And the Brexit cheerleaders here still in denial...
Pretty sure its the loony remain mob expecting us to pay 100 billion. I'm happy with us paying for our membership for the 2 year negotiating period and negotiating a fee for any transitional period. If they try to slap an extra exit charge on top then Brits will tell them to do one.
Pretty sure its the loony remain mob expecting us to pay 100 billion. I'm happy with us paying for our membership for the 2 year negotiating period and negotiating a fee for any transitional period. If they try to slap an extra exit charge on top then Brits will tell them to do one.
The Brexit Secretary says "obligations to the EU, that will survive the UK's withdrawal"
That is the official Government position. We will pay in after we leave.
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
And the Brexit cheerleaders here still in denial...
Pretty sure its the loony remain mob expecting us to pay 100 billion. I'm happy with us paying for our membership for the 2 year negotiating period and negotiating a fee for any transitional period. If they try to slap an extra exit charge on top then Brits will tell them to do one.
There will be EU based Programmes that we will continue to participate in beyond Brexit - andof course we will fund these ongoing. We may also participate in something akin to the EEA/Norway Grants if we use an interim 'Shadow' EEA (because it is currently thought unlikely we will join EFTA and retain formal EEA membership).
This has never been the big issue about Brexit - it's always been about repatriation of Law and the power of self government. Financially in the short term, it was always likely to be neutral via EEA, or a little worse than neutral via any other method.
Unlicensed villains could presumably get acid from the batteries on the mopeds or cars they drive to the scene of the crime, so I'm not sure that licensing would help much. In any case, bleach would do at a pinch -- available from any supermarket and most launderettes.
Photo or cctv id will not help as there is no way to link any particular sample of acid used in an attack back to its sale. It's not like matching bullets to the gun that fired them.
On sentencing, one advantage over knives is acid cannot lead to a charge of attempted murder (or even actual murder if things go wrong) -- and increasing the sentence too much risks the "may as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb" problem.
Of course photo id will help; if you suspect someone on other grounds of being the perp and you go round his local shops and get footage of him making his purchase it is going to bolster your case, is it not? And making it hard to get hold of stuff tends to reduce the use of it. Villains can steal or illicitly buy firearms in this country if they set their minds to it, but gun crime is still a rarity.
The first consequence is that the government has awarded itself vastly excessive executive power. The task of melding EU and UK law is, despite the silly claim of Bernard Jenkin that it is a cinch, very tangled. The government will have to take powers from the Statute of Proclamations 1539 to correct anomalies as they arise. The first major constitutional event of this country’s vaunted post-EU freedom will therefore be ministers exercising powers to amend legislation without parliamentary scrutiny. If some future Fox or Leadsom wants to rub out workers’ rights or environmental protection at the stroke of a pen, they will be able to do so. Oh, sovereignty, how wonderful it will be.
Just one example among the hundreds of oddities that will occur. Adopting EU law means that Britain would be bound into the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Not surprisingly, however, EU law presupposes membership of the EU, which is a condition of being in the EMA. The withdrawal bill will therefore need a detailed addendum, passed by ministerial fiat, authorising the new regulator. Which does not exist. Repeat this process hundreds of times, against a clock that is ticking and I give you the shambles that is the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.
Pretty sure its the loony remain mob expecting us to pay 100 billion. I'm happy with us paying for our membership for the 2 year negotiating period and negotiating a fee for any transitional period. If they try to slap an extra exit charge on top then Brits will tell them to do one.
The Brexit Secretary says "obligations to the EU, that will survive the UK's withdrawal"
That is the official Government position. We will pay in after we leave.
Well, it was either that, or shoot all the British EU Civil Servants.....
And the Brexit cheerleaders here still in denial...
Pretty sure its the loony remain mob expecting us to pay 100 billion. I'm happy with us paying for our membership for the 2 year negotiating period and negotiating a fee for any transitional period. If they try to slap an extra exit charge on top then Brits will tell them to do one.
The only important phrase in that document is "departing state".
The 'departing' bit is where the value is. Actually I don't really mind too much if they pick our pockets on the way out. We'll make it back with the increase in international trade in the medium term.
Getting out is the key goal. Everything else is noise.
More knee jerk reaction by people too dumb to understand what they are suggesting.
The dangerous stuff like acetic acid should clearly be banned.
There's a whole underworld of Prohibition to exploit.
psst, you want vinegar on those chips, mate? I know a bloke who can get you some, quiet, like, and it's not the really diluted stuff, proper hard 10% it is...
Yep. ... of the crime. Utterly eyewatering exemplary sentences for acid attacks are certainly required.
I agree with yiur sentencing comments but transfer your licence idea to knives - every type of knife - and see how sensible or not it sounds. Government regulation is not the answer.
