Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
That at least is an arguable point of view. Apart from the concerns around a European demos and democratic accountability within the EU though, those campaigning for Remain in the referendum said that a federal EU with Britain as a part wasn't going to happen - Clegg's description of the EU Army as a fantasy, Cameron's nonsense 'opt-out' from 'ever-closer union'.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
...and as long as one group of Remainers extols the virtues of a federal EU, and another group of Remainers rubbish the idea that such a thing was ever on the cards!
Straw men. Groups of them.
Group 1: Ken Clarke, Andrew Duff, BeverlyC Group 2: David Cameron, Nick Clegg (sort of), TOPPING
Ah, the old "Aternate Destination" trick. It's not actually not too much of a problem in practice as somewhere like southern France has loads of runways, but it saves the airlines a fortune in fuel every year, albeit at the cost of an occasional diversion when the numbers don't work out.
Have you seen the last four minutes of voice recorder transcript for this flight?
Also the controls did not allow rapid visual verification of the pitch setting, so none of the other pilots noticed that the person at the controls was stalling the aircraft by pulling the nose up until seconds before the crash when the captain pegged it.
Yes. A friend of mine who flies Airbus planes says that they'll never change the way the sidesticks work despite all the problems they've had - as to do so could be seen as an admission that there was a problem. The sidesticks aren't connected except through software, if both move together then the inputs are summed and applied to the control surfaces. Each sidestick does have an over-ride button that disables the other, while it's pressed. There's a light to show if either both sticks are in use or if the over-ride is pressed, I think as a result of this accident it's now accompanied by a chime.
Not that a chime would have made much difference to the two muppets who couldn't hear the stall warning klaxon. (Yes I know that hearing is the first sense to go when under extreme mental pressure).
This accident couldn't have happened in a plane with more conventional controls.
One of the rare occasions when I am in favour of regulation. If the private sector on its own cannot bring itself to do something so evidently useful and contributory to safety, then it should be forced to. And shamed.
Don't disagree. The problem is the regulator (EASA) don't want to admit their mistake in certifying the system in the first place. EASA and Airbus have over the years both produced reams of 'evidence' that the system works as intended and doesn't need to change. Any problems must therefore be down to operators not training their staff properly.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
That at least is an arguable point of view. Apart from the concerns around a European demos and democratic accountability within the EU though, those campaigning for Remain in the referendum said that a federal EU with Britain as a part wasn't going to happen - Clegg's description of the EU Army as a fantasy, Cameron's nonsense 'opt-out' from 'ever-closer union'.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
The quality of Cameron deal is actually beside the point. The key issue is that his deal was unacceptable to the voters, which in a democracy is all that matters. It may have been all that he claimed. The voters didn't want it
"Britain will never join the Euro" was put to the people and they voted it down. The watered-down version of the EU was not to their taste.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
Hmmm - worked really well for the USSR...
And Yugoslavia. And Ireland. And Czechoslovakia. And Sudan. And Singapore and Malaysia..
Just to add few more..
Unity with equality and no unresolved issues may bring stability.But it is very rare.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
Hmmm - worked really well for the USSR...
There are so many counter-examples that a scatter graph of internal and external violence against the multinationalness of the given states would look like viewing the base of a rabbit hutch through a chicken wire mesh.
I don't see any value in those odds - a bit longer and the LDs might have been worth a few quid. As it is I'm staying out of this one.
Yes, the LibDems are really the only contenders other than Labour, and they are a long-shot. Labour would have to screw up really impressively, which admittedly on recent form can't be entirely ruled out.
This piece [which someone posted last night] from prior to Kaufman's death suggests the CLP is a mess. You couldn't rule out two candidates emerging from it!
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
That at least is an arguen - Clegg's description of the EU Army as a fantasy, Cameron's nonsense 'opt-out' from 'ever-closer union'.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
...and as long as one group of Remainers extols the virtues of a federal EU, and another group of Remainers rubbish the idea that such a thing was ever on the cards!
Straw men. Groups of them.
Group 1: Ken Clarke, Andrew Duff, BeverlyC Group 2: David Cameron, Nick Clegg (sort of), TOPPING
They exist.
I just a moment ago said in a post:
"The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that."
Not sure how that puts me in the group of people who rubbish the idea that a federal EU was ever on the cards.
"Britain will never join the Euro" was put to the people and they voted it down. The watered-down version of the EU was not to their taste.
They simply did not believe the EU could be trusted. Both Britain and other EU members had already seen supposedly water tight agreements circumvented or ignored. Now given you are an avowed federalist who wants a complete union I suppose you would consider this kind of deceit acceptable. Most people do not.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
Ah, the old "Aternate Destination" trick. It's not actually not too much of a problem in practice as somewhere like southern France has loads of runways, but it saves the airlines a fortune in fuel every year, albeit at the cost of an occasional diversion when the numbers don't work out.
Have you seen the last four minutes of voice recorder transcript for this flight?
Also the controls did not allow rapid visual verification of the pitch setting, so none of the other pilots noticed that the person at the controls was stalling the aircraft by pulling the nose up until seconds before the crash when the captain pegged it.
Yes. A friend of mine who flies Airbus planes says that they'll never change the way the sidesticks work despite all the problems they've had - as to do so could be seen as an admission that there was a problem. The sidesticks aren't connected except through software, if both move together then the inputs are summed and applied to the control surfaces. Each sidestick does have an over-ride button that disables the other, while it's pressed. There's a light to show if either both sticks are in use or if the over-ride is pressed, I think as a result of this accident it's now accompanied by a chime.
Not that a chime would have made much difference to the two muppets who couldn't hear the stall warning klaxon. (Yes I know that hearing is the first sense to go when under extreme mental pressure).
This accident couldn't have happened in a plane with more conventional controls.
One of the rare occasions when I am in favour of regulation. If the private sector on its own cannot bring itself to do something so evidently useful and contributory to safety, then it should be forced to. And shamed.
Don't disagree. The problem is the regulator (EASA) don't want to admit their mistake in certifying the system in the first place. EASA and Airbus have over the years both produced reams of 'evidence' that the system works as intended and doesn't need to change. Any problems must therefore be down to operators not training their staff properly.
The classic ergonomic trap. Blame the human.
So now we don't just have a design flaw, we also have a systemic regulatory one. Brings to mind Alaska Airlines 261.
Mr. Patrick, there's a problem beyond that, which is that the British and French, Slovenians etc are not one people. Leaving aside our often divergent (from continental Europe) historical/political perspective, we could continually be outvoted, and would be unable to do anything about it.
Now, that can be tolerated within a cohesive nation-state (especially if the constitutional arrangement hasn't been buggered up by a smirking skeleton of greed). It cannot otherwise.
Mr. Bojabob, what is this 'Battersea' to which you refer? Is it near Brundisium?
Yup - the EU can never be a democracy because it hads no demos. This is not some intellectual, theoretical issue but a fundamental real problem. When the greek debt issue re-explodes or Italy folds will the Germans step up to pay for it? If No then the EU is dead. Sooner rather than later.
Larry Siedentop's Democracy in Europe - written when the EU was trying to draft a Constitution - is very relevant to this debate and a very good read.
Not that a chime would have made much difference to the two muppets who couldn't hear the stall warning klaxon. (Yes I know that hearing is the first sense to go when under extreme mental pressure).
This accident couldn't have happened in a plane with more conventional controls.
Flight crew not respecting audio warnings isn't exactly new. The Avianca 011 tragedy was similar. The GPWS was screaming TERRAIN, TERRAIN, PULL UP, PULL UP, for 23 seconds before the aircraft ploughed into a hillside killing all on board. In that incident the captain even acknowledged it "bueno, bueno".
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
That at least is an arguen - Clegg's description of the EU Army as a fantasy, Cameron's nonsense 'opt-out' from 'ever-closer union'.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
...and as long as one group of Remainers extols the virtues of a federal EU, and another group of Remainers rubbish the idea that such a thing was ever on the cards!
Straw men. Groups of them.
Group 1: Ken Clarke, Andrew Duff, BeverlyC Group 2: David Cameron, Nick Clegg (sort of), TOPPING
They exist.
I just a moment ago said in a post:
"The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that."
Not sure how that puts me in the group of people who rubbish the idea that a federal EU was ever on the cards.
I don't see any value in those odds - a bit longer and the LDs might have been worth a few quid. As it is I'm staying out of this one.
