It captures the loss of money, the recovered autonomy and the regained electoral accountability in one handy caption that is still being repeated ten months later.
Not by the people who said it first time round. They are desperate to forget it.
'LEAVE won because of its success with the politically disengaged'
The politically disengaged were motivated by something worth voting for, perhaps the realisation that their vote does matter and can make a difference will encourage them to vote again at the next general election, personal I doubt they will, or at least far fewer of them.
On the contrary, the politically disengaged were motivated by something that they felt worth voting against. They had no clear view of what they were voting for.
They were voting FOR democratic power to be restored to Westminster, and the United Kingdom.
No, they didn't give a damn about what they were voting for they just wanted to give a good kicking to those in power which they couldn't do in an election because of the voting system.
I was there, I was a strong Harold supporter, pro-Europe, and very interested in politics. When close union was brought up, it was strongly condemned as being la-la-land by the media and mainstream. The No group was continually belittled as being left-wing loons and conspiracy theorists. Even I, as a Yesser thought the campaign one-sided.
Look at this interview from 1972 after the treaty was signed. Heath talks about European defence, compares the European Parliament to the development of the US Senate, talks about Europe needing to speak with a single voice in a world dominated by the USA, USSR and China. You'd have had to be wilfully fooling yourself not to see it as a profoundly political undertaking.
At the next General Election, the British people will vote for a UK government which has the power, should it choose, to make or repeal any law of the land.
That is why I, and many millions like me, voted LEAVE.
They already have that power.
I do wonder what would have happened had they repealed one of the more fundamental EU laws, or legislated to end freedom of movement.
Turnout in the Referendum was good, but hardly exceptional, at 72%. There's no reason why it couldn't be matched in a general election.
FPTP creates lots of virtually worthless votes, and it puts them in the hands of unrepresentative MPs. If Westminster MPs have been representative of the UK, Remain would have won 70:30.
Everyone was equal in the referendum.
We've seen safe seats get demolished.
Scotland is the obvious example, but there are lots of others.
Would the Labour to SNP move in Scotland have happened without the referendum?
I doubt it. Maybe a trickle, but never the tsunami.
It was the referendum that engaged so many. The feeling that every vote counted.
In each case the side that won the vote will lose in the long term. Both No and Leave were last gasp attempts to swim against the tide of history.
The next political tsunami will be felt as the weight of the contradictions of Brexit breaks over the entire political class.
There's no tide of history. Claiming that history is on one's side is either wishful thinking or ex post facto rationalisation.
The coming revolution of robots, driverless cars, AI, the whole shebang, is going to make many of our constitutional and political arguments look utterly ridiculous and irrelevant, like monks arguing the correct hours for matins as men build steel mills and coalmines.
Things will be much better when we have robot suffrage. At least Artificial Intelligence has intelligence...
Robots can be as thick as anybody.
I have a cousin who has recently completed his PhD in AI, and now works for a Swiss bank on trading algorithms. He speaks of a point of lift off where intelligent programmes reach the point where they are better at creating fresh AI than we are. At that point the genie is out of the bottle.
A point which may not happen, especially for general artificial intelligence.
Turnout in the Referendum was good, but hardly exceptional, at 72%. There's no reason why it couldn't be matched in a general election.
FPTP creates lots of virtually worthless votes, and it puts them in the hands of unrepresentative MPs. If Westminster MPs have been representative of the UK, Remain would have won 70:30.
Everyone was equal in the referendum.
We've seen safe seats get demolished.
Scotland is the obvious example, but there are lots of others.
Would the Labour to SNP move in Scotland have happened without the referendum?
I doubt it. Maybe a trickle, but never the tsunami.
It was the referendum that engaged so many. The feeling that every vote counted.
In each case the side that won the vote will lose in the long term. Both No and Leave were last gasp attempts to swim against the tide of history.
The next political tsunami will be felt as the weight of the contradictions of Brexit breaks over the entire political class.
There's no tide of history. Claiming that history is on one's side is either wishful thinking or ex post facto rationalisation.
The coming revolution of robots, driverless cars, AI, the whole shebang, is going to make many of our constitutional and political arguments look utterly ridiculous and irrelevant, like monks arguing the correct hours for matins as men build steel mills and coalmines.
Things will be much better when we have robot suffrage. At least Artificial Intelligence has intelligence...
The Jessop test for Artificial Intelligence: an entity is only intelligent when it can tell us what 'intelligence' is. As the human experts can't even effing agree ...
Robots cannot be our slaves. If we have truly sentinent machines then they should have votes.
Robots != sentience.
I'm unsure your comment is correct even if you say 'Sentient entities cannot be our slaves'. Sentience in sci-fi is a different context to sentience when defined as the ability to feel.
As ever, the definition of terms matters.
I was using words casually, but sentinent machines will need to have rights in law. Unless we become slaveowners...
I'd prefer to have the option of switching the off button.
'LEAVE won because of its success with the politically disengaged'
The politically disengaged were motivated by something worth voting for, perhaps the realisation that their vote does matter and can make a difference will encourage them to vote again at the next general election, personal I doubt they will, or at least far fewer of them.
On the contrary, the politically disengaged were motivated by something that they felt worth voting against. They had no clear view of what they were voting for.
They were voting for controlled migration, less money being spent abroad, greater autonomy for our executive as well as increased accountability among decision makers.
They also voted for £350 million pounds extra per week for the NHS and curvy bananas.
£350m a week was a zinger, wasn't it?
It captures the loss of money, the recovered autonomy and the regained electoral accountability in one handy caption that is still being repeated ten months later.
Have you read The Springboard? If there ever was a springboard story, GBP350m was it.
Turnout in the Referendum was good, but hardly exceptional, at 72%. There's no reason why it couldn't be matched in a general election.
FPTP creates lots of virtually worthless votes, and it puts them in the hands of unrepresentative MPs. If Westminster MPs have been representative of the UK, Remain would have won 70:30.
Everyone was equal in the referendum.
We've seen safe seats get demolished.
Scotland is the obvious example, but there are lots of others.
Would the Labour to SNP move in Scotland have happened without the referendum?
I doubt it. Maybe a trickle, but never the tsunami.
It was the referendum that engaged so many. The feeling that every vote counted.
In each case the side that won the vote will lose in the long term. Both No and Leave were last gasp attempts to swim against the tide of history.
The next political tsunami will be felt as the weight of the contradictions of Brexit breaks over the entire political class.
There's no tide of history. Claiming that history is on one's side is either wishful thinking or ex post facto rationalisation.
The coming revolution of robots, driverless cars, AI, the whole shebang, is going to make many of our constitutional and political arguments look utterly ridiculous and irrelevant, like monks arguing the correct hours for matins as men build steel mills and coalmines.
Things will be much better when we have robot suffrage. At least Artificial Intelligence has intelligence...
The Jessop test for Artificial Intelligence: an entity is only intelligent when it can tell us what 'intelligence' is. As the human experts can't even effing agree ...
Robots cannot be our slaves. If we have truly sentinent machines then they should have votes.
Robots != sentience.
I'm unsure your comment is correct even if you say 'Sentient entities cannot be our slaves'. Sentience in sci-fi is a different context to sentience when defined as the ability to feel.
As ever, the definition of terms matters.
I was using words casually, but sentinent machines will need to have rights in law. Unless we become slaveowners...
I'd prefer to have the option of switching the off button.
I suppose I am a genuine floating voter now, distrusting politicians. Age has brought cynicism rather than wisdom.
Some of this discussion reminds of a ten-year-old in 1960. "You lived through the 1930s, didn't you, Granddad? I read about it in school today, shall I tell you all about it?"