I am saying requiring ID at point of sale would be enough. Seems to work with alcohol sales to under 18s. And/or require that photo evidence of purchasers is taken and kept - this already happens in lots of shops via cctv, without the system grinding to a halt.
Unlicensed villains could presumably get acid from the batteries on the mopeds or cars they drive to the scene of the crime, so I'm not sure that licensing would help much. In any case, bleach would do at a pinch -- available from any supermarket and most launderettes.
Photo or cctv id will not help as there is no way to link any particular sample of acid used in an attack back to its sale. It's not like matching bullets to the gun that fired them.
On sentencing, one advantage over knives is acid cannot lead to a charge of attempted murder (or even actual murder if things go wrong) -- and increasing the sentence too much risks the "may as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb" problem.
As far as I'm aware, the debate among MPs about legislation is entirely aware of the arguments against onerous restrictions on sale - what thy seem to be agreed on is treating carrying acid the same way as carrying knives, which seems fairly sensible.
And it's as much bollocks as is was last time they did it 3 years ago. The NHS ranks highly on stuff like care equity but is 10th out of 11 on actually keeping people alive and making them better. Basically they treat everyone equally badly
It's like claiming Southern is the best rail service provider because they make everyone equally late .
How are you doing, Richard - all sorted on that issue?
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
What we're fairly likely to get is Tory Brexit followed by Corbynite aftermath - the worst of both worlds.
The first consequence is that the government has awarded itself vastly excessive executive power. The task of melding EU and UK law is, despite the silly claim of Bernard Jenkin that it is a cinch, very tangled. The government will have to take powers from the Statute of Proclamations 1539 to correct anomalies as they arise. The first major constitutional event of this country’s vaunted post-EU freedom will therefore be ministers exercising powers to amend legislation without parliamentary scrutiny. If some future Fox or Leadsom wants to rub out workers’ rights or environmental protection at the stroke of a pen, they will be able to do so. Oh, sovereignty, how wonderful it will be.
Just one example among the hundreds of oddities that will occur. Adopting EU law means that Britain would be bound into the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Not surprisingly, however, EU law presupposes membership of the EU, which is a condition of being in the EMA. The withdrawal bill will therefore need a detailed addendum, passed by ministerial fiat, authorising the new regulator. Which does not exist. Repeat this process hundreds of times, against a clock that is ticking and I give you the shambles that is the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.
It is yet another demonstration of how much the EU has been controlling and determining our laws. As they will no longer do so that power has to be returned to elected officials in the UK who we can chuck out. It really takes a deeply disturbed mindset to think this is a negative thing.
It is yet another demonstration of how much the EU has been controlling and determining our laws.
No, it isn't
It's a demonstration of how International trade requires International bodies, and by departing from one we need to duplicate it at great expense and effort for no gain.
It's a demonstration of the idiocy of Brexit and the fools who championed it.
And it's as much bollocks as is was last time they did it 3 years ago. The NHS ranks highly on stuff like care equity but is 10th out of 11 on actually keeping people alive and making them better. Basically they treat everyone equally badly
It's like claiming Southern is the best rail service provider because they make everyone equally late .
What is encouraging is:
"over the last decade the UK saw a larger decline in mortality amenable to healthcare than the other countries studied,” the report says. Experts view that as a key measure, because it captures how well a health system is doing at preventing, detecting and treating illness."
So closing the gap.
We score poorly on the disease specific outcomes in particular. Like breast cancer, colon cancer survival rates....
The gastropubs' closures are blamed on Brexit, lower takings, 50% rent rises and the last straw was the election result, so I think we can all agree it is Theresa May's fault.
Community pubs are finished in the main.
>
I just worked out that Tesco, selling 18 x 440ml cans of Stella online for £13, are doing it for £0.93 a pint. That does seem very cheap. 58p a unit.
Is it right that the weekly units limit for men and women is now 14? 1.5 bottles of wine a week?
Damn, I thought it was 1.5 bottles a day
Back in the seventies when I started drinking wine I remember the editor of the Sunday Times Wine Guide (top tip, Bulgarian Cab Sav) opining that 'a bottle a day did not seem excessive and he knew people who happily drank two....'. The old joke is 'an alcoholic is someone who drinks more than their doctor' - that said I read the detailed stats behind the drink limits and you had to drink titanic quantities - around two bottles a day - to increase your chances of early death by 10%.....and teetotallers don't live longer (actually, they don't) - it just feels longer.....
I remember the Bulgarian Cab Sav which I bought through the Sunday Times Wine Club in the 1970s. Never did me any harm.
Note that Bulgaria managed to export wine to the UK before and after the UK joined the EU in 1973 despite Bulgaria not being in the EU at the time. A miracle.