Yes, the LibDems are really the only contenders other than Labour, and they are a long-shot. Labour would have to screw up really impressively, which admittedly on recent form can't be entirely ruled out.
I don't see any value in those odds - a bit longer and the LDs might have been worth a few quid. As it is I'm staying out of this one.
Yes, the LibDems are really the only contenders other than Labour, and they are a long-shot. Labour would have to screw up really impressively, which admittedly on recent form can't be entirely ruled out.
Agreed. But I'd want the Liberals at 20s or better and would still expect to lose.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
That at least is an arguable point of view. Apart from the concerns around a European demos and democratic accountability within the EU though, those campaigning for Remain in the referendum said that a federal EU with Britain as a part wasn't going to happen - Clegg's description of the EU Army as a fantasy, Cameron's nonsense 'opt-out' from 'ever-closer union'.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
OK to the substance - why? What would or would not have happened if an historic vote had gone a different way is worth talking about precisely why?
It can be worth talking about because it may help inform how we think Britain should develop its future relationship with the EU. That can only be successful if we properly understand how the EU is developing, how that will affect us and therefore what Britain's positioning and strategy should be.
Mrs C, even if that 'pooled sovereignty' (moving it from nation-states to a supra-national body) isn't with the express consent and desire of the people?
Manufacturing identity is extremely difficult and usually backfires. Some may like the idea or genuinely feel that a Greek is countryman to a Slovenian, and an Italian to an Estonian, but for most, that's not the case.
Nations and political accountability exist by a combination of historical accident and present day desire. The only lasting attempt to force a change in Europe was the Romans.
My fear, and belief, is that the EU is doomed to collapse. When it does, the more integrated the nations have become, the worse the fall-out.
It certainly is not an organisation without problems and you could well be right about its collapse. It certainly needs a better solution that its current one, but throwing the baby out with the bath-water is rarely a good answer...
Unfortunate that none of the EU powerful seem to agree about needing a better solution.
I don't see any value in those odds - a bit longer and the LDs might have been worth a few quid. As it is I'm staying out of this one.
Yes, the LibDems are really the only contenders other than Labour, and they are a long-shot. Labour would have to screw up really impressively, which admittedly on recent form can't be entirely ruled out.
It's only by means of a trick that the captain can even reach Paris without going under the legally required minimum reserves of kerosene that must still be in the plane's tanks upon arrival in the French capital. A loophole allows him to enter Bordeaux -- which lies several hundred kilometers closer than Paris -- as the fictitious destination for his fuel calculations.
Ah, the old "Aternate Destination" trick. It's not actually not too much of a problem in practice as somewhere like southern France has loads of runways, but it saves the airlines a fortune in fuel every year, albeit at the cost of an occasional diversion when the numbers don't work out.
Have you seen the last four minutes of voice recorder transcript for this flight?
Just read it. It seems quite extraordinary that they appear to have simply ignored the stall warning and continued to pull back. If they'd just let go of the controls, the plane would probably have sorted itself out!
There is a well known effect inpilots and others where their balance organs in the ears are effected by acceleration and they believe that they are dropping when in fact they are accelerating upwards. I had a long discussion on this just a few days ago with a neighbour who trains pilots at Cranwell.
But that is addressed the whole way through instrument training, because in a similar way there is no sensory difference between climbing at 1g, and executing a 1g banking turn, either way you feel the same pressure in the seat of your pants. Inexperienced pilots flying to clouds get killed frequently for this very reason, they cant decide if they are climbing or banking, and tend to compensate for both, resulting in corkscrewing out the bottom of the cloud, and usually overspeeding and critically damaging their aircraft. You have to teach yourself to ignore your senses and trust your instruments.
An article on Waterstones being under fire. Mysteriously manages to avoid saying who's criticising the firm, and the comments (top-rated) seem entirely supportive. *cough*fakenews*cough*
Don't disagree. The problem is the regulator (EASA) don't want to admit their mistake in certifying the system in the first place. EASA and Airbus have over the years both produced reams of 'evidence' that the system works as intended and doesn't need to change. Any problems must therefore be down to operators not training their staff properly.
Also, on this, statistics show that, where human error is blamed for an accident, 85% of properly trained people with the requisite experience in operating the system would make the same error. So in 5 cases out of 6, human error is merely a symptom of systemic or design flaws.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
Hmmm - worked really well for the USSR...
And Yugoslavia.
You're a citizen of a failing superstate called the United Kingdom. There's no need to search for historical examples on the other side of Europe.
Re the 447 flight: it is just as well that my longhaul flight to Vancouver over lots of ocean is not until September and is not with Air France.
Incidentally thanks to all for their Canada tips: I have booked what looks to be a barnstorming trip round Vancouver, Vancouver Island and the Jasper National Park this autumn for a luxurious three weeks.
I never normally book holidays: my preference is to wake up one day and just go where the fancy takes me, which is what my pilot friend and I did last autumn. But now that I've handed my life savings over I'm so looking forward to it! All I need to do now is get fit enough for all those mountain walks.
Mr. Patrick, there's a problem beyond that, which is that the British and French, Slovenians etc are not one people. Leaving aside our often divergent (from continental Europe) historical/political perspective, we could continually be outvoted, and would be unable to do anything about it.
Now, that can be tolerated within a cohesive nation-state (especially if the constitutional arrangement hasn't been buggered up by a smirking skeleton of greed). It cannot otherwise.
Mr. Bojabob, what is this 'Battersea' to which you refer? Is it near Brundisium?
Yup - the EU can never be a democracy because it hads no demos. This is not some intellectual, theoretical issue but a fundamental real problem. When the greek debt issue re-explodes or Italy folds will the Germans step up to pay for it? If No then the EU is dead. Sooner rather than later.
Larry Siedentop's Democracy in Europe - written when the EU was trying to draft a Constitution - is very relevant to this debate and a very good read.
I went on a Young Diplomats' week-long training course in Brussels in 1986, shortly after "l'acte unique" was signed. The democratic deficit in the EU was the principal discussion all week. Nothing changed since then except the EU parliament getting a little more powers to reject the budget and have a say in selecting the President of the Commission.
Eliminating grammar schools has eliminated a working class leadership echelon for Labour. They killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
Not grammar schools again. I'm 50 and there were no grammar schools for me. The PM is 60, and her grammar was made into a comprehensive. So how old does this leadership echelon have to be? There are plenty of people like Burnham who went to state schools. Most people under 55 have no idea what a grammar school is or was!
Clearly you don't. A grammar school is a state school. (There are quite a few local authorities which still have grammars, as an aside, including some which are frequently Labour-run such as Calderdale).
Vanishingly few. I repeat the vast majority of people under 55 have no idea what a grammar school was. And yes I know they were state schools.
If you know they were state schools, why did you introduce 'state schools' into it?
There look to be about 168 grammar schools in England, which is about 5.4% of the total. As grammars will be a minority even in areas where they operate, that probably equates to around a fifth of kids being educated in selective educational environments. A minority, to be sure, but hardly 'vanishingly few'.
As I said, most people under 55 (ie parents) have no idea what a grammar school was. To re-introduce them would be bold and courageous. ps, ALL Secondary kids, except Private and schools which only have one class per year are "educated in selective educational environments." It is called setting. I have yet to hear an argument for what the difference is between top set at a comp and a grammar school.
I find it highly unlikely that most people under 55 have no idea. I'm 34 and I do.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
Hmmm - worked really well for the USSR...
And Yugoslavia.
You're a citizen of a failing superstate called the United Kingdom. There's no need to search for historical examples on the other side of Europe.
But...the UK is a functioning democracy. A country whose democracy has been described as sublime by many foreigners. For all its flaws our democracy does allow for a peaceful change of direction and venting of steam every so often. We have governments of different flavours and the short term drama of elections and referendums. But the system is therefore stable and has been for centuries. The emerging different demos of Scotland may split the UK. But...the rUK has the systemic stability to absorb this. We give them referendums and if Scotland should go we'd manage it with civility. Our democracy is NOT failing at all. It's vibrantly healthy.
Eliminating grammar schools has eliminated a working class leadership echelon for Labour. They killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
Not grammar schools again. I'm 50 and there were no grammar schools for me. The PM is 60, and her grammar was made into a comprehensive. So how old does this leadership echelon have to be? There are plenty of people like Burnham who went to state schools. Most people under 55 have no idea what a grammar school is or was!