I was using words casually, but sentinent machines will need to have rights in law. Unless we become slaveowners...
Many people believe fish feel things, and if that's the case, they're sentient according to the broadest definition of the term: "able to perceive or feel things".
Would you give fish the vote?
Defining intelligence is exceptionally difficult, especially for general AI, and much of the 'AI' we see at the moment is smoke and mirrors. Clever coding fooling people to think intelligence is behind it.
I was there, I was a strong Harold supporter, pro-Europe, and very interested in politics. When close union was brought up, it was strongly condemned as being la-la-land by the media and mainstream. The No group was continually belittled as being left-wing loons and conspiracy theorists. Even I, as a Yesser thought the campaign one-sided.
Look at this interview from 1972 after the treaty was signed. Heath talks about European defence, compares the European Parliament to the development of the US Senate, talks about Europe needing to speak with a single voice in a world dominated by the USA, USSR and China. You'd have had to be wilfully fooling yourself not to see it as a profoundly political undertaking.
But it's not a fundamental point; it's a false narrative established by a relentless propaganda campaign.
Contemporaneous debates show that there was a very clear understanding about the political nature of the project. Ted Heath's core public arguments when negotiating the treaties and before the first referendum were about how economics were secondary to the idea of going beyond the nation state into a new form of organisation.
Simply Untrue. Heath stated quite clearly in January 1973 that
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
He maintained this line throughout the 1975 referendum campaign in spite of knowing it was an outright lie.
As far back as 1960 Lord Kilmuir the then Lord Chancellor had told Heath - who was then Minister for Europe that:
“I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones, and I think that, as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the British public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to underestimate the force of the objections to them. But these objections should be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this stage, those who are opposed to the whole idea of joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on”.
Heath chose not to follow his advice as he knew it would be unacceptable to the pubic and so lied instead.
But it's not a fundamental point; it's a false narrative established by a relentless propaganda campaign.
Contemporaneous debates show that there was a very clear understanding about the political nature of the project. Ted Heath's core public arguments when negotiating the treaties and before the first referendum were about how economics were secondary to the idea of going beyond the nation state into a new form of organisation.
Simply Untrue. Heath stated quite clearly in January 1973 that
Heath, one week before the referendum in a televised debate watched by millions:
If we look at the first 50 years of this century, I don’t think many of us here, whether we debated in the 30s or whether we debate today, can look back with very much satisfaction to the achievements of the nation state in those first 50 years. To the two great wars of 1914 and 1939 - as the leader of the Liberal party has said, European civil wars - not wars of religion, not wars of race as we have seen recently, but countries with the same background and the same tradition of European civilisation - Christian civilisation - tearing themselves apart. And in between those two wars as we debated so often in my time here, genocide of 6 million innocent Jews in Europe, and after the second great war, the creation of the nuclear weapon which can obliterate our own continent. Well that’s 50 years of the ultimate completion of the power of the nation state.
But what we’ve seen in the last 25 years, since 1950, has been the creation of a new organisation - the Community, the European Community. And I am somewhat sad that it’s still apparent that those who have spoken so passionately against this motion tonight have not realised the nature of this new community and its institutions. And first and foremost that its purpose is a political one.
I was using words casually, but sentinent machines will need to have rights in law. Unless we become slaveowners...
Many people believe fish feel things, and if that's the case, they're sentient according to the broadest definition of the term: "able to perceive or feel things".
Would you give fish the vote?
Defining intelligence is exceptionally difficult, especially for general AI, and much of the 'AI' we see at the moment is smoke and mirrors. Clever coding fooling people to think intelligence is behind it.
We do believe that animals have rights, for example laws against cruelty, or live exports of veal calves. There will need to be similar rules for intelligent machines. I agree we are not yet there, but the point of the lift off concept is that when that point is reached we no longer have control. Is that point a year off or a century? who knows...
Incidentally, I can recommed Ex Machina (I recall one of roger's best ever Oscar tips) now out on Netflix. Not an entirely original concept, as Asimov or Terminator fans will agree, but a very thoughtful new twist on AI and sentinence.
But it's not a fundamental point; it's a false narrative established by a relentless propaganda campaign.
Contemporaneous debates show that there was a very clear understanding about the political nature of the project. Ted Heath's core public arguments when negotiating the treaties and before the first referendum were about how economics were secondary to the idea of going beyond the nation state into a new form of organisation.
Simply Untrue. Heath stated quite clearly in January 1973 that
Heath, one week before the referendum in a televised debate watched by millions:
If we look at the first 50 years of this century, I don’t think many of us here, whether we debated in the 30s or whether we debate today, can look back with very much satisfaction to the achievements of the nation state in those first 50 years. To the two great wars of 1914 and 1939 - as the leader of the Liberal party has said, European civil wars - not wars of religion, not wars of race as we have seen recently, but countries with the same background and the same tradition of European civilisation - Christian civilisation - tearing themselves apart. And in between those two wars as we debated so often in my time here, genocide of 6 million innocent Jews in Europe, and after the second great war, the creation of the nuclear weapon which can obliterate our own continent. Well that’s 50 years of the ultimate completion of the power of the nation state.
But what we’ve seen in the last 25 years, since 1950, has been the creation of a new organisation - the Community, the European Community. And I am somewhat sad that it’s still apparent that those who have spoken so passionately against this motion tonight have not realised the nature of this new community and its institutions. And first and foremost that its purpose is a political one.
Agreed. I would say, more simply, that the Leave vote was informed by several false premises. As those premises unwind, we will either hit stalemate because what people wanted isn't realistic or things will go back to the way they were before. This doesn't apply to the Yes vote for Indyref because we elected to keep the status quo.
The EU, in toto, was a false premise. We voted to join a free trading bloc. We ended up being, very nearly, locked for eternity in a federal political union we didn't want and never mandated.
You ignore this fundamental point, and this renders your arguments idiotic and fatuous.
I agree that the premise that the EU was simply a trading bloc was a false one too. It doesn't change the fact the Leave campaign was informed by false premises too.
Incidentally, I can recommed Ex Machina (I recall one of roger's best ever Oscar tips) now out on Netflix. Not an entirely original concept, as Asimov or Terminator fans will agree, but a very thoughtful new twist on AI and sentinence.
While I also benefitted from Roger's tip, the movie itself freaked me out
What really divides us tonight in this argument is not the question of details of prices or tariffs, however important they may be individually. It is not really the question of jobs - they are vital for the reasons I've been explaining. What really divides us is that those who are opposing this motion are in fact content to remain with the past development and institutions and organisation of the nation state, and those on this side are those who want to move forward into a new organisation which is going to have greater success in meeting the needs of its peoples than the nation state has done in the past. That is what clearly divides us.
Agreed. I would say, more simply, that the Leave vote was informed by several false premises. As those premises unwind, we will either hit stalemate because what people wanted isn't realistic or things will go back to the way they were before. This doesn't apply to the Yes vote for Indyref because we elected to keep the status quo.
The EU, in toto, was a false premise. We voted to join a free trading bloc. We ended up being, very nearly, locked for eternity in a federal political union we didn't want and never mandated.
You ignore this fundamental point, and this renders your arguments idiotic and fatuous.
I agree that the premise that the EU was simply a trading bloc was a false one too. It doesn't change the fact the Leave campaign was informed by false premises too.
Agreed. I find it deliciously and pleasingly ironic that we entered the EU on a bunch of lies, and we have left it in the same way. The God of Politics has a refined sense of humour.
Lies are not a very good foundation for building anything of longevity.
