The whole profile reads like someone who would act alone. It is odd that there is a suggestion early in the article that he will have had help. The profile has obsessive loner written all over it.
Prison-Conversion-Luton-East London-Saudi Arabia-Birmingham... if only there had been some clues
Hhmmm ....
Sean Fear .... Prison lawyer visits - check Sean Fear .... Conversion - Con to UKIP - check Sean Fear .... Luton based - check Sean Fear .... East London pub visits - check Sean Fear .... Saudi Arabia - "Lawrence of Arabia" film favourite - check
Of course Hezza, as ever, has it precisely backwards. For 500 years our foreign policy has been to oppose the creation of a superstate on the continent of Europe. We like nation states not monsters. We have always come in on the side of those fighting against a would-be superpower. We fought the Holy Roman Empire. We fought the Spanish in Elizabeth I' s time. We fought Napoleon. We fought the Nazis. And now we fight the EU. T'was ever thus.
We are not fighting the EU. We are leaving it. The EU and its member states are not our enemies.
You cannot be a candidate if at the time of your nomination and on polling day:
1.3.a - You are employed by the local authority or hold a paid office under the authority (including joint boards or committees). Note that you may be ‘employed by the local authority’ if, for example, you work at certain schools, fire services, police or health services. This list is not exhaustive. For further information, see paragraph 1.20.
Although can a returning officer declare an election void after it has taken place?
A "joint board" (such as, for example, the old West Midlands Fire Authority to which the West Midlands councils directly nominated representatives under statutory powers, is a very different statutory creature to an independent company of which a local authority is a minority shareholder (along with several other local authorities), which is the case here. The idea that the person is then an "employee" of that minority local authority shareholder is really stretching the law. If there isn't case law which backs the Returning Officer's ruling, which there might well be, then I would expect a court challenge to the disqualification.
This looks no different to being a teacher in a maintained school and trying to stand for the county council. A competent political party should weed out people before they get nominated. Poor old Labour, can't get anything right.
Interesting, tight election in Saarland on Sunday - it's the smallest state, but the first prelude to the national elections later this year and the first test of Schulz's popularity. The SPD here is willing to take over in coalition with the Left and the Greens, but it's not clear if the Greens will clear the 5% threshold to get seats. The AfD should get in but are also not that comfortably clear of 5%. The state CDU leader is very much a Merkelite and quite popular personally. The FDP would support the CDU, but they too are just below 5%. Impossible to call.
"Mr. W, to be fair to Lord Heseltine, it's quite easy to confuse holding a referendum on a political decision with a Blitzkrieg invasion,"
I think the wiffle stick should be reserved for people who devalue the language like that.
Rents going up = ethnic cleansing. Voting in a referendum = concentration camps and ethnic cleansing. Someone disagreeing with me = the spawn of Satan, and ethnic cleansing.
Of course Hezza, as ever, has it precisely backwards. For 500 years our foreign policy has been to oppose the creation of a superstate on the continent of Europe. We like nation states not monsters. We have always come in on the side of those fighting against a would-be superpower. We fought the Holy Roman Empire. We fought the Spanish in Elizabeth I' s time. We fought Napoleon. We fought the Nazis. And now we fight the EU. T'was ever thus.
We are not fighting the EU. We are leaving it. The EU and its member states are not our enemies.
I beg to differ. The member states are our friends and we should make nice with them and their peoples. The EU is a putative superstate that is making very hostile noises towards us right now and should be treated as a hostile entity.
The equivalent of three and a half year's gross or five year's net contributions. Not really a very strong argument against Brexit is it. Leave and you have to pay £10 billion a year for five years, stay and you have to pay £10 billion a year (and rising) for ever.
Remainiacs really do have some dumb arguments.
Also:
1. This is their opening gambit. 2. Any transition arrangement payments will be offset against this. 3. It doesn't include a share of assets. 4. We'll likely simply take British retirees onto our own books.
The actual cash exit payment will likely be less than £15bn. (I would guess it will probably be more like £10-12bn.)
Most importantly - the final Brexit deal will be decided in Berlin, Paris, Rome, Warsaw and Madrid. Junker will do as he is told or he will be replaced.
Prison-Conversion-Luton-East London-Saudi Arabia-Birmingham... if only there had been some clues
Hhmmm ....
Sean Fear .... Prison lawyer visits - check Sean Fear .... Conversion - Con to UKIP - check Sean Fear .... Luton based - check Sean Fear .... East London pub visits - check Sean Fear .... Saudi Arabia - "Lawrence of Arabia" film favourite - check
Of course Hezza, as ever, has it precisely backwards. For 500 years our foreign policy has been to oppose the creation of a superstate on the continent of Europe. We like nation states not monsters. We have always come in on the side of those fighting against a would-be superpower. We fought the Holy Roman Empire. We fought the Spanish in Elizabeth I' s time. We fought Napoleon. We fought the Nazis. And now we fight the EU. T'was ever thus.
We are not fighting the EU. We are leaving it. The EU and its member states are not our enemies.
I beg to differ. The member states are our friends and we should make nice with them and their peoples. The EU is a putative superstate that is making very hostile noises towards us right now and should be treated as a hostile entity.
It is setting out a negotiating position. Employing the language of war is inappropriate, unnecessary and self-defeating.
This sort of hyperbole is remarkably common amongst ardent Remainers.
Perhaps the EU is the sort of subject that can make both sides (at the fringes) go a bit barking, probably because it's not really about economics but a proxy for a cultural/values war.
Of course Hezza, as ever, has it precisely backwards. For 500 years our foreign policy has been to oppose the creation of a superstate on the continent of Europe. We like nation states not monsters. We have always come in on the side of those fighting against a would-be superpower. We fought the Holy Roman Empire. We fought the Spanish in Elizabeth I' s time. We fought Napoleon. We fought the Nazis. And now we fight the EU. T'was ever thus.
We are not fighting the EU. We are leaving it. The EU and its member states are not our enemies.
Indeed but we never sought to join the HRE, Spanish or French Empires or the Third Reich. Now we don't seek to be in the EU either. Matches our history to be on the outside.
Of course Hezza, as ever, has it precisely backwards. For 500 years our foreign policy has been to oppose the creation of a superstate on the continent of Europe. We like nation states not monsters. We have always come in on the side of those fighting against a would-be superpower. We fought the Holy Roman Empire. We fought the Spanish in Elizabeth I' s time. We fought Napoleon. We fought the Nazis. And now we fight the EU. T'was ever thus.
We are not fighting the EU. We are leaving it. The EU and its member states are not our enemies.
Indeed but we never sought to join the HRE, Spanish or French Empires or the Third Reich. Now we don't seek to be in the EU either. Matches our history to be on the outside.