Clearly you don't. A grammar school is a state school. (There are quite a few local authorities which still have grammars, as an aside, including some which are frequently Labour-run such as Calderdale).
Vanishingly few. I repeat the vast majority of people under 55 have no idea what a grammar school was. And yes I know they were state schools.
If you know they were state schools, why did you introduce 'state schools' into it?
There look to be about 168 grammar schools in England, which is about 5.4% of the total. As grammars will be a minority even in areas where they operate, that probably equates to around a fifth of kids being educated in selective educational environments. A minority, to be sure, but hardly 'vanishingly few'.
As I said, most people under 55 (ie parents) have no idea what a grammar school was. To re-introduce them would be bold and courageous. ps, ALL Secondary kids, except Private and schools which only have one class per year are "educated in selective educational environments." It is called setting. I have yet to hear an argument for what the difference is between top set at a comp and a grammar school.
I find it highly unlikely that most people under 55 have no idea. I'm 34 and I do.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
Hmmm - worked really well for the USSR...
And Yugoslavia.
You're a citizen of a failing superstate called the United Kingdom. There's no need to search for historical examples on the other side of Europe.
Really, don't exaggerate. Yugoslavia descended into the most barbaric civil war with one of the first war crimes (Srebenica) since WW2. To compare that with the UK is absurd. If Scotland becomes independent it will do so freely after a democratic vote; there will not be bloodshed and violence and war. That is the mark of a mature and intelligent country.
It's only by means of a trick that the captain can even reach Paris without going under the legally required minimum reserves of kerosene that must still be in the plane's tanks upon arrival in the French capital. A loophole allows him to enter Bordeaux -- which lies several hundred kilometers closer than Paris -- as the fictitious destination for his fuel calculations.
Ah, the old "Aternate Destination" trick. It's not actually not too much of a problem in practice as somewhere like southern France has loads of runways, but it saves the airlines a fortune in fuel every year, albeit at the cost of an occasional diversion when the numbers don't work out.
Have you seen the last four minutes of voice recorder transcript for this flight?
Just read it. It seems quite extraordinary that they appear to have simply ignored the stall warning and continued to pull back. If they'd just let go of the controls, the plane would probably have sorted itself out!
There is a well known effect inpilots and others where their balance organs in the ears are effected by acceleration and they believe that they are dropping when in fact they are accelerating upwards. I had a long discussion on this just a few days ago with a neighbour who trains pilots at Cranwell.
But that is addressed the whole way through instrument training, because in a similar way there is no sensory difference between climbing at 1g, and executing a 1g banking turn, either way you feel the same pressure in the seat of your pants. Inexperienced pilots flying to clouds get killed frequently for this very reason, they cant decide if they are climbing or banking, and tend to compensate for both, resulting in corkscrewing out the bottom of the cloud, and usually overspeeding and critically damaging their aircraft. You have to teach yourself to ignore your senses and trust your instruments.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
Hmmm - worked really well for the USSR...
And Yugoslavia.
You're a citizen of a failing superstate called the United Kingdom. There's no need to search for historical examples on the other side of Europe.
But...the UK is a functioning democracy. A country whose democracy has been described as sublime by many foreigners. For all its flaws our democracy does allow for a peaceful change of direction and venting of steam every so often. We have governments of different flavours and the short term drama of elections and referendums. But the system is therefore stable and has been for centuries. The emerging different demos of Scotland may split the UK. But...the rUK has the systemic stability to absorb this. We give them referendums and if Scotland should go we'd manage it with civility. Our democracy is NOT failing at all. It's vibrantly healthy.
Eliminating grammar schools has eliminated a working class leadership echelon for Labour. They killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
Not grammar schools again. I'm 50 and there were no grammar schools for me. The PM is 60, and her grammar was made into a comprehensive. So how old does this leadership echelon have to be? There are plenty of people like Burnham who went to state schools. Most people under 55 have no idea what a grammar school is or was!
Clearly you don't. A grammar school is a state school. (There are quite a few local authorities which still have grammars, as an aside, including some which are frequently Labour-run such as Calderdale).
Vanishingly few. I repeat the vast majority of people under 55 have no idea what a grammar school was. And yes I know they were state schools.
If you know they were state schools, why did you introduce 'state schools' into it?
There look to be about 168 grammar schools in England, which is about 5.4% of the total. As grammars will be a minority even in areas where they operate, that probably equates to around a fifth of kids being educated in selective educational environments. A minority, to be sure, but hardly 'vanishingly few'.
As I said, most people under 55 (ie parents) have no idea what a grammar school was. To re-introduce them would be bold and courageous. ps, ALL Secondary kids, except Private and schools which only have one class per year are "educated in selective educational environments." It is called setting. I have yet to hear an argument for what the difference is between top set at a comp and a grammar school.
I find it highly unlikely that most people under 55 have no idea. I'm 34 and I do.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
Hmmm - worked really well for the USSR...
And Yugoslavia.
You're a citizen of a failing superstate called the United Kingdom. There's no need to search for historical examples on the other side of Europe.
Why do so many people come to settle in the UK if it's a basket case? I think you inhabit a different universe to the rest of mankind.
Eliminating grammar schools has eliminated a working class leadership echelon for Labour. They killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
Not grammar schools again. I'm 50 and there were no grammar schools for me. The PM is 60, and her grammar was made into a comprehensive. So how old does this leadership echelon have to be? There are plenty of people like Burnham who went to state schools. Most people under 55 have no idea what a grammar school is or was!
Clearly you don't. A grammar school is a state school. (There are quite a few local authorities which still have grammars, as an aside, including some which are frequently Labour-run such as Calderdale).
Vanishingly few. I repeat the vast majority of people under 55 have no idea what a grammar school was. And yes I know they were state schools.
If you know they were state schools, why did you introduce 'state schools' into it?
There look to be about 168 grammar schools in England, which is about 5.4% of the total. As grammars will be a minority even in areas where they operate, that probably equates to around a fifth of kids being educated in selective educational environments. A minority, to be sure, but hardly 'vanishingly few'.
As I said, most people under 55 (ie parents) have no idea what a grammar school was. To re-introduce them would be bold and courageous. ps, ALL Secondary kids, except Private and schools which only have one class per year are "educated in selective educational environments." It is called setting. I have yet to hear an argument for what the difference is between top set at a comp and a grammar school.
I find it highly unlikely that most people under 55 have no idea. I'm 34 and I do.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
ight way to go.
ThU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
Thee other.
Cwording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
Oy why?
It can be worth talking about because it may help inform how we think Britain should develop its future relationship with the EU. That can only be successful if we properly understand how the EU is developing, how that will affect us and therefore what Britain's positioning and strategy should be.
I think there will be a lot of talking about how we develop our future relationship with the EU. Article 1 of the Lisbon Treaty really does spell it out:
"This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer Union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen."
As I have said upthread, if people did not get this fundamental fact driving the EU then they have simply not paid attention and I don't expect a great contribution from them to the forthcoming debate.
How will it affect us? Well we are out of it so we will be affected and no one will be able to say how just yet. As to our positioning and strategy, we need to get a deal which harms our economy as little as possible. Well of course that's my opinion. Plenty also on here believe an economic shock is that famous price worth paying.
Examining what Dave's deal would have meant to an EU with the UK as a member had we voted to stay in really doesn't address any of the current issues.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
Hmmm - worked really well for the USSR...
And Yugoslavia.
You're a citizen of a failing superstate called the United Kingdom. There's no need to search for historical examples on the other side of Europe.
Why do so many people come to settle in the UK if it's a basket case? I think you inhabit a different universe to the rest of mankind.
As I said earlier, the answer is staring some of us in the face!
How much of a disadvantage do you think Benn's name is? Would some people assume he is a hard leftie because his father was?
"A Benn not a Bennite" is his famous line. Plenty of younger voters won't even know bout his father.
Won't his support for intervention in Syria and 'betrayal' of Corbyn make him unelectable with the membership? A Corbynite would stand a good chance against him in any contest. If there were no Corbynite on the ballot paper, well that's another story, but an unlikely one.
"This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer Union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen."
As I have said upthread, if people did not get this fundamental fact driving the EU then they have simply not paid attention and I don't expect a great contribution from them to the forthcoming debate.
How will it affect us? Well we are out of it so we will be affected and no one will be able to say how just yet. As to our positioning and strategy, we need to get a deal which harms our economy as little as possible. Well of course that's my opinion. Plenty also on here believe an economic shock is that famous price worth paying.