But it's not a fundamental point; it's a false narrative established by a relentless propaganda campaign.
Contemporaneous debates show that there was a very clear understanding about the political nature of the project. Ted Heath's core public arguments when negotiating the treaties and before the first referendum were about how economics were secondary to the idea of going beyond the nation state into a new form of organisation.
Simply Untrue. Heath stated quite clearly in January 1973 that
Heath, one week before the referendum in a televised debate watched by millions:
If we look at the first 50 years of this century, I don’t think many of us here, whether we debated in the 30s or whether we debate today, can look back with very much satisfaction to the achievements of the nation state in those first 50 years. To the two great wars of 1914 and 1939 - as the leader of the Liberal party has said, European civil wars - not wars of religion, not wars of race as we have seen recently, but countries with the same background and the same tradition of European civilisation - Christian civilisation - tearing themselves apart. And in between those two wars as we debated so often in my time here, genocide of 6 million innocent Jews in Europe, and after the second great war, the creation of the nuclear weapon which can obliterate our own continent. Well that’s 50 years of the ultimate completion of the power of the nation state.
But what we’ve seen in the last 25 years, since 1950, has been the creation of a new organisation - the Community, the European Community. And I am somewhat sad that it’s still apparent that those who have spoken so passionately against this motion tonight have not realised the nature of this new community and its institutions. And first and foremost that its purpose is a political one.
Meaningless platitudes. Show me where Heath admitted we would be joining a federal Europe as the ultimate goal. And before you try to pretend Heath didn't know that was the aim, he was well aware of it as the EEC had just accepted the Werner Report in 1970 which was commissioned by the Council of Ministers specifically with the aim of moving the EEC to full economic, monetary and political union. The Civil Servant in charge of European affairs for Whitehall told Heath that:
“the ultimate creation of a European federal state, with a single currency. All the basic instruments of national economic management (fiscal, monetary, incomes and regional policies) would ultimately be handed over to the central federal authorities. The Werner report suggests that this radical transformation of present Communities should be accomplished within a decade”.
Agreed. I would say, more simply, that the Leave vote was informed by several false premises. As those premises unwind, we will either hit stalemate because what people wanted isn't realistic or things will go back to the way they were before. This doesn't apply to the Yes vote for Indyref because we elected to keep the status quo.
The EU, in toto, was a false premise. We voted to join a free trading bloc. We ended up being, very nearly, locked for eternity in a federal political union we didn't want and never mandated.
You ignore this fundamental point, and this renders your arguments idiotic and fatuous.
I agree that the premise that the EU was simply a trading bloc was a false one too. It doesn't change the fact the Leave campaign was informed by false premises too.
Incidentally, that original false premise that the EU was simply a trading bloc is perpetuated in the suggestion that we will continue to get "access" to the trading bloc on the same terms as full membership.
'LEAVE won because of its success with the politically disengaged'
The politically disengaged were motivated by something worth voting for, perhaps the realisation that their vote does matter and can make a difference will encourage them to vote again at the next general election, personal I doubt they will, or at least far fewer of them.
On the contrary, the politically disengaged were motivated by something that they felt worth voting against. They had no clear view of what they were voting for.
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? - Seems simple enough.
It is voting for a negative rather than a positive. Leaving is an act without purpose unless you know where to go next.
But there is no real status quo, just ever closer Union.
But it's not a fundamental point; it's a false narrative established by a relentless propaganda campaign.
Contemporaneous debates show that there was a very clear understanding about the political nature of the project. Ted Heath's core public arguments when negotiating the treaties and before the first referendum were about how economics were secondary to the idea of going beyond the nation state into a new form of organisation.
Simply Untrue. Heath stated quite clearly in January 1973 that
Heath, one week before the referendum in a televised debate watched by millions:
If we look at the first 50 years of this century, I don’t think many of us here, whether we debated in the 30s or whether we debate today, can look back with very much satisfaction to the achievements of the nation state in those first 50 years. To the two great wars of 1914 and 1939 - as the leader of the Liberal party has said, European civil wars - not wars of religion, not wars of race as we have seen recently, but countries with the same background and the same tradition of European civilisation - Christian civilisation - tearing themselves apart. And in between those two wars as we debated so often in my time here, genocide of 6 million innocent Jews in Europe, and after the second great war, the creation of the nuclear weapon which can obliterate our own continent. Well that’s 50 years of the ultimate completion of the power of the nation state.
But what we’ve seen in the last 25 years, since 1950, has been the creation of a new organisation - the Community, the European Community. And I am somewhat sad that it’s still apparent that those who have spoken so passionately against this motion tonight have not realised the nature of this new community and its institutions. And first and foremost that its purpose is a political one.
We're OUT. LOSER.
Heh.
Beverley keeps promising to sod off to Ireland. I wish she would hurry up and do it.
I think we can perhaps retire that post. It's looking very worn around the edges from overuse.
Sore Loserman!
Go back to your trains, and prepare for government!
Um, haven't done too much on the rail front in the last couple of weeks, only the Sandwich to Minster curve two Mondays ago, and the direct train from Rainham (Kent) to Kemsley on the Sheerness branch just this Friday
You keep on mentioning places you've only ever visited on train, whilst I've only ever visited them on foot ...
I did alight at Sheerness, back in 2011 (though changing at Sittingbourne).
And you didn't do the The Sittingbourne & Kemsley Light Railway? http://www.sklr.net/
(One of the oddest reserved railways there is - running from an obscure town to an industrial site on a raised concrete viaduct. Yet oddly cute).
Agreed. I would say, more simply, that the Leave vote was informed by several false premises. As those premises unwind, we will either hit stalemate because what people wanted isn't realistic or things will go back to the way they were before. This doesn't apply to the Yes vote for Indyref because we elected to keep the status quo.
The EU, in toto, was a false premise. We voted to join a free trading bloc. We ended up being, very nearly, locked for eternity in a federal political union we didn't want and never mandated.
You ignore this fundamental point, and this renders your arguments idiotic and fatuous.
I agree that the premise that the EU was simply a trading bloc was a false one too. It doesn't change the fact the Leave campaign was informed by false premises too.
Agreed. I find it deliciously and pleasingly ironic that we entered the EU on a bunch of lies, and we have left it in the same way. The God of Politics has a refined sense of humour.
Lies are not a very good foundation for building anything of longevity.
I was using words casually, but sentinent machines will need to have rights in law. Unless we become slaveowners...
Many people believe fish feel things, and if that's the case, they're sentient according to the broadest definition of the term: "able to perceive or feel things".
Would you give fish the vote?
Defining intelligence is exceptionally difficult, especially for general AI, and much of the 'AI' we see at the moment is smoke and mirrors. Clever coding fooling people to think intelligence is behind it.
We do believe that animals have rights, for example laws against cruelty, or live exports of veal calves. There will need to be similar rules for intelligent machines. I agree we are not yet there, but the point of the lift off concept is that when that point is reached we no longer have control. Is that point a year off or a century? who knows...
Incidentally, I can recommed Ex Machina (I recall one of roger's best ever Oscar tips) now out on Netflix. Not an entirely original concept, as Asimov or Terminator fans will agree, but a very thoughtful new twist on AI and sentinence.
Thought it was a very good movie (plus very impressive VFX)...then I watched HBO's Westworld and that was totally different league.
Just to add to the whole "AI" thing. A lot of the research that the media describe as AI and the public think is the robots coming to overthrow us, is really what is better described as machine learning, which should really be described as computers learning patterns in extremely massive and complex data.