The gastropubs' closures are blamed on Brexit, lower takings, 50% rent rises and the last straw was the election result, so I think we can all agree it is Theresa May's fault.
The pub industry is in fatal decline....
Do you think there is a future Britain with no pubs?
All 3 (+ the working men's club) in my village seem to be doing ok
He's learnt from Theresa May post referendum, the less you say the better you'll do. Still it's disgusting to not officially know what the Leader of the Opposition (and the Opposition in general) stand for.
It is yet another demonstration of how much the EU has been controlling and determining our laws.
No, it isn't
It's a demonstration of how International trade requires International bodies, and by departing from one we need to duplicate it at great expense and effort for no gain.
It's a demonstration of the idiocy of Brexit and the fools who championed it.
Sorry you're so bitter I look forward to settling our membership fees and our future prosperity. Clearly no country can ever survive outside the EU, what were we thinking!
It is yet another demonstration of how much the EU has been controlling and determining our laws.
No, it isn't
It's a demonstration of how International trade requires International bodies, and by departing from one we need to duplicate it at great expense and effort for no gain.
It's a demonstration of the idiocy of Brexit and the fools who championed it.
The examples given in that piece, like workers rights, do not require any international regulation at all. Unravelling EU legislation will be complicated but the gain is that we will then have rules that are relevant to the UK and if we don't like any adverse effect that they have we can change them. If politicians change them in a way we don't like we can change them too. I think its called democracy.
The first consequence is that the government has awarded itself vastly excessive executive power. The task of melding EU and UK law is, despite the silly claim of Bernard Jenkin that it is a cinch, very tangled. The government will have to take powers from the Statute of Proclamations 1539 to correct anomalies as they arise. The first major constitutional event of this country’s vaunted post-EU freedom will therefore be ministers exercising powers to amend legislation without parliamentary scrutiny. If some future Fox or Leadsom wants to rub out workers’ rights or environmental protection at the stroke of a pen, they will be able to do so. Oh, sovereignty, how wonderful it will be.
Just one example among the hundreds of oddities that will occur. Adopting EU law means that Britain would be bound into the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Not surprisingly, however, EU law presupposes membership of the EU, which is a condition of being in the EMA. The withdrawal bill will therefore need a detailed addendum, passed by ministerial fiat, authorising the new regulator. Which does not exist. Repeat this process hundreds of times, against a clock that is ticking and I give you the shambles that is the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.
It is yet another demonstration of how much the EU has been controlling and determining our laws. As they will no longer do so that power has to be returned to elected officials in the UK who we can chuck out. It really takes a deeply disturbed mindset to think this is a negative thing.
Maybe, but that's not quite the question. The question is one of process - How do we repatriate laws, and utilise UK regulators, without a certain degree of 'copy and paste' lawmaking?
One understanding to take, is that nearly all of the bodies that need repatriating have 'National' arms - ones that were taken under EU control as the single market was built, or ones that were constituted to uphold the values of the single market. They simply need the power to act autonomously, which is currently via EU legislation and UK SI's mainly. So there are staff and structures in most cases, just legal authority is needed.
And the Brexit cheerleaders here still in denial...
Pretty sure its the loony remain mob expecting us to pay 100 billion. I'm happy with us paying for our membership for the 2 year negotiating period and negotiating a fee for any transitional period. If they try to slap an extra exit charge on top then Brits will tell them to do one.
The only important phrase in that document is "departing state".
The 'departing' bit is where the value is. Actually I don't really mind too much if they pick our pockets on the way out. We'll make it back with the increase in international trade in the medium term.
Getting out is the key goal. Everything else is noise.
It is yet another demonstration of how much the EU has been controlling and determining our laws.
No, it isn't
It's a demonstration of how International trade requires International bodies, and by departing from one we need to duplicate it at great expense and effort for no gain.
It's a demonstration of the idiocy of Brexit and the fools who championed it.
The examples given in that piece, like workers rights, do not require any international regulation at all. Unravelling EU legislation will be complicated but the gain is that we will then have rules that are relevant to the UK and if we don't like any adverse effect that they have we can change them. If politicians change them in a way we don't like we can change them too. I think its called democracy.
And of course, govt has undertaken not to change any of this legislation under the GRA2017 - what happens afterwards is of course a matter between Parliament and the voter.
It is yet another demonstration of how much the EU has been controlling and determining our laws.
No, it isn't
It's a demonstration of how International trade requires International bodies, and by departing from one we need to duplicate it at great expense and effort for no gain.
It's a demonstration of the idiocy of Brexit and the fools who championed it.
