What a surprise that pretty much the only review that doesn't think it's brilliant, comes from the BBC.
It is also totally out of touch with how people consume high quality programming. Yes a lot of people watch video on their phones, but that is normally crappy youtube video and alike, as TSE said he was wanting to watch his on his masssuuuuuive 4k display.
The likes of Netflix have invested in 4k and 60 fps programming for a reason, and it ain't because they think people want to watch it on tiny devices, while the BBC iplayer doesn't even do proper HD.
The brains of the company are of course very much British, and the thousands of skilled jobs making F1 cars, fantastic road cars and other bleeding-edge technology are not leaving Woking any time soon.
All comments this morning on the debate are mentioning the two polls showing Fillon as the most convincing. All this love for Fillon from media could begin to get annonying for people that started to support him as an outside compared to the big two (Juppe and Sarkozy). Everybody expects à very tight result on Sunday.
Tight for first place or second place? I think Sarkozy will be third by more than 5%.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Juppe could be the one to lose out on going through to the second round. He has been falling in the polls, Fillon has been rising and Sarko has been fairly steady. If Juppes downward momentum continues, he could fall behind Sarko as well as Fillon. Everything will depend upon turnout it would seem.
PB-ers have written off a couple of candidates recently as no-hopers, only for them to come through.
Just because Farron went to Newcastle and has spent his life with 'ordinary' people is no reason to write him off. 'Experts' have been written off; how about the Oxbridge snobocracy?
"Cos, TBH, that's how it comes across sometimes!
Signed OKC (MA ARU) (AKA Almost a Real University!)
I think there is an Oxbridge snobocracy but in the media and establishment generally rather than on pb. Non-Oxbridge PMs and LotOs are written off: Callaghan, Major and Brown; Kinnock, IDS and Corbyn.
Am slightly puzzled at the Brexiteer's opposition to a second referendum on the result of the Brexit terms - what if the Government find that the best deal they can get includes only marginal controls on free movement - wouldn't Leavers then want a second referendum?
I absolutely, utterly and unequivocally want the UK to leave the EU. On good terms if we can, on not so good if that is all that is available. But I will never support the UK becoming part of a U.S.E. The 'Project' is not for us. (It's going to suck for Europe too and a large amount of grief is coming in the 'core' countries when politics, economics and national identity all finally collide). The Remain camp are trying to put legal or additional electoral hurdles in the way of actually leaving. So...As long as we trigger Article 50 soon (legally, after supreme court or a GE landslide - I don't care which) and are therefore irrevocably committed to an exit on terms to be agreed or WTO rules as fallback - then I'm happy for any further votes or referendums to take place. I share the nagging fear of many that the establishment will indeed find a way to thwart the Leave decision.
...I suspect that such luddism is not a majority view ...
Life's not just about money though - as we have seen. Those who argue for Remain on grounds of financial fear seem completely tin-eared to the actual, immediate and irrevocable destruction that would be wrought on our democracy. If we somehow stay we're going to be part of a U.S.E. policy will ultimately be decided in Brussels. The two key tests of democracy (1. Can you kick the buggers out? 2 Can you thereby change policy direction?) will fail spectacularly. EU policy on the 'Project' is not changeable. In that sense the people of core EU are not free. We've had exciting reminders of the raw power of democracy just lately. I value that power. My own view is that those who call me a luddite for valuing this more than the avoidance of temporary economic pain are spineless useful idiots.
"Luddite" is a silly term to use in this context.
The EU was for decades strongly backed by the US. Maybe the idea of ever closer union was always temporary. (Unfortunately.)
If they'd been serious about it, why didn't they
* build up the European parliament, giving it more power over the executive, as part of making the "constitution" something that was of interest to more people than just wonks * create an EU TV channel or two * create an airline * nurture some proper EU-wide political parties or associations, and
In the French presidential market, François Fillon looks a bargain at his current back price of 5.7. He performed well in the Republicans' third debate, and Nicolas Sarkozy's payments from Libya are getting talked about in the media again. He's likely to get into the Republicans' second round. When he does - on Monday - he will get most of Sarkozy's price and probably some of Alain Juppé's.
I wouldn't be surprised if by the middle of next week there are three front-runners with similar prices: Juppé, Le Pen, Fillon. In the longer term, Fillon could well overtake the convicted crook Juppé.
I'm no fan of primaries generally, but you've got to wonder how well they go with the two-round system. Imagine voting four times for who you want to be president. Some people may end up varying their choices merely to break the monotony - which could be advantageous for the main "change" candidate, Marine Le Pen.
Fillon could be interesting as he's married to a Brit.
Mr. Dawning, did we vote to join the EU? Nope. Or for Juncker, or Tusk? No. Can rulings be imposed on us by QMV or the ECJ? Can elected representatives (even though the vast majority are foreign...) even propose legislation?
It's a deliberately complicated, opaque, unaccountable mess.
The country would love the economics of the EU without the politics. But that's not on offer.
Or they would (have) accept(ed) the politics if they were reformed so as to be clear and accountable.
Of the five points you make, I don't think that people necessarily object to the ECJ (or CJEU) or QMV decisions: something as complex as the EU cannot work with 28 vetoes and there needs to be some court to interpret EU law at an EU level as contradictory national court decisions would also render the Union unworkable.
But your other three points are entirely merited. There should have been a referendum on Maastricht, albeit that referendums were far less part of the UK's constitution at the time; it should be possible to elect the Commission President, either directly or indirectly via the parliament; and legislation should be introduced - and only in - the parliament or the Council of Ministers (and then require the assent of the other).
a) accept deal as negotiated by govt; or b) reject deal as negotiated by govt
A b) vote would mean reverting to WTO terms as no one could seriously think there could be a renegotiation before the 2020 GE and then the 2020 GE would be fought on the manifestos of each party including their view of preferred relationship with the EU (with presumably the LD one including a pledge to rejoin).
The referendum would not change the flavour of Brexit apart from giving the public an opportunity to convert whatever deal was done into WTO terms, which I'm sure is not what Mr Farron has in mind.
Mr. Herdson, I agree a 28 member confederation cannot work with so many vetoes but that's an inherent and unfixable problem with the EU, not something that should be accepted. Machiavelli was right when he wrote that 4-6 was the maximum number of members a confederation could reasonable have.
Mr. Max, hmm. Not up on the corporate stuff but doesn't Bahrain enjoy having sway, (I forget if it's them or the Abu Dhabi chaps who have a veto on any extra Middle Eastern races, because they don't want Qatar to get one)?
What a surprise that pretty much the only review that doesn't think it's brilliant, comes from the BBC.
It is also totally out of touch with how people consume high quality programming. Yes a lot of people watch video on their phones, but that is normally crappy youtube video and alike, as TSE said he was wanting to watch his on his masssuuuuuive 4k display.
The likes of Netflix have invested in 4k and 60 fps programming for a reason, and it ain't because they think people want to watch it on tiny devices, while the BBC iplayer doesn't even do proper HD.
Very true. The 4K production apparently cost a fortune and was a complete pain in the arse to do, as the equipment is very different from standard HD video and doesn't usually leave a studio environment.
Yes, some will watch on their phones, I watched on my laptop this morning, TSE will watch on his TV. And we will all think it's blooody brilliant!
BRITAIN’S pathetically excited dads stayed up all night so they could watch Jeremy Clarkson drive a car. Millions of fathers across Britain put on their best pair of jeans and stayed up past midnight, further eroding any respect they may have had from their partners and children. Nikki Hollis, 17, from Stevenage, said her father Peter was emitting ‘childish whoops of glee’, adding: “At 3am he woke me up because he wanted to watch it on the big screen but couldn’t work out the Fire stick. “He kept saying ‘The boys have still got it,’ while shaking his head in admiration, and asked if I wanted to watch the opening sequence which was ‘like something from Mad Max’.” She continued: “At half-five I heard him on the phone to one of his mates marvelling at the budget, and when I came down for breakfast he was watching them reviewing a Ferrari for the fourth time. Jesus fucking Christ.” Peter Hollis said: “I’m just so relieved that I like it. I don’t really have anything else to live for.”'
The EU was for decades strongly backed by the US. Maybe the idea of ever closer union was always temporary. (Unfortunately.)
If they'd been serious about it, why didn't they
* build up the European parliament, giving it more power over the executive, as part of making the "constitution" something that was of interest to more people than just wonks * create an EU TV channel or two * create an airline * nurture some proper EU-wide political parties or associations, and
that kind of stuff?
The EU can never be a democracy because it has no single demos. Germans won't accept being controlled by Greeks nor Greeks by Germans. The political elites see each other as 'our kind of people' but drip contempt and hate for the plebs in their own country. As Italy's industrial destruction continues, for example, how will Italians enjoy being controlled by non-Italians in Brussels? The great, historic nation states of Europe may be in the elite's crosshairs for elimination and assimilation - but their own peoples will not go for it. So the same old non-functioning shit will drag on interminably until it does one day end in tears. That's no way to run a sweetshop and we're much better off out.