Examining what Dave's deal would have meant to an EU with the UK as a member had we voted to stay in really doesn't address any of the current issues.
Notwithstanding what you say, there are still a number of delusions in Britain about the EU (on both sides of the referendum debate) and it is important to get rid of those delusions if we are to have a realistic chance of establishing a sensible relationship with the EU for the future.
Avoiding harm to the economy is one very important consideration. Another one is what our wider relationship should be e.g. on defence matters/intelligence etc. Life - and strategy - are about more than economics.
Re Article 1 - there is an inherent contradiction in it. A Federal Superstate - even if you are in favour of it - is rarely the kind of political entity where decisions are taken "as closely as possible to the citizen". Indeed, that was one of the criticisms made of the EU - that for all the talk about famed "subsidiarity" - decisions were taken remotely and the process - let alone accountability - was an impenetrable mystery.
When drafting the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty a humbler and more intelligent EU would have learnt much from how the US Founding Fathers debated and sought to resolve very similar issues. In their arrogance they did not, which is why we've ended up with something which is both remote, has a democratic deficit, ludicrously interfering and powerful where it does not need to be and weak and feeble where it ought to be stronger. The idea is in many ways a noble one. The execution has been a mess.
I was interested by this post from Alex Liang, a British Singaporean.
"Allow me to wade in as someone who knows the story - I'm from Singapore (and now hold a British passport, gave up my Singaporean passport years ago - Singapore does not allow dual nationality). As much as we all feel Irene's pain, she did make a series of very bad decisions which led her to her deportation. They are as follows:
1. She qualified for a UK passport years ago but for some reason, she did not apply for one despite the fact that it would have been merely paperwork. She decided to hold on to her Singaporean passport when she had indefinite leave to remain (ILTR)
2. The ILTR comes with terms & conditions - ie. you cannot spend more than 2 years away from the UK. Many people flout this rule anyway by simply returning to the UK for a short while (say a couple of days, a week) just to stay on the right side of the law before departing again each time she got close to the 2 year limit. For just the cost of a return flight to the UK, she could have avoided breaking the law.
3. She made a hideously bad decision to hold on to her Singaporean passport for yet another reason: Singapore is extremely welcoming to British expatriates and if she wanted to spend an extended period in Singapore caring for her elderly parents, then she could have done so as a British expatriate (several visas available for her to do that with) rather than as a Singaporean. I stress, she had ZERO incentive to hold on to her Singaporean nationality, NONE whatsoever but for some bizarre reason decided to do so despite the fact that she doesn't even have anyone to stay if now that she is deported there. That's the part that even us in the Singaporean diaspora can't figure out - it 's a bizarre and shockingly bad, almost inexplicable decision on her part. Why the hell would she want a Singaporean passport? (Sorry I am biased, I couldn't wait to get rid of mine and celebrated when I naturalized as British.)
4. Ironically, there's little sympathy for her amongst the British-Singaporean community because we feel that rules are rules: Singaporeans are very law-abiding folks! We felt that if she wasn't clear of the rules, she could have verified them, asked for help before breaking them and finding them on the wrong side of the law and getting deported like that. It's not like you have to spending millions engaging an immigration lawyer - most of us who have spent time working/living in another country with a visa understand that we have to follow the rules. She broke the rules and pleaded ignorance. Nobody shifted the goalposts whilst she was away - she just didn't bother looking at where they were.
5. The home office could have made an exception and shown mercy but they didn't. It's not like they are deporting her to Syria or Afghanistan, after all."
As I said earlier, the answer is staring some of us in the face!
How much of a disadvantage do you think Benn's name is? Would some people assume he is a hard leftie because his father was?
Benn Snr was generally regarded as a wise and genial granddad figure in his later years - against Iraq and Blarite thought control - rather than the foaming leftist that he really was. Jnr would probably benefit from his old man's perceived venerability.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
....
____ The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
...and as long as one group of Remainers extols the virtues of a federal EU, and another group of Remainers rubbish the idea that such a thing was ever on the cards!
Straw men. Groups of them.
Group 1: Ken Clarke, Andrew Duff, BeverlyC Group 2: David Cameron, Nick Clegg (sort of), TOPPING
They exist.
I just a moment ago said in a post:
"The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that."
Not sure how that puts me in the group of people who rubbish the idea that a federal EU was ever on the cards.
It was put forward as the end state by the No side in the 1975 referendum! Enoch Powell, Tony Benn, Barbara Castle et al pointed this out. The other 67% of the UK voted implicitly for ever closer union.
Ken Clarke's said on R4 that he wants a confederation but Ted Heath his mentor wanted a federation. Not sure of Gummer, Heseltine, Patten, Hurd or indeed John Major (who wanted to be 'at the heart of Europe').
March is the 60th. anniversary of signing the Treaty of Rome. What a pity the UK didn't take part and make the EU setup less, er, French. France is governed from Paris and doesn't much like localism or what the US calls states' rights.
I suspect that Labour will call the by election for April 6th - to prevent other parties having time to organise.
That did the trick in Copeland.
May have done in Stoke.
Yes, all UKIP needed to win over the voters was another 2 months of coverage of Nuttall.
Had the Stoke election been in May, it's not impossible that the Tories would have finished a strong second.
UKIP certainly would have done worse. That said, maybe the Tories would have had time to realise which way the wind was blowing and gear up to take two seats from the opposition in one day.
Also the controls did not allow rapid visual verification of the pitch setting, so none of the other pilots noticed that the person at the controls was stalling the aircraft by pulling the nose up until seconds before the crash when the captain pegged it.
Yes. A friend of mine who flies Airbus planes says that they'll never change the way the sidesticks work despite all the problems they've had - as to do so could be seen as an admission that there was a problem. The sidesticks aren't connected except through software, if both move together then the inputs are summed and applied to the control surfaces. Each sidestick does have an over-ride button that disables the other, while it's pressed. There's a light to show if either both sticks are in use or if the over-ride is pressed, I think as a result of this accident it's now accompanied by a chime.
Not that a chime would have made much difference to the two muppets who couldn't hear the stall warning klaxon. (Yes I know that hearing is the first sense to go when under extreme mental pressure).
This accident couldn't have happened in a plane with more conventional controls.
One of the rare occasions when I am in favour of regulation. If the private sector on its own cannot bring itself to do something so evidently useful and contributory to safety, then it should be forced to. And shamed.
Don't disagree. The problem is the regulator (EASA) don't want to admit their mistake in certifying the system in the first place. EASA and Airbus have over the years both produced reams of 'evidence' that the system works as intended and doesn't need to change. Any problems must therefore be down to operators not training their staff properly.
The classic ergonomic trap. Blame the human.
So now we don't just have a design flaw, we also have a systemic regulatory one. Brings to mind Alaska Airlines 261.
It's usually easier to blame the human, and following a plane crash he's often not around to defend himself.
Just read the summary of AS261, that's a very good example of regulatory failure. There are very few parts of an aeroplane that are not redundant and that produce a catastrophic result if they fail, but the stab trim screw is one of them. They should be looked after very carefully indeed.
____ The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
...and as long as one group of Remainers extols the virtues of a federal EU, and another group of Remainers rubbish the idea that such a thing was ever on the cards!
Straw men. Groups of them.
Group 1: Ken Clarke, Andrew Duff, BeverlyC Group 2: David Cameron, Nick Clegg (sort of), TOPPING
They exist.
I just a moment ago said in a post:
"The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that."
Not sure how that puts me in the group of people who rubbish the idea that a federal EU was ever on the cards.
It was put forward as the end state by the No side in the 1975 referendum! Enoch Powell, Tony Benn, Barbara Castle et al pointed this out. The other 67% of the UK voted implicitly for ever closer union.
Ken Clarke's said on R4 that he wants a confederation but Ted Heath his mentor wanted a federation. Not sure of Gummer, Heseltine, Patten, Hurd or indeed John Major (who wanted to be 'at the heart of Europe').
March is the 60th. anniversary of signing the Treaty of Rome. What a pity the UK didn't take part and make the EU setup less, er, French. France is governed from Paris and doesn't much like localism or what the US calls states' rights.
In 1975 and 2016, those pointing out the blindingly obvious federal direction of the European Project were dismissed as cranks and liars by otherwise respected politicians.
