the soft power of a huge market requirement and stopping a race to the bottom on competitive devaluation.
Except it doesn't seem to be a rhetorical device, the proscription of the use of his Bordeaux Mixture appears to be a suppurating, democratic deficit for Paul. Read the btl comments when the yellow press does one of its EUSSR pieces on vacuum cleaners, or toasters, or bananas; not much concern with rhetoric or metaphor there.
We are in an age where hobbyhorse politics is king.
Mr. Max, there is a genuine theory that Lucas originally wanted Jar Jar Binks to turn out to be the mastermind (or at least Palpatine's lieutenant) in the downfall of the Republic, but that fan reaction to The Phantom Menace stopped that.
The full statement of Italy's trade minister in the Telegraph is the more free movement is restricted the more the EU will restrict access of UK goods to the EU, so if there is no free movement at all i.e. not even just controls, we may have a trade war
To restrict British goods to the EU will be as damaging for the EU as it is for Britain..
Italy are fecked in or out of the EU
Fine, but you are forgetting that they are all politicians, not businesspeople. The first thing a politician needs is an explanation (aka scapegoat) for the things that go wrong. Lots of things are likely to go wrong in Europe these next few years, particularly economically.
Mr. Max, there is a genuine theory that Lucas originally wanted Jar Jar Binks to turn out to be the mastermind (or at least Palpatine's lieutenant) in the downfall of the Republic, but that fan reaction to The Phantom Menace stopped that.
The full statement of Italy's trade minister in the Telegraph is the more free movement is restricted the more the EU will restrict access of UK goods to the EU, so if there is no free movement at all i.e. not even just controls, we may have a trade war
To restrict British goods to the EU will be as damaging for the EU as it is for Britain..
Italy are fecked in or out of the EU
Fine, but you are forgetting that they are all politicians, not businesspeople. The first thing a politician needs is an explanation (aka scapegoat) for the things that go wrong. Lots of things are likely to go wrong in Europe these next few years, particularly economically.
Much of recent EU regulation certainly in the financial services industry has come about on account of the political imperative following the GFC.
So you look and sound like an idiotic dickhead - but it's all a mask to fool the sheep into a false sense of security or contempt because you're actually an evil genius. Way to go Jezza!
In fairness after yesterday I think we know a reasonable bit about the governments thinking. The implication is we're leaving the EU, the Single Market and the Customs Union. We'll them impose something called " immigration controls " and negotiate as substantial an amount of Single Market Access as we get given the end of free movement via a strong FTA. The problem is ( a) that's a logical plan if immigration control is your starting premise. ( B ) It's an insane plan if you are an open trading nation who already has a full seat at the decision table. So my reading of it is ( c) the government are just signalling it at the moment to give folk time to adjust to the shock. But of course we'll have to wait and see.
I accept Weedkiller was a rhetorical device on Paul's part. But nobody unelected in the EU budget noises bans on anything. As for Vacuum Cleaners you mean setting market rules for energy efficiency. Entirely copied from the US car fuel efficiency approach from the '60s onwards. set the standards then Smith's invisible hand does the technological innovation and enforcement. It's actually a very small state solution to our environmental crisis. And supranational level s absolutely the best and only way to do it. Economies of scale for producers, the soft power of a huge market requirement and stopping a race to the bottom on competitive devaluation.
Except it doesn't seem to be a rhetorical device, the proscription of the use of his Bordeaux Mixture appears to be a suppurating, democratic deficit for Paul. Read the btl comments when the yellow press does one of its EUSSR pieces on vacuum cleaners, or toasters, or bananas; not much concern with rhetoric or metaphor there.
We are in an age where hobbyhorse politics is king.
There more than enough pissed off gardeners who will see to it that MPs mailboxes are full enough to see that this measure (and similar) is repealed once the competency is repatriated.
Trying to persuade the EU to repeal an over the top measure is pissing in the wind.
Bordeax mixture is not some complex chemical it is just is a mixture of copper(II) sulfate (CuSO4) and slaked lime (Ca(OH)2) used as a fungicide.
It has been sprayed on as a preventative fungicide for over 100 years since its invention in the nineteenth century. Commercial businesses can still use it but the public were banned from buying it in November 2015 by the EU who decided to ban copper sulphate as a *garden* fungicide because only experts, not the general public could apparently be trusted to use it properly and not poison everyone.
Parliament would never have got away with that if they had the competence.
Copper sulphate is still available retail for wine making as is slaked lime so now you will get gardeners illegally making their own which is much more dangerous.