Mr. Dawning, did we vote to join the EU? Nope. Or for Juncker, or Tusk? No. Can rulings be imposed on us by QMV or the ECJ? Can elected representatives (even though the vast majority are foreign...) even propose legislation?
It's a deliberately complicated, opaque, unaccountable mess.
The country would love the economics of the EU without the politics. But that's not on offer.
Or they would (have) accept(ed) the politics if they were reformed so as to be clear and accountable.
Of the five points you make, I don't think that people necessarily object to the ECJ (or CJEU) or QMV decisions: something as complex as the EU cannot work with 28 vetoes and there needs to be some court to interpret EU law at an EU level as contradictory national court decisions would also render the Union unworkable.
But your other three points are entirely merited. There should have been a referendum on Maastricht, albeit that referendums were far less part of the UK's constitution at the time; it should be possible to elect the Commission President, either directly or indirectly via the parliament; and legislation should be introduced - and only in - the parliament or the Council of Ministers (and then require the assent of the other).
I think the basic issue is one of fairness. Both France and Germany use the Luxembourg compromise to protect what they deem to be vital national industries from EU meddling, but when Britain wants veto power over its own vital national industry (banking and finance) we get told to jog on. If the EU applied its own rules in a consistent manner I don't think there would be as much opposition to it in the UK.
What a surprise that pretty much the only review that doesn't think it's brilliant, comes from the BBC.
It is also totally out of touch with how people consume high quality programming. Yes a lot of people watch video on their phones, but that is normally crappy youtube video and alike, as TSE said he was wanting to watch his on his masssuuuuuive 4k display.
The likes of Netflix have invested in 4k and 60 fps programming for a reason, and it ain't because they think people want to watch it on tiny devices, while the BBC iplayer doesn't even do proper HD.
Very true. The 4K production apparently cost a fortune and was a complete pain in the arse to do, as the equipment is very different from standard HD video and doesn't usually leave a studio environment.
Yes, some will watch on their phones, I watched on my laptop this morning, TSE will watch on his TV. And we will all think it's blooody brilliant!
Mr. Herdson, I agree a 28 member confederation cannot work with so many vetoes but that's an inherent and unfixable problem with the EU, not something that should be accepted. Machiavelli was right when he wrote that 4-6 was the maximum number of members a confederation could reasonable have.
Mr. Max, hmm. Not up on the corporate stuff but doesn't Bahrain enjoy having sway, (I forget if it's them or the Abu Dhabi chaps who have a veto on any extra Middle Eastern races, because they don't want Qatar to get one)?
The problem with the EU is the same as is being seen in the US, that co-operation between countries of similar wealth works well, but when much poorer places are added to the mix (Romania, Mexico) then the wealth is shared out to the detriment of the lower classes in the original grouping.
Yes, Bahrain have a veto on any more ME region F1 races.
BRITAIN’S pathetically excited dads stayed up all night so they could watch Jeremy Clarkson drive a car. Millions of fathers across Britain put on their best pair of jeans and stayed up past midnight, further eroding any respect they may have had from their partners and children. Nikki Hollis, 17, from Stevenage, said her father Peter was emitting ‘childish whoops of glee’, adding: “At 3am he woke me up because he wanted to watch it on the big screen but couldn’t work out the Fire stick. “He kept saying ‘The boys have still got it,’ while shaking his head in admiration, and asked if I wanted to watch the opening sequence which was ‘like something from Mad Max’.” She continued: “At half-five I heard him on the phone to one of his mates marvelling at the budget, and when I came down for breakfast he was watching them reviewing a Ferrari for the fourth time. Jesus fucking Christ.” Peter Hollis said: “I’m just so relieved that I like it. I don’t really have anything else to live for.”'
Mr. Herdson, I agree a 28 member confederation cannot work with so many vetoes but that's an inherent and unfixable problem with the EU, not something that should be accepted. Machiavelli was right when he wrote that 4-6 was the maximum number of members a confederation could reasonable have.
They could have tried to make it a proper union, but I doubt that was ever the plan.
What a surprise that pretty much the only review that doesn't think it's brilliant, comes from the BBC.
It is also totally out of touch with how people consume high quality programming. Yes a lot of people watch video on their phones, but that is normally crappy youtube video and alike, as TSE said he was wanting to watch his on his masssuuuuuive 4k display.
The likes of Netflix have invested in 4k and 60 fps programming for a reason, and it ain't because they think people want to watch it on tiny devices, while the BBC iplayer doesn't even do proper HD.
Very true. The 4K production apparently cost a fortune and was a complete pain in the arse to do, as the equipment is very different from standard HD video and doesn't usually leave a studio environment.
Yes, some will watch on their phones, I watched on my laptop this morning, TSE will watch on his TV. And we will all think it's blooody brilliant!
Where do you all get the f'ing time ???
Because we don't all have kids crawling around the house. Yet!
@Stark_Dawning Hmm but what did that mean in reality, getting out of "ever closer union"? Nothing at all I'd venture. I too share the fear of others that nothing is allowed to get in the way of "the Project", certainly nothing as trivial as the people(s) not wanting it. Ploughing on to a destination without explicit consent is the road to disaster for all of Europe. At present the Continental leadership is in an apparent huff because we've dared to jilt them and they're terrified their own people will come to look on a looser but successful British arrangement as too much of a good idea - can't be doing what people want, can we, or we might never get to do "the Project".
The question I'd pose to Remainers is, if Brexit is circumvented, what then? Millions are going to feel somewhere between acquiescence and utterly embittered hostility to Europe and the whole process of democracy. Would Europe really want us back, given they now openly know how many millions of Brits are going to be seriously unhappy, and a permanent very hostile drag on ever closer union?
Mr. Herdson, I agree a 28 member confederation cannot work with so many vetoes but that's an inherent and unfixable problem with the EU, not something that should be accepted. Machiavelli was right when he wrote that 4-6 was the maximum number of members a confederation could reasonable have.
[snip]
It's easily fixable, via QMV. The issue there is ensuring that the majority does not abuse its position against vital interests of minorities.
The problem is not really the voting system; it's that the underlying culture of the EU is so ingrained that it cannot be challenged. The solution - as so often - is more democracy. But both Europhiles and Eurosceptics have always railed against that: the former because they fear that it would upset their project, and the latter because they fear the greater legitimacy it would give the Union.
What a surprise that pretty much the only review that doesn't think it's brilliant, comes from the BBC.
It is also totally out of touch with how people consume high quality programming. Yes a lot of people watch video on their phones, but that is normally crappy youtube video and alike, as TSE said he was wanting to watch his on his masssuuuuuive 4k display.
The likes of Netflix have invested in 4k and 60 fps programming for a reason, and it ain't because they think people want to watch it on tiny devices, while the BBC iplayer doesn't even do proper HD.
Very true. The 4K production apparently cost a fortune and was a complete pain in the arse to do, as the equipment is very different from standard HD video and doesn't usually leave a studio environment.
Yes, some will watch on their phones, I watched on my laptop this morning, TSE will watch on his TV. And we will all think it's blooody brilliant!
That surprises me, I was led to believe by the major camera production companies at NAB that 4k production is now only marginally more expensive than full HD. Even the workflow and mastering is now in line with full HD. I have the most experience with Sony and their professional 4K camcorders are not that expensive.
The EU can never be a democracy because it has no single demos. Germans won't accept being controlled by Greeks nor Greeks by Germans. The political elites see each other as 'our kind of people' but drip contempt and hate for the plebs in their own country. As Italy's industrial destruction continues, for example, how will Italians enjoy being controlled by non-Italians in Brussels? The great, historic nation states of Europe may be in the elite's crosshairs for elimination and assimilation - but their own peoples will not go for it. So the same old non-functioning shit will drag on interminably until it does one day end in tears. That's no way to run a sweetshop and we're much better off out.
I strongly believe that in not many years time, what the EUrocrat elite were trying to achieve will be reviled by history for its utter contempt of national democracy. A very dark period of European history that so very nearly succeeded. If it weren't for those plucky Brits and their two-fingered salute to the whole shebang....
The LibDems are on the wrong end of history on Europe.
What a surprise that pretty much the only review that doesn't think it's brilliant, comes from the BBC.
It is also totally out of touch with how people consume high quality programming. Yes a lot of people watch video on their phones, but that is normally crappy youtube video and alike, as TSE said he was wanting to watch his on his masssuuuuuive 4k display.
The likes of Netflix have invested in 4k and 60 fps programming for a reason, and it ain't because they think people want to watch it on tiny devices, while the BBC iplayer doesn't even do proper HD.
Very true. The 4K production apparently cost a fortune and was a complete pain in the arse to do, as the equipment is very different from standard HD video and doesn't usually leave a studio environment.
Yes, some will watch on their phones, I watched on my laptop this morning, TSE will watch on his TV. And we will all think it's blooody brilliant!
Where do you all get the f'ing time ???
No kids, no sleep, multi-monitor / tv setup in my office...
PB-ers have written off a couple of candidates recently as no-hopers, only for them to come through.
Just because Farron went to Newcastle and has spent his life with 'ordinary' people is no reason to write him off. 'Experts' have been written off; how about the Oxbridge snobocracy?