Interesting, tight election in Saarland on Sunday - it's the smallest state, but the first prelude to the national elections later this year and the first test of Schulz's popularity. The SPD here is willing to take over in coalition with the Left and the Greens, but it's not clear if the Greens will clear the 5% threshold to get seats. The AfD should get in but are also not that comfortably clear of 5%. The state CDU leader is very much a Merkelite and quite popular personally. The FDP would support the CDU, but they too are just below 5%. Impossible to call.
Prison-Conversion-Luton-East London-Saudi Arabia-Birmingham... if only there had been some clues
Hhmmm ....
Sean Fear .... Prison lawyer visits - check Sean Fear .... Conversion - Con to UKIP - check Sean Fear .... Luton based - check Sean Fear .... East London pub visits - check Sean Fear .... Saudi Arabia - "Lawrence of Arabia" film favourite - check
Of course Hezza, as ever, has it precisely backwards. For 500 years our foreign policy has been to oppose the creation of a superstate on the continent of Europe. We like nation states not monsters. We have always come in on the side of those fighting against a would-be superpower. We fought the Holy Roman Empire. We fought the Spanish in Elizabeth I' s time. We fought Napoleon. We fought the Nazis. And now we fight the EU. T'was ever thus.
We are not fighting the EU. We are leaving it. The EU and its member states are not our enemies.
Indeed but we never sought to join the HRE, Spanish or French Empires or the Third Reich. Now we don't seek to be in the EU either. Matches our history to be on the outside.
Yes, but that is very different.
Same principle slightly less Hyperbole. But given the context even Patrick was using less hyperbole that that which came before.
The equivalent of three and a half year's gross or five year's net contributions. Not really a very strong argument against Brexit is it. Leave and you have to pay £10 billion a year for five years, stay and you have to pay £10 billion a year (and rising) for ever.
Remainiacs really do have some dumb arguments.
Also:
1. This is their opening gambit. 2. Any transition arrangement payments will be offset against this. 3. It doesn't include a share of assets. 4. We'll likely simply take British retirees onto our own books.
The actual cash exit payment will likely be less than £15bn. (I would guess it will probably be more like £10-12bn.)
Juncker is a Grade A knob - even Cameron thought so - but the EU sort of has to do this, given they won't do the hard thinking in response to the British leaving about how to make the EU more flexible, responsive and democratically accountable instead.
It has to make Leaving look hard, costly and not worth the hassle (even if the reality is that it's not quite such a big deal) so I'm happy to let them make a lot of noise.
I will only be concerned if dogma takes over once Macron/Schulz are running the roost in alliance with Tusk/Juncker and Verhofstadht.
Mr. CD13, some people have bizarre minds. The "everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler" line is, sadly, true in some cases. Seeing some people justify assaulting someone because of his political views was very disheartening.
F1: there are few things more disconcerting than having a freakishly large number of potential bets.
Sorry for going off-topic, but I wanted to highlight this. If anyone knows any worthwhile organisations that are looking for funding, I'd encourage them to go to thefore.org on Monday morning. We've only got £300,000 to give away this round so we are capping numbers of applications - I'd expect them to go quickly. Plan is that if we make a success of this round (and I am expecting it to do very well as my foundation/the wider family has tweaking the pilots over the last 4 years) then the Big Lottery is going to step in a big way.
How the UK’s “most powerful man you’ve never heard of”, a former captain of the All Blacks, a CEO of Jane Austen’s bank and Dido Harding are disrupting the charity sector.
They may seem an unlikely bunch but Rupert Harrison CBE (former Chief Economic Advisor to the Chancellor and named most powerful person you’ve never heard of in 2014)1, Anton Oliver (Captain of the New Zealand rugby squad in 2001), Alexander Hoare (partner of C Hoare and Co and CEO 2001-2009) and Baroness Dido Harding are just four of the impressive individuals that are behind The Fore Trust which launches on the 27th March.
A bold new initiative, The Fore is creating connections with the business community to make sure talented social entrepreneurs in small charities across the UK, get the funding and advice they need to prosper. More and more philanthropic giving in the UK is going to larger charities, leaving smaller organisations struggling to survive.3 Chair of The Fore, Rupert Harrison says, “I know from my own experience in government that the system favours established players. We aim to level the playing field.”
The Fore has already won the attention of the Big Lottery Fund, the largest funder of community activity in the UK. Thanks to National Lottery players, The Fore’s first grant recipients will benefit from £300,000 from the Big Lottery Fund.
The Fore’s simple processes are designed to respect how precious time is for those working on the front line. The Fore’s experienced assessors complete extensive due diligence before putting the best applicants forward to “dragons’ den” style panels. Business members decide who gets funding and offer themselves as mentors, trustees or advisors.
By collaborating with the Big Lottery Fund the Fore will strengthen its connections with community foundations across England. This will extend the Fore’s networks with the aim of benefiting more charities and social enterprises in the future.
The Fore has been born out of the experience of the Bulldog Trust and the Golden Bottle Trust, two foundations related to C Hoare and Co, the private bank that counts Jane Austen as a former customer. Having spent the last four years piloting a funding model that has had huge success offering funding and business expertise to brilliant grassroots project, they decided to think bigger and help more small charities.
Bit of a tetchy thread (glad to see Mr. Carp is back, and hope neither Mr. Dugarbandier nor Mrs C leave).
F1: still writing the pre-qualifying article but I have noticed Something of some interest. May possibly be helpful for betting, but, even if not, it's quite interesting.
Juncker and the EU start off saying the UK has to pay £50 billion, the UK start saying legally they have to pay virtually nothing, they end up in the middle
We will end up paying about £20 billion to Leave.
We will end up paying c.£5bn net into EU coffers.
The EU can say we are still paying a lot for no say in the rules, and less access.
The UK can say we have quit ECJ, have border, trade and regulatory control.
The World War II analogy I would use is that Brexit is like if President Truman decided to drop atomic bombs on New York and Chicago instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Bit of a tetchy thread (glad to see Mr. Carp is back, and hope neither Mr. Dugarbandier nor Mrs C leave).
F1: still writing the pre-qualifying article but I have noticed Something of some interest. May possibly be helpful for betting, but, even if not, it's quite interesting.
I am still around. Mr T is irksome, nothing more.
Glad to see you are made of sterner stuff than those jumping on the outrage bus.
The equivalent of three and a half year's gross or five year's net contributions. Not really a very strong argument against Brexit is it. Leave and you have to pay £10 billion a year for five years, stay and you have to pay £10 billion a year (and rising) for ever.
Remainiacs really do have some dumb arguments.