It's an interesting proposal and I can't see that broad membership involvement would really work - most of us currently outside Parliament only have the vaguest idea how some of the Shadows are doing. And the implication is that people do want to rejoin the Shadow Cabinet.
The risk is that the PLP insurgents would use it as a weapon to punish people who had worked with Corbyn, not just people like McDonnell (who really does make sense as Corbyn's SCOE) but really good less-known MPs like Rachael Maskell and Sarah Champion who have simply been getting on with the job. I think I'd favour the change but with scope for Corbyn to add additional members to make up the team.
Metaphorical example - the eu can and does involve itself in innumerable minor things to very little purpose and the people in charge of the bureaucrats doing it are unelected commissioners.the eu should have stayed with grand dreams or nothing, it just became grubby and diminished when in people's eyes it was less about peace and grand cooperation and more about restrictions on vacuum cleaners.
Yes but the point is that if you national government bans the spray for potato blight if you can organise with enough others you can prevail upon them to either not ban it or reverse the ban because they are elected every 5 years and don't want to lose their seats - a full enough postbag works wonders on an mp.
When it is decided at supranational level they are too remote to be got at.
You want to have a government that can be 'got at'.
Our MPs are much more vulnerable to the electorate now that they can no longer say Sorry it is an EU regulation we have no choice 'under the treaties other than to implement'
You can't get at any government if you live in a safe FPTP seat.
Mr. Quidder, my seat used to be a safe Labour one (I think Colin Challen was MP then). A few boundary changes and some Balls later, and it's a Conservative marginal.
You've completely ignored the substance of the argument to try and sneet at "Brexiteers"
I'd assume this is deliberate as you're smart enough to know you are doing so.
The ECJ says "you will do this under penalty of fines"
The ECHR says "we don't think that what you have done is compatible with the Treaty. Please go away and think again"
There is a fundamental difference between those two positions in terms of what it means for the UK.
Of course there is. But the practicalities are that we are embracing a European body, are part of it, have and will be incorporating its terms into our laws, and we all think that is a great thing. Even David Davis agrees.
It is a textbook example of how we can work within and be part of such an institution.
We have also committed not to leave the ECHR which means that any BoR will incorporate ECHR provisions. And that's great.
Do you not think that it is at least worthy of note to wonder out loud (and especially on an internet chat room) how strange it is that one european body we are happy with and the other we are not?
Well of course there is the "take note of" vs the "you must" and that I get. But practically, we end up in the same place.
Mr. Quidder, my seat used to be a safe Labour one (I think Colin Challen was MP then). A few boundary changes and some Balls later, and it's a Conservative marginal.
And even if a seat is temporarily safe, it is so because the people who live there want it to be.
No surprise that support for junior doctors is eroding. They have been poorly led and badly advised. Just like the miners were.
What I don't understand is why the BMA approved of the deal a few months ago but now they have called 5-day strikes over it. What changed over the summer?
No surprise that support for junior doctors is eroding. They have been poorly led and badly advised. Just like the miners were.
What I don't understand is why the BMA approved of the deal a few months ago but now they have called 5-day strikes over it. What changed over the summer?
The BMA approved it but they couldn't sell it to the SJs.
No surprise that support for junior doctors is eroding. They have been poorly led and badly advised. Just like the miners were.
What I don't understand is why the BMA approved of the deal a few months ago but now they have called 5-day strikes over it. What changed over the summer?
The BMA leadership - they were ousted for not being anti - Tory enough.
A lot to agree with in that piece. But what Nick totally ignores is the baggage that Corbyn brings with him, his refusal to tell members of his team to stop making threats to Labour party officials and MPs, and his inability to work with colleagues as leader of a shadow front bench. That's what makes him unfit to be leader.
No surprise that support for junior doctors is eroding. They have been poorly led and badly advised. Just like the miners were.
What I don't understand is why the BMA approved of the deal a few months ago but now they have called 5-day strikes over it. What changed over the summer?
The BMA didn't approve it, they ballotted the affected doctors and 58% rejected it. The BMA JDC leadership resigned and new leaders with a mandate to continue industrial action were elected.
The leadership is not as radical as the membership. Next weeks strike is off, but this was because of inadequate time to prepare. The strike for 5 days from 5 Oct remains planned. That is a few days after imposition starts. It could be stopped if imposition was suspended and talks over the outstanding issues restarted.
You've completely ignored the substance of the argument to try and sneet at "Brexiteers"
I'd assume this is deliberate as you're smart enough to know you are doing so.