"Cos, TBH, that's how it comes across sometimes!
Signed OKC (MA ARU) (AKA Almost a Real University!)
I think there is an Oxbridge snobocracy but in the media and establishment generally rather than on pb. Non-Oxbridge PMs and LotOs are written off: Callaghan, Major and Brown; Kinnock, IDS and Corbyn.
Corbyn went to Oxford. EDIT, on a day out. My mistake! No idea where I got that from.
PB-ers have written off a couple of candidates recently as no-hopers, only for them to come through.
Just because Farron went to Newcastle and has spent his life with 'ordinary' people is no reason to write him off. 'Experts' have been written off; how about the Oxbridge snobocracy?
"Cos, TBH, that's how it comes across sometimes!
Signed OKC (MA ARU) (AKA Almost a Real University!)
I think there is an Oxbridge snobocracy but in the media and establishment generally rather than on pb. Non-Oxbridge PMs and LotOs are written off: Callaghan, Major and Brown; Kinnock, IDS and Corbyn.
Am slightly puzzled at the Brexiteer's opposition to a second referendum on the result of the Brexit terms - what if the Government find that the best deal they can get includes only marginal controls on free movement - wouldn't Leavers then want a second referendum?
Very good point. However, I suspect that whatever the May government agrees will be met with noisy accusations of betrayal. It's gone beyond mere EU membership now - the forces of Leave want to foist their own version of Trumpism upon the United Kingdom. That's their next project.
Mr. Herdson, I agree a 28 member confederation cannot work with so many vetoes but that's an inherent and unfixable problem with the EU, not something that should be accepted. Machiavelli was right when he wrote that 4-6 was the maximum number of members a confederation could reasonable have.
[snip]
It's easily fixable, via QMV. The issue there is ensuring that the majority does not abuse its position against vital interests of minorities.
The problem is not really the voting system; it's that the underlying culture of the EU is so ingrained that it cannot be challenged. The solution - as so often - is more democracy. But both Europhiles and Eurosceptics have always railed against that: the former because they fear that it would upset their project, and the latter because they fear the greater legitimacy it would give the Union.
The EU is not a democracy. If policy could be democratically decided in a U.S.E. then there is a huge risk that the damned people might elect a 'non-Project' government and start returning competenices. The bigger risk is that a truly democratic EU would inevitably see one nation getting completely outvoted and its people realising properly for the first time that they no longer have a country. The EU is just not workable as a superstate.
What a surprise that pretty much the only review that doesn't think it's brilliant, comes from the BBC.
It is also totally out of touch with how people consume high quality programming. Yes a lot of people watch video on their phones, but that is normally crappy youtube video and alike, as TSE said he was wanting to watch his on his masssuuuuuive 4k display.
The likes of Netflix have invested in 4k and 60 fps programming for a reason, and it ain't because they think people want to watch it on tiny devices, while the BBC iplayer doesn't even do proper HD.
Very true. The 4K production apparently cost a fortune and was a complete pain in the arse to do, as the equipment is very different from standard HD video and doesn't usually leave a studio environment.
Yes, some will watch on their phones, I watched on my laptop this morning, TSE will watch on his TV. And we will all think it's blooody brilliant!
That surprises me, I was led to believe by the major camera production companies at NAB that 4k production is now only marginally more expensive than full HD. Even the workflow and mastering is now in line with full HD. I have the most experience with Sony and their professional 4K camcorders are not that expensive.
I had thought the same, but saw an interview with producer Andy Wilman the other day who said it needed a truck full of equipment and a couple of IT guys everywhere to deal with the rushes (raw recordings). Was apparently a load more work than standard 1080p HD would have been. youtube.com/watch?v=-yLzAU48ruA
Am slightly puzzled at the Brexiteer's opposition to a second referendum on the result of the Brexit terms - what if the Government find that the best deal they can get includes only marginal controls on free movement - wouldn't Leavers then want a second referendum?
Very good point. However, I suspect that whatever the May government agrees will be met with noisy accusations of betrayal. It's gone beyond mere EU membership now - the forces of Leave want to foist their own version of Trumpism upon the United Kingdom. That's their next project.
PB-ers have written off a couple of candidates recently as no-hopers, only for them to come through.
Just because Farron went to Newcastle and has spent his life with 'ordinary' people is no reason to write him off. 'Experts' have been written off; how about the Oxbridge snobocracy?
"Cos, TBH, that's how it comes across sometimes!
Signed OKC (MA ARU) (AKA Almost a Real University!)
I think there is an Oxbridge snobocracy but in the media and establishment generally rather than on pb. Non-Oxbridge PMs and LotOs are written off: Callaghan, Major and Brown; Kinnock, IDS and Corbyn.
Corbyn went to Oxford.
Once on the train to attend a protest?
Yeah, my mistake. No idea where I got that from. Hrse gone up in my estimation a bit.
What a surprise that pretty much the only review that doesn't think it's brilliant, comes from the BBC.
It is also totally out of touch with how people consume high quality programming. Yes a lot of people watch video on their phones, but that is normally crappy youtube video and alike, as TSE said he was wanting to watch his on his masssuuuuuive 4k display.
The likes of Netflix have invested in 4k and 60 fps programming for a reason, and it ain't because they think people want to watch it on tiny devices, while the BBC iplayer doesn't even do proper HD.
Very true. The 4K production apparently cost a fortune and was a complete pain in the arse to do, as the equipment is very different from standard HD video and doesn't usually leave a studio environment.
Yes, some will watch on their phones, I watched on my laptop this morning, TSE will watch on his TV. And we will all think it's blooody brilliant!
That surprises me, I was led to believe by the major camera production companies at NAB that 4k production is now only marginally more expensive than full HD. Even the workflow and mastering is now in line with full HD. I have the most experience with Sony and their professional 4K camcorders are not that expensive.
I had thought the same, but saw an interview with producer Andy Wilman the other day who said it needed a truck full of equipment and a couple of IT guys everywhere to deal with the rushes (raw recordings). youtube.com/watch?v=-yLzAU48ruA
I guess moving to an MPEG4 based digital workflow in 4K requires serious processing power to work in real time. I think the best 4K cameras record at 600Mbps which is not easy to work with in realtime.
On Topic. If you compare polling now with 5 years ago, when Labour already had a solid lead, its hard to see Labour getting more than 20% in a General Election. For swing voters, there will be a new question that they havent faced since 1982 : Tories or Liberals ? Labour will be reduced to fringe status. All that is before we factor Brexit in.
Mr. Herdson, I agree a 28 member confederation cannot work with so many vetoes but that's an inherent and unfixable problem with the EU, not something that should be accepted. Machiavelli was right when he wrote that 4-6 was the maximum number of members a confederation could reasonable have.
They could have tried to make it a proper union, but I doubt that was ever the plan.
The UAE and Malaysia share language and culture, which Europe doesn't in the same sense. Yes we the British are "European" as are the Bulgarians/Dutch/Spanish etc when compared to clearly non European places like the UAE or Malaysia, but there's little shared media or political life for the average Joe in the street. Italian film stars don't appear on our chat shows, nobody has the faintest who's the PM of Portugal, or who's the most popular singer in Austria, or an interesting writer from Slovenia, or who the "jungle celebrities" would be from Belgium. Champions' League football is one of the few areas of popular culture that I can see is really pan European.
I struggle to see how any such real genuine (as opposed to force fed plastic via the Commission etc) shared culture embeds without a lingua franca for starters. English, now we're going ironically, might be seen now as "neutral" and become part of that glue over coming decades (bit like post Raj India), but it's going to see me dead and buried for a long long time before that happens, even with a Herculean will and push behind it.
The EU can never be a democracy because it has no single demos. Germans won't accept being controlled by Greeks nor Greeks by Germans. The political elites see each other as 'our kind of people' but drip contempt and hate for the plebs in their own country. As Italy's industrial destruction continues, for example, how will Italians enjoy being controlled by non-Italians in Brussels? The great, historic nation states of Europe may be in the elite's crosshairs for elimination and assimilation - but their own peoples will not go for it. So the same old non-functioning shit will drag on interminably until it does one day end in tears. That's no way to run a sweetshop and we're much better off out.
But there was no single Demos in Switzerland, nor in the early days of the US.
A Demos, were it to evolve, would take hundreds of years. I am sceptical, but I think you miss that many places were countries before they were Demos. (I would argue Belgium is not a Demos today. And there's a good case of claiming Canada isn't too.)
Am slightly puzzled at the Brexiteer's opposition to a second referendum on the result of the Brexit terms - what if the Government find that the best deal they can get includes only marginal controls on free movement - wouldn't Leavers then want a second referendum?
Very good point. However, I suspect that whatever the May government agrees will be met with noisy accusations of betrayal. It's gone beyond mere EU membership now - the forces of Leave want to foist their own version of Trumpism upon the United Kingdom. That's their next project.
Am slightly puzzled at the Brexiteer's opposition to a second referendum on the result of the Brexit terms - what if the Government find that the best deal they can get includes only marginal controls on free movement - wouldn't Leavers then want a second referendum?