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
The first consequence is that the government has awarded itself vastly excessive executive power. The task of melding EU and UK law is, despite the silly claim of Bernard Jenkin that it is a cinch, very tangled. The government will have to take powers from the Statute of Proclamations 1539 to correct anomalies as they arise. The first major constitutional event of this country’s vaunted post-EU freedom will therefore be ministers exercising powers to amend legislation without parliamentary scrutiny. If some future Fox or Leadsom wants to rub out workers’ rights or environmental protection at the stroke of a pen, they will be able to do so. Oh, sovereignty, how wonderful it will be.
Just one example among the hundreds of oddities that will occur. Adopting EU law means that Britain would be bound into the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Not surprisingly, however, EU law presupposes membership of the EU, which is a condition of being in the EMA. The withdrawal bill will therefore need a detailed addendum, passed by ministerial fiat, authorising the new regulator. Which does not exist. Repeat this process hundreds of times, against a clock that is ticking and I give you the shambles that is the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.
It is yet another demonstration of how much the EU has been controlling and determining our laws. As they will no longer do so that power has to be returned to elected officials in the UK who we can chuck out. It really takes a deeply disturbed mindset to think this is a negative thing.
Maybe, but that's not quite the question. The question is one of process - How do we repatriate laws, and utilise UK regulators, without a certain degree of 'copy and paste' lawmaking?
One understanding to take, is that nearly all of the bodies that need repatriating have 'National' arms - ones that were taken under EU control as the single market was built, or ones that were constituted to uphold the values of the single market. They simply need the power to act autonomously, which is currently via EU legislation and UK SI's mainly. So there are staff and structures in most cases, just legal authority is needed.
The process will be complicated and I expect that our political masters will spend much of the next decade sorting out some of the complications with particular legislation in each area. At the moment some cut and paste is inevitable, there is too much to deal with in the time available but over time we should have better and more accountable regulation than we do now.
The problem with any analysis of this being a 'Bad Tory Campaign' is that the Conservatives received a greater share of the vote than at any election in decades.
The real story is the rise of Corbynomics, free stuff for everyone, that dragged a lot of voters to his platform, and the fact that nobody thought he could win so the idea of running a negative campaign was pointless. He was the ultimate 'free hit' vote.
Will the £400B plus of QE 'found' for the banks ever be paid back? No, it was created from thin air and will be rolled over.
No, the QE will be rolled back (eventually). The assets that QE bought (mainly bonds) will be sold back to the banks and other institutions. The real money that the banks pay for these assets will then be electronically destroyed by Bank of England. Eventually the £400b or whatever it is will no longer exist.
That's the theory anyway.
Tons of issues with this massive economic experiment and I fear there is trouble ahead.
How many of the bonds bought by QE were gilts? Surely QE was just away of "financing" government borrowing - the wonder is that they stopped at £400bn - why not finance the lot that way? Presumably the BoE is raking in lots of interest from these bonds - who gets that?
And the Brexit cheerleaders here still in denial...
Pretty sure its the loony remain mob expecting us to pay 100 billion. I'm happy with us paying for our membership for the 2 year negotiating period and negotiating a fee for any transitional period. If they try to slap an extra exit charge on top then Brits will tell them to do one.
The only important phrase in that document is "departing state".
The 'departing' bit is where the value is. Actually I don't really mind too much if they pick our pockets on the way out. We'll make it back with the increase in international trade in the medium term.
Getting out is the key goal. Everything else is noise.
And the Brexit cheerleaders here still in denial...
Pretty sure its the loony remain mob expecting us to pay 100 billion. I'm happy with us paying for our membership for the 2 year negotiating period and negotiating a fee for any transitional period. If they try to slap an extra exit charge on top then Brits will tell them to do one.
The only important phrase in that document is "departing state".
The 'departing' bit is where the value is. Actually I don't really mind too much if they pick our pockets on the way out. We'll make it back with the increase in international trade in the medium term.
Getting out is the key goal. Everything else is noise.
Depends what is meant by "getting out".
Being able to make and amend our own laws, create our own trade deals without the rigmarole of consulting a central body that does not have our best interests at heart. You appear to have been fooled that rewriting 40 years of bureaucracy in 2 years would be a piece of cake and shocked that there are difficulties. The process was never going to be easy but with Article 50 enacted it can no longer be reversed. I have full confidence that the country will be in more prosperous position 10 years down the line than it is now. People no longer want key decisions that affect their lives and businesses made in Brussels on their behalf, and that's completely understandable.
Mrs C, Corbyn's a self-declared friend of Hamas and Hezbollah, a unilateralist, an economically illiterate useful idiot.
I'd vote Green before Corbyn's Labour. Corbyn as PM will* cause massive damage to the UK. Trident will be no more, our already large deficit will balloon again, and we'll have a self-declared friend of people who throw gays from rooftops in charge of our government.