I agree with a lot of what you say. Subsidiarity (and proportionality) were fine in principle, but people certainly didn't feel it. Same with NCAs, etc. Of course much of this was our "fault" - not knowing or caring about this construction that rose up, with the consent of successive elected governments, to the point whereby we became irritated by and eventually rejected it.
The issues on defence, intelligence, health, intellectual property, and any number of other areas are, I fear for many interested Leavers, going to be a source of frustration. The Treaties refer to it as "pooling sovereignty" for a greater good and I rather think that in these areas, such pooling of sovereignty will be seen as a betrayal. Perhaps not; everyone has their red lines, but the thought that we will not, in the strictest terms, give up some form of sovereignty in any negotiated outcome with the EU is a fantasy.
To take an example you know well - that of equivalence. You will know that the discussion centres around Day One equivalence and then the mechanism to ensure that equivalence is maintained in the months and years ahead. Well there is only one party which will be able to grant equivalence periodically to those countries which adhere to and replicate EU law in financial services, and it won't be the Bank of England or the FCA.
Giving up sovereignty? I would say so. Necessary for the continued health of our financial services? Yes also.
Ah, the old "Aternate Destination" trick. It's not actually not too much of a problem in practice as somewhere like southern France has loads of runways, but it saves the airlines a fortune in fuel every year, albeit at the cost of an occasional diversion when the numbers don't work out.
Have you seen the last four minutes of voice recorder transcript for this flight?
Just read it. It seems quite extraordinary that they appear to have simply ignored the stall warning and continued to pull back. If they'd just let go of the controls, the plane would probably have sorted itself out!
There is a well known effect inpilots and others where their balance organs in the ears are effected by acceleration and they believe that they are dropping when in fact they are accelerating upwards. I had a long discussion on this just a few days ago with a neighbour who trains pilots at Cranwell.
But that is addressed the whole way through instrument training, because in a similar way there is no sensory difference between climbing at 1g, and executing a 1g banking turn, either way you feel the same pressure in the seat of your pants. Inexperienced pilots flying to clouds get killed frequently for this very reason, they cant decide if they are climbing or banking, and tend to compensate for both, resulting in corkscrewing out the bottom of the cloud, and usually overspeeding and critically damaging their aircraft. You have to teach yourself to ignore your senses and trust your instruments.
Absolutely. Instrument flying is bloody difficult and screws with the senses. It's really hard to ignore what your eyes and ears are telling you, and instead rely on what the instruments show. As you say, very easy to end up in a spin or spiral dive when you think you're flying straight and level in the clouds.
But that is addressed the whole way through instrument training, because in a similar way there is no sensory difference between climbing at 1g, and executing a 1g banking turn, either way you feel the same pressure in the seat of your pants. Inexperienced pilots flying to clouds get killed frequently for this very reason, they cant decide if they are climbing or banking, and tend to compensate for both, resulting in corkscrewing out the bottom of the cloud, and usually overspeeding and critically damaging their aircraft. You have to teach yourself to ignore your senses and trust your instruments.
JFK Jr.
Well quite. JFK Jr was descending at night, over water with no instrument training, flying a very complex light aircraft, on which he had only just received his rating, with only just over 300 total flying hours, and only 30 odd on type, of which only 48 minutes were at night, and those with no instructor present. If you wrote a specification for optimum conditions likely to cause an air accident it wouldn't look much different to this.
Also the controls did not allow rapid visual verification of the pitch setting, so none of the other pilots noticed that the person at the controls was stalling the aircraft by pulling the nose up until seconds before the crash when the captain pegged it.
Yes. A friend of mine who flies Airbus planes says that they'll never change the way the sidesticks work despite all the problems they've had - as to do so could be seen as an admission that there was a problem. The sidesticks aren't connected except through software, if both move together then the inputs are summed and applied to the control surfaces. Each sidestick does have an over-ride button that disables the other, while it's pressed. There's a light to show if either both sticks are in use or if the over-ride is pressed, I think as a result of this accident it's now accompanied by a chime.
Not that a chime would have made much difference to the two muppets who couldn't hear the stall warning klaxon. (Yes I know that hearing is the first sense to go when under extreme mental pressure).
This accident couldn't have happened in a plane with more conventional controls.
One of the rare occasions when I am in favour of regulation. If the private sector on its own cannot bring itself to do something so evidently useful and contributory to safety, then it should be forced to. And shamed.
Don't disagree. The problem is the regulator (EASA) don't want to admit their mistake in certifying the system in the first place. EASA and Airbus have over the years both produced reams of 'evidence' that the system works as intended and doesn't need to change. Any problems must therefore be down to operators not training their staff properly.
The classic ergonomic trap. Blame the human.
So now we don't just have a design flaw, we also have a systemic regulatory one. Brings to mind Alaska Airlines 261.
It's usually easier to blame the human, and following a plane crash he's often not around to defend himself.
Just read the summary of AS261, that's a very good example of regulatory failure. There are very few parts of an aeroplane that are not redundant and that produce a catastrophic result if they fail, but the stab trim screw is one of them. They should be looked after very carefully indeed.
I take it you are in the aviation business. Pilot or equipment?
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
....
____ The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
...and as long as one group of Remainers extols the virtues of a federal EU, and another group of Remainers rubbish the idea that such a thing was ever on the cards!
Straw men. Groups of them.
Group 1: Ken Clarke, Andrew Duff, BeverlyC Group 2: David Cameron, Nick Clegg (sort of), TOPPING
They exist.
I just a moment ago said in a post:
"The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that."
Not sure how that puts me in the group of people who rubbish the idea that a federal EU was ever on the cards.
It was put forward as the end state by the No side in the 1975 referendum! Enoch Powell, Tony Benn, Barbara Castle et al pointed this out. The other 67% of the UK voted implicitly for ever closer union.
Ken Clarke's said on R4 that he wants a confederation but Ted Heath his mentor wanted a federation. Not sure of Gummer, Heseltine, Patten, Hurd or indeed John Major (who wanted to be 'at the heart of Europe').
March is the 60th. anniversary of signing the Treaty of Rome. What a pity the UK didn't take part and make the EU setup less, er, French. France is governed from Paris and doesn't much like localism or what the US calls states' rights.
What is the difference between
1. A state with devolved governance 2. A federation 3. A confederation?
March For Europe 2017 Tshirt https://teespring.com/march-for-europe-2017 Thousands of Europeans from across the continent will #MarchForEurope2017 against walls, divisions and nationalism on at 25th March 2017. We invite Europeans from all across the continent to join the biggest pro-European gathering & #MarchForEurope2017 & call for a true European unity
Political parties do not need working class MPs. That sounds like identity politics. What they need is COMPETENCE. Whether an MP is university educated or not, or from a council estate or a gated community in Surrey, it is surely more important to have the requisite communication skills, and the ability to articulate enormously complicated issues into common language. Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher did that better than anyone else, and nobody would accuse those two of being 'working class', whatever that means. It just so happens that they are Oxbridge educated - an elite, if you will - but that is the purpose of elite education, like Eton. David Cameron didn't become party leader then PM because he had a chip on his shoulder due to his upbringing. We are so anti-intellectual in this country that a first class education is sneered at instead of being embraced, and someone's accent becomes a primary driver of their chances.
If you believe a party needs to have more representatives because of how they look, or their gender, or sexuality, or a certain religion, or even where they were born, then what really matters - their ability - becomes redundant. I think that just about sums up the modern Left.
That confuses the qualities needed in an individual with those needed in a parliament.
An effective parliament needs a wide range of life skills and experiences, otherwise important voices do not get heard. An assembly of 650 clever lawyers and political wonks might make for better debate but will they think to ask the right questions if those questions are completely outside their frame of reference? We have civil servants and parliamentary draftsmen to be able to handle detail.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
ight way to go.
ThU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
Thee other.
Cwording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
Oy why?
It can be worth talking about because it may help inform how we think Britain should develop its future relationship with the EU. That can only be successful if we properly understand how the EU is developing, how that will affect us and therefore what Britain's positioning and strategy should be.
I think there will be a lot of talking about how we develop our future relationship with the EU. Article 1 of the Lisbon Treaty really does spell it out:
"This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer Union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen."
As I have said upthread, if people did not get this fundamental fact driving the EU then they have simply not paid attention and I don't expect a great contribution from them to the forthcoming debate.
How will it affect us? Well we are out of it so we will be affected and no one will be able to say how just yet. As to our positioning and strategy, we need to get a deal which harms our economy as little as possible. Well of course that's my opinion. Plenty also on here believe an economic shock is that famous price worth paying.