Very good point. However, I suspect that whatever the May government agrees will be met with noisy accusations of betrayal. It's gone beyond mere EU membership now - the forces of Leave want to foist their own version of Trumpism upon the United Kingdom. That's their next project.
The Coming of the Fourth Reich.
Fifth, surely Trumpland is the fourth.
US left wingers are already calling it The Trumpenreich.
... and legislation should be introduced - and only in - the parliament or the Council of Ministers (and then require the assent of the other).
Sorry if I'm being naive, bit isn't most of the legislation introduced by the EU along the lines of mandating standard A such that widgets of type B and C will work together throughout the EU? Technical legislation of this type will always need to be developed by (unelected) technical committees, whether under the auspices of the European Commission or elsewhere. It's hard to see how either the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers could originate such legislation; their role is surely necessarily that of scrutinising and either rubber-stamping or rejecting legislation proposed by technical committees.
Am slightly puzzled at the Brexiteer's opposition to a second referendum on the result of the Brexit terms - what if the Government find that the best deal they can get includes only marginal controls on free movement - wouldn't Leavers then want a second referendum?
Very good point. However, I suspect that whatever the May government agrees will be met with noisy accusations of betrayal. It's gone beyond mere EU membership now - the forces of Leave want to foist their own version of Trumpism upon the United Kingdom. That's their next project.
The Coming of the Fourth Reich.
Fifth, surely Trumpland is the fourth.
If the Holy Roman Empire was the First Reich, what does that make the original Roman Empire?
Mr. Herdson, I agree a 28 member confederation cannot work with so many vetoes but that's an inherent and unfixable problem with the EU, not something that should be accepted. Machiavelli was right when he wrote that 4-6 was the maximum number of members a confederation could reasonable have.
[snip]
It's easily fixable, via QMV. The issue there is ensuring that the majority does not abuse its position against vital interests of minorities.
The problem is not really the voting system; it's that the underlying culture of the EU is so ingrained that it cannot be challenged. The solution - as so often - is more democracy. But both Europhiles and Eurosceptics have always railed against that: the former because they fear that it would upset their project, and the latter because they fear the greater legitimacy it would give the Union.
The EU is not a democracy. If policy could be democratically decided in a U.S.E. then there is a huge risk that the damned people might elect a 'non-Project' government and start returning competenices. The bigger risk is that a truly democratic EU would inevitably see one nation getting completely outvoted and its people realising properly for the first time that they no longer have a country. The EU is just not workable as a superstate.
That would only be the case if one member had interests that were at odds with the great majority of the rest and which the rest were not prepared to accommodate. I don't believe that was the case but clearly, if it was, then it would be better for both sides that they go their separate ways.
The EU can never be a democracy because it has no single demos. Germans won't accept being controlled by Greeks nor Greeks by Germans. The political elites see each other as 'our kind of people' but drip contempt and hate for the plebs in their own country. As Italy's industrial destruction continues, for example, how will Italians enjoy being controlled by non-Italians in Brussels? The great, historic nation states of Europe may be in the elite's crosshairs for elimination and assimilation - but their own peoples will not go for it. So the same old non-functioning shit will drag on interminably until it does one day end in tears. That's no way to run a sweetshop and we're much better off out.
But there was no single Demos in Switzerland, nor in the early days of the US.
A Demos, were it to evolve, would take hundreds of years. I am sceptical, but I think you miss that many places were countries before they were Demos. (I would argue Belgium is not a Demos today. And there's a good case of claiming Canada isn't too.)
...and?? Switzerland is massively federal (the exact opposite of what the EU is trying to build) and geographically much of a muchness. It's not so hard for a French speaking mountain farmer to associate with a Swiss-German speaking mountain farmer in the next valley over. Compare that with trying to get a Spanish labourer in the central desert zones to associate mentally as a single demos with a Welsh hill farmer or a Romanian trucker. Ain't gonna happen. And even if it could come to pass after a few centuries of central boot on face - how is that to anyone's betterment? What is ultimately the fucking point of the EU reich? It's to stop France and Germany having wars. It's certainly not to promote jobs or drive economic might. It seems in fact primarily to be a scheme to transfer power and wealth from the people to an ever smaller coterie of elites. Nuke it now and return to a treaty of nation states working together instead of some horrific superstate abomination.
PB-ers have written off a couple of candidates recently as no-hopers, only for them to come through.
Just because Farron went to Newcastle and has spent his life with 'ordinary' people is no reason to write him off. 'Experts' have been written off; how about the Oxbridge snobocracy?
"Cos, TBH, that's how it comes across sometimes!
Signed OKC (MA ARU) (AKA Almost a Real University!)
I think there is an Oxbridge snobocracy but in the media and establishment generally rather than on pb. Non-Oxbridge PMs and LotOs are written off: Callaghan, Major and Brown; Kinnock, IDS and Corbyn.
... and legislation should be introduced - and only in - the parliament or the Council of Ministers (and then require the assent of the other).
Sorry if I'm being naive, bit isn't most of the legislation introduced by the EU along the lines of mandating standard A such that widgets of type B and C will work together throughout the EU? Technical legislation of this type will always need to be developed by (unelected) technical committees, whether under the auspices of the European Commission or elsewhere. It's hard to see how either the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers could originate such legislation; their role is surely necessarily that of scrutinising and either rubber-stamping or rejecting legislation proposed by technical committees.
Widget standardisation does not need to be enforced by an army....
The EU can never be a democracy because it has no single demos. Germans won't accept being controlled by Greeks nor Greeks by Germans. The political elites see each other as 'our kind of people' but drip contempt and hate for the plebs in their own country. As Italy's industrial destruction continues, for example, how will Italians enjoy being controlled by non-Italians in Brussels? The great, historic nation states of Europe may be in the elite's crosshairs for elimination and assimilation - but their own peoples will not go for it. So the same old non-functioning shit will drag on interminably until it does one day end in tears. That's no way to run a sweetshop and we're much better off out.
But there was no single Demos in Switzerland, nor in the early days of the US.
A Demos, were it to evolve, would take hundreds of years. I am sceptical, but I think you miss that many places were countries before they were Demos. (I would argue Belgium is not a Demos today. And there's a good case of claiming Canada isn't too.)
All true, but Switzerland is really a German speaking country (about 65%) with a large French, and small Italian minority. I'd think about 30% of Canada speaks French and a hefty proportion of them (a third/half?) are bilingual a la M Trudeau. Yes the USA was/is a melting pot but that's the point - it all melted. The British left them the legacy of a language that everyone effectively had to learn within a generation of turning up, one legal system, and a shared heritage. Belgium, I agree, is ironically probably only held "together" because the edge of the cheese is all blurred into "Europe" (I'm getting a fondue analogy overdose), with the Euro etc etc.
I fear Europe will look like a moth eaten, squabbling, tower of Babel 21st century Austria/Hungary in a not very distant future. That was not a state built on the consent of the people, did not have a demos, and it ended very messily.
... and legislation should be introduced - and only in - the parliament or the Council of Ministers (and then require the assent of the other).
Sorry if I'm being naive, bit isn't most of the legislation introduced by the EU along the lines of mandating standard A such that widgets of type B and C will work together throughout the EU? Technical legislation of this type will always need to be developed by (unelected) technical committees, whether under the auspices of the European Commission or elsewhere. It's hard to see how either the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers could originate such legislation; their role is surely necessarily that of scrutinising and either rubber-stamping or rejecting legislation proposed by technical committees.
Widget standardisation does not need to be enforced by an army....
And given that all EU nations are signed up to the widget standards bodies the need for the EU isn't exactly clear anymore. With the WTO taking over more and more standards setting and NTB elimination for goods, what exactly do we need the EU to do for EU trade that the WTO won't do?
PB-ers have written off a couple of candidates recently as no-hopers, only for them to come through.
Just because Farron went to Newcastle and has spent his life with 'ordinary' people is no reason to write him off. 'Experts' have been written off; how about the Oxbridge snobocracy?
"Cos, TBH, that's how it comes across sometimes!
Signed OKC (MA ARU) (AKA Almost a Real University!)
I think there is an Oxbridge snobocracy but in the media and establishment generally rather than on pb. Non-Oxbridge PMs and LotOs are written off: Callaghan, Major and Brown; Kinnock, IDS and Corbyn.
TBH its Oxford or nothing in politics.
Rather it's Oxford and nothing in politics. It's why we're in such a poor state.
I found The Shrouds of The Somme art installation more moving than the Poppies at The Tower, particularly when I recognised the names of relations listed without graves in the tent alongside the artwork. Rob Heard didn't just create it, he was helping with the bucket collection on Sunday.
I'm no expert in Japanese politics - but as I understand it there are significant movements within the parties, and including Abe, for Japan to become remilitarized and militarily self sufficient. Obviously their constitution currently prevents it, but perhaps Abe secretly preferred Trump to win as they are somewhat aligned in their thinking on Japan's military role. Trump could be the catalyst needed to convince other Japanese that the time has come to remilitarize.