The problem with any analysis of this being a 'Bad Tory Campaign' is that the Conservatives received a greater share of the vote than at any election in decades.
The real story is the rise of Corbynomics, free stuff for everyone, that dragged a lot of voters to his platform, and the fact that nobody thought he could win so the idea of running a negative campaign was pointless. He was the ultimate 'free hit' vote.
Will the £400B plus of QE 'found' for the banks ever be paid back? No, it was created from thin air and will be rolled over.
No, the QE will be rolled back (eventually). The assets that QE bought (mainly bonds) will be sold back to the banks and other institutions. The real money that the banks pay for these assets will then be electronically destroyed by Bank of England. Eventually the £400b or whatever it is will no longer exist.
That's the theory anyway.
Tons of issues with this massive economic experiment and I fear there is trouble ahead.
How many of the bonds bought by QE were gilts? Surely QE was just away of "financing" government borrowing - the wonder is that they stopped at £400bn - why not finance the lot that way? Presumably the BoE is raking in lots of interest from these bonds - who gets that?
The BoE both issues and purchases the bonds - that's the point. Over half of UK government bonds are now owned by the Bank of England.
It is yet another demonstration of how much the EU has been controlling and determining our laws.
No, it isn't
It's a demonstration of how International trade requires International bodies, and by departing from one we need to duplicate it at great expense and effort for no gain.
It's a demonstration of the idiocy of Brexit and the fools who championed it.
And of the sloth, stupidity and self-satisfaction of its opponents.
Just kidding, of course, because we know that Leave painted a NUMBER on a BUS, and who could be expected to prevail against such fiendish ingenuity?
Ms. Forethought, it's unscientific, innumerate idiocy that men and women have the same alcohol limits. It's PC bullshit trumping fact-based evidence, and sends the very dangerous signal that, in general, women have the same alcohol tolerance as men.
Still, if a load of women get alcohol poisoning they wouldn't've otherwise gotten, at least they can rest (or die) safe in the knowledge that they were treated just the same as men. Despite not having as much blood in their bodies, decreasing their tolerance for alcohol.
*sighs* It beggars belief.
According to my GP, these limits are empirical and emerge from the observation that men on 20 units a week exhibit (approximately) no evidence of liver or other alcohol-related problems, whereas those on higher intakes than that sometimes do, and sometimes do not. Thus, as you have no idea whether or not you are among the fortunate cohort that can do 100 units a week and live to 90 without ill effect, the conservative course is to stick to 20 units. There is no piece of research that persuasively shows how 40 units are worse than 20 or better than 60, it's simply that people on 20, broadly put, exhibit none of the ill effects seen in those on 100.
That 20-unit limit now seems to have dropped to 14 for both XX and XY types, something I find very odd considering XYs have something like 1/3 more body weight and organ capacity than XXs. Is there another agenda here? Booze is broadly equally calorific per unit regardless of what it is - beer 89 calories, wine 70, soyder 83, spirits 60 but that's before the sugary mixers - so is there maybe a stealth anti-obesity thing going on? But if so why hasn't the XX "allowance" been reduced too?
And the Brexit cheerleaders here still in denial...
Pretty sure its the loony remain mob expecting us to pay 100 billion. I'm happy with us paying for our membership for the 2 year negotiating period and negotiating a fee for any transitional period. If they try to slap an extra exit charge on top then Brits will tell them to do one.
The only important phrase in that document is "departing state".
The 'departing' bit is where the value is. Actually I don't really mind too much if they pick our pockets on the way out. We'll make it back with the increase in international trade in the medium term.
Getting out is the key goal. Everything else is noise.
Depends what is meant by "getting out".
Being able to make and amend our own laws, create our own trade deals without the rigmarole of consulting a central body that does not have our best interests at heart. You appear to have been fooled that rewriting 40 years of bureaucracy in 2 years would be a piece of cake and shocked that there are difficulties. The process was never going to be easy but with Article 50 enacted it can no longer be reversed. I have full confidence that the country will be in more prosperous position 10 years down the line than it is now. People no longer want key decisions that affect their lives and businesses made in Brussels on their behalf, and that's completely understandable.
We've been sucked into a bureaucratic vortex which was designed to be a one way trip. The difficulties clearly show that this was just about our last chance to wriggle free. A few more years and we would have been completely conquered,
Yes, for the first time in years we're going to have to make a bit of effort and do some work ourselves rather than rely on rules being imposed on us.
That said, the challenges are not as tricky as some of those who walk amongst us would have us believe. There is a motive behind their scaremongering and it is not one that works in the interests of our country.
And the Brexit cheerleaders here still in denial...