Examining what Dave's deal would have meant to an EU with the UK as a member had we voted to stay in really doesn't address any of the current issues.
The key thing for me about Article 1, and the EU in general with regard to the excellent principle of subsidiarity, is that they consistently and continuously blatantly ignored the 'as closely as possible to the citizen' bit.
Re the 447 flight: it is just as well that my longhaul flight to Vancouver over lots of ocean is not until September and is not with Air France.
Incidentally thanks to all for their Canada tips: I have booked what looks to be a barnstorming trip round Vancouver, Vancouver Island and the Jasper National Park this autumn for a luxurious three weeks.
I never normally book holidays: my preference is to wake up one day and just go where the fancy takes me, which is what my pilot friend and I did last autumn. But now that I've handed my life savings over I'm so looking forward to it! All I need to do now is get fit enough for all those mountain walks.
I was about to post this: Showing that commercial air travel is getting safer every year.
As they used to say at the end of Crimewatch, don't have nightmares and enjoy your holiday!
March For Europe 2017 Tshirt https://teespring.com/march-for-europe-2017 Thousands of Europeans from across the continent will #MarchForEurope2017 against walls, divisions and nationalism on at 25th March 2017. We invite Europeans from all across the continent to join the biggest pro-European gathering & #MarchForEurope2017 & call for a true European unity
Are those the walls built between Schengen area states, divisions between northern creditors and southern debtors in the eurozone, and nationalism exacerbated by distant supranational governance?
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
ight way to go.
ThU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
Thee other.
Cwording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
Oy why?
It can be worth talking about because it may help inform how we think Britain should develop its future relationship with the EU. That can only be successful if we properly understand how the EU is developing, how that will affect us and therefore what Britain's positioning and strategy should be.
I think there will be a lot of talking about how we develop our future relationship with the EU. Article 1 of the Lisbon Treaty really does spell it out:
"This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer Union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen."
As I have said upthread, if people did not get this fundamental fact driving the EU then they have simply not paid attention and I don't expect a great contribution from them to the forthcoming debate.
How will it affect us? Well we are out of it so we will be affected and no one will be able to say how just yet. As to our positioning and strategy, we need to get a deal which harms our economy as little as possible. Well of course that's my opinion. Plenty also on here believe an economic shock is that famous price worth paying.
Examining what Dave's deal would have meant to an EU with the UK as a member had we voted to stay in really doesn't address any of the current issues.
The key thing for me about Article 1, and the EU in general with regard to the excellent principle of subsidiarity, is that they consistently and continuously blatantly ignored the 'as closely as possible to the citizen' bit.
I don't think that's fair. It's just they were only thinking of 28 of the citizens.
Surveys about potential replacement leaders are mostly studies in name recognition. As Henry Ford apparently didn't say: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
Re the 447 flight: it is just as well that my longhaul flight to Vancouver over lots of ocean is not until September and is not with Air France.
Incidentally thanks to all for their Canada tips: I have booked what looks to be a barnstorming trip round Vancouver, Vancouver Island and the Jasper National Park this autumn for a luxurious three weeks.
I never normally book holidays: my preference is to wake up one day and just go where the fancy takes me, which is what my pilot friend and I did last autumn. But now that I've handed my life savings over I'm so looking forward to it! All I need to do now is get fit enough for all those mountain walks.
I was about to post this: Showing that commercial air travel is getting safer every year.
As they used to say at the end of Crimewatch, don't have nightmares and enjoy your holiday!
I would have liked to see the chart starting in 1939.
But that is addressed the whole way through instrument training, because in a similar way there is no sensory difference between climbing at 1g, and executing a 1g banking turn, either way you feel the same pressure in the seat of your pants. Inexperienced pilots flying to clouds get killed frequently for this very reason, they cant decide if they are climbing or banking, and tend to compensate for both, resulting in corkscrewing out the bottom of the cloud, and usually overspeeding and critically damaging their aircraft. You have to teach yourself to ignore your senses and trust your instruments.
JFK Jr.
Well quite. JFK Jr was descending at night, over water with no instrument training, flying a very complex light aircraft, on which he had only just received his rating, with only just over 300 total flying hours, and only 30 odd on type, of which only 48 minutes were at night, and those with no instructor present. If you wrote a specification for optimum conditions likely to cause an air accident it wouldn't look much different to this.
Ah, the old "Aternate Destination" trick. It's not actually not too much of a problem in practice as somewhere like southern France has loads of runways, but it saves the airlines a fortune in fuel every year, albeit at the cost of an occasional diversion when the numbers don't work out.
Have you seen the last four minutes of voice recorder transcript for this flight?
Just read it. It seems quite extraordinary that they appear to have simply ignored the stall warning and continued to pull back. If they'd just let go of the controls, the plane would probably have sorted itself out!
There is a well known effect inpilots and others where their balance organs in the ears are effected by acceleration and they believe that they are dropping when in fact they are accelerating upwards. I had a long discussion on this just a few days ago with a neighbour who trains pilots at Cranwell.
But that is addressed the whole way through instrument training, because in a similar way there is no sensory difference between climbing at 1g, and executing a 1g banking turn, either way you feel the same pressure in the seat of your pants. Inexperienced pilots flying to clouds get killed frequently for this very reason, they cant decide if they are climbing or banking, and tend to compensate for both, resulting in corkscrewing out the bottom of the cloud, and usually overspeeding and critically damaging their aircraft. You have to teach yourself to ignore your senses and trust your instruments.
Absolutely. Instrument flying is bloody difficult and screws with the senses. It's really hard to ignore what your eyes and ears are telling you, and instead rely on what the instruments show. As you say, very easy to end up in a spin or spiral dive when you think you're flying straight and level in the clouds.
One of the early lessons in the PPL - 'close your eyes and hold us in straight and level flight'.......after about 5 seconds 'ok - open your eyes'.......
March For Europe 2017 Tshirt https://teespring.com/march-for-europe-2017 Thousands of Europeans from across the continent will #MarchForEurope2017 against walls, divisions and nationalism on at 25th March 2017. We invite Europeans from all across the continent to join the biggest pro-European gathering & #MarchForEurope2017 & call for a true European unity
What's the betting that those March for Europe T-shirts are Made in China ?
Re the 447 flight: it is just as well that my longhaul flight to Vancouver over lots of ocean is not until September and is not with Air France.
Incidentally thanks to all for their Canada tips: I have booked what looks to be a barnstorming trip round Vancouver, Vancouver Island and the Jasper National Park this autumn for a luxurious three weeks.
I never normally book holidays: my preference is to wake up one day and just go where the fancy takes me, which is what my pilot friend and I did last autumn. But now that I've handed my life savings over I'm so looking forward to it! All I need to do now is get fit enough for all those mountain walks.
As I said earlier, the answer is staring some of us in the face!
How much of a disadvantage do you think Benn's name is? Would some people assume he is a hard leftie because his father was?
Benn Snr was generally regarded as a wise and genial granddad figure in his later years - against Iraq and Blarite thought control - rather than the foaming leftist that he really was. Jnr would probably benefit from his old man's perceived venerability.
To some degree, I think Benn Sr had mellowed and stepped away from the deranged fringes of the extreme left, during his latter years, in actions if not in philosophy. An avowed leftist yes, but not one that invoked quite the call to arms that he did during the 1970s. And he will be forever fondly remembered for being the only public figure ever to elegantly handle Ali G). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-YYroSudUs
This accident couldn't have happened in a plane with more conventional controls.
One of the rare occasions when I am in favour of regulation. If the private sector on its own cannot bring itself to do something so evidently useful and contributory to safety, then it should be forced to. And shamed.
Don't disagree. The problem is the regulator (EASA) don't want to admit their mistake in certifying the system in the first place. EASA and Airbus have over the years both produced reams of 'evidence' that the system works as intended and doesn't need to change. Any problems must therefore be down to operators not training their staff properly.
The classic ergonomic trap. Blame the human.
So now we don't just have a design flaw, we also have a systemic regulatory one. Brings to mind Alaska Airlines 261.
It's usually easier to blame the human, and following a plane crash he's often not around to defend himself.
Just read the summary of AS261, that's a very good example of regulatory failure. There are very few parts of an aeroplane that are not redundant and that produce a catastrophic result if they fail, but the stab trim screw is one of them. They should be looked after very carefully indeed.