... and legislation should be introduced - and only in - the parliament or the Council of Ministers (and then require the assent of the other).
Sorry if I'm being naive, bit isn't most of the legislation introduced by the EU along the lines of mandating standard A such that widgets of type B and C will work together throughout the EU? Technical legislation of this type will always need to be developed by (unelected) technical committees, whether under the auspices of the European Commission or elsewhere. It's hard to see how either the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers could originate such legislation; their role is surely necessarily that of scrutinising and either rubber-stamping or rejecting legislation proposed by technical committees.
Widget standardisation does not need to be enforced by an army....
And given that all EU nations are signed up to the widget standards bodies the need for the EU isn't exactly clear anymore. With the WTO taking over more and more standards setting and NTB elimination for goods, what exactly do we need the EU to do for EU trade that the WTO won't do?
If you believe this, why the urgency to leave the EU? It will just fade away into irrelevance and become easier and easier to leave as the decades go by.
What a surprise that pretty much the only review that doesn't think it's brilliant, comes from the BBC.
It is also totally out of touch with how people consume high quality programming. Yes a lot of people watch video on their phones, but that is normally crappy youtube video and alike, as TSE said he was wanting to watch his on his masssuuuuuive 4k display.
The likes of Netflix have invested in 4k and 60 fps programming for a reason, and it ain't because they think people want to watch it on tiny devices, while the BBC iplayer doesn't even do proper HD.
Very true. The 4K production apparently cost a fortune and was a complete pain in the arse to do, as the equipment is very different from standard HD video and doesn't usually leave a studio environment.
Yes, some will watch on their phones, I watched on my laptop this morning, TSE will watch on his TV. And we will all think it's blooody brilliant!
That surprises me, I was led to believe by the major camera production companies at NAB that 4k production is now only marginally more expensive than full HD. Even the workflow and mastering is now in line with full HD. I have the most experience with Sony and their professional 4K camcorders are not that expensive.
I had thought the same, but saw an interview with producer Andy Wilman the other day who said it needed a truck full of equipment and a couple of IT guys everywhere to deal with the rushes (raw recordings). youtube.com/watch?v=-yLzAU48ruA
I guess moving to an MPEG4 based digital workflow in 4K requires serious processing power to work in real time. I think the best 4K cameras record at 600Mbps which is not easy to work with in realtime.
Not done anything in 4K myself, but 600Mbps would be a right pain to deal with in the field. Drone maker DJI has just released a 5.2k camera drone, and has had to develop their own memory cards to handle up to 4Gbps data rates for raw video or 100Mbps for H.265 (which all means nothing at all to anyone else here, sorry).
So it gives them a boost but not enough to change anything - less than a quarter of the electorate and less than half of Remain voters would back the exclusively Remain party. In other words the democratic 'Respect the Result' parties would win an overwhelming majority of seats and the LibDems would find themselves perceived them same way in post-Brexit Britain as UKIP are now, a single issue party on the EU.
Basically this position would give them the opportunity to be a protest party again, nothing more.
I'm no expert in Japanese politics - but as I understand it there are significant movements within the parties, and including Abe, for Japan to become remilitarized and militarily self sufficient. Obviously their constitution currently prevents it, but perhaps Abe secretly preferred Trump to win as they are somewhat aligned in their thinking on Japan's military role. Trump could be the catalyst needed to convince other Japanese that the time has come to remilitarize.
One way of getting out of the deflation trap: military spending.
Am slightly puzzled at the Brexiteer's opposition to a second referendum on the result of the Brexit terms - what if the Government find that the best deal they can get includes only marginal controls on free movement - wouldn't Leavers then want a second referendum?
Very good point. However, I suspect that whatever the May government agrees will be met with noisy accusations of betrayal. It's gone beyond mere EU membership now - the forces of Leave want to foist their own version of Trumpism upon the United Kingdom. That's their next project.
The Coming of the Fourth Reich.
Fifth, surely Trumpland is the fourth.
If the Holy Roman Empire was the First Reich, what does that make the original Roman Empire?
I thought HRE was the second and Roman Empire was the first?
Edit looking at it I'm wrong. I suppose the HRE was German more than Roman and the original Roman Empire wasn't German so is ignored.
The EU can never be a democracy because it has no single demos. Germans won't accept being controlled by Greeks nor Greeks by Germans. The political elites see each other as 'our kind of people' but drip contempt and hate for the plebs in their own country. As Italy's industrial destruction continues, for example, how will Italians enjoy being controlled by non-Italians in Brussels? The great, historic nation states of Europe may be in the elite's crosshairs for elimination and assimilation - but their own peoples will not go for it. So the same old non-functioning shit will drag on interminably until it does one day end in tears. That's no way to run a sweetshop and we're much better off out.
But there was no single Demos in Switzerland, nor in the early days of the US.
A Demos, were it to evolve, would take hundreds of years. I am sceptical, but I think you miss that many places were countries before they were Demos. (I would argue Belgium is not a Demos today. And there's a good case of claiming Canada isn't too.)
All true, but Switzerland is really a German speaking country (about 65%) with a large French, and small Italian minority. I'd think about 30% of Canada speaks French and a hefty proportion of them (a third/half?) are bilingual a la M Trudeau. Yes the USA was/is a melting pot but that's the point - it all melted. The British left them the legacy of a language that everyone effectively had to learn within a generation of turning up, one legal system, and a shared heritage. Belgium, I agree, is ironically probably only held "together" because the edge of the cheese is all blurred into "Europe" (I'm getting a fondue analogy overdose), with the Euro etc etc.
I fear Europe will look like a moth eaten, squabbling, tower of Babel 21st century Austria/Hungary in a not very distant future. That was not a state built on the consent of the people, did not have a demos, and it ended very messily.
Actually, it ended more with a wimper than a bang. But that's beside the point. The EU is sui generis, to use what seems to be the phrase of the day. If Austria-Hungary tells us anything of use in comparison, it's that you need consent to hold multi-national states together and that while such consent can be forthcoming in the right circumstances, it is just as easily withdrawn in the wrong ones.
PB-ers have written off a couple of candidates recently as no-hopers, only for them to come through.
Just because Farron went to Newcastle and has spent his life with 'ordinary' people is no reason to write him off. 'Experts' have been written off; how about the Oxbridge snobocracy?
"Cos, TBH, that's how it comes across sometimes!
Signed OKC (MA ARU) (AKA Almost a Real University!)
I think there is an Oxbridge snobocracy but in the media and establishment generally rather than on pb. Non-Oxbridge PMs and LotOs are written off: Callaghan, Major and Brown; Kinnock, IDS and Corbyn.
TBH its Oxford or nothing in politics.
Rather it's Oxford and nothing in politics. It's why we're in such a poor state.
Often the same Oxford course as well -- PPE. Theresa May read geography at Oxford but Cameron and Blair both did PPE, as did (checks wikipedia for the Cabinet) Hammond, Hunt, Truss and Green.
... and legislation should be introduced - and only in - the parliament or the Council of Ministers (and then require the assent of the other).
Sorry if I'm being naive, bit isn't most of the legislation introduced by the EU along the lines of mandating standard A such that widgets of type B and C will work together throughout the EU? Technical legislation of this type will always need to be developed by (unelected) technical committees, whether under the auspices of the European Commission or elsewhere. It's hard to see how either the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers could originate such legislation; their role is surely necessarily that of scrutinising and either rubber-stamping or rejecting legislation proposed by technical committees.
Widget standardisation does not need to be enforced by an army....
The EU can never be a democracy because it has no single demos. Germans won't accept being controlled by Greeks nor Greeks by Germans. The political elites see each other as 'our kind of people' but drip contempt and hate for the plebs in their own country. As Italy's industrial destruction continues, for example, how will Italians enjoy being controlled by non-Italians in Brussels? The great, historic nation states of Europe may be in the elite's crosshairs for elimination and assimilation - but their own peoples will not go for it. So the same old non-functioning shit will drag on interminably until it does one day end in tears. That's no way to run a sweetshop and we're much better off out.
But there was no single Demos in Switzerland, nor in the early days of the US.
A Demos, were it to evolve, would take hundreds of years. I am sceptical, but I think you miss that many places were countries before they were Demos. (I would argue Belgium is not a Demos today. And there's a good case of claiming Canada isn't too.)
All true, but Switzerland is really a German speaking country (about 65%) with a large French, and small Italian minority. I'd think about 30% of Canada speaks French and a hefty proportion of them (a third/half?) are bilingual a la M Trudeau. Yes the USA was/is a melting pot but that's the point - it all melted. The British left them the legacy of a language that everyone effectively had to learn within a generation of turning up, one legal system, and a shared heritage. Belgium, I agree, is ironically probably only held "together" because the edge of the cheese is all blurred into "Europe" (I'm getting a fondue analogy overdose), with the Euro etc etc.
I fear Europe will look like a moth eaten, squabbling, tower of Babel 21st century Austria/Hungary in a not very distant future. That was not a state built on the consent of the people, did not have a demos, and it ended very messily.