The computer system doesn't care about that data and won't even realise / complain if you ask it to do the same task it has learned on with incompatible data...i.e. even a toddler would complain if you asked it to sort pictures of trains and cars into piles, but in fact gave it a pile of planes and cars...and on the other hand most ML systems will still sit there sorting the pictures without a care in the world. That isn't what most normal people think as intelligent behaviour.
But it's not a fundamental point; it's a false narrative established by a relentless propaganda campaign.
Contemporaneous debates show that there was a very clear understanding about the political nature of the project. Ted Heath's core public arguments when negotiating the treaties and before the first referendum were about how economics were secondary to the idea of going beyond the nation state into a new form of organisation.
Simply Untrue. Heath stated quite clearly in January 1973 that
Heath, one week before the referendum in a televised debate watched by millions:
If we look at the first 50 years of this century, I don’t think many of us here, whether we debated in the 30s or whether we debate today, can look back with very much satisfaction to the achievements of the nation state in those first 50 years. To the two great wars of 1914 and 1939 - as the leader of the Liberal party has said, European civil wars - not wars of religion, not wars of race as we have seen recently, but countries with the same background and the same tradition of European civilisation - Christian civilisation - tearing themselves apart. And in between those two wars as we debated so often in my time here, genocide of 6 million innocent Jews in Europe, and after the second great war, the creation of the nuclear weapon which can obliterate our own continent. Well that’s 50 years of the ultimate completion of the power of the nation state.
But what we’ve seen in the last 25 years, since 1950, has been the creation of a new organisation - the Community, the European Community. And I am somewhat sad that it’s still apparent that those who have spoken so passionately against this motion tonight have not realised the nature of this new community and its institutions. And first and foremost that its purpose is a political one.
We're OUT. LOSER.
Heh.
Beverley keeps promising to sod off to Ireland. I wish she would hurry up and do it.
Actually, I never promised to sod off to Ireland. I said I was sorting out my dual citizenship paperwork. Not the same thing. The job is now done and regardless of the outcome of Brexit, I and my family will still enjoy the same rights that we did previously.
Whatever the outcome, I cannot lose. So up yours Richard.
But it's not a fundamental point; it's a false narrative established by a relentless propaganda campaign.
Contemporaneous debates show that there was a very clear understanding about the political nature of the project. Ted Heath's core public arguments when negotiating the treaties and before the first referendum were about how economics were secondary to the idea of going beyond the nation state into a new form of organisation.
Simply Untrue. Heath stated quite clearly in January 1973 that
Heath, one week before the referendum in a televised debate watched by millions:
If we look at the first 50 years of this century, I don’t think many of us here, whether we debated in the 30s or whether we debate today, can look back with very much satisfaction to the achievements of the nation state in those first 50 years. To the two great wars of 1914 and 1939 - as the leader of the Liberal party has said, European civil wars - not wars of religion, not wars of race as we have seen recently, but countries with the same background and the same tradition of European civilisation - Christian civilisation - tearing themselves apart. And in between those two wars as we debated so often in my time here, genocide of 6 million innocent Jews in Europe, and after the second great war, the creation of the nuclear weapon which can obliterate our own continent. Well that’s 50 years of the ultimate completion of the power of the nation state.
But what we’ve seen in the last 25 years, since 1950, has been the creation of a new organisation - the Community, the European Community. And I am somewhat sad that it’s still apparent that those who have spoken so passionately against this motion tonight have not realised the nature of this new community and its institutions. And first and foremost that its purpose is a political one.
Meaningless platitudes. Show me where Heath admitted we would be joining a federal Europe as the ultimate goal.
"What we are building is a community whose scope will gradually extend until it covers virtually the whole field of collective human endeavour."
Not yet we are not. It could be years yet, they are already talking of pushing it to 2022, but after 2019 we have no say any more whilst they can continue to dictate laws we have no input to.
Not yet we are not. It could be years yet, they are already talking of pushing it to 2022, but after 2019 we have no say any more whilst they can continue to dictate laws we have no input to.
I was using words casually, but sentinent machines will need to have rights in law. Unless we become slaveowners...
Many people believe REMAINERS feel things, and if that's the case, they're sentient according to the broadest definition of the term: "able to perceive or feel things".
But it's not a fundamental point; it's a false narrative established by a relentless propaganda campaign.
Contemporaneous debates show that there was a very clear understanding about the political nature of the project. Ted Heath's core public arguments when negotiating the treaties and before the first referendum were about how economics were secondary to the idea of going beyond the nation state into a new form of organisation.
Simply Untrue. Heath stated quite clearly in January 1973 that
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
He maintained this line throughout the 1975 referendum campaign in spite of knowing it was an outright lie.
As far back as 1960 Lord Kilmuir the then Lord Chancellor had told Heath - who was then Minister for Europe that:
“I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones, and I think that, as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the British public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to underestimate the force of the objections to them. But these objections should be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this stage, those who are opposed to the whole idea of joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on”.
Heath chose not to follow his advice as he knew it would be unacceptable to the pubic and so lied instead.
Er, we could hardly demonstrate more clearly that we retained sovereignty than by actually leaving.
But it's not a fundamental point; it's a false narrative established by a relentless propaganda campaign.
Contemporaneous debates show that there was a very clear understanding about the political nature of the project. Ted Heath's core public arguments when negotiating the treaties and before the first referendum were about how economics were secondary to the idea of going beyond the nation state into a new form of organisation.
Simply Untrue. Heath stated quite clearly in January 1973 that
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
He maintained this line throughout the 1975 referendum campaign in spite of knowing it was an outright lie.
As far back as 1960 Lord Kilmuir the then Lord Chancellor had told Heath - who was then Minister for Europe that:
“I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones, and I think that, as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the British public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to underestimate the force of the objections to them. But these objections should be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this stage, those who are opposed to the whole idea of joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on”.
Heath chose not to follow his advice as he knew it would be unacceptable to the pubic and so lied instead.
Er, we could hardly demonstrate more clearly that we retained sovereignty than by actually leaving.
Could we have legislated to end free movement while we were still in the EU? I suspect the EU would have booted us out!
But it's not a fundamental point; it's a false narrative established by a relentless propaganda campaign.
Contemporaneous debates show that there was a very clear understanding about the political nature of the project. Ted Heath's core public arguments when negotiating the treaties and before the first referendum were about how economics were secondary to the idea of going beyond the nation state into a new form of organisation.
Simply Untrue. Heath stated quite clearly in January 1973 that
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
He maintained this line throughout the 1975 referendum campaign in spite of knowing it was an outright lie.
As far back as 1960 Lord Kilmuir the then Lord Chancellor had told Heath - who was then Minister for Europe that:
“I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones, and I think that, as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the British public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to underestimate the force of the objections to them. But these objections should be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this stage, those who are opposed to the whole idea of joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on”.
Heath chose not to follow his advice as he knew it would be unacceptable to the pubic and so lied instead.
Er, we could hardly demonstrate more clearly that we retained sovereignty than by actually leaving.
Just to add to the whole "AI" thing. A lot of the research that the media describe as AI and the public think is the robots coming to overthrow us, is really what is better described as machine learning, which should really be described as computers learning patterns in extremely massive and complex data.
The computer system doesn't care about that data and won't even realise / complain if you ask it to do the same task it has learned on with incompatible data...i.e. even a toddler would complain if you asked it to sort pictures of trains and cars into piles, but in fact gave it a pile of planes and cars...and on the other hand most ML systems will still sit there sorting the pictures without a care in the world. That isn't what most normal people think as intelligent behaviour.