Also:
1. This is their opening gambit. 2. Any transition arrangement payments will be offset against this. 3. It doesn't include a share of assets. 4. We'll likely simply take British retirees onto our own books.
The actual cash exit payment will likely be less than £15bn. (I would guess it will probably be more like £10-12bn.)
Most importantly - the final Brexit deal will be decided in Berlin, Paris, Rome, Warsaw and Madrid. Junker will do as he is told or he will be replaced.
Masood spent four years working in the Middle East before returning to the UK and taking a teaching post in Luton, Bedfordshire, it is claimed. In 2012, he set up his own business in the West Midlands, a tutoring business.
All those CRB checks etc, despite having stabbed somebody in the face, allowed him to get a teaching post. Or somebody turned a blind eye / didn't carry them out.
Or he didn't work as a teacher and the students of his IQRA tutoring agency weren't children?
Andrew Neil's reference to Poundland was idiotic.
Quite - we normally use references to "Pound Shop" on PB
The World War II analogy I would use is that Brexit is like if President Truman decided to drop atomic bombs on New York and Chicago instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Of course Hezza, as ever, has it precisely backwards. For 500 years our foreign policy has been to oppose the creation of a superstate on the continent of Europe. We like nation states not monsters. We have always come in on the side of those fighting against a would-be superpower. We fought the Holy Roman Empire. We fought the Spanish in Elizabeth I' s time. We fought Napoleon. We fought the Nazis. And now we fight the EU. T'was ever thus.
We are not fighting the EU. We are leaving it. The EU and its member states are not our enemies.
I beg to differ. The member states are our friends and we should make nice with them and their peoples. The EU is a putative superstate that is making very hostile noises towards us right now and should be treated as a hostile entity.
It is setting out a negotiating position. Employing the language of war is inappropriate, unnecessary and self-defeating.
Mr. Observer, I have been saying for years that using the language of war and violence in any political discourse is inappropriate, unnecessary and self-defeating. It is however very common, particularly with some elements in your own party on on the left generally.
Of course Hezza, as ever, has it precisely backwards. For 500 years our foreign policy has been to oppose the creation of a superstate on the continent of Europe. We like nation states not monsters. We have always come in on the side of those fighting against a would-be superpower. We fought the Holy Roman Empire. We fought the Spanish in Elizabeth I' s time. We fought Napoleon. We fought the Nazis. And now we fight the EU. T'was ever thus.
We are not fighting the EU. We are leaving it. The EU and its member states are not our enemies.
I beg to differ. The member states are our friends and we should make nice with them and their peoples. The EU is a putative superstate that is making very hostile noises towards us right now and should be treated as a hostile entity.
Interesting, tight election in Saarland on Sunday - it's the smallest state, but the first prelude to the national elections later this year and the first test of Schulz's popularity. The SPD here is willing to take over in coalition with the Left and the Greens, but it's not clear if the Greens will clear the 5% threshold to get seats. The AfD should get in but are also not that comfortably clear of 5%. The state CDU leader is very much a Merkelite and quite popular personally. The FDP would support the CDU, but they too are just below 5%. Impossible to call.
The World War II analogy I would use is that Brexit is like if President Truman decided to drop atomic bombs on New York and Chicago instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
An equally stupid comment imho, are you and Hezza related…
The World War II analogy I would use is that Brexit is like if President Truman decided to drop atomic bombs on New York and Chicago instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
plain stupid
I like Truman a lot, but despite being VPOTUS for several months, he didn't know anything about the Manhattan project until he became POTUS as the info about it was severely restricted.
Are PBers that attend the @Mortimer organised drinks next week going to be treated like English Cricketing rebels going on a tour of Apartheid South Africa?
Although people should ignore pleas to get off the site at least. Thats just mr t being mr t.
Quite so. SeanT has a right to his freedom of opinion. So do Beverley C and everyone else. The site has always had a majority of contributors who oppose bullying and attempts to silence people with different opinions, and it's important that we maintain that.
To be specific: SeanT needs to stop trying to intimidate other posters into stopping posting. If he doesn't, he should himself be suspended. And I don't say that lightly, because I actually enjoy reading most of his posts.
He will have had too much of the singing ginger for sure.
Of course Hezza, as ever, has it precisely backwards. For 500 years our foreign policy has been to oppose the creation of a superstate on the continent of Europe. We like nation states not monsters. We have always come in on the side of those fighting against a would-be superpower. We fought the Holy Roman Empire. We fought the Spanish in Elizabeth I' s time. We fought Napoleon. We fought the Nazis. And now we fight the EU. T'was ever thus.
We are not fighting the EU. We are leaving it. The EU and its member states are not our enemies.
Indeed but we never sought to join the HRE, Spanish or French Empires or the Third Reich. Now we don't seek to be in the EU either. Matches our history to be on the outside.
Strictly speaking, our foreign policy has been to intervene/create alliances such that no single foreign power dominates Europe to the detriment of our interests. This goes back at least 450 years, since we lost our last continental dominions in Europe in the 16th Century and became a global, maritime trading power.
That is why we originally joined the EEC: to influence and create alternatives to the French-German axis to ensure we leveraged European alliances in the cause of British interests.
Over time that national interest evolved (particularly in the foreign office and cabinet office) into intrinsic supranational idealism - the flip point was probably around about the mid-80s, although Heath was clearly there from the start - and integration was given to be the right ideological goal in principle.
However, the EU is now pretty much united economically - and increasingly politically - around the Euro. The only way we could achieve that goal now would be to join the Euro and influence those power blocs from the inside, and even then I'm far from convinced we'd exert any meaningful steer over The Project.
Instead, we have decided to Leave rather than occupy an unhappy half-way house where we don't have much influence, nor much control.
In the long-term I believe it will become clear it was the right decision.
The World War II analogy I would use is that Brexit is like if President Truman decided to drop atomic bombs on New York and Chicago instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
An equally stupid comment imho, are you and Hezza related…
No more stupid than the Leavers that use terms like EUSSR or say that WWII loans/reconstruction is why we shouldn't pay the EU anything on our departure.
Bit of a tetchy thread (glad to see Mr. Carp is back, and hope neither Mr. Dugarbandier nor Mrs C leave).
F1: still writing the pre-qualifying article but I have noticed Something of some interest. May possibly be helpful for betting, but, even if not, it's quite interesting.
I am still around. Mr T is irksome, nothing more.
Glad to see you are made of sterner stuff than those jumping on the outrage bus.
They have a bus for that? It better be a large one and with well padded cells seats.
Look, I know tension's high, and emotions are running wild, but please, try not to bicker and argue whilst awaiting my first pre-qualifying piece of the F1 season.