The ECJ says "you will do this under penalty of fines"
The ECHR says "we don't think that what you have done is compatible with the Treaty. Please go away and think again"
There is a fundamental difference between those two positions in terms of what it means for the UK.
Quite so. I was looking forward to getting the good ol' Topping back after the vote!
I am back.
I am allowed, though, to challenge you lot on the exact meaning of what we are about to do, the illogicalities, the, yes, hypocrisies?
No one in government seems to be doing it.
Sorry mate, this is getting very boring. We have rehearsed and restated the arguments on human rights on here time and time again.
What's the point in doing it again?
As Charles says, you are looking for a cheap dig at Leavers, and I don't think you have a real grasp on the facts of the matter either, as some of your posts demonstrate.
No surprise that support for junior doctors is eroding. They have been poorly led and badly advised. Just like the miners were.
What I don't understand is why the BMA approved of the deal a few months ago but now they have called 5-day strikes over it. What changed over the summer?
The BMA didn't approve it, they ballotted the affected doctors and 58% rejected it. The BMA JDC leadership resigned and new leaders with a mandate to continue industrial action were elected.
The leadership is not as radical as the membership. Next weeks strike is off, but this was because of inadequate time to prepare. The strike for 5 days from 5 Oct remains planned. That is a few days after imposition starts. It could be stopped if imposition was suspended and talks over the outstanding issues restarted.
What is the point of striking after imposition? You really think an agreed contract that is in place is going to be reversed after being imposed?
The government should take the same approach as Ronald Reagan to the Air Traffic Controllers.
You've completely ignored the substance of the argument to try and sneet at "Brexiteers"
I'd assume this is deliberate as you're smart enough to know you are doing so.
The ECJ says "you will do this under penalty of fines"
The ECHR says "we don't think that what you have done is compatible with the Treaty. Please go away and think again"
There is a fundamental difference between those two positions in terms of what it means for the UK.
Quite so. I was looking forward to getting the good ol' Topping back after the vote!
I am back.
I am allowed, though, to challenge you lot on the exact meaning of what we are about to do, the illogicalities, the, yes, hypocrisies?
No one in government seems to be doing it.
Sorry mate, this is getting very boring. We have rehearsed and restated the arguments on human rights on here time and time again.
What's the point in doing it again?
As Charles says, you are looking for a cheap dig at Leavers, and I don't think you have a real grasp on the facts of the matter either, as some of your posts demonstrate.
So let's move on, and laugh at Corbyn instead.
I'm not looking for a cheap dig at Leavers. Cheap digs at Leavers throw themselves at my feet.
I am well aware of the issue of human rights and my points remain valid as per my responses to Charles. To answer your "what's the point?" question - there should be as much clarity as possible about these issues and if not here, where?
But that's cool we can all talk about what we want on here, such is the beauty of PB.
There should be a specific criminal offence of disrupting vital transport links for spurious attention seeking protests.
Invading City airport is akin to secondary picketing - 1 year in the clink for every hour of delays to planes.
"Racist climate change" might be peak Corbynista.
The latest suggestion from a pilots' forum about how to deal with the protestors involved a large JCB and the scumbags ending up in the Thames, still wearing their chains.
More seriously, don't charge them with trespass, charge them with endangering aircraft - that usually results in a long time in the clink.
Mr. Sandpit, a good idea, but given the pussyfooting that happened in 2011 during the looting (can't appear racist by, er, stopping widespread public disorder too vigorously) I doubt it'll happen.
You've completely ignored the substance of the argument to try and sneet at "Brexiteers"
I'd assume this is deliberate as you're smart enough to know you are doing so.
The ECJ says "you will do this under penalty of fines"
The ECHR says "we don't think that what you have done is compatible with the Treaty. Please go away and think again"
There is a fundamental difference between those two positions in terms of what it means for the UK.
Quite so. I was looking forward to getting the good ol' Topping back after the vote!
I am back.
I am allowed, though, to challenge you lot on the exact meaning of what we are about to do, the illogicalities, the, yes, hypocrisies?
No one in government seems to be doing it.
Sorry mate, this is getting very boring. We have rehearsed and restated the arguments on human rights on here time and time again.
What's the point in doing it again?
As Charles says, you are looking for a cheap dig at Leavers, and I don't think you have a real grasp on the facts of the matter either, as some of your posts demonstrate.
So let's move on, and laugh at Corbyn instead.
I'm not looking for a cheap dig at Leavers. Cheap digs at Leavers throw themselves at my feet.