Pretty sure its the loony remain mob expecting us to pay 100 billion. I'm happy with us paying for our membership for the 2 year negotiating period and negotiating a fee for any transitional period. If they try to slap an extra exit charge on top then Brits will tell them to do one.
The only important phrase in that document is "departing state".
The 'departing' bit is where the value is. Actually I don't really mind too much if they pick our pockets on the way out. We'll make it back with the increase in international trade in the medium term.
Getting out is the key goal. Everything else is noise.
Depends what is meant by "getting out".
We've been sucked into a bureaucratic vortex which was designed to be a one way trip. The difficulties clearly show that this was just about our last chance to wriggle free. A few more years and we would have been completely conquered,
Yes, for the first time in years we're going to have to make a bit of effort and do some work ourselves rather than rely on rules being imposed on us.
That said, the challenges are not as tricky as some of those who walk amongst us would have us believe. There is a motive behind their scaremongering and it is not one that works in the interests of our country.
What will be interesting is if the next round of EU integration lawmaking leaves anything like Article 50 still in place.
The first line of defence against further secessions from the EU is to make it as painful as possible to secede, but once out the EU can do very little to hinder former members from becoming prosperous. Should that happen to UK there will be other countries that decide to leave too; in which case the logical precaution is to remove Article 50 altogether and make secession constructively impossible, either overtly or otherwise. Perhaps compulsory euro membership will be the preferred route to achieve this?
I do think that Remainers who imagine we'll one day rejoin are living in a bit of a dreamworld. The manner of our exit from the EU will not make it fondly remembered, and the terms to rejoin would likely include deeper membership than was previously rejected that is also irreversible. The idea that anyone will win an election on such a platform strikes me as fanciful.
[snip] That 20-unit limit now seems to have dropped to 14 for both XX and XY types, something I find very odd.. [snip]
I took some trouble to read the report of the Chief Medical Officer upon which that recommendation was made, and their own data simply doesn't support their recommendations. They ignored differences between the sexes, ignored age effects, confused binge drinking with regular non-binge drinking, and factored in bizarre irrelevancies such as youngsters jumping into cold lakes when drunk.
In other words, the recommendation is a load of nonsense - and quite dangerous, IMO, because it subverts public faith in sensible advice.
Ms. Forethought, it's unscientific, innumerate idiocy that men and women have the same alcohol limits. It's PC bullshit trumping fact-based evidence, and sends the very dangerous signal that, in general, women have the same alcohol tolerance as men.
Still, if a load of women get alcohol poisoning they wouldn't've otherwise gotten, at least they can rest (or die) safe in the knowledge that they were treated just the same as men. Despite not having as much blood in their bodies, decreasing their tolerance for alcohol.
*sighs* It beggars belief.
According to my GP, these limits are empirical and emerge from the observation that men on 20 units a week exhibit (approximately) no evidence of liver or other alcohol-related problems, whereas those on higher intakes than that sometimes do, and sometimes do not. Thus, as you have no idea whether or not you are among the fortunate cohort that can do 100 units a week and live to 90 without ill effect, the conservative course is to stick to 20 units. There is no piece of research that persuasively shows how 40 units are worse than 20 or better than 60, it's simply that people on 20, broadly put, exhibit none of the ill effects seen in those on 100.
That 20-unit limit now seems to have dropped to 14 for both XX and XY types, something I find very odd considering XYs have something like 1/3 more body weight and organ capacity than XXs. Is there another agenda here? Booze is broadly equally calorific per unit regardless of what it is - beer 89 calories, wine 70, soyder 83, spirits 60 but that's before the sugary mixers - so is there maybe a stealth anti-obesity thing going on? But if so why hasn't the XX "allowance" been reduced too?
If you read the detailed guidance, you'll see that they included accidents in the mortality figures. Broadly speaking, men are far more likely to kill themselves by behaving ridiculously when pissed, hence the recommendations. The precise limits are fairly irrelevant (who counts units anyway ?) - the message that limiting your drinking is healthy is entirely sensible.
Off topic, I had a very disturbing email first thing this morning from a close friend of mine who is very senior in a pharmaceutical firm. He went to a small dinner last night and had people (colleagues) literally screaming at him demanding he justify his vote to Leave, which he admitted to.
He is one of the most decent and nicest people I know (think David Herdson or Nick Palmer levels of politeness) and isn't usually fazed, but is quite upset about it. It's really shaken him up.
Off topic, I had a very disturbing email first thing this morning from a close friend of mine who is very senior in a pharmaceutical firm. He went to a small dinner last night and had people (colleagues) literally screaming at him demanding he justify his vote to Leave, which he admitted to.
He is one of the most decent and nicest people I know (think David Herdson or Nick Palmer levels of politeness) and isn't usually fazed, but is quite upset about it. It's really shaken him up.