[I wish Ladbrokes would put up the market I'm awaiting].
The World War II analogy I would use is that Brexit is like if President Truman decided to drop atomic bombs on New York and Chicago instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
An equally stupid comment imho, are you and Hezza related…
No more stupid than the Leavers that use terms like EUSSR or say that WWII loans/reconstruction is why we shouldn't pay the EU anything on our departure.
Can't say I've seen much of the latter. EUSSR used to appear a lot below the line at the Telegraph
The World War II analogy I would use is that Brexit is like if President Truman decided to drop atomic bombs on New York and Chicago instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
An equally stupid comment imho, are you and Hezza related…
No more stupid than the Leavers that use terms like EUSSR or say that WWII loans/reconstruction is why we shouldn't pay the EU anything on our departure.
Can't say I've seen much of the latter. EUSSR used to appear a lot below the line at the Telegraph
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
Yes membership of the EU is comparable to you being a slave in antebellum Georgia.
The World War II analogy I would use is that Brexit is like if President Truman decided to drop atomic bombs on New York and Chicago instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
plain stupid
I like Truman a lot, but despite being VPOTUS for several months, he didn't know anything about the Manhattan project until he became POTUS as the info about it was severely restricted.
Which is why I chose New York.
No Mr Eagles I'm just plained bored with the non stop rubbish coming from Remainers
it would do your side a lot more good if you could just come to terms with the UK is motoring on pretty much as normal
employment is up, investment continues and the ecomomy is bigger thn it was 9 months ago
Brexit is neither going to be a runaway success nor an abject failure and there will be winners and losers as we go forward, perhaps more time discussing who they are would be more enlightening., rather than the erratic scaremongering that worked so badly last time.
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
Given our system and the power of local parties, one’s vote can normally only directly elect or unelect (?) an MP if one lives in a marginal consitituency. And, although, because the size of the majority matters to an MP, one can influence policy, it’s rare, and only applies immediately before or immediately after, and election.
Totally O/T but in case anyone here knows.... HMRC publish Annual 'Average' Exchange Rates, but I've been trying to replicate them without success - daily average over the year, average of the month ends, average of the 15th day - none seems to quite work consistently - if anyone already knows then it'd be much appreciated?
Totally O/T but in case anyone here knows.... HMRC publish Annual 'Average' Exchange Rates, but I've been trying to replicate them without success - daily average over the year, average of the month ends, average of the 15th day - none seems to quite work consistently - if anyone already knows then it'd be much appreciated?
The US guys average each month and then average the averages. Don't know if HMRC is the same!
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
The next couple of years will send these people completely round the twist. Their arguments don't stack up to cursory examination, let alone the forensic dismantling they will receive as we attempt to negotiate a divorce that benefits us in any way whatsoever.
The World War II analogy I would use is that Brexit is like if President Truman decided to drop atomic bombs on New York and Chicago instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
plain stupid
I like Truman a lot, but despite being VPOTUS for several months, he didn't know anything about the Manhattan project until he became POTUS as the info about it was severely restricted.
Which is why I chose New York.
No Mr Eagles I'm just plained bored with the non stop rubbish coming from Remainers
it would do your side a lot more good if you could just come to terms with the UK is motoring on pretty much as normal
employment is up, investment continues and the ecomomy is bigger thn it was 9 months ago
Brexit is neither going to be a runaway success nor an abject failure and there will be winners and losers as we go forward, perhaps more time discussing who they are would be more enlightening., rather than the erratic scaremongering that worked so badly last time.
That's a lot of words to say George magnificent stewardship of the economy made the economy Brexitproof.
As someone whose day job is to ensure as many British jobs* remain here post Brexit, so I'm trying to ensure we keep on motoring on.
*Well banker and legal jobs, but jobs nonetheless.
Lab candidate disqualified. Second by-election likely.
Still difficult to know much about the relative movement of the LibDems using as your measuring stick seats where they didn't stand last time.... Dunster was previously a Tory-Green two-horse race. Not many of them around!
Coming from not standing to 49.7% is not a bad effort. Is that really difficult for you to understand ?
I have no idea of past voting history in this ward. Rejoice at the notion that the LibDems actually managed ot find a candidate, if you must. But if the LibDems managed to poll 75% previously, it would be a very meh result.
Are you really that pig-shit thick? Or just desperate for anything to suggest that the national polling average of the LibDems is W-A-Y off beam at 9%?
The five pollsters who have produced UK opinion polls in the last ten days are ICM, ComRes, IpsosMori, YouGov and Opinium. The simple average of their LibDem poll scores is 10.4%. I suspect their actual poll share is more like 11%, as all the pollsters are currently finding more people who claim to have voted LibDem in 2015 than actually did so. People who identify as LD are therefore being slightly downweighted. (This is in contrast to the coalition period where pollsters struggled to find people who claimed to have voted LibDem.)
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
If you equate leaving membership of the EU to Nazism then you are also quite unhinged.
Are PBers that attend the @Mortimer organised drinks next week going to be treated like English Cricketing rebels going on a tour of Apartheid South Africa?
Any idea what he has been banned for, if it is allowed to ask that? Seems odd, can't see any contentious posts by him.
The World War II analogy I would use is that Brexit is like if President Truman decided to drop atomic bombs on New York and Chicago instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
plain stupid
I like Truman a lot, but despite being VPOTUS for several months, he didn't know anything about the Manhattan project until he became POTUS as the info about it was severely restricted.
Which is why I chose New York.
No Mr Eagles I'm just plained bored with the non stop rubbish coming from Remainers
it would do your side a lot more good if you could just come to terms with the UK is motoring on pretty much as normal
You clearly regard independence referendums and the potential break up of the country as normal.
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
If you equate leaving membership of the EU to Nazism then you are also quite unhinged.
This subject makes people unhinged. In general.
The Nazi comparisons usually tend to come from the Leave side, from the Foreign Secretary downwards.
The World War II analogy I would use is that Brexit is like if President Truman decided to drop atomic bombs on New York and Chicago instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
plain stupid
I like Truman a lot, but despite being VPOTUS for several months, he didn't know anything about the Manhattan project until he became POTUS as the info about it was severely restricted.
Which is why I chose New York.
No Mr Eagles I'm just plained bored with the non stop rubbish coming from Remainers
it would do your side a lot more good if you could just come to terms with the UK is motoring on pretty much as normal
employment is up, investment continues and the ecomomy is bigger thn it was 9 months ago
Brexit is neither going to be a runaway success nor an abject failure and there will be winners and losers as we go forward, perhaps more time discussing who they are would be more enlightening., rather than the erratic scaremongering that worked so badly last time.