I am well aware of the issue of human rights and my points remain valid as per my responses to Charles. To answer your "what's the point?" question - there should be as much clarity as possible about these issues and if not here, where?
But that's cool we can all talk about what we want on here, such is the beauty of PB.
Happy to talk about this issue, but it's been done to death.
I have nothing to add to what Charles and DavidL have said, and we've discussed the issue on here many times before.
Interesting fact: when I started writing articles for PB in July I had 49 Twitter followers. Today I hit 250. A tiny amount, of course, but I like the trajectory!
You've completely ignored the substance of the argument to try and sneet at "Brexiteers"
I'd assume this is deliberate as you're smart enough to know you are doing so.
The ECJ says "you will do this under penalty of fines"
The ECHR says "we don't think that what you have done is compatible with the Treaty. Please go away and think again"
There is a fundamental difference between those two positions in terms of what it means for the UK.
Quite so. I was looking forward to getting the good ol' Topping back after the vote!
I am back.
I am allowed, though, to challenge you lot on the exact meaning of what we are about to do, the illogicalities, the, yes, hypocrisies?
No one in government seems to be doing it.
Sorry mate, this is getting very boring. We have rehearsed and restated the arguments on human rights on here time and time again.
What's the point in doing it again?
As Charles says, you are looking for a cheap dig at Leavers, and I don't think you have a real grasp on the facts of the matter either, as some of your posts demonstrate.
So let's move on, and laugh at Corbyn instead.
I'm not looking for a cheap dig at Leavers. Cheap digs at Leavers throw themselves at my feet.
I am well aware of the issue of human rights and my points remain valid as per my responses to Charles. To answer your "what's the point?" question - there should be as much clarity as possible about these issues and if not here, where?
But that's cool we can all talk about what we want on here, such is the beauty of PB.
Happy to talk about this issue, but it's been done to death.
I have nothing to add to what Charles and DavidL have said, and we've discussed the issue on here many times before.
Whereas agreeing that Jezza is a tosser is virgin territory..
You've completely ignored the substance of the argument to try and sneet at "Brexiteers"
I'd assume this is deliberate as you're smart enough to know you are doing so.
The ECJ says "you will do this under penalty of fines"
The ECHR says "we don't think that what you have done is compatible with the Treaty. Please go away and think again"
There is a fundamental difference between those two positions in terms of what it means for the UK.
Quite so. I was looking forward to getting the good ol' Topping back after the vote!
I am back.
I am allowed, though, to challenge you lot on the exact meaning of what we are about to do, the illogicalities, the, yes, hypocrisies?
No one in government seems to be doing it.
Sorry mate, this is getting very boring. We have rehearsed and restated the arguments on human rights on here time and time again.
What's the point in doing it again?
As Charles says, you are looking for a cheap dig at Leavers, and I don't think you have a real grasp on the facts of the matter either, as some of your posts demonstrate.
So let's move on, and laugh at Corbyn instead.
I'm not looking for a cheap dig at Leavers. Cheap digs at Leavers throw themselves at my feet.
I am well aware of the issue of human rights and my points remain valid as per my responses to Charles. To answer your "what's the point?" question - there should be as much clarity as possible about these issues and if not here, where?
But that's cool we can all talk about what we want on here, such is the beauty of PB.
Happy to talk about this issue, but it's been done to death.
I have nothing to add to what Charles and DavidL have said, and we've discussed the issue on here many times before.
Whereas agreeing that Jezza is a tosser is virgin territory..
No surprise that support for junior doctors is eroding. They have been poorly led and badly advised. Just like the miners were.
What I don't understand is why the BMA approved of the deal a few months ago but now they have called 5-day strikes over it. What changed over the summer?
The BMA didn't approve it, they ballotted the affected doctors and 58% rejected it. The BMA JDC leadership resigned and new leaders with a mandate to continue industrial action were elected.
The leadership is not as radical as the membership. Next weeks strike is off, but this was because of inadequate time to prepare. The strike for 5 days from 5 Oct remains planned. That is a few days after imposition starts. It could be stopped if imposition was suspended and talks over the outstanding issues restarted.
What is the point of striking after imposition? You really think an agreed contract that is in place is going to be reversed after being imposed?
The government should take the same approach as Ronald Reagan to the Air Traffic Controllers.
Reversal?
Imposition starts on 1 October but the rollout is slow (and NHS HR departments hopelessly unprepared) and doesn't reach all grades of junior until next August.