Switzerland is defined by the idea of not being Germany, France and Italy. It has a post office, a railway and used to have a national airline before it went bust. It's a successful country that goes back to 1291 IIRC, but a minimalist one.
The EU can never be a democracy because it has no single demos. Germans won't accept being controlled by Greeks nor Greeks by Germans. The political elites see each other as 'our kind of people' but drip contempt and hate for the plebs in their own country. As Italy's industrial destruction continues, for example, how will Italians enjoy being controlled by non-Italians in Brussels? The great, historic nation states of Europe may be in the elite's crosshairs for elimination and assimilation - but their own peoples will not go for it. So the same old non-functioning shit will drag on interminably until it does one day end in tears. That's no way to run a sweetshop and we're much better off out.
But there was no single Demos in Switzerland, nor in the early days of the US.
A Demos, were it to evolve, would take hundreds of years. I am sceptical, but I think you miss that many places were countries before they were Demos. (I would argue Belgium is not a Demos today. And there's a good case of claiming Canada isn't too.)
The idea of a demos in the Athenian sense being a prerequisite for any kind of democratic organisation is completely irrelevant to today's world.
I'm no expert in Japanese politics - but as I understand it there are significant movements within the parties, and including Abe, for Japan to become remilitarized and militarily self sufficient. Obviously their constitution currently prevents it, but perhaps Abe secretly preferred Trump to win as they are somewhat aligned in their thinking on Japan's military role. Trump could be the catalyst needed to convince other Japanese that the time has come to remilitarize.
I think you will find that the Japanese have been quietly building up their military and naval capabilities for some years. In addition they even changed their constitution so that their forces can take part in overseas "peace keeping" missions.
On a side note our own MoD could learn a lot from the Japanese, who with a defence budget a bit smaller than ours manage to get a lot more capability out of it.
Not done anything in 4K myself, but 600Mbps would be a right pain to deal with in the field. Drone maker DJI has just released a 5.2k camera drone, and has had to develop their own memory cards to handle up to 4Gbps data rates for raw video or 100Mbps for H.265 (which all means nothing st all tonanyone else here, sorry).
I think most 4K camcorders come with custom data transfer solutions. I remember speaking to a movie executive about it at NAB because he was bitching about how expensive the Panavision data modules were and that there were no third party modules available at the time like there are for Sony and RED. Processing 100Mbps HEVC in real time must require some serious hardware or the video would come out looking like shit.
In other news, I've just ordered a new Sony 65" ZD9 for my Zurich place. It's going to be glorious. I saw a live demo at their launch party and wanted to get one there and then, but needed to wait until I sorted out my living situation for Zurich.
... and legislation should be introduced - and only in - the parliament or the Council of Ministers (and then require the assent of the other).
Sorry if I'm being naive, bit isn't most of the legislation introduced by the EU along the lines of mandating standard A such that widgets of type B and C will work together throughout the EU? Technical legislation of this type will always need to be developed by (unelected) technical committees, whether under the auspices of the European Commission or elsewhere. It's hard to see how either the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers could originate such legislation; their role is surely necessarily that of scrutinising and either rubber-stamping or rejecting legislation proposed by technical committees.
Widget standardisation does not need to be enforced by an army....
And given that all EU nations are signed up to the widget standards bodies the need for the EU isn't exactly clear anymore. With the WTO taking over more and more standards setting and NTB elimination for goods, what exactly do we need the EU to do for EU trade that the WTO won't do?
If you believe this, why the urgency to leave the EU? It will just fade away into irrelevance and become easier and easier to leave as the decades go by.
The Titanic became notably easier to leave as time went on. Indeed I think Mr Joughin a cook (well fuelled by booze mind) just stepped off the end of it and into the North Atlantic. Easy. Personally I think having left a good while before and viewing from a safer distance in a lifeboat was a better option.
PB-ers have written off a couple of candidates recently as no-hopers, only for them to come through.
Just because Farron went to Newcastle and has spent his life with 'ordinary' people is no reason to write him off. 'Experts' have been written off; how about the Oxbridge snobocracy?
"Cos, TBH, that's how it comes across sometimes!
Signed OKC (MA ARU) (AKA Almost a Real University!)
I think there is an Oxbridge snobocracy but in the media and establishment generally rather than on pb. Non-Oxbridge PMs and LotOs are written off: Callaghan, Major and Brown; Kinnock, IDS and Corbyn.
TBH its Oxford or nothing in politics.
Rather it's Oxford and nothing in politics. It's why we're in such a poor state.
Often the same Oxford course as well -- PPE. Theresa May read geography at Oxford but Cameron and Blair both did PPE, as did (checks wikipedia for the Cabinet) Hammond, Hunt, Truss and Green.
... and legislation should be introduced - and only in - the parliament or the Council of Ministers (and then require the assent of the other).
Sorry if I'm being naive, bit isn't most of the legislation introduced by the EU along the lines of mandating standard A such that widgets of type B and C will work together throughout the EU? Technical legislation of this type will always need to be developed by (unelected) technical committees, whether under the auspices of the European Commission or elsewhere. It's hard to see how either the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers could originate such legislation; their role is surely necessarily that of scrutinising and either rubber-stamping or rejecting legislation proposed by technical committees.
Widget standardisation does not need to be enforced by an army....
And given that all EU nations are signed up to the widget standards bodies the need for the EU isn't exactly clear anymore. With the WTO taking over more and more standards setting and NTB elimination for goods, what exactly do we need the EU to do for EU trade that the WTO won't do?
If you believe this, why the urgency to leave the EU? It will just fade away into irrelevance and become easier and easier to leave as the decades go by.
Because with the WTO taking over most of the trade side of harmonisation it leaves the EUcrats nothing to do but try and harmonise the political side of the EU. Something the UK has showed no interest in, time and again.
It is also totally out of touch with how people consume high quality programming. Yes a lot of people watch video on their phones, but that is normally crappy youtube video and alike, as TSE said he was wanting to watch his on his masssuuuuuive 4k display.
The likes of Netflix have invested in 4k and 60 fps programming for a reason, and it ain't because they think people want to watch it on tiny devices, while the BBC iplayer doesn't even do proper HD.
I don't have a 4k TV, but I have been very impressed by the quality of Amazon Video for streaming movies to a browser. 1080p in Microsoft Edge looks great, seems to be completely hardware accelerated, and is rock steady. The quality gap between broadcast and OTT streaming is pretty minimal nowadays, and the all round experience of streaming services, be they apps or web based, is far better than clunky broadcast TV and old set top boxes.
I hardly ever watch broadcast TV now, not that I watch much TV anyway, I prefer to use streaming when I want to watch something.
... and legislation should be introduced - and only in - the parliament or the Council of Ministers (and then require the assent of the other).
Sorry if I'm being naive, bit isn't most of the legislation introduced by the EU along the lines of mandating standard A such that widgets of type B and C will work together throughout the EU? Technical legislation of this type will always need to be developed by (unelected) technical committees, whether under the auspices of the European Commission or elsewhere. It's hard to see how either the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers could originate such legislation; their role is surely necessarily that of scrutinising and either rubber-stamping or rejecting legislation proposed by technical committees.
Widget standardisation does not need to be enforced by an army....
And given that all EU nations are signed up to the widget standards bodies the need for the EU isn't exactly clear anymore. With the WTO taking over more and more standards setting and NTB elimination for goods, what exactly do we need the EU to do for EU trade that the WTO won't do?
If you believe this, why the urgency to leave the EU? It will just fade away into irrelevance and become easier and easier to leave as the decades go by.
The Titanic became notably easier to leave as time went on. Indeed I think Mr Joughin a cook (well fuelled by booze mind) just stepped off the end of it and into the North Atlantic. Easy. Personally I think having left a good while before and viewing from a safer distance in a lifeboat was a better option.
A comforting but false analogy. If the 'Titanic' goes down in a flaming mess it will matter not whether we were half-in or half-out at the time.
Even if you believe the doom-sayers, it would be inconsistent with this countries foreign policy over hundreds of years to step back and allow a single power that you believe to be unstable to develop on our doorstep. Believing it to be misconceived is actually a reason why we must be part of it.
On topic. Labour vote squeezed by two parties with strong identifiers i.e For or against Brexit. Sounds like a repetition of the 20's but Labour are in the position the Liberals were. Spells doom
Further historical allusion. EU is Imperial Preference by another name - but Boris and Gove are free traders. You can't go to far with that one though
... and legislation should be introduced - and only in - the parliament or the Council of Ministers (and then require the assent of the other).
Sorry if I'm being naive, bit isn't most of the legislation introduced by the EU along the lines of mandating standard A such that widgets of type B and C will work together throughout the EU? Technical legislation of this type will always need to be developed by (unelected) technical committees, whether under the auspices of the European Commission or elsewhere. It's hard to see how either the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers could originate such legislation; their role is surely necessarily that of scrutinising and either rubber-stamping or rejecting legislation proposed by technical committees.
Widget standardisation does not need to be enforced by an army....
And given that all EU nations are signed up to the widget standards bodies the need for the EU isn't exactly clear anymore. With the WTO taking over more and more standards setting and NTB elimination for goods, what exactly do we need the EU to do for EU trade that the WTO won't do?