That's a lot of words to say George magnificent stewardship of the economy made the economy Brexitproof.
As someone whose day job is to ensure as many British jobs* remain here post Brexit, so I'm trying to ensure we keep on motoring on.
*Well banker and legal jobs, but jobs nonetheless.
one can only note the improved economic performance now that Osborne has gone
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
I have underpants on my head right now. And pencils up my nostrils. Wibble. Joking apart, I do find the EU's utter inability to accommodate any flexibility deeply disdainful. Why did they push their 2nd largest contributor to the point of rupture? Casino upthread has it exactly right. The citizens of the superstate will not be able to vote for a change of direction. If that does not make them political serfs then what is the right word?
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
So much of this comes down to political and cultural differences.
Despite our slagging off of Westminster we generally have confidence in the integrity of the UK's political, legal and constitutional governance - and trust it. The UK hasn't done fascism, communism, nor come under autocratic governments. Many (most) EU countries in the last 100 years have. Some repeatedly.
I know from my wife that plenty of people in Bulgaria do not feel the same way about their own Bulgarian government as we do about ours, and equate it with corruption, incompetence and, potentially, being oppressive too.
So they prefer the EU as a progressive check on their own government. They see it as giving them more democracy, more rights, more money and more progress.They have a point: they are signs of regression in Hungary and Poland as we speak.
In the UK, the ones who are ideologically pro the EU tend to be those who dislike nation states in principle, and are intensely embarrassed by the UK and its history.
Lab candidate disqualified. Second by-election likely.
Still difficult to know much about the relative movement of the LibDems using as your measuring stick seats where they didn't stand last time.... Dunster was previously a Tory-Green two-horse race. Not many of them around!
Coming from not standing to 49.7% is not a bad effort. Is that really difficult for you to understand ?
I have no idea of past voting history in this ward. Rejoice at the notion that the LibDems actually managed ot find a candidate, if you must. But if the LibDems managed to poll 75% previously, it would be a very meh result.
Are you really that pig-shit thick? Or just desperate for anything to suggest that the national polling average of the LibDems is W-A-Y off beam at 9%?
The five pollsters who have produced UK opinion polls in the last ten days are ICM, ComRes, IpsosMori, YouGov and Opinium. The simple average of their LibDem poll scores is 10.4%. I suspect their actual poll share is more like 11%, as all the pollsters are currently finding more people who claim to have voted LibDem in 2015 than actually did so. People who identify as LD are therefore being slightly downweighted. (This is in contrast to the coalition period where pollsters struggled to find people who claimed to have voted LibDem.)
So basically like the opposite of the 'spiral of silence'?
Are PBers that attend the @Mortimer organised drinks next week going to be treated like English Cricketing rebels going on a tour of Apartheid South Africa?
Any idea what he has been banned for, if it is allowed to ask that? Seems odd, can't see any contentious posts by him.
I have no idea why he has been banned, I doubt he has either. As you say he doesn't seem to have been controversial. His last dozen or so posts were organising a meeting venue for everyone
The World War II analogy I would use is that Brexit is like if President Truman decided to drop atomic bombs on New York and Chicago instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
plain stupid
I like Truman a lot, but despite being VPOTUS for several months, he didn't know anything about the Manhattan project until he became POTUS as the info about it was severely restricted.
Which is why I chose New York.
No Mr Eagles I'm just plained bored with the non stop rubbish coming from Remainers
it would do your side a lot more good if you could just come to terms with the UK is motoring on pretty much as normal
You clearly regard independence referendums and the potential break up of the country as normal.
Further to my comment below addressed to Alanbrooke, it really is rich of Leavers to say that Remainers only care about economics when their sole reason for claiming that things are going ok is the fact that the economy hasn't fallen off a cliff. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.
Are PBers that attend the @Mortimer organised drinks next week going to be treated like English Cricketing rebels going on a tour of Apartheid South Africa?
Any idea what he has been banned for, if it is allowed to ask that? Seems odd, can't see any contentious posts by him.
I have no idea why he has been banned. As you say he doesn't seem to have been controversial. His last dozen or so posts were organising a meeting venue for everyone
Indeed something for which in the past there have normally been threads inviting people to and thanking Fat Steve for organising. Shame there haven't been any threads promoting this meet etc
The World War II analogy I would use is that Brexit is like if President Truman decided to drop atomic bombs on New York and Chicago instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
plain stupid
I like Truman a lot, but despite being VPOTUS for several months, he didn't know anything about the Manhattan project until he became POTUS as the info about it was severely restricted.
Which is why I chose New York.
No Mr Eagles I'm just plained bored with the non stop rubbish coming from Remainers
it would do your side a lot more good if you could just come to terms with the UK is motoring on pretty much as normal
You clearly regard independence referendums and the potential break up of the country as normal.
Not gonna happen. Inconceivable. Impossible. Zero chance.
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
If you equate leaving membership of the EU to Nazism then you are also quite unhinged.
This subject makes people unhinged. In general.
The Nazi comparisons usually tend to come from the Leave side, from the Foreign Secretary downwards.
Heseltine did one today - see downthread. Plenty of Remainers have equated Leaving and Leavers to Nazis - there's a bloke in my office who does so.
Let's try to be objective, no matter how strongly we might feel either way.
Further to my comment below addressed to Alanbrooke, it really is rich of Leavers to say that Remainers only care about economics when their sole reason for claiming that things are going ok is the fact that the economy hasn't fallen off a cliff. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.
WW3 hasn't started yet... unless Dave meant the continuation of home bred Islamic extremism would be fuelled by Brexit
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
I have underpants on my head right now. And pencils up my nostrils. Wibble. Joking apart, I do find the EU's utter inability to accommodate any flexibility deeply disdainful. Why did they push their 2nd largest contributor to the point of rupture? Casino upthread has it exactly right. The citizens of the superstate will not be able to vote for a change of direction. If that does not make them political serfs then what is the right word?
Leaving aside the highly contentious point about a superstate, there is a European Parliament with meaningful powers for which all citizens of the EU can vote. I'm not sure whether it is worse to be unhinged or wilfully ignorant.
Mr. Patrick, untrue. EU citizens often, in national votes, get to have their say. The EU is so accommodating the citizens are even allowed to have a second try if they get it wrong the first time.
The World War II analogy I would use is that Brexit is like if President Truman decided to drop atomic bombs on New York and Chicago instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
plain stupid
I like Truman a lot, but despite being VPOTUS for several months, he didn't know anything about the Manhattan project until he became POTUS as the info about it was severely restricted.
Which is why I chose New York.