The strike will be a disaster but imposition is a disaster too. It fails to address the real issues and will further demoralise and antagonise a truculent workforce with a major existing retention and recruitment problem. It is not a battle with a good outcome for anyone.
No surprise that support for junior doctors is eroding. They have been poorly led and badly advised. Just like the miners were.
What I don't understand is why the BMA approved of the deal a few months ago but now they have called 5-day strikes over it. What changed over the summer?
The BMA didn't approve it, they ballotted the affected doctors and 58% rejected it. The BMA JDC leadership resigned and new leaders with a mandate to continue industrial action were elected.
The leadership is not as radical as the membership. Next weeks strike is off, but this was because of inadequate time to prepare. The strike for 5 days from 5 Oct remains planned. That is a few days after imposition starts. It could be stopped if imposition was suspended and talks over the outstanding issues restarted.
Why should talks be reopened? An agreement was reached. Just because a small number of doctors rejected it? This is beyond getting pointless.
The Apple engineer who switched Macs to Intel processors was rejected from a job at the Genius Bar. JK Scheinberg, who was spent 21 years working for the tech giants, applied to work in an Apple Store after he retired.
The 54-year-old understandably thought he would be a good fit for the position - but he was turned down
Lawyers might want to give BBC a ring about this....
Erm....it wasn't a murder it was a killing. Zimmerman was acquitted on the grounds he was rightfully defending himself.
To be fair, they do say that later in the article...but they still "carelessly" wrote this. Not only wrong, on an issue like this where there is enough misinformation you would hope they would be more careful.
The Apple engineer who switched Macs to Intel processors was rejected from a job at the Genius Bar. JK Scheinberg, who was spent 21 years working for the tech giants, applied to work in an Apple Store after he retired.
The 54-year-old understandably thought he would be a good fit for the position - but he was turned down
Ed Balls, the former shadow chancellor and, now Strictly Come Dancing star, survived his first night on the ballroom floor only to be left injured when he walked into a glass door.
The automatic glasses door at The Guardian's offices got the better of Mr Balls as he attempted to leave following an interview.
Mr. P, I didn't realise the Roman Empire was on offer if we left the EU!
All hail Empress Elizabeth!
I think theoretically speaking all the English monarchs have been emperors and England an Empire since 1536 when Henry VIII declared UDI, ended the Popes powers to veto acts of parliament and confiscated all the Pope's "military" bases (monasteries).
@TSE - you love people in the Tory party you politically agree with, and think the rest are idiots.
No. I'm quite the fan of Owen Paterson when he's not banging on about the EU.
Thought it was a shame he was sacked, he did a stellar job on GM foods. Pure evidence and science based approach.
I thought Owen Patterson was doing a good job too.
On climate change he's an idiot. "Despite his voting record "moderately for" laws to stop climate change,[24] he is a climate change sceptic,[23] and has not accepted David MacKay's offer of a briefing on climate change science.[25] During his time in office, Paterson cut funding for climate change adaptation by approximately 40%. In 2014 the outgoing Environment Agency chair Chris Smith said that flood defence budget cuts had left the agency underfunded and hampered its ability to prevent and respond to flooding in the UK.[26][27][28] When asked in a 2013 BBC interview about the alleged failure of a badger cull he had been responsible for, Paterson famously replied that "the badgers have moved the goalposts."
The Apple engineer who switched Macs to Intel processors was rejected from a job at the Genius Bar. JK Scheinberg, who was spent 21 years working for the tech giants, applied to work in an Apple Store after he retired.
The 54-year-old understandably thought he would be a good fit for the position - but he was turned down
Interesting fact: when I started writing articles for PB in July I had 49 Twitter followers. Today I hit 250. A tiny amount, of course, but I like the trajectory!
Well done on the followers, but more importantly well done on the articles - good writing from the perspective of someone quite attached to Labour, wondering what the hell has happened to the party they love.
@TSE - you love people in the Tory party you politically agree with, and think the rest are idiots.
No. I'm quite the fan of Owen Paterson when he's not banging on about the EU.
Thought it was a shame he was sacked, he did a stellar job on GM foods. Pure evidence and science based approach.
I thought Owen Patterson was doing a good job too.
On climate change he's an idiot. "Despite his voting record "moderately for" laws to stop climate change,[24] he is a climate change sceptic,[23] and has not accepted David MacKay's offer of a briefing on climate change science.[25] During his time in office, Paterson cut funding for climate change adaptation by approximately 40%. In 2014 the outgoing Environment Agency chair Chris Smith said that flood defence budget cuts had left the agency underfunded and hampered its ability to prevent and respond to flooding in the UK.[26][27][28] When asked in a 2013 BBC interview about the alleged failure of a badger cull he had been responsible for, Paterson famously replied that "the badgers have moved the goalposts."