Translated from French by Bing The presence today at my side of the President of the United States, Mr Donald Trump, is the sign of friendship that transcends time. "
Off topic, I had a very disturbing email first thing this morning from a close friend of mine who is very senior in a pharmaceutical firm. He went to a small dinner last night and had people (colleagues) literally screaming at him demanding he justify his vote to Leave, which he admitted to.
He is one of the most decent and nicest people I know (think David Herdson or Nick Palmer levels of politeness) and isn't usually fazed, but is quite upset about it. It's really shaken him up.
It is getting quite nasty out there.
Sorry to hear that.
Whoever it was earlier this morning assuring us that beyond the weird world of PB no-one was getting exercised about Brexit should clearly get out more.
And it's as much bollocks as is was last time they did it 3 years ago. The NHS ranks highly on stuff like care equity but is 10th out of 11 on actually keeping people alive and making them better. Basically they treat everyone equally badly
It's like claiming Southern is the best rail service provider because they make everyone equally late .
How are you doing, Richard - all sorted on that issue?
No change at present. I have a rather personal investigation on Thursday which I keep jokingly referring to as a man in a wet suit with a Kodak. Hopefully they will work out what the score is and get some treatment going if necessary.
Translated from French by Bing The presence today at my side of the President of the United States, Mr Donald Trump, is the sign of friendship that transcends time. "
Could also translate as "transcends the weather" I think.
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
No.
There are only two options: Tory or Labour.
If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.
The recommended units per week is meant to send a message - it's not scientific. The message is that alcohol can be bad for you.
To start with, there's no effort to explain the difference between dose and dosage - the very basics of toxicology.
If they were to try to explain that alcohol in small doses could be good for you - that would confuse the message. They suspect you'd all think ... if it could be good in small doses, perhaps I should be drinking to excess. You can't trust the voters with anything - look at the Brexit referendum.
And it's as much bollocks as is was last time they did it 3 years ago. The NHS ranks highly on stuff like care equity but is 10th out of 11 on actually keeping people alive and making them better. Basically they treat everyone equally badly
It's like claiming Southern is the best rail service provider because they make everyone equally late .
How are you doing, Richard - all sorted on that issue?
No change at present. I have a rather personal investigation on Thursday which I keep jokingly referring to as a man in a wet suit with a Kodak. Hopefully they will work out what the score is and get some treatment going if necessary.
Nice to hear your keeping your humour about the whole thing.
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
No.
There are only two options: Tory or Labour.
If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.
Off topic, I had a very disturbing email first thing this morning from a close friend of mine who is very senior in a pharmaceutical firm. He went to a small dinner last night and had people (colleagues) literally screaming at him demanding he justify his vote to Leave, which he admitted to.
He is one of the most decent and nicest people I know (think David Herdson or Nick Palmer levels of politeness) and isn't usually fazed, but is quite upset about it. It's really shaken him up.
It is getting quite nasty out there.
Maybe because the industry is under serious threat from Brexit
Translated from French by Bing The presence today at my side of the President of the United States, Mr Donald Trump, is the sign of friendship that transcends time. "
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
No.
There are only two options: Tory or Labour.
If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.
Off topic, I had a very disturbing email first thing this morning from a close friend of mine who is very senior in a pharmaceutical firm. He went to a small dinner last night and had people (colleagues) literally screaming at him demanding he justify his vote to Leave, which he admitted to.
He is one of the most decent and nicest people I know (think David Herdson or Nick Palmer levels of politeness) and isn't usually fazed, but is quite upset about it. It's really shaken him up.
It is getting quite nasty out there.
Maybe because the industry is under serious threat from Brexit
Off topic, I had a very disturbing email first thing this morning from a close friend of mine who is very senior in a pharmaceutical firm. He went to a small dinner last night and had people (colleagues) literally screaming at him demanding he justify his vote to Leave, which he admitted to.
He is one of the most decent and nicest people I know (think David Herdson or Nick Palmer levels of politeness) and isn't usually fazed, but is quite upset about it. It's really shaken him up.
It is getting quite nasty out there.
Maybe because the industry is under serious threat from Brexit
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
No.
There are only two options: Tory or Labour.
If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.
That's daft - we had a two party coalition just over two years ago & we're not far away from one at the moment. The Lib Dems would improve any government that they took part in.
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
No.
There are only two options: Tory or Labour.
If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.
Off topic, I had a very disturbing email first thing this morning from a close friend of mine who is very senior in a pharmaceutical firm. He went to a small dinner last night and had people (colleagues) literally screaming at him demanding he justify his vote to Leave, which he admitted to.