No Mr Eagles I'm just plained bored with the non stop rubbish coming from Remainers
it would do your side a lot more good if you could just come to terms with the UK is motoring on pretty much as normal
employment is up, investment continues and the ecomomy is bigger thn it was 9 months ago
Brexit is neither going to be a runaway success nor an abject failure and there will be winners and losers as we go forward, perhaps more time discussing who they are would be more enlightening., rather than the erratic scaremongering that worked so badly last time.
That's a lot of words to say George magnificent stewardship of the economy made the economy Brexitproof.
As someone whose day job is to ensure as many British jobs* remain here post Brexit, so I'm trying to ensure we keep on motoring on.
*Well banker and legal jobs, but jobs nonetheless.
Further to my comment below addressed to Alanbrooke, it really is rich of Leavers to say that Remainers only care about economics when their sole reason for claiming that things are going ok is the fact that the economy hasn't fallen off a cliff. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.
au contraire, I'm replying to you on your sole argument since 2015
leaver arguments are pretty varied encompassing economic performance, control of borders and national sovereignty
The World War II analogy I would use is that Brexit is like if President Truman decided to drop atomic bombs on New York and Chicago instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
plain stupid
I like Truman a lot, but despite being VPOTUS for several months, he didn't know anything about the Manhattan project until he became POTUS as the info about it was severely restricted.
Which is why I chose New York.
No Mr Eagles I'm just plained bored with the non stop rubbish coming from Remainers
it would do your side a lot more good if you could just come to terms with the UK is motoring on pretty much as normal
You clearly regard independence referendums and the potential break up of the country as normal.
it has been since 2011 or did you miss that ?
It was on the brink of being normal in 2007 too. Tony Blair's constitutional meddling is the primary cause of that, not Brexit or anything else.
Masood spent four years working in the Middle East before returning to the UK and taking a teaching post in Luton, Bedfordshire, it is claimed. In 2012, he set up his own business in the West Midlands, a tutoring business.
All those CRB checks etc, despite having stabbed somebody in the face, allowed him to get a teaching post. Or somebody turned a blind eye / didn't carry them out.
Or he didn't work as a teacher and the students of his IQRA tutoring agency weren't children?
Andrew Neil's reference to Poundland was idiotic.
Quite - we normally use references to "Pound Shop" on PB
What a witty boy. Andrew Neil's courageous words can be summarised as follows:
"Nearly 80 years ago, Britain won a defensive air battle. And the royal family didn't have to go to Canada after all. Are you listening, Daesh?"
I have come to the sad conclusion that even though we may agree on some things, you really are a bit of a tosser.
Further to my comment below addressed to Alanbrooke, it really is rich of Leavers to say that Remainers only care about economics when their sole reason for claiming that things are going ok is the fact that the economy hasn't fallen off a cliff. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.
au contraire, I'm replying to you on your sole argument since 2015
leaver arguments are pretty varied encompassing economic performance, control of borders and national sovereignty
you only have one tune.
To me the economics are entirely secondary and if they were the only reason for supporting the EU I would find them insufficient.
Further to my comment below addressed to Alanbrooke, it really is rich of Leavers to say that Remainers only care about economics when their sole reason for claiming that things are going ok is the fact that the economy hasn't fallen off a cliff. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.
au contraire, I'm replying to you on your sole argument since 2015
leaver arguments are pretty varied encompassing economic performance, control of borders and national sovereignty
you only have one tune.
To me the economics are entirely secondary and if they were the only reason for supporting the EU I would find them insufficient.
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
I have underpants on my head right now. And pencils up my nostrils. Wibble. Joking apart, I do find the EU's utter inability to accommodate any flexibility deeply disdainful. Why did they push their 2nd largest contributor to the point of rupture? Casino upthread has it exactly right. The citizens of the superstate will not be able to vote for a change of direction. If that does not make them political serfs then what is the right word?
It happened because the fundamental political and cultural contradictions between the UK and European vision of the future of the EU had reached breaking point, and they snapped.
The fact that both couldn't understand each other (and still don't) is evidence enough for the same point, and explains why we're Leaving.
Are PBers that attend the @Mortimer organised drinks next week going to be treated like English Cricketing rebels going on a tour of Apartheid South Africa?
No Idea why he has been banned, I've been away form PB for most of the last week. But are these the 'drinks' you refer to the Article 50 calibration drinks suggested about a month ago?
Further to my comment below addressed to Alanbrooke, it really is rich of Leavers to say that Remainers only care about economics when their sole reason for claiming that things are going ok is the fact that the economy hasn't fallen off a cliff. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.
au contraire, I'm replying to you on your sole argument since 2015
leaver arguments are pretty varied encompassing economic performance, control of borders and national sovereignty
you only have one tune.
To me the economics are entirely secondary and if they were the only reason for supporting the EU I would find them insufficient.
Leaving aside the highly contentious point about a superstate, there is a European Parliament with meaningful powers for which all citizens of the EU can vote. I'm not sure whether it is worse to be unhinged or wilfully ignorant.
You love it. I don't. These people are not my demos but my friends. I value their ability to make decisions for the UK as a negative not a positive. What we are arguing here is effectively a deep disconnect of the emotion raised by the EU. I hate it. You love it. I don't think evidence/facts/head will move opinion on either side. It is a visceral issue of the heart. Which is what wins or loses elections and referendums. There we are. More people felt the way I do than the way you do. I would very much like a slow, amicable, soft Brexit. But I am not prepared to keep paying large sums, or to lose control of borders or to not have freedom to sign trade deals, etc. If that means the diamond hardest of Brexits then that is rockingly fine by me and my ilk. My ilk feels this way because of your ilk. If you think Brexit is going to be a disaster then it is a 100% self inflicted wound.
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
The whole point of the European Parliament is to give the peoples of the EU a sense they can affect the future direction of the EU, without actually giving them any power to do so.
Are PBers that attend the @Mortimer organised drinks next week going to be treated like English Cricketing rebels going on a tour of Apartheid South Africa?
No Idea why he has been banned, I've been away form PB for most of the last week. But are these the 'drinks' you refer to the Article 50 calibration drinks suggested about a month ago?
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
I would have more sympathy with that as a line of argument were it not for the fact that the most intense Leavers are also the ones who are most adamant that exactly the most appropriate demos is the one that Britain already has and that on no account must a different arrangement or a break-up of the UK be even contemplated. Their obsession about the appropriate level of connection between citizen and governing body is highly restricted in scope.
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
The whole point of the European Parliament is to give the peoples of the EU a sense they can affect the future direction of the EU, without actually giving them any power to do so.
I thought it was to give UKIP some elected representatives and Nigel somewhere to show off. It does other things?