Yes, if he believes that he shouldn't be voting for laws designed to harm our economy without having the slightest impact on the planet's ecosystem.
The Apple engineer who switched Macs to Intel processors was rejected from a job at the Genius Bar. JK Scheinberg, who was spent 21 years working for the tech giants, applied to work in an Apple Store after he retired.
The 54-year-old understandably thought he would be a good fit for the position - but he was turned down
The Apple engineer who switched Macs to Intel processors was rejected from a job at the Genius Bar. JK Scheinberg, who was spent 21 years working for the tech giants, applied to work in an Apple Store after he retired.
The 54-year-old understandably thought he would be a good fit for the position - but he was turned down
The Apple engineer who switched Macs to Intel processors was rejected from a job at the Genius Bar. JK Scheinberg, who was spent 21 years working for the tech giants, applied to work in an Apple Store after he retired.
The 54-year-old understandably thought he would be a good fit for the position - but he was turned down
Yo granddad you ain't got the skills to pay the bills...
Some of those Apple store managers are so up their own arse they would reject an anonymised application from a resurrected Steve Jobs.
TBF front-line technical support is a completely different skill set to engineering, there's no particular reason to think this guy would necessarily be the best person for the job.
The Apple engineer who switched Macs to Intel processors was rejected from a job at the Genius Bar. JK Scheinberg, who was spent 21 years working for the tech giants, applied to work in an Apple Store after he retired.
The 54-year-old understandably thought he would be a good fit for the position - but he was turned down
Yo granddad you ain't got the skills to pay the bills...
Some of those Apple store managers are so up their own arse they would reject an anonymised application from a resurrected Steve Jobs.
TBF front-line technical support is a completely different skill set to engineering, there's no particular reason to think this guy would necessarily be the best person for the job.
I don't doubt its ageism, but I also agree. My technical knowledge is far too niche and in-depth to suit me to general customer support. Like PhDs, I know a great deal about very little.
The Apple engineer who switched Macs to Intel processors was rejected from a job at the Genius Bar. JK Scheinberg, who was spent 21 years working for the tech giants, applied to work in an Apple Store after he retired.
The 54-year-old understandably thought he would be a good fit for the position - but he was turned down
The Apple engineer who switched Macs to Intel processors was rejected from a job at the Genius Bar. JK Scheinberg, who was spent 21 years working for the tech giants, applied to work in an Apple Store after he retired.
The 54-year-old understandably thought he would be a good fit for the position - but he was turned down
Yo granddad you ain't got the skills to pay the bills...
Some of those Apple store managers are so up their own arse they would reject an anonymised application from a resurrected Steve Jobs.
TBF front-line technical support is a completely different skill set to engineering, there's no particular reason to think this guy would necessarily be the best person for the job.
Sure, but you'd at least give him a go. Speaking from experience anyone who works on software tends to become tech support for family and friends (I know I am). I would be surprised if that wasn't the case for this fellow and many others in the industry, as I'm sure you know.
The Apple engineer who switched Macs to Intel processors was rejected from a job at the Genius Bar. JK Scheinberg, who was spent 21 years working for the tech giants, applied to work in an Apple Store after he retired.
The 54-year-old understandably thought he would be a good fit for the position - but he was turned down
The Apple engineer who switched Macs to Intel processors was rejected from a job at the Genius Bar. JK Scheinberg, who was spent 21 years working for the tech giants, applied to work in an Apple Store after he retired.
The 54-year-old understandably thought he would be a good fit for the position - but he was turned down
The Apple engineer who switched Macs to Intel processors was rejected from a job at the Genius Bar. JK Scheinberg, who was spent 21 years working for the tech giants, applied to work in an Apple Store after he retired.
The 54-year-old understandably thought he would be a good fit for the position - but he was turned down
Yo granddad you ain't got the skills to pay the bills...
Some of those Apple store managers are so up their own arse they would reject an anonymised application from a resurrected Steve Jobs.
In these sort of jobs it's how you look and who you know, not what you know. If you look over 35, you're dead.
Two decades ago myself and a few friends used to go around computer stores in London and show their salespeople to be utterly clueless idiots. We'd ask a technical question and get utterly invented answers, when we'd tell them the correct answer.
I've been known to do the same in Apple stores. If it isn't on some form of script, they bluster. It's almost as if they expect only to meet the religious, and they're not used to talking to non-believers.