I take it you are in the aviation business. Pilot or equipment?
I work in IT but not on planes. Have a lapsed PPL and PPL(G) and lots of pilot friends. If I lived my life again I may well have ended up as a commercial pilot, but it's a very different profession now to how it used to be a couple of decades ago. Start with the £150k loan for your training, then move to your first job with Ryanair on what's now known as a zero hours counteract for £50 a flying hour.
I did just apply for an IT job with an airline though
I suspect that Labour will call the by election for April 6th - to prevent other parties having time to organise.
That did the trick in Copeland.
May have done in Stoke.
Yes, all UKIP needed to win over the voters was another 2 months of coverage of Nuttall.
Had the Stoke election been in May, it's not impossible that the Tories would have finished a strong second.
I actually suspect that most UKIP voters in Stoke would be more likely to vote Labour than Tory. Had the contest been a straight fight between Labour and the Tories such as was common in the 1950s and 1960s I would have expected a bigger Labour majority.
Political parties do not need working class MPs. That sounds like identity politics. What they need is COMPETENCE. Whether an MP is university educated or not, or from a council estate or a gated community in Surrey, it is surely more important to have the requisite communication skills, and the ability to articulate enormously complicated issues into common language. Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher did that better than anyone else, and nobody would accuse those two of being 'working class', whatever that means. It just so happens that they are Oxbridge educated - an elite, if you will - but that is the purpose of elite education, like Eton. David Cameron didn't become party leader then PM because he had a chip on his shoulder due to his upbringing. We are so anti-intellectual in this country that a first class education is sneered at instead of being embraced, and someone's accent becomes a primary driver of their chances.
If you believe a party needs to have more representatives because of how they look, or their gender, or sexuality, or a certain religion, or even where they were born, then what really matters - their ability - becomes redundant. I think that just about sums up the modern Left.
That confuses the qualities needed in an individual with those needed in a parliament.
An effective parliament needs a wide range of life skills and experiences, otherwise important voices do not get heard. An assembly of 650 clever lawyers and political wonks might make for better debate but will they think to ask the right questions if those questions are completely outside their frame of reference? We have civil servants and parliamentary draftsmen to be able to handle detail.
I agree 100% with the above.
There has always seemed a hell of a lot of barristers and lawyers amongst MPs. Could do with a few more scientists.
• A quarter of all MPs have a occupational background in politics (the largest of any occupational group) highlighting the professionalisation of politics. The occupational background of MPs continues to be ever more biased toward business and the ‘metropolitan professions’, particularly finance, law, public affairs, and politics.
However, there are major disparities between • the parties. For example, 4% of Labour MPs have at some point worked in finance as compared with 25% for Conservatives. An alternative trend emerges with the public and voluntary sector, which is dominated by Labour MPs. As to be expected most of the blue collar and trade union occupations are with Labour MPs
Re the 447 flight: it is just as well that my longhaul flight to Vancouver over lots of ocean is not until September and is not with Air France.
Incidentally thanks to all for their Canada tips: I have booked what looks to be a barnstorming trip round Vancouver, Vancouver Island and the Jasper National Park this autumn for a luxurious three weeks.
I never normally book holidays: my preference is to wake up one day and just go where the fancy takes me, which is what my pilot friend and I did last autumn. But now that I've handed my life savings over I'm so looking forward to it! All I need to do now is get fit enough for all those mountain walks.
I was about to post this: Showing that commercial air travel is getting safer every year.
As they used to say at the end of Crimewatch, don't have nightmares and enjoy your holiday!
I would have liked to see the chart starting in 1939.
No, I don't think this chart series would include the statistics from Bomber Command.
Ah, the old "Aternate Destination" trick. It's not actually not too much of a problem in practice as somewhere like southern France has loads of runways, but it saves the airlines a fortune in fuel every year, albeit at the cost of an occasional diversion when the numbers don't work out.
Have you seen the last four minutes of voice recorder transcript for this flight?
Just read it. It seems quite extraordinary that they appear to have simply ignored the stall warning and continued to pull back. If they'd just let go of the controls, the plane would probably have sorted itself out!
There is a well known effect inpilots and others where their balance organs in the ears are effected by acceleration and they believe that they are dropping when in fact they are accelerating upwards. I had a long discussion on this just a few days ago with a neighbour who trains pilots at Cranwell.
But that is addressed the whole way through instrument training, because in a similar way there is no sensory difference between climbing at 1g, and executing a 1g banking turn, either way you feel the same pressure in the seat of your pants. Inexperienced pilots flying to clouds get killed frequently for this very reason, they cant decide if they are climbing or banking, and tend to compensate for both, resulting in corkscrewing out the bottom of the cloud, and usually overspeeding and critically damaging their aircraft. You have to teach yourself to ignore your senses and trust your instruments.
Absolutely. Instrument flying is bloody difficult and screws with the senses. It's really hard to ignore what your eyes and ears are telling you, and instead rely on what the instruments show. As you say, very easy to end up in a spin or spiral dive when you think you're flying straight and level in the clouds.
One of the early lessons in the PPL - 'close your eyes and hold us in straight and level flight'.......after about 5 seconds 'ok - open your eyes'.......
Closely followed by "Whoa, how did we end up in that attitude!"
Re the 447 flight: it is just as well that my longhaul flight to Vancouver over lots of ocean is not until September and is not with Air France.
Incidentally thanks to all for their Canada tips: I have booked what looks to be a barnstorming trip round Vancouver, Vancouver Island and the Jasper National Park this autumn for a luxurious three weeks.
I never normally book holidays: my preference is to wake up one day and just go where the fancy takes me, which is what my pilot friend and I did last autumn. But now that I've handed my life savings over I'm so looking forward to it! All I need to do now is get fit enough for all those mountain walks.
I was about to post this: Showing that commercial air travel is getting safer every year.
As they used to say at the end of Crimewatch, don't have nightmares and enjoy your holiday!
That's 'absolute number' of accidents - I guess 'fatalities per million passenger km flown looks very different'?
Closely followed by "Whoa, how did we end up in that attitude!"
Pfft.. fly something without a tail. Do that in a trike, close eyes, take your hands off the controls, open them ten seconds later, nothing has changed.
Sometimes the aircraft's problems are the least important thing to worry about...
www.instagram.com/p/BQOrLx6BuEq/
Well the TSA are clearly doing their job on that front. How many people have been shot and killed on a plane compared to those killed by technical malfunctions?
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
______
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
...and as long as one group of Remainers extols the virtues of a federal EU, and another group of Remainers rubbish the idea that such a thing was ever on the cards!
Straw men. Groups of them.
Group 1: Ken Clarke, Andrew Duff, BeverlyC Group 2: David Cameron, Nick Clegg (sort of), TOPPING
They exist.
I just a moment ago said in a post:
"The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that."
Not sure how that puts me in the group of people who rubbish the idea that a federal EU was ever on the cards.
It was put forward as the end state by the No side in the 1975 referendum! Enoch Powell, Tony Benn, Barbara Castle et al pointed this out. The other 67% of the UK voted implicitly for ever closer union.
Ken Clarke's said on R4 that he wants a confederation but Ted Heath his mentor wanted a federation. Not sure of Gummer, Heseltine, Patten, Hurd or indeed John Major (who wanted to be 'at the heart of Europe').
March is the 60th. anniversary of signing the Treaty of Rome. What a pity the UK didn't take part and make the EU setup less, er, French. France is governed from Paris and doesn't much like localism or what the US calls states' rights.
What is the difference between 1. A state with devolved governance 2. A federation 3. A confederation?
A confederation contains independent states coming together for extensive cooperation but not to form a country. I believe Switzerland was one until the mid 19th.C, then it federated.
I don't know if there's any difference between 1 and 2. Federal republics like Canada and US devolve certain things to the states and provinces. For instance Louisiana and Quebec have French law, other places use English-type law. But Austria has provinces with devolved powers and I don't think it calls itself federal (Germany does.) A historian or lawyer might need to correct me slightly ...
Comments
Group 2: David Cameron, Nick Clegg (sort of), TOPPING
They exist.
Just to add few more..
Unity with equality and no unresolved issues may bring stability.But it is very rare.
http://www.writeyou.co.uk/manchestergortonbyelection
"The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that."
Not sure how that puts me in the group of people who rubbish the idea that a federal EU was ever on the cards.