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
If you equate leaving membership of the EU to Nazism then you are also quite unhinged.
This subject makes people unhinged. In general.
The Nazi comparisons usually tend to come from the Leave side, from the Foreign Secretary downwards.
You know he really wasn't calling Remainers/the EU Nazis, don't you?
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
The whole point of the European Parliament is to give the peoples of the EU a sense they can affect the future direction of the EU, without actually giving them any power to do so.
Have you got that mixed up with the point of Brexit? To give the illusion of control.
Further to my comment below addressed to Alanbrooke, it really is rich of Leavers to say that Remainers only care about economics when their sole reason for claiming that things are going ok is the fact that the economy hasn't fallen off a cliff. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.
au contraire, I'm replying to you on your sole argument since 2015
leaver arguments are pretty varied encompassing economic performance, control of borders and national sovereignty
you only have one tune.
To me the economics are entirely secondary and if they were the only reason for supporting the EU I would find them insufficient.
and your primary reason is ?
Identity, geopolitics, culture, good governance.
well good luck with that
it is of course an uncommon view and one which has failed to convince the electorate for nearly half a century
Further to my comment below addressed to Alanbrooke, it really is rich of Leavers to say that Remainers only care about economics when their sole reason for claiming that things are going ok is the fact that the economy hasn't fallen off a cliff. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.
au contraire, I'm replying to you on your sole argument since 2015
leaver arguments are pretty varied encompassing economic performance, control of borders and national sovereignty
you only have one tune.
To me the economics are entirely secondary and if they were the only reason for supporting the EU I would find them insufficient.
Deutsche Bank commit to a new London office. This "lets all go to Frankfurt, its so exciting" thing is going well.
Makes perfect sense for Deutsche Bank to have one foot in and one foot out of the EU. Although it does put a dampener on the claim of financial institutes fleeing the UK. OWNM
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
The whole point of the European Parliament is to give the peoples of the EU a sense they can affect the future direction of the EU, without actually giving them any power to do so.
The disconnect and perception of democratic deficit is enhanced by the use of appointed Commissioners (often unpopular failed politicians from across the Continent appointed by cronyism or convenience for unspecified or renewable periods). As a Nation we would not have voted to give Brittan, Mandleson, Patten or Kinnock(s) lengthy periods of power and influence.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
I would have more sympathy with that as a line of argument were it not for the fact that the most intense Leavers are also the ones who are most adamant that exactly the most appropriate demos is the one that Britain already has and that on no account must a different arrangement or a break-up of the UK be even contemplated. Their obsession about the appropriate level of connection between citizen and governing body is highly restricted in scope.
Is that true?
The most ardent leavers I've come across typically say that they *think* that the UK is a demos, but if the people of Scotland decide that they should leave then clearly they (the Leavers) are wrong, and the UK demos is smaller than they thought,
Further to my comment below addressed to Alanbrooke, it really is rich of Leavers to say that Remainers only care about economics when their sole reason for claiming that things are going ok is the fact that the economy hasn't fallen off a cliff. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.
au contraire, I'm replying to you on your sole argument since 2015
leaver arguments are pretty varied encompassing economic performance, control of borders and national sovereignty
you only have one tune.
To me the economics are entirely secondary and if they were the only reason for supporting the EU I would find them insufficient.
and your primary reason is ?
Identity, geopolitics, culture, good governance.
This is arguing for a European identity over a British one. Good luck with that!
Deutsche Bank commit to a new London office. This "lets all go to Frankfurt, its so exciting" thing is going well.
Makes perfect sense for Deutsche Bank to have one foot in and one foot out of the EU. Although it does put a dampener on the claim of financial institutes fleeing the UK. OWNM
Of course it does and as London provides services to the rest of the world and has an unmatched pool of talent and expertise in international trade, finance, insurance and law only an idiot would think of stepping out. The mood music from Germany in particular has increasingly been that they do not want to exclude their exporters from having unrestricted access to that expertise. It is not just a matter of them being keen to continue selling us cars.
Further to my comment below addressed to Alanbrooke, it really is rich of Leavers to say that Remainers only care about economics when their sole reason for claiming that things are going ok is the fact that the economy hasn't fallen off a cliff. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.
au contraire, I'm replying to you on your sole argument since 2015
leaver arguments are pretty varied encompassing economic performance, control of borders and national sovereignty
you only have one tune.
To me the economics are entirely secondary and if they were the only reason for supporting the EU I would find them insufficient.
and your primary reason is ?
Identity, geopolitics, culture, good governance.
This is arguing for a European identity over a British one. Good luck with that!
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
I would have more sympathy with that as a line of argument were it not for the fact that the most intense Leavers are also the ones who are most adamant that exactly the most appropriate demos is the one that Britain already has and that on no account must a different arrangement or a break-up of the UK be even contemplated. Their obsession about the appropriate level of connection between citizen and governing body is highly restricted in scope.
Is that true?
The most ardent leavers I've come across typically say that they *think* that the UK is a demos, but if the people of Scotland decide that they should leave then clearly they (the Leavers) are wrong, and the UK demos is smaller than they thought,
I might remind you of that opinion the next time that a Scottish independence thread is in full spate.
And suggest that London might want to go its own way and they're damming the Thames and cutting off the power supplies.
Comments
Sean Fear .... Prison lawyer visits - check
Sean Fear .... Conversion - Con to UKIP - check
Sean Fear .... Luton based - check
Sean Fear .... East London pub visits - check
Sean Fear .... Saudi Arabia - "Lawrence of Arabia" film favourite - check
Birmingham the missing clue ?!?!?
Plus in Wokingham Lib Dems gained a seat yesterday - but through defection from the Tories, https://www.wokinghampaper.com/wokingham-conservatives-councillor-quits-join-liberal-democrats/
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/landtage/saarland.htm
"Mr. W, to be fair to Lord Heseltine, it's quite easy to confuse holding a referendum on a political decision with a Blitzkrieg invasion,"
I think the wiffle stick should be reserved for people who devalue the language like that.
Rents going up = ethnic cleansing.
Voting in a referendum = concentration camps and ethnic cleansing.
Someone disagreeing with me = the spawn of Satan, and ethnic cleansing.
Perhaps the EU is the sort of subject that can make both sides (at the fringes) go a bit barking, probably because it's not really about economics but a proxy for a cultural/values war.
1935 all over again ?!?
It has to make Leaving look hard, costly and not worth the hassle (even if the reality is that it's not quite such a big deal) so I'm happy to let them make a lot of noise.
I will only be concerned if dogma takes over once Macron/Schulz are running the roost in alliance with Tusk/Juncker and Verhofstadht.
F1: there are few things more disconcerting than having a freakishly large number of potential bets.