But I've got my own problems with John Lewis atm. My third laptop in eighteen months is dying (*), this one after just ten weeks. Each time it's taken them two months to replace, despite claiming it would just be two weeks. And this is from a different manufacturer.
The Apple engineer who switched Macs to Intel processors was rejected from a job at the Genius Bar. JK Scheinberg, who was spent 21 years working for the tech giants, applied to work in an Apple Store after he retired.
The 54-year-old understandably thought he would be a good fit for the position - but he was turned down
The Apple engineer who switched Macs to Intel processors was rejected from a job at the Genius Bar. JK Scheinberg, who was spent 21 years working for the tech giants, applied to work in an Apple Store after he retired.
The 54-year-old understandably thought he would be a good fit for the position - but he was turned down
Yo granddad you ain't got the skills to pay the bills...
Some of those Apple store managers are so up their own arse they would reject an anonymised application from a resurrected Steve Jobs.
In these sort of jobs it's how you look and who you know, not what you know. If you look over 35, you're dead.
Two decades ago myself and a few friends used to go around computer stores in London and show their salespeople to be utterly clueless idiots. We'd ask a technical question and get utterly invented answers, when we'd tell them the correct answer. .
PC World employees are normally a good target for this activity.
The Apple engineer who switched Macs to Intel processors was rejected from a job at the Genius Bar. JK Scheinberg, who was spent 21 years working for the tech giants, applied to work in an Apple Store after he retired.
The 54-year-old understandably thought he would be a good fit for the position - but he was turned down
Yo granddad you ain't got the skills to pay the bills...
Some of those Apple store managers are so up their own arse they would reject an anonymised application from a resurrected Steve Jobs.
In these sort of jobs it's how you look and who you know, not what you know. If you look over 35, you're dead.
Two decades ago myself and a few friends used to go around computer stores in London and show their salespeople to be utterly clueless idiots. We'd ask a technical question and get utterly invented answers, when we'd tell them the correct answer.
I've been known to do the same in Apple stores. If it isn't on some form of script, they bluster. It's almost as if they expect only to meet the religious, and they're not used to talking to non-believers.
But I've got my own problems with John Lewis atm. My third laptop in eighteen months is dying (*), this one after just ten weeks. Each time it's taken them two months to replace, despite claiming it would just be two weeks. And this is from a different manufacturer.
Grrrr ...
(*) Fan failure.
That's why Apple are awesome, I had a faulty macbook, booked a genius bar appointment, and they swappped it there and then for a new one.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37283869
I will take your word for it on what the treaty says. In any event it is a negative power - they told us to think again on prisonners rights, for instance, but they didn't tell us what to do. This is very different to the positive power that the ECJ aggrogated to themselved
In fact, to broaden the discussion, our interaction with the ECHR and ECtHR has been a textbook example of where we can work within and together with a European body to bring about mutual benefit. As David Davis, if you remember, made clear. So why not with the EU?
But of course that is hypothetical as we are leaving according to the man himself yesterday.
http://labourlist.org/2016/09/we-are-too-ready-to-call-each-other-blairites-or-corbynites-lets-remember-what-made-us-labour-an-ex-mp-writers/
We are in an age where hobbyhorse politics is king.
You've completely ignored the substance of the argument to try and sneet at "Brexiteers"
I'd assume this is deliberate as you're smart enough to know you are doing so.
The ECJ says "you will do this under penalty of fines"
The ECHR says "we don't think that what you have done is compatible with the Treaty. Please go away and think again"
There is a fundamental difference between those two positions in terms of what it means for the UK.
Trying to persuade the EU to repeal an over the top measure is pissing in the wind.
Bordeax mixture is not some complex chemical it is just is a mixture of copper(II) sulfate (CuSO4) and slaked lime (Ca(OH)2) used as a fungicide.
It has been sprayed on as a preventative fungicide for over 100 years since its invention in the nineteenth century. Commercial businesses can still use it but the public were banned from buying it in November 2015 by the EU who decided to ban copper sulphate as a *garden* fungicide because only experts, not the general public could apparently be trusted to use it properly and not poison everyone.
Parliament would never have got away with that if they had the competence.
Copper sulphate is still available retail for wine making as is slaked lime so now you will get gardeners illegally making their own which is much more dangerous.
Interfering EU Wankers.
https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/772932618056790016
The risk is that the PLP insurgents would use it as a weapon to punish people who had worked with Corbyn, not just people like McDonnell (who really does make sense as Corbyn's SCOE) but really good less-known MPs like Rachael Maskell and Sarah Champion who have simply been getting on with the job. I think I'd favour the change but with scope for Corbyn to add additional members to make up the team.