So now we don't just have a design flaw, we also have a systemic regulatory one. Brings to mind Alaska Airlines 261.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39108194
The LibDems got only 4.2% in 2015.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39101186
Incidentally thanks to all for their Canada tips: I have booked what looks to be a barnstorming trip round Vancouver, Vancouver Island and the Jasper National Park this autumn for a luxurious three weeks.
I never normally book holidays: my preference is to wake up one day and just go where the fancy takes me, which is what my pilot friend and I did last autumn. But now that I've handed my life savings over I'm so looking forward to it! All I need to do now is get fit enough for all those mountain walks.
Rounding error
Yikes...NBC/WSJ poll finds only *4 percent* believe Obamacare is "working well the way it is." https://t.co/QmmvKqS8XC
"This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer Union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen."
As I have said upthread, if people did not get this fundamental fact driving the EU then they have simply not paid attention and I don't expect a great contribution from them to the forthcoming debate.
How will it affect us? Well we are out of it so we will be affected and no one will be able to say how just yet. As to our positioning and strategy, we need to get a deal which harms our economy as little as possible. Well of course that's my opinion. Plenty also on here believe an economic shock is that famous price worth paying.
Examining what Dave's deal would have meant to an EU with the UK as a member had we voted to stay in really doesn't address any of the current issues.
Mollie
Yes, they blacklisted it. Forgotten fact: NYT argued to SCOTUS that list is editorial opinion rather than truth. https://t.co/Qludwh0WxB https://t.co/DMO3oJN62x
Avoiding harm to the economy is one very important consideration. Another one is what our wider relationship should be e.g. on defence matters/intelligence etc. Life - and strategy - are about more than economics.
Re Article 1 - there is an inherent contradiction in it. A Federal Superstate - even if you are in favour of it - is rarely the kind of political entity where decisions are taken "as closely as possible to the citizen". Indeed, that was one of the criticisms made of the EU - that for all the talk about famed "subsidiarity" - decisions were taken remotely and the process - let alone accountability - was an impenetrable mystery.
When drafting the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty a humbler and more intelligent EU would have learnt much from how the US Founding Fathers debated and sought to resolve very similar issues. In their arrogance they did not, which is why we've ended up with something which is both remote, has a democratic deficit, ludicrously interfering and powerful where it does not need to be and weak and feeble where it ought to be stronger. The idea is in many ways a noble one. The execution has been a mess.
FPT Irene Clennell,
I was interested by this post from Alex Liang, a British Singaporean.
"Allow me to wade in as someone who knows the story - I'm from Singapore (and now hold a British passport, gave up my Singaporean passport years ago - Singapore does not allow dual nationality). As much as we all feel Irene's pain, she did make a series of very bad decisions which led her to her deportation. They are as follows:
1. She qualified for a UK passport years ago but for some reason, she did not apply for one despite the fact that it would have been merely paperwork. She decided to hold on to her Singaporean passport when she had indefinite leave to remain (ILTR)
2. The ILTR comes with terms & conditions - ie. you cannot spend more than 2 years away from the UK. Many people flout this rule anyway by simply returning to the UK for a short while (say a couple of days, a week) just to stay on the right side of the law before departing again each time she got close to the 2 year limit. For just the cost of a return flight to the UK, she could have avoided breaking the law.
3. She made a hideously bad decision to hold on to her Singaporean passport for yet another reason: Singapore is extremely welcoming to British expatriates and if she wanted to spend an extended period in Singapore caring for her elderly parents, then she could have done so as a British expatriate (several visas available for her to do that with) rather than as a Singaporean. I stress, she had ZERO incentive to hold on to her Singaporean nationality, NONE whatsoever but for some bizarre reason decided to do so despite the fact that she doesn't even have anyone to stay if now that she is deported there. That's the part that even us in the Singaporean diaspora can't figure out - it 's a bizarre and shockingly bad, almost inexplicable decision on her part. Why the hell would she want a Singaporean passport? (Sorry I am biased, I couldn't wait to get rid of mine and celebrated when I naturalized as British.)
4. Ironically, there's little sympathy for her amongst the British-Singaporean community because we feel that rules are rules: Singaporeans are very law-abiding folks! We felt that if she wasn't clear of the rules, she could have verified them, asked for help before breaking them and finding them on the wrong side of the law and getting deported like that. It's not like you have to spending millions engaging an immigration lawyer - most of us who have spent time working/living in another country with a visa understand that we have to follow the rules. She broke the rules and pleaded ignorance. Nobody shifted the goalposts whilst she was away - she just didn't bother looking at where they were.
5. The home office could have made an exception and shown mercy but they didn't. It's not like they are deporting her to Syria or Afghanistan, after all."
Had the Stoke election been in May, it's not impossible that the Tories would have finished a strong second.
Ken Clarke's said on R4 that he wants a confederation but Ted Heath his mentor wanted a federation. Not sure of Gummer, Heseltine, Patten, Hurd or indeed John Major (who wanted to be 'at the heart of Europe').
March is the 60th. anniversary of signing the Treaty of Rome. What a pity the UK didn't take part and make the EU setup less, er, French. France is governed from Paris and doesn't much like localism or what the US calls states' rights.
@DaveThompsonCC @WMPolice @metpoliceuk @WestYorksPolice @gmpolice Please clarify. Do u prosecute ALL parents who carry out FGM? Urgent. #FGM
Just read the summary of AS261, that's a very good example of regulatory failure. There are very few parts of an aeroplane that are not redundant and that produce a catastrophic result if they fail, but the stab trim screw is one of them. They should be looked after very carefully indeed.
I agree with a lot of what you say. Subsidiarity (and proportionality) were fine in principle, but people certainly didn't feel it. Same with NCAs, etc. Of course much of this was our "fault" - not knowing or caring about this construction that rose up, with the consent of successive elected governments, to the point whereby we became irritated by and eventually rejected it.
The issues on defence, intelligence, health, intellectual property, and any number of other areas are, I fear for many interested Leavers, going to be a source of frustration. The Treaties refer to it as "pooling sovereignty" for a greater good and I rather think that in these areas, such pooling of sovereignty will be seen as a betrayal. Perhaps not; everyone has their red lines, but the thought that we will not, in the strictest terms, give up some form of sovereignty in any negotiated outcome with the EU is a fantasy.
To take an example you know well - that of equivalence. You will know that the discussion centres around Day One equivalence and then the mechanism to ensure that equivalence is maintained in the months and years ahead. Well there is only one party which will be able to grant equivalence periodically to those countries which adhere to and replicate EU law in financial services, and it won't be the Bank of England or the FCA.
Giving up sovereignty? I would say so. Necessary for the continued health of our financial services? Yes also.
1. A state with devolved governance
2. A federation
3. A confederation?
https://teespring.com/march-for-europe-2017
Thousands of Europeans from across the continent will #MarchForEurope2017 against walls, divisions and nationalism on at 25th March 2017.
We invite Europeans from all across the continent to join the biggest pro-European gathering & #MarchForEurope2017 & call for a true European unity
The key thing for me about Article 1, and the EU in general with regard to the excellent principle of subsidiarity, is that they consistently and continuously blatantly ignored the 'as closely as possible to the citizen' bit.
Showing that commercial air travel is getting safer every year.
As they used to say at the end of Crimewatch, don't have nightmares and enjoy your holiday!
If anyone wants to form their own party with different members they can then select their own leader.
I did just apply for an IT job with an airline though
• A quarter of all MPs have a occupational background in
politics (the largest of any occupational group) highlighting
the professionalisation of politics.
The occupational
background of MPs continues to be ever more biased
toward business and the ‘metropolitan professions’,
particularly finance, law, public affairs, and politics.
However, there are major disparities between
• the parties. For example, 4% of Labour MPs have at
some point worked in finance as compared with 25% for
Conservatives. An alternative trend emerges with the public
and voluntary sector, which is dominated by Labour MPs.
As to be expected most of the blue collar and trade union
occupations are with Labour MPs
https://smithinstitutethinktank.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/who-governs-britain.pdf
https://www.instagram.com/p/BQOrLx6BuEq/
I don't know if there's any difference between 1 and 2. Federal republics like Canada and US devolve certain things to the states and provinces. For instance Louisiana and Quebec have French law, other places use English-type law. But Austria has provinces with devolved powers and I don't think it calls itself federal (Germany does.) A historian or lawyer might need to correct me slightly ...
Most others seem solid, in reliability terms.