How the UK’s “most powerful man you’ve never heard of”, a former captain of the All Blacks, a CEO of Jane Austen’s bank and Dido Harding are disrupting the charity sector.
They may seem an unlikely bunch but Rupert Harrison CBE (former Chief Economic Advisor to the Chancellor and named most powerful person you’ve never heard of in 2014)1, Anton Oliver (Captain of the New Zealand rugby squad in 2001), Alexander Hoare (partner of C Hoare and Co and CEO 2001-2009) and Baroness Dido Harding are just four of the impressive individuals that are behind The Fore Trust which launches on the 27th March.
A bold new initiative, The Fore is creating connections with the business community to make sure talented social entrepreneurs in small charities across the UK, get the funding and advice they need to prosper.
More and more philanthropic giving in the UK is going to larger charities, leaving smaller organisations struggling to survive.3 Chair of The Fore, Rupert Harrison says, “I know from my own experience in government that the system favours established players. We aim to level the playing field.”
The Fore has already won the attention of the Big Lottery Fund, the largest funder of community activity in the UK. Thanks to National Lottery players, The Fore’s first grant recipients will benefit from £300,000 from the Big Lottery Fund.
The Fore’s simple processes are designed to respect how precious time is for those working on the front line. The Fore’s experienced assessors complete extensive due diligence before putting the best applicants forward to “dragons’ den” style panels. Business members decide who gets funding and offer themselves as mentors, trustees or advisors.
By collaborating with the Big Lottery Fund the Fore will strengthen its connections with community foundations across England. This will extend the Fore’s networks with the aim of benefiting more charities and social enterprises in the future.
The Fore has been born out of the experience of the Bulldog Trust and the Golden Bottle Trust, two foundations related to C Hoare and Co, the private bank that counts Jane Austen as a former customer. Having spent the last four years piloting a funding model that has had huge success offering funding and business expertise to brilliant grassroots project, they decided to think bigger and help more small charities.
We will end up paying c.£5bn net into EU coffers.
The EU can say we are still paying a lot for no say in the rules, and less access.
The UK can say we have quit ECJ, have border, trade and regulatory control.
Everyone is happy.
The World War II analogy I would use is that Brexit is like if President Truman decided to drop atomic bombs on New York and Chicago instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Which is why I chose New York.
That is why we originally joined the EEC: to influence and create alternatives to the French-German axis to ensure we leveraged European alliances in the cause of British interests.
Over time that national interest evolved (particularly in the foreign office and cabinet office) into intrinsic supranational idealism - the flip point was probably around about the mid-80s, although Heath was clearly there from the start - and integration was given to be the right ideological goal in principle.
However, the EU is now pretty much united economically - and increasingly politically - around the Euro. The only way we could achieve that goal now would be to join the Euro and influence those power blocs from the inside, and even then I'm far from convinced we'd exert any meaningful steer over The Project.
Instead, we have decided to Leave rather than occupy an unhappy half-way house where we don't have much influence, nor much control.
In the long-term I believe it will become clear it was the right decision.
[I wish Ladbrokes would put up the market I'm awaiting].
What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
it would do your side a lot more good if you could just come to terms with the UK is motoring on pretty much as normal
employment is up, investment continues and the ecomomy is bigger thn it was 9 months ago
Brexit is neither going to be a runaway success nor an abject failure and there will be winners and losers as we go forward, perhaps more time discussing who they are would be more enlightening., rather than the erratic scaremongering that worked so badly last time.
And, although, because the size of the majority matters to an MP, one can influence policy, it’s rare, and only applies immediately before or immediately after, and election.
As someone whose day job is to ensure as many British jobs* remain here post Brexit, so I'm trying to ensure we keep on motoring on.
*Well banker and legal jobs, but jobs nonetheless.
This subject makes people unhinged. In general.
Joking apart, I do find the EU's utter inability to accommodate any flexibility deeply disdainful. Why did they push their 2nd largest contributor to the point of rupture? Casino upthread has it exactly right. The citizens of the superstate will not be able to vote for a change of direction. If that does not make them political serfs then what is the right word?
Despite our slagging off of Westminster we generally have confidence in the integrity of the UK's political, legal and constitutional governance - and trust it. The UK hasn't done fascism, communism, nor come under autocratic governments. Many (most) EU countries in the last 100 years have. Some repeatedly.
I know from my wife that plenty of people in Bulgaria do not feel the same way about their own Bulgarian government as we do about ours, and equate it with corruption, incompetence and, potentially, being oppressive too.
So they prefer the EU as a progressive check on their own government. They see it as giving them more democracy, more rights, more money and more progress.They have a point: they are signs of regression in Hungary and Poland as we speak.
In the UK, the ones who are ideologically pro the EU tend to be those who dislike nation states in principle, and are intensely embarrassed by the UK and its history.
Inconceivable.
Impossible.
Zero chance.
Let's try to be objective, no matter how strongly we might feel either way.
Breaking: Mubarak freed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39378045
Economy does badly = Brexit
Welcome to my good friend, Mr. Confirmation Bias.
leaver arguments are pretty varied encompassing economic performance, control of borders and national sovereignty
you only have one tune.
Deutsche Bank commit to a new London office. This "lets all go to Frankfurt, its so exciting" thing is going well.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
The fact that both couldn't understand each other (and still don't) is evidence enough for the same point, and explains why we're Leaving.
Leaving aside the highly contentious point about a superstate, there is a European Parliament with meaningful powers for which all citizens of the EU can vote. I'm not sure whether it is worse to be unhinged or wilfully ignorant.
You love it. I don't. These people are not my demos but my friends. I value their ability to make decisions for the UK as a negative not a positive. What we are arguing here is effectively a deep disconnect of the emotion raised by the EU. I hate it. You love it. I don't think evidence/facts/head will move opinion on either side. It is a visceral issue of the heart. Which is what wins or loses elections and referendums. There we are. More people felt the way I do than the way you do.
I would very much like a slow, amicable, soft Brexit. But I am not prepared to keep paying large sums, or to lose control of borders or to not have freedom to sign trade deals, etc. If that means the diamond hardest of Brexits then that is rockingly fine by me and my ilk. My ilk feels this way because of your ilk. If you think Brexit is going to be a disaster then it is a 100% self inflicted wound.
it is of course an uncommon view and one which has failed to convince the electorate for nearly half a century
The most ardent leavers I've come across typically say that they *think* that the UK is a demos, but if the people of Scotland decide that they should leave then clearly they (the Leavers) are wrong, and the UK demos is smaller than they thought,
And suggest that London might want to go its own way and they're damming the Thames and cutting off the power supplies.