If you believe this, why the urgency to leave the EU? It will just fade away into irrelevance and become easier and easier to leave as the decades go by.
Because with the WTO taking over most of the trade side of harmonisation it leaves the EUcrats nothing to do but try and harmonise the political side of the EU. Something the UK has showed no interest in, time and again.
Where's the problem? 'We' can continue to show no interest in it. The EUcrats depend on what the member states think and if your view will increasingly prevail it seems an odd time to get out.
I'm no expert in Japanese politics - but as I understand it there are significant movements within the parties, and including Abe, for Japan to become remilitarized and militarily self sufficient. Obviously their constitution currently prevents it, but perhaps Abe secretly preferred Trump to win as they are somewhat aligned in their thinking on Japan's military role. Trump could be the catalyst needed to convince other Japanese that the time has come to remilitarize.
Good. Both Japan and Germany need to get over their collective WW2 neuroses.
... and legislation should be introduced - and only in - the parliament or the Council of Ministers (and then require the assent of the other).
Sorry if I'm being naive, bit isn't most of the legislation introduced by the EU along the lines of mandating standard A such that widgets of type B and C will work together throughout the EU? Technical legislation of this type will always need to be developed by (unelected) technical committees, whether under the auspices of the European Commission or elsewhere. It's hard to see how either the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers could originate such legislation; their role is surely necessarily that of scrutinising and either rubber-stamping or rejecting legislation proposed by technical committees.
Widget standardisation does not need to be enforced by an army....
And given that all EU nations are signed up to the widget standards bodies the need for the EU isn't exactly clear anymore. With the WTO taking over more and more standards setting and NTB elimination for goods, what exactly do we need the EU to do for EU trade that the WTO won't do?
If you believe this, why the urgency to leave the EU? It will just fade away into irrelevance and become easier and easier to leave as the decades go by.
The Titanic became notably easier to leave as time went on. Indeed I think Mr Joughin a cook (well fuelled by booze mind) just stepped off the end of it and into the North Atlantic. Easy. Personally I think having left a good while before and viewing from a safer distance in a lifeboat was a better option.
A comforting but false analogy. If the 'Titanic' goes down in a flaming mess it will matter not whether we were half-in or half-out at the time.
Even if you believe the doom-sayers, it would be inconsistent with this countries foreign policy over hundreds of years to step back and allow a single power that you believe to be unstable to develop on our doorstep. Believing it to be misconceived is actually a reason why we must be part of it.
It will matter if we are fully out. Unless you believe that it is doomed before 2019.
Interesting that NAFTA is now being talked about and not getting laughed out of the room for the UK. The idea is to kick Mexico out and invite the UK to join as soon as it leaves the EU. The A changes from America to Atlantic. One wonders whether Ireland could be coaxed into joining.
... and legislation should be introduced - and only in - the parliament or the Council of Ministers (and then require the assent of the other).
Sorry if I'm being naive, bit isn't most of the legislation introduced by the EU along the lines of mandating standard A such that widgets of type B and C will work together throughout the EU? Technical legislation of this type will always need to be developed by (unelected) technical committees, whether under the auspices of the European Commission or elsewhere. It's hard to see how either the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers could originate such legislation; their role is surely necessarily that of scrutinising and either rubber-stamping or rejecting legislation proposed by technical committees.
Widget standardisation does not need to be enforced by an army....
And given that all EU nations are signed up to the widget standards bodies the need for the EU isn't exactly clear anymore. With the WTO taking over more and more standards setting and NTB elimination for goods, what exactly do we need the EU to do for EU trade that the WTO won't do?
If you believe this, why the urgency to leave the EU? It will just fade away into irrelevance and become easier and easier to leave as the decades go by.
The Titanic became notably easier to leave as time went on. Indeed I think Mr Joughin a cook (well fuelled by booze mind) just stepped off the end of it and into the North Atlantic. Easy. Personally I think having left a good while before and viewing from a safer distance in a lifeboat was a better option.
Would you have been in first class though, to have been afforded that option?
... and legislation should be introduced - and only in - the parliament or the Council of Ministers (and then require the assent of the other).
Sorry if I'm being naive, bit isn't most of the legislation introduced by the EU along the lines of mandating standard A such that widgets of type B and C will work together throughout the EU? Technical legislation of this type will always need to be developed by (unelected) technical committees, whether under the auspices of the European Commission or elsewhere. It's hard to see how either the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers could originate such legislation; their role is surely necessarily that of scrutinising and either rubber-stamping or rejecting legislation proposed by technical committees.
Widget standardisation does not need to be enforced by an army....
No, but ultimately, border control does.
It would have been interesting last year, to see how an EU army would have policed the EU's borders, whilst Mrs Merkel was welcoming one and all to Germany....
Interesting that NAFTA is now being talked about and not getting laughed out of the room for the UK. The idea is to kick Mexico out and invite the UK to join as soon as it leaves the EU. The A changes from America to Atlantic. One wonders whether Ireland could be coaxed into joining.
... and legislation should be introduced - and only in - the parliament or the Council of Ministers (and then require the assent of the other).
Sorry if I'm being naive, bit isn't most of the legislation introduced by the EU along the lines of mandating standard A such that widgets of type B and C will work together throughout the EU? Technical legislation of this type will always need to be developed by (unelected) technical committees, whether under the auspices of the European Commission or elsewhere. It's hard to see how either the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers could originate such legislation; their role is surely necessarily that of scrutinising and either rubber-stamping or rejecting legislation proposed by technical committees.
Widget standardisation does not need to be enforced by an army....
And given that all EU nations are signed up to the widget standards bodies the need for the EU isn't exactly clear anymore. With the WTO taking over more and more standards setting and NTB elimination for goods, what exactly do we need the EU to do for EU trade that the WTO won't do?
If you believe this, why the urgency to leave the EU? It will just fade away into irrelevance and become easier and easier to leave as the decades go by.
The Titanic became notably easier to leave as time went on. Indeed I think Mr Joughin a cook (well fuelled by booze mind) just stepped off the end of it and into the North Atlantic. Easy. Personally I think having left a good while before and viewing from a safer distance in a lifeboat was a better option.
A comforting but false analogy. If the 'Titanic' goes down in a flaming mess it will matter not whether we were half-in or half-out at the time.
Even if you believe the doom-sayers, it would be inconsistent with this countries foreign policy over hundreds of years to step back and allow a single power that you believe to be unstable to develop on our doorstep. Believing it to be misconceived is actually a reason why we must be part of it.
It will matter if we are fully out. Unless you believe that it is doomed before 2019.
We were fully out for hundreds of years. It didn't stop us from being embroiled in European wars and revolutions and it wouldn't in the future.
... and legislation should be introduced - and only in - the parliament or the Council of Ministers (and then require the assent of the other).
Sorry if I'm being naive, bit isn't most of the legislation introduced by the EU along the lines of mandating standard A such that widgets of type B and C will work together throughout the EU? Technical legislation of this type will always need to be developed by (unelected) technical committees, whether under the auspices of the European Commission or elsewhere. It's hard to see how either the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers could originate such legislation; their role is surely necessarily that of scrutinising and either rubber-stamping or rejecting legislation proposed by technical committees.
Widget standardisation does not need to be enforced by an army....
And given that all EU nations are signed up to the widget standards bodies the need for the EU isn't exactly clear anymore. With the WTO taking over more and more standards setting and NTB elimination for goods, what exactly do we need the EU to do for EU trade that the WTO won't do?
If you believe this, why the urgency to leave the EU? It will just fade away into irrelevance and become easier and easier to leave as the decades go by.
The Titanic became notably easier to leave as time went on. Indeed I think Mr Joughin a cook (well fuelled by booze mind) just stepped off the end of it and into the North Atlantic. Easy. Personally I think having left a good while before and viewing from a safer distance in a lifeboat was a better option.
A comforting but false analogy. If the 'Titanic' goes down in a flaming mess it will matter not whether we were half-in or half-out at the time.
Even if you believe the doom-sayers, it would be inconsistent with this countries foreign policy over hundreds of years to step back and allow a single power that you believe to be unstable to develop on our doorstep. Believing it to be misconceived is actually a reason why we must be part of it.
I'd suggest that our foreign policy was based around there being divergent interests in Europe (which is subtly different to a single power). The question is can we do it better inside or outside.
The EU can never be a democracy because it has no single demos. Germans won't accept being controlled by Greeks nor Greeks by Germans. The political elites see each other as 'our kind of people' but drip contempt and hate for the plebs in their own country. As Italy's industrial destruction continues, for example, how will Italians enjoy being controlled by non-Italians in Brussels? The great, historic nation states of Europe may be in the elite's crosshairs for elimination and assimilation - but their own peoples will not go for it. So the same old non-functioning shit will drag on interminably until it does one day end in tears. That's no way to run a sweetshop and we're much better off out.
But there was no single Demos in Switzerland, nor in the early days of the US.