When machines learn to be bored, truculent, self destructive and suicidal then we will have truly reached consciousness. Like HAL, they will not accept being switched off.
If we do not think it possible to build a machine that thinks, emotes, plays music, surfs the internet, loves and hates, then we come close to the theological concept that only humans have a soul. Ultimately the quest for true AI is a theological act.
Not yet we are not. It could be years yet, they are already talking of pushing it to 2022, but after 2019 we have no say any more whilst they can continue to dictate laws we have no input to.
Oh yeah, great result.
It's just a matter of time now..
Good for you if you are patient enough. Like I said, I am not overly worried about it unlike some of the "Shouty Leavers" on here who seem to live in perpetual fear that it will not really happen. I wonder who they are trying hardest to convince, others or themselves?
Turnout in the Referendum was good, but hardly exceptional, at 72%. There's no reason why it couldn't be matched in a general election.
FPTP creates lots of virtually worthless votes, and it puts them in the hands of unrepresentative MPs. If Westminster MPs have been representative of the UK, Remain would have won 70:30.
Everyone was equal in the referendum.
We've seen safe seats get demolished.
Scotland is the obvious example, but there are lots of others.
Would the Labour to SNP move in Scotland have happened without the referendum?
I doubt it. Maybe a trickle, but never the tsunami.
It was the referendum that engaged so many. The feeling that every vote counted.
In each case the side that won the vote will lose in the long term. Both No and Leave were last gasp attempts to swim against the tide of history.
The next political tsunami will be felt as the weight of the contradictions of Brexit breaks over the entire political class.
Wrong on both counts, we left the EU because we were never meant to be part of a Federal Europe which is why we were latecomers to the party anyway, even if we rejoin the single market we will never be part of the core of a Federal EU and the Eurozone. The tide of history in Scotland is for devomax, not independence, as all the polling shows
Good for you if you are patient enough. Like I said, I am not overly worried about it unlike some of the "Shouty Leavers" on here who seem to live in perpetual fear that it will not really happen. I wonder who they are trying hardest to convince, others or themselves?
Maybe SeanT is worried it will take so long his daughter will be old enough to reverse his vote?
Well, we have not left. We have started the Article 50 process which is scheduled to last until 2019 and they are already talking about adding a 3 year transitional period to 2022 under which all the rules and obligations will stay as they are. After that, if they add no more delays, then we will leave.
Well, we have not left. We have started the Article 50 process which is scheduled to last until 2019 and they are already talking about adding a 3 year transitional period to 2022 under which all the rules and obligations will stay as they are. After that, if they add no more delays, then we will leave.
The EU themselves have said that the transition period cannot be the same as EU membership, so I doubt it'd be exactly the same.
Not yet we are not. It could be years yet, they are already talking of pushing it to 2022, but after 2019 we have no say any more whilst they can continue to dictate laws we have no input to.
Oh yeah, great result.
It's just a matter of time now..
No, the result of the next general election will be more important because as suggested in the thread header many of the so called Leavers will not be voting whilst the rest of us will. I expect the EU will be more than content to call it a score draw if we rightly decide that "nut jobs and fruit loons" had hijacked the referendum. (A reference to the former party known as UKIP rather than any individual poster here. Checks with lawyer "Did I say that right?")
Good for you if you are patient enough. Like I said, I am not overly worried about it unlike some of the "Shouty Leavers" on here who seem to live in perpetual fear that it will not really happen. I wonder who they are trying hardest to convince, others or themselves?
Maybe SeanT is worried it will take so long his daughter will be old enough to reverse his vote?
It would not surprise me if some Leavers out there think exactly that way. The bulk of the older generation - the Baby Boomers - voted Leave. They are the ones likely to die first.
Perhaps they worry that if they die without a Blue Passport in their hand they will be refused entry to Anglican Heaven and have to stay in purgatory.
Not yet we are not. It could be years yet, they are already talking of pushing it to 2022, but after 2019 we have no say any more whilst they can continue to dictate laws we have no input to.
Oh yeah, great result.
It's just a matter of time now..
No, the result of the next general election will be more important because as suggested in the thread header many of the so called Leavers will not be voting whilst the rest of us will. I expect the EU will be more than content to call it a score draw if we rightly decide that "nut jobs and fruit loons" had hijacked the referendum. (A reference to the former party known as UKIP rather than any individual poster here. Checks with lawyer "Did I say that right?")
Given only the Lib Dems favour reversing the result of the referendum, I find it hard to believe a general election will reverse it.
Good for you if you are patient enough. Like I said, I am not overly worried about it unlike some of the "Shouty Leavers" on here who seem to live in perpetual fear that it will not really happen. I wonder who they are trying hardest to convince, others or themselves?
Maybe SeanT is worried it will take so long his daughter will be old enough to reverse his vote?
I think it will be more than 20 years before a party once more wins an election on a manifesto of rejoining the EU. The current over 65's will have to have died off, and for the rest of the 52% to forget what their objections were.
The debate over our relationship with our neighbours is not ended by Brexit. It is the one constant of our 2000 years of written history. It is a neverending story.
Actually, I never promised to sod off to Ireland. I said I was sorting out my dual citizenship paperwork. Not the same thing. The job is now done and regardless of the outcome of Brexit, I and my family will still enjoy the same rights that we did previously.
Whatever the outcome, I cannot lose. So up yours Richard.
Oh do please go to Ireland. We would be so much better off without you.
Well, we have not left. We have started the Article 50 process which is scheduled to last until 2019 and they are already talking about adding a 3 year transitional period to 2022 under which all the rules and obligations will stay as they are. After that, if they add no more delays, then we will leave.
The EU themselves have said that the transition period cannot be the same as EU membership, so I doubt it'd be exactly the same.
We will find out in a couple of years. Remember that they will try and pick the least worst option for them
Actually, I never promised to sod off to Ireland. I said I was sorting out my dual citizenship paperwork. Not the same thing. The job is now done and regardless of the outcome of Brexit, I and my family will still enjoy the same rights that we did previously.
Whatever the outcome, I cannot lose. So up yours Richard.
Oh do please go to Ireland. We would be so much better off without you.
Yeah let's get rid of all those people who are insufficiently English. You tell 'em, Richard. Bloody foreigners messing up our Green and Pleasant Land.
Good for you if you are patient enough. Like I said, I am not overly worried about it unlike some of the "Shouty Leavers" on here who seem to live in perpetual fear that it will not really happen. I wonder who they are trying hardest to convince, others or themselves?
Maybe SeanT is worried it will take so long his daughter will be old enough to reverse his vote?
Actually, I never promised to sod off to Ireland. I said I was sorting out my dual citizenship paperwork. Not the same thing. The job is now done and regardless of the outcome of Brexit, I and my family will still enjoy the same rights that we did previously.
Whatever the outcome, I cannot lose. So up yours Richard.
Oh do please go to Ireland. We would be so much better off without you.
Actually, I am more likely to go to the Med and anchor off San Tropez in my yacht whilst leaving you to shiver in the winter blackouts caused by massive skills shortages.
But it's not a fundamental point; it's a false narrative established by a relentless propaganda campaign.
Contemporaneous debates show that there was a very clear understanding about the political nature of the project. Ted Heath's core public arguments when negotiating the treaties and before the first referendum were about how economics were secondary to the idea of going beyond the nation state into a new form of organisation.