Invading City airport is akin to secondary picketing - 1 year in the clink for every hour of delays to planes.
"Racist climate change" might be peak Corbynista.
Thought it was a shame he was sacked, he did a stellar job on GM foods. Pure evidence and science based approach.
It is a textbook example of how we can work within and be part of such an institution.
We have also committed not to leave the ECHR which means that any BoR will incorporate ECHR provisions. And that's great.
Do you not think that it is at least worthy of note to wonder out loud (and especially on an internet chat room) how strange it is that one european body we are happy with and the other we are not?
Well of course there is the "take note of" vs the "you must" and that I get. But practically, we end up in the same place.
...if you ignore what he has tolerated in his name.
It's a nonsense complaint.
I am allowed, though, to challenge you lot on the exact meaning of what we are about to do, the illogicalities, the, yes, hypocrisies?
No one in government seems to be doing it.
The leadership is not as radical as the membership. Next weeks strike is off, but this was because of inadequate time to prepare. The strike for 5 days from 5 Oct remains planned. That is a few days after imposition starts. It could be stopped if imposition was suspended and talks over the outstanding issues restarted.
What's the point in doing it again?
As Charles says, you are looking for a cheap dig at Leavers, and I don't think you have a real grasp on the facts of the matter either, as some of your posts demonstrate.
So let's move on, and laugh at Corbyn instead.
The government should take the same approach as Ronald Reagan to the Air Traffic Controllers.
I am well aware of the issue of human rights and my points remain valid as per my responses to Charles. To answer your "what's the point?" question - there should be as much clarity as possible about these issues and if not here, where?
But that's cool we can all talk about what we want on here, such is the beauty of PB.
Classic and worth preserving.
The punishment should be to be put in a prison cell for a week with no Guardian available.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37283869
Lawyers might want to give BBC a ring about this....
More seriously, don't charge them with trespass, charge them with endangering aircraft - that usually results in a long time in the clink.
I have nothing to add to what Charles and DavidL have said, and we've discussed the issue on here many times before.
Now we have taken back control we can bring it back along with Firkins and Farthings...
All hail Empress Elizabeth!
Imposition starts on 1 October but the rollout is slow (and NHS HR departments hopelessly unprepared) and doesn't reach all grades of junior until next August.
The strike will be a disaster but imposition is a disaster too. It fails to address the real issues and will further demoralise and antagonise a truculent workforce with a major existing retention and recruitment problem. It is not a battle with a good outcome for anyone.
The 54-year-old understandably thought he would be a good fit for the position - but he was turned down
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3774845/Former-Apple-engineer-switched-Macs-Intel-processors-REJECTED-job-Genius-Bar.html
Yo granddad you ain't got the skills to pay the bills...
I've read so much Cornwell stuff I'm not too fussed myself (must have read 20-30 books) but if you're interested, I thought I'd flag it up.
Ed Balls, the former shadow chancellor and, now Strictly Come Dancing star, survived his first night on the ballroom floor only to be left injured when he walked into a glass door.
The automatic glasses door at The Guardian's offices got the better of Mr Balls as he attempted to leave following an interview.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/05/strictlys-ed-balls-smacked-in-the-face-by-an-automatic-door/
I do not know anything about NI politics but I note that Belfast is down to 3 seats all within the existing council boundary.
"Despite his voting record "moderately for" laws to stop climate change,[24] he is a climate change sceptic,[23] and has not accepted David MacKay's offer of a briefing on climate change science.[25] During his time in office, Paterson cut funding for climate change adaptation by approximately 40%. In 2014 the outgoing Environment Agency chair Chris Smith said that flood defence budget cuts had left the agency underfunded and hampered its ability to prevent and respond to flooding in the UK.[26][27][28] When asked in a 2013 BBC interview about the alleged failure of a badger cull he had been responsible for, Paterson famously replied that "the badgers have moved the goalposts."
I've been known to do the same in Apple stores. If it isn't on some form of script, they bluster. It's almost as if they expect only to meet the religious, and they're not used to talking to non-believers.
But I've got my own problems with John Lewis atm. My third laptop in eighteen months is dying (*), this one after just ten weeks. Each time it's taken them two months to replace, despite claiming it would just be two weeks. And this is from a different manufacturer.
Grrrr ...
(*) Fan failure.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/06/does-the-left-have-a-future