A Demos, were it to evolve, would take hundreds of years. I am sceptical, but I think you miss that many places were countries before they were Demos. (I would argue Belgium is not a Demos today. And there's a good case of claiming Canada isn't too.)
All true, but Switzerland is really a German speaking country (about 65%) with a large French, and small Italian minority. I'd think about 30% of Canada speaks French and a hefty proportion of them (a third/half?) are bilingual a la M Trudeau. Yes the USA was/is a melting pot but that's the point - it all melted. The British left them the legacy of a language that everyone effectively had to learn within a generation of turning up, one legal system, and a shared heritage. Belgium, I agree, is ironically probably only held "together" because the edge of the cheese is all blurred into "Europe" (I'm getting a fondue analogy overdose), with the Euro etc etc.
I fear Europe will look like a moth eaten, squabbling, tower of Babel 21st century Austria/Hungary in a not very distant future. That was not a state built on the consent of the people, did not have a demos, and it ended very messily.
Switzerland is defined by the idea of not being Germany, France and Italy. It has a post office, a railway and used to have a national airline before it went bust. It's a successful country that goes back to 1291 IIRC, but a minimalist one.
It also gets the decision making the right way round, leaving pot-hole regulations to the cantons and foreign policy to the federal government.
Comments
The likes of Netflix have invested in 4k and 60 fps programming for a reason, and it ain't because they think people want to watch it on tiny devices, while the BBC iplayer doesn't even do proper HD.
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2016/11/16/ron-dennis-and-mclaren-2/
The brains of the company are of course very much British, and the thousands of skilled jobs making F1 cars, fantastic road cars and other bleeding-edge technology are not leaving Woking any time soon.
The EU was for decades strongly backed by the US. Maybe the idea of ever closer union was always temporary. (Unfortunately.)
If they'd been serious about it, why didn't they
* build up the European parliament, giving it more power over the executive, as part of making the "constitution" something that was of interest to more people than just wonks
* create an EU TV channel or two
* create an airline
* nurture some proper EU-wide political parties or associations, and
that kind of stuff?
Could put a new angle on Brexit
Of the five points you make, I don't think that people necessarily object to the ECJ (or CJEU) or QMV decisions: something as complex as the EU cannot work with 28 vetoes and there needs to be some court to interpret EU law at an EU level as contradictory national court decisions would also render the Union unworkable.
But your other three points are entirely merited. There should have been a referendum on Maastricht, albeit that referendums were far less part of the UK's constitution at the time; it should be possible to elect the Commission President, either directly or indirectly via the parliament; and legislation should be introduced - and only in - the parliament or the Council of Ministers (and then require the assent of the other).
a) accept deal as negotiated by govt; or
b) reject deal as negotiated by govt
A b) vote would mean reverting to WTO terms as no one could seriously think there could be a renegotiation before the 2020 GE and then the 2020 GE would be fought on the manifestos of each party including their view of preferred relationship with the EU (with presumably the LD one including a pledge to rejoin).
The referendum would not change the flavour of Brexit apart from giving the public an opportunity to convert whatever deal was done into WTO terms, which I'm sure is not what Mr Farron has in mind.
Merkel gets another problem
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/volkswagen-streicht-bis-zu-23-000-stellen-in-deutschland-14533276.html
Mr. Max, hmm. Not up on the corporate stuff but doesn't Bahrain enjoy having sway, (I forget if it's them or the Abu Dhabi chaps who have a veto on any extra Middle Eastern races, because they don't want Qatar to get one)?
Yes, some will watch on their phones, I watched on my laptop this morning, TSE will watch on his TV. And we will all think it's blooody brilliant!
'Men stay up all night to watch twat drive car
BRITAIN’S pathetically excited dads stayed up all night so they could watch Jeremy Clarkson drive a car.
Millions of fathers across Britain put on their best pair of jeans and stayed up past midnight, further eroding any respect they may have had from their partners and children.
Nikki Hollis, 17, from Stevenage, said her father Peter was emitting ‘childish whoops of glee’, adding: “At 3am he woke me up because he wanted to watch it on the big screen but couldn’t work out the Fire stick. “He kept saying ‘The boys have still got it,’ while shaking his head in admiration, and asked if I wanted to watch the opening sequence which was ‘like something from Mad Max’.”
She continued: “At half-five I heard him on the phone to one of his mates marvelling at the budget, and when I came down for breakfast he was watching them reviewing a Ferrari for the fourth time. Jesus fucking Christ.”
Peter Hollis said: “I’m just so relieved that I like it. I don’t really have anything else to live for.”'
http://tinyurl.com/zyj759w
Yes, Bahrain have a veto on any more ME region F1 races.
The UAE (7) and Malaysia (13) are fairly federal.
@Stark_Dawning
Hmm but what did that mean in reality, getting out of "ever closer union"? Nothing at all I'd venture. I too share the fear of others that nothing is allowed to get in the way of "the Project", certainly nothing as trivial as the people(s) not wanting it. Ploughing on to a destination without explicit consent is the road to disaster for all of Europe. At present the Continental leadership is in an apparent huff because we've dared to jilt them and they're terrified their own people will come to look on a looser but successful British arrangement as too much of a good idea - can't be doing what people want, can we, or we might never get to do "the Project".
The question I'd pose to Remainers is, if Brexit is circumvented, what then? Millions are going to feel somewhere between acquiescence and utterly embittered hostility to Europe and the whole process of democracy. Would Europe really want us back, given they now openly know how many millions of Brits are going to be seriously unhappy, and a permanent very hostile drag on ever closer union?
The problem is not really the voting system; it's that the underlying culture of the EU is so ingrained that it cannot be challenged. The solution - as so often - is more democracy. But both Europhiles and Eurosceptics have always railed against that: the former because they fear that it would upset their project, and the latter because they fear the greater legitimacy it would give the Union.
The LibDems are on the wrong end of history on Europe.
Now this, this is a pretty positive review:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/on-demand/2016/11/18/the-grand-tour-episode-one-tweaked-bbc-noses-and-other-five-talk/
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2016/11/what-do-progressive-liberals-do-best.html
youtube.com/watch?v=-yLzAU48ruA
If you compare polling now with 5 years ago, when Labour already had a solid lead, its hard to see Labour getting more than 20% in a General Election. For swing voters, there will be a new question that they havent faced since 1982 : Tories or Liberals ? Labour will be reduced to fringe status.
All that is before we factor Brexit in.
I struggle to see how any such real genuine (as opposed to force fed plastic via the Commission etc) shared culture embeds without a lingua franca for starters. English, now we're going ironically, might be seen now as "neutral" and become part of that glue over coming decades (bit like post Raj India), but it's going to see me dead and buried for a long long time before that happens, even with a Herculean will and push behind it.
A Demos, were it to evolve, would take hundreds of years. I am sceptical, but I think you miss that many places were countries before they were Demos. (I would argue Belgium is not a Demos today. And there's a good case of claiming Canada isn't too.)
Switzerland is massively federal (the exact opposite of what the EU is trying to build) and geographically much of a muchness. It's not so hard for a French speaking mountain farmer to associate with a Swiss-German speaking mountain farmer in the next valley over. Compare that with trying to get a Spanish labourer in the central desert zones to associate mentally as a single demos with a Welsh hill farmer or a Romanian trucker. Ain't gonna happen. And even if it could come to pass after a few centuries of central boot on face - how is that to anyone's betterment? What is ultimately the fucking point of the EU reich? It's to stop France and Germany having wars. It's certainly not to promote jobs or drive economic might. It seems in fact primarily to be a scheme to transfer power and wealth from the people to an ever smaller coterie of elites. Nuke it now and return to a treaty of nation states working together instead of some horrific superstate abomination.
I fear Europe will look like a moth eaten, squabbling, tower of Babel 21st century Austria/Hungary in a not very distant future. That was not a state built on the consent of the people, did not have a demos, and it ended very messily.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-38023380
http://store.dji.com/product/inspire-2
Launch demo - live using 1080P Lightbridge wireless communication
youtube.com/watch?v=NHe976cRLkk
Want one. Badly!
Basically this position would give them the opportunity to be a protest party again, nothing more.
Edit looking at it I'm wrong. I suppose the HRE was German more than Roman and the original Roman Empire wasn't German so is ignored.
On a side note our own MoD could learn a lot from the Japanese, who with a defence budget a bit smaller than ours manage to get a lot more capability out of it.
In other news, I've just ordered a new Sony 65" ZD9 for my Zurich place. It's going to be glorious. I saw a live demo at their launch party and wanted to get one there and then, but needed to wait until I sorted out my living situation for Zurich.
Or are you just looking to whine either way?
I hardly ever watch broadcast TV now, not that I watch much TV anyway, I prefer to use streaming when I want to watch something.
Even if you believe the doom-sayers, it would be inconsistent with this countries foreign policy over hundreds of years to step back and allow a single power that you believe to be unstable to develop on our doorstep. Believing it to be misconceived is actually a reason why we must be part of it.
Sounds like a repetition of the 20's but Labour are in the position the Liberals were. Spells doom
Further historical allusion. EU is Imperial Preference by another name - but Boris and Gove are free traders. You can't go to far with that one though