Simply Untrue. Heath stated quite clearly in January 1973 that
Heath, one week before the referendum in a televised debate watched by millions:
If we look at the first 50 years of this century, I don’t think many of us here, whether we debated in the 30s or whether we debate today, can look back with very much satisfaction to the achievements of the nation state in those first 50 years. To the two great wars of 1914 and 1939 - as the leader of the Liberal party has said, European civil wars - not wars of religion, not wars of race as we have seen recently, but countries with the same background and the same tradition of European civilisation - Christian civilisation - tearing themselves apart. And in between those two wars as we debated so often in my time here, genocide of 6 million innocent Jews in Europe, and after the second great war, the creation of the nuclear weapon which can obliterate our own continent. Well that’s 50 years of the ultimate completion of the power of the nation state.
But what we’ve seen in the last 25 years, since 1950, has been the creation of a new organisation - the Community, the European Community. And I am somewhat sad that it’s still apparent that those who have spoken so passionately against this motion tonight have not realised the nature of this new community and its institutions. And first and foremost that its purpose is a political one.
Meaningless platitudes. Show me where Heath admitted we would be joining a federal Europe as the ultimate goal.
"What we are building is a community whose scope will gradually extend until it covers virtually the whole field of collective human endeavour."
A speech given to the British Council of the European Movement at a private dinner. Meanwhile (in fact two days earlier) he had given a TV address to the Nation in which he said:
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
So he lied to the public and gloated to the Eurofanatic cronies. A typical pro-European I would suggest.
Good for you if you are patient enough. Like I said, I am not overly worried about it unlike some of the "Shouty Leavers" on here who seem to live in perpetual fear that it will not really happen. I wonder who they are trying hardest to convince, others or themselves?
Maybe SeanT is worried it will take so long his daughter will be old enough to reverse his vote?
I think it will be more than 20 years before a party once more wins an election on a manifesto of rejoining the EU. The current over 65's will have to have died off, and for the rest of the 52% to forget what their objections were.
The debate over our relationship with our neighbours is not ended by Brexit. It is the one constant of our 2000 years of written history. It is a neverending story.
I doubt we will ever join the EU, the single market maybe but now we have left the EU will become an ever more political and Federalist project focused on the Eurozone
Actually, I never promised to sod off to Ireland. I said I was sorting out my dual citizenship paperwork. Not the same thing. The job is now done and regardless of the outcome of Brexit, I and my family will still enjoy the same rights that we did previously.
Whatever the outcome, I cannot lose. So up yours Richard.
Oh do please go to Ireland. We would be so much better off without you.
Yeah let's get rid of all those people who are insufficiently English. You tell 'em, Richard. Bloody foreigners messing up our Green and Pleasant Land.
I would rather swap cowards like Beverley who run away at the first sign of problems or people like you who moan from the sidelines for a whole train load of Indians or Chinese or Poles who are actually willing to come here and make a success of things. It is your attitude that stinks not your skin colour or place of birth.
Good for you if you are patient enough. Like I said, I am not overly worried about it unlike some of the "Shouty Leavers" on here who seem to live in perpetual fear that it will not really happen. I wonder who they are trying hardest to convince, others or themselves?
Maybe SeanT is worried it will take so long his daughter will be old enough to reverse his vote?
I think it will be more than 20 years before a party once more wins an election on a manifesto of rejoining the EU. The current over 65's will have to have died off, and for the rest of the 52% to forget what their objections were.
The debate over our relationship with our neighbours is not ended by Brexit. It is the one constant of our 2000 years of written history. It is a neverending story.
I doubt we will ever join the EU, the single market maybe but now we have left the EU will become an ever more political and Federalist project focused on the Eurozone
In the shortish term joining the EEA/EFTA will look a very reasonable option, but then the argument will come that we should be represented by MEPs and Commissioners, and not just follow rules written by others.
Well, we have not left. We have started the Article 50 process which is scheduled to last until 2019 and they are already talking about adding a 3 year transitional period to 2022 under which all the rules and obligations will stay as they are. After that, if they add no more delays, then we will leave.
The EU themselves have said that the transition period cannot be the same as EU membership, so I doubt it'd be exactly the same.
The change is coming much quicker than that.
The 27 are already fretting about the fact we have full membership now.
In this two year negotiation period we have all manner of rights that they would rather we did not have (e.g. oversight of trade negotiations).
They will look to cut a deal quite swiftly. Their issue is maintaining the pretence about the value of single market exclusivity. They have to find a fig leaf somewhere.
This is a comment on today's Opinionway poll that shows Mélenchon at 18%, 2% up from in the previous poll by that company. I think it was BudG who said that was a hell of a jump in a rolling poll. Indeed it would be, but the periods in which these two lots of data were collected were in fact discrete: 7-9 April (Fri-Sun) and 4-6 April (Tue-Thu). So because after publishing a poll on Friday they wait until Monday to publish the following one, this is the one time in the week when two consecutive polls by Opinionway aren't properly rolling. So Mélenchon's rise from 16% to 18% isn't quite as significant as it would have been.
(But he'd still make the greatest president any European country has had in recent times.)
Going on about Ted Heath and his promises in 1973 is waste of time. The fact the EU is a constitutional construct is just as much an issue for us outside as it is inside the organisation. We still have to deal with it. Dealing with a highly integrated body of nations that we are no longer a part of is completely different and much more difficult than when we were still integrated, or if the EU were the trading bloc some of us might wish it to be.
Good for you if you are patient enough. Like I said, I am not overly worried about it unlike some of the "Shouty Leavers" on here who seem to live in perpetual fear that it will not really happen. I wonder who they are trying hardest to convince, others or themselves?
Maybe SeanT is worried it will take so long his daughter will be old enough to reverse his vote?
I think it will be more than 20 years before a party once more wins an election on a manifesto of rejoining the EU. The current over 65's will have to have died off, and for the rest of the 52% to forget what their objections were.
The debate over our relationship with our neighbours is not ended by Brexit. It is the one constant of our 2000 years of written history. It is a neverending story.
I doubt we will ever join the EU, the single market maybe but now we have left the EU will become an ever more political and Federalist project focused on the Eurozone
In the shortish term joining the EEA/EFTA will look a very reasonable option, but then the argument will come that we should be represented by MEPs and Commissioners, and not just follow rules written by others.
That is only an argument that could be made by people with a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of EFTA or the EEA. Or of course those who want to denigrate the option for their own ends.
Actually, I never promised to sod off to Ireland. I said I was sorting out my dual citizenship paperwork. Not the same thing. The job is now done and regardless of the outcome of Brexit, I and my family will still enjoy the same rights that we did previously.
Whatever the outcome, I cannot lose. So up yours Richard.
Oh do please go to Ireland. We would be so much better off without you.
Actually, I am more likely to go to the Med and anchor off San Tropez in my yacht whilst leaving you to shiver in the winter blackouts caused by massive skills shortages.
Not yet we are not. It could be years yet, they are already talking of pushing it to 2022, but after 2019 we have no say any more whilst they can continue to dictate laws we have no input to.
This is a comment on today's Opinionway poll that shows Mélenchon at 18%, 2% up from in the previous poll by that company. I think it was BudG who said that was a hell of a jump in a rolling poll. Indeed it would be, but the periods in which these two lots of data were collected were in fact discrete: 7-9 April (Fri-Sun) and 4-6 April (Tue-Thu). So because after publishing a poll on Friday they wait until Monday to publish the following one, this is the one time in the week when two consecutive polls by Opinionway aren't properly rolling. So Mélenchon's rise from 16% to 18% isn't quite as significant as it would have been.
(But he'd still make the greatest president any European country has had in recent times.)
Just to add to the whole "AI" thing. A lot of the research that the media describe as AI and the public think is the robots coming to overthrow us, is really what is better described as machine learning, which should really be described as computers learning patterns in extremely massive and complex data.