He is one of the most decent and nicest people I know (think David Herdson or Nick Palmer levels of politeness) and isn't usually fazed, but is quite upset about it. It's really shaken him up.
It is getting quite nasty out there.
Maybe because the industry is under serious threat from Brexit
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
No.
There are only two options: Tory or Labour.
If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.
They are not unfit to govern. And, even if they were, they'd be ten times better than Corbyn/McDonnell who are professional nation fucker-uppers.
My best friend that I've known since we were 5 voted Leave. I haven't spoken to him since.
That says more about you than him, unless it's purely a coincidence.
It's really quite sad that you can't even admit that there were good and bad reasons for voting Remain and Leave. Neither side had a monopoly of virtue or wisdom.
Translated from French by Bing The presence today at my side of the President of the United States, Mr Donald Trump, is the sign of friendship that transcends time. "
But when the Great French Hope was elected POF did the lefties and "centrists" on here really believe Macron would rolling out the red carpet and sucking up to Donald Trump by Bastille Day?
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
No.
There are only two options: Tory or Labour.
If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.
They are not unfit to govern. And, even if they were, they'd be ten times better than Corbyn/McDonnell who are professional nation fucker-uppers.
The ability of remainers to embrace the batshit craziness of Corbyn & McDonnell is worrying !
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
No.
There are only two options: Tory or Labour.
If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.
That's daft - we had a two party coalition just over two years ago & we're not far away from one at the moment. The Lib Dems would improve any government that they took part in.
This would be the same LibDems that were nearly wiped out as a result of their last coalition? The same ones who ruled out another coalition?
Off topic, I had a very disturbing email first thing this morning from a close friend of mine who is very senior in a pharmaceutical firm. He went to a small dinner last night and had people (colleagues) literally screaming at him demanding he justify his vote to Leave, which he admitted to.
He is one of the most decent and nicest people I know (think David Herdson or Nick Palmer levels of politeness) and isn't usually fazed, but is quite upset about it. It's really shaken him up.
It is getting quite nasty out there.
Maybe because the industry is under serious threat from Brexit
What on earth do all other counties that aren't in the EU do to access "life saving medicines? "
It really is astonishing really that any other country can possibly function without Jean Claude Juncker...
The only country i have heard of in recent times that had trouble accessing medicines was Greece and that was directly because of the EU pushing the country to the edge of destructuon.
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
No.
There are only two options: Tory or Labour.
If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.
They are not unfit to govern. And, even if they were, they'd be ten times better than Corbyn/McDonnell who are professional nation fucker-uppers.
"Fuckers-up", surely. In no language with which I am acquainted does the preposition have to agree with the adjacent noun, even if used adverbially as here.
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
No.
There are only two options: Tory or Labour.
If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.
What about if they're both unfit to govern?
Snap
Then we might as well change the existing one for the other lot. The old consulting rule of "If what you are doing does not work, then stop doing it and try something else" is what seems to apply here.
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
No.
There are only two options: Tory or Labour.
If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.
They are not unfit to govern. And, even if they were, they'd be ten times better than Corbyn/McDonnell who are professional nation fucker-uppers.
The ability of remainers to embrace the batshit craziness of Corbyn & McDonnell is worrying !
Tell me about it, I spent six hours with JohnO of this parish, that's what's really worrying us, and a Brexit recession were it happen = Corbyn landslide.
Oh and the worry that the only way the people will oppose Corbyn's economic policies is when they've had five years of it.
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
No.
There are only two options: Tory or Labour.
If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.
What about if they're both unfit to govern?
Snap
Then we might as well change the existing one for the other lot. The old consulting rule of "If what you are doing does not work, then stop doing it and try something else" is what seems to apply here.
OR do what sensible people do when confronted by two equally useless products which is refuse to buy either.
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
No.
There are only two options: Tory or Labour.
If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.
That's daft - we had a two party coalition just over two years ago & we're not far away from one at the moment. The Lib Dems would improve any government that they took part in.
This would be the same LibDems that were nearly wiped out as a result of their last coalition? The same ones who ruled out another coalition?
The state of the two big parties is radically different to what it was before the election, which changes the calculations about coalitions. The Lib Dems are about to change leader & I suspect the no coalitions position will be modified somewhat.
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
No.
There are only two options: Tory or Labour.
If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.
They are not unfit to govern. And, even if they were, they'd be ten times better than Corbyn/McDonnell who are professional nation fucker-uppers.
The ability of remainers to embrace the batshit craziness of Corbyn & McDonnell is worrying !
I am not embracing anything - I am being forced to consider the alternative, batsh*t or otherwise. I have reached the point where I do not want to vote FOR the govt so my only option is to vote AGAINST and the only party with any hope of forming a govt is Labour.
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