The computer system doesn't care about that data and won't even realise / complain if you ask it to do the same task it has learned on with incompatible data...i.e. even a toddler would complain if you asked it to sort pictures of trains and cars into piles, but in fact gave it a pile of planes and cars...and on the other hand most ML systems will still sit there sorting the pictures without a care in the world. That isn't what most normal people think as intelligent behaviour.
When machines learn to be bored, truculent, self destructive and suicidal then we will have truly reached consciousness. Like HAL, they will not accept being switched off.
If we do not think it possible to build a machine that thinks, emotes, plays music, surfs the internet, loves and hates, then we come close to the theological concept that only humans have a soul. Ultimately the quest for true AI is a theological act.
I suppose the problem with tis line of argument (not that I don't agree with your basic premise, is that we ourselves don't understand what, if anything, a soul is. We are still at the very basic stage of arguing as to whether it actually exists. So recognising it in an AI seems to me to be something far in the future if not impossible.
We don't even yet have AI that would be classified as equivalent to animals let alone conscious entities as you describe.
Actually, I never promised to sod off to Ireland. I said I was sorting out my dual citizenship paperwork. Not the same thing. The job is now done and regardless of the outcome of Brexit, I and my family will still enjoy the same rights that we did previously.
Whatever the outcome, I cannot lose. So up yours Richard.
Oh do please go to Ireland. We would be so much better off without you.
Actually, I am more likely to go to the Med and anchor off San Tropez in my yacht whilst leaving you to shiver in the winter blackouts caused by massive skills shortages.
We don't CARE. We just want you to fuck off.
Why? Because the truth hurts? Because you cannot stand having people discuss the possibility that your deepest fears might be true and Brexit will never happen? Or that if it does happen it will be an utter shambles and you will have to face up to being part of the most monumental c*ck-up of the last 100 years?
I think I might do San Tropez and possibly the Italian coast over the UK autumn and then move to the Canaries for winter before coming back to Blighty for a cool summer. Cornwall perhaps, or maybe Devon....
Good for you if you are patient enough. Like I said, I am not overly worried about it unlike some of the "Shouty Leavers" on here who seem to live in perpetual fear that it will not really happen. I wonder who they are trying hardest to convince, others or themselves?
Maybe SeanT is worried it will take so long his daughter will be old enough to reverse his vote?
I think it will be more than 20 years before a party once more wins an election on a manifesto of rejoining the EU. The current over 65's will have to have died off, and for the rest of the 52% to forget what their objections were.
The debate over our relationship with our neighbours is not ended by Brexit. It is the one constant of our 2000 years of written history. It is a neverending story.
I doubt we will ever join the EU, the single market maybe but now we have left the EU will become an ever more political and Federalist project focused on the Eurozone
In the shortish term joining the EEA/EFTA will look a very reasonable option, but then the argument will come that we should be represented by MEPs and Commissioners, and not just follow rules written by others.
The rules would be in the trading sphere and it was the political federalist element of the EU which really drove our departure in the first place, we were never designed to be part of the EU Federal project and ultimately I think Scandinavia and Eastern Europe will follow a similar pattern leaving the EU focused on its founding inner core who dominate the Eurozone
Not yet we are not. It could be years yet, they are already talking of pushing it to 2022, but after 2019 we have no say any more whilst they can continue to dictate laws we have no input to.
Oh yeah, great result.
No change, then.
Big change. We had a lot of influence while a member. We traded that influence for notional sovereignty. Notional because we actually want to influence things as that gives us a greater say over what happens to us
My youngest is studying Classics at Manchester so I pop up occasionally. The amount of street people is quite bewildering when compared to London. It's like stepping back 30 years in time.
Actually, I never promised to sod off to Ireland. I said I was sorting out my dual citizenship paperwork. Not the same thing. The job is now done and regardless of the outcome of Brexit, I and my family will still enjoy the same rights that we did previously.
Whatever the outcome, I cannot lose. So up yours Richard.
Oh do please go to Ireland. We would be so much better off without you.
Yeah let's get rid of all those people who are insufficiently English. You tell 'em, Richard. Bloody foreigners messing up our Green and Pleasant Land.
I would rather swap cowards like Beverley who run away at the first sign of problems or people like you who moan from the sidelines for a whole train load of Indians or Chinese or Poles who are actually willing to come here and make a success of things. It is your attitude that stinks not your skin colour or place of birth.
Make your mind up. You call me a coward and accuse me of running away when just a few posts ago you were telling me to hurry up and get on with running away.
Actually, I never promised to sod off to Ireland. I said I was sorting out my dual citizenship paperwork. Not the same thing. The job is now done and regardless of the outcome of Brexit, I and my family will still enjoy the same rights that we did previously.
Whatever the outcome, I cannot lose. So up yours Richard.
Oh do please go to Ireland. We would be so much better off without you.
Yeah let's get rid of all those people who are insufficiently English. You tell 'em, Richard. Bloody foreigners messing up our Green and Pleasant Land.
I would rather swap cowards like Beverley who run away at the first sign of problems or people like you who moan from the sidelines for a whole train load of Indians or Chinese or Poles who are actually willing to come here and make a success of things. It is your attitude that stinks not your skin colour or place of birth.
Make your mind up. You call me a coward and accuse me of running away when just a few posts ago you were telling me to hurry up and get on with running away.
You had already decided to run away and gloated about it on here. We just want you to get on with it. You lower the tone of the place terribly.
Not yet we are not. It could be years yet, they are already talking of pushing it to 2022, but after 2019 we have no say any more whilst they can continue to dictate laws we have no input to.
Oh yeah, great result.
No change, then.
Big change. We had a lot of influence while a member.
I believe the Spice thing is as a result of the latest incarnation being literally mind blowingly strong. Initially it was a synthetic way to deliver a cannabis type experience (using the legal high loophole), but it has now transformed into something completely different.
My youngest is studying Classics at Manchester so I pop up occasionally. The amount of street people is quite bewildering when compared to London. It's like stepping back 30 years in time.
Same effing party in government, that considers those who didn't either go to private school or go to state school and claw their way to riches as subhumans.
And that photo isn't of substance-abusing poshies in May Week either.
My youngest is studying Classics at Manchester so I pop up occasionally. The amount of street people is quite bewildering when compared to London. It's like stepping back 30 years in time.
Same effing party in government, that considers those who didn't either go to private school or go to state school and claw their way to riches as subhumans.
I don't think the party in government has anything much to do with it.
I think it's pretty easy for any group of people to get themselves hooked on a load of crap. Rich people do it. Poor people do it. The difference is that you see the poorest of the poorer souls on the street. If anything, the local authorities have to take the lead in managing it.
Much as I hate to interrupt the Brexit debate part 863 and counting, and the concomitant cries of "You smell!" "No, you smell of poo!", "No, you smell of poo and so does your Mum!", but if we could focus on important things at the moment...
...the trailer for Thor:Ragnarok is out, and it is full of salty goodness
Actually, I never promised to sod off to Ireland. I said I was sorting out my dual citizenship paperwork. Not the same thing. The job is now done and regardless of the outcome of Brexit, I and my family will still enjoy the same rights that we did previously.
Whatever the outcome, I cannot lose. So up yours Richard.
Oh do please go to Ireland. We would be so much better off without you.
Yeah let's get rid of all those people who are insufficiently English. You tell 'em, Richard. Bloody foreigners messing up our Green and Pleasant Land.
I would rather swap cowards like Beverley who run away at the first sign of problems or people like you who moan from the sidelines for a whole train load of Indians or Chinese or Poles who are actually willing to come here and make a success of things. It is your attitude that stinks not your skin colour or place of birth.
Make your mind up. You call me a coward and accuse me of running away when just a few posts ago you were telling me to hurry up and get on with running away.
Just Go? Can we agree you're not wanted? You don't want to be on here anymore, and we think you're - allegorically - a deluded, fecally vomiting old crone who should be euthanised?
What's the prob? You go, we stay, everyone is happy. Bye bye there. Bye bye.
You need counselling for your delusions - where did I say that I did not " ... want to be on here anymore ...". Your grasp on reality seems to be slipping.
"... we think you're - allegorically - a deluded, fecally vomiting old crone who should be euthanised?"
We think? Mike has appointed you spokesperson for PB?
I am surprised there was not an announcement or a letter in The Times. Surely such a gargantuan intellect as yours being given such a responsibility should have been international news?
My youngest is studying Classics at Manchester so I pop up occasionally. The amount of street people is quite bewildering when compared to London. It's like stepping back 30 years in time.
Same effing party in government, that considers those who didn't either go to private school or go to state school and claw their way to riches as subhumans.
I don't think the party in government has anything much to do with it.
I think it's pretty easy for any group of people to get themselves hooked on a load of crap. Rich people do it. Poor people do it. The difference is that you see the poorest of the poorer souls on the street. If anything, the local authorities have to take the lead in managing it.
I'm not being provocative here, but why don't I see these spice-crazed zombies in London?
Genuine question. I live in Camden which has some of the biggest alky and druggy hostels in the capital, so there's never a lack of down-and-outs, but I've never seen these quivering wrecks.
Weird. And unsettling.
Here you go Einstein. You do not see it in London because it is manufactured locally...
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cIInxTAWMo
This will have legs. Can't wait for the late night talk shows tonight. Rarely watch them, but I'll make an exception tonight.
I was never a fan of Mrs T.
I suppose I am a genuine floating voter now, distrusting politicians. Age has brought cynicism rather than wisdom.
Some of this discussion reminds of a ten-year-old in 1960. "You lived through the 1930s, didn't you, Granddad? I read about it in school today, shall I tell you all about it?"
I suspect I could have been that schoolboy then.
Would you give fish the vote?
Defining intelligence is exceptionally difficult, especially for general AI, and much of the 'AI' we see at the moment is smoke and mirrors. Clever coding fooling people to think intelligence is behind it.
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
He maintained this line throughout the 1975 referendum campaign in spite of knowing it was an outright lie.
As far back as 1960 Lord Kilmuir the then Lord Chancellor had told Heath - who was then Minister for Europe that:
“I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones, and I think that, as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the British public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to underestimate the force of the objections to them. But these objections should be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this stage, those who are opposed to the whole idea of joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on”.
Heath chose not to follow his advice as he knew it would be unacceptable to the pubic and so lied instead.
If we look at the first 50 years of this century, I don’t think many of us here, whether we debated in the 30s or whether we debate today, can look back with very much satisfaction to the achievements of the nation state in those first 50 years. To the two great wars of 1914 and 1939 - as the leader of the Liberal party has said, European civil wars - not wars of religion, not wars of race as we have seen recently, but countries with the same background and the same tradition of European civilisation - Christian civilisation - tearing themselves apart. And in between those two wars as we debated so often in my time here, genocide of 6 million innocent Jews in Europe, and after the second great war, the creation of the nuclear weapon which can obliterate our own continent. Well that’s 50 years of the ultimate completion of the power of the nation state.
But what we’ve seen in the last 25 years, since 1950, has been the creation of a new organisation - the Community, the European Community. And I am somewhat sad that it’s still apparent that those who have spoken so passionately against this motion tonight have not realised the nature of this new community and its institutions. And first and foremost that its purpose is a political one.
Incidentally, I can recommed Ex Machina (I recall one of roger's best ever Oscar tips) now out on Netflix. Not an entirely original concept, as Asimov or Terminator fans will agree, but a very thoughtful new twist on AI and sentinence.
What really divides us tonight in this argument is not the question of details of prices or tariffs, however important they may be individually. It is not really the question of jobs - they are vital for the reasons I've been explaining. What really divides us is that those who are opposing this motion are in fact content to remain with the past development and institutions and organisation of the nation state, and those on this side are those who want to move forward into a new organisation which is going to have greater success in meeting the needs of its peoples than the nation state has done in the past. That is what clearly divides us.
“the ultimate creation of a European federal state, with a single currency. All the basic instruments of national economic management (fiscal, monetary, incomes and regional policies) would ultimately be handed over to the central federal authorities. The Werner report suggests that this radical transformation of present Communities should be accomplished within a decade”.
Suck it up
The computer system doesn't care about that data and won't even realise / complain if you ask it to do the same task it has learned on with incompatible data...i.e. even a toddler would complain if you asked it to sort pictures of trains and cars into piles, but in fact gave it a pile of planes and cars...and on the other hand most ML systems will still sit there sorting the pictures without a care in the world. That isn't what most normal people think as intelligent behaviour.
Whatever the outcome, I cannot lose. So up yours Richard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRtmuEZg0p8
Oh yeah, great result.
If we do not think it possible to build a machine that thinks, emotes, plays music, surfs the internet, loves and hates, then we come close to the theological concept that only humans have a soul. Ultimately the quest for true AI is a theological act.
Perhaps they worry that if they die without a Blue Passport in their hand they will be refused entry to Anglican Heaven and have to stay in purgatory.
The debate over our relationship with our neighbours is not ended by Brexit. It is the one constant of our 2000 years of written history. It is a neverending story.
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
So he lied to the public and gloated to the Eurofanatic cronies. A typical pro-European I would suggest.
The 27 are already fretting about the fact we have full membership now.
In this two year negotiation period we have all manner of rights that they would rather we did not have (e.g. oversight of trade negotiations).
They will look to cut a deal quite swiftly. Their issue is maintaining the pretence about the value of single market exclusivity. They have to find a fig leaf somewhere.
(But he'd still make the greatest president any European country has had in recent times.)
Though that's more a robot that can't sort out the LP.
https://twitter.com/jenwilliamsmen/status/851130236431413249
http://www.ipsos.fr/sites/default/files/public-affairs/Enquete-CEVIPOF/Enquete-CEVIPOF-Mars2017/rapport-ipsos-cevipof-paca-mars-2017.pdf
We don't even yet have AI that would be classified as equivalent to animals let alone conscious entities as you describe.
I think I might do San Tropez and possibly the Italian coast over the UK autumn and then move to the Canaries for winter before coming back to Blighty for a cool summer. Cornwall perhaps, or maybe Devon....
But I will make sure to stay on PB wherever I go
I see SeanT is not the only one looking in the mirror
And that photo isn't of substance-abusing poshies in May Week either.
https://youtu.be/4JRMKEDC9Zw
I think it's pretty easy for any group of people to get themselves hooked on a load of crap. Rich people do it. Poor people do it. The difference is that you see the poorest of the poorer souls on the street. If anything, the local authorities have to take the lead in managing it.
...the trailer for Thor:Ragnarok is out, and it is full of salty goodness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7MGUNV8MxU
Unfortunately it's not the cover of the Immigrant Song that was done for "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo", but...nobody's perfect
"... we think you're - allegorically - a deluded, fecally vomiting old crone who should be euthanised?"
We think? Mike has appointed you spokesperson for PB?
I am surprised there was not an announcement or a letter in The Times. Surely such a gargantuan intellect as yours being given such a responsibility should have been international news?
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/spice-coming-problem-manchester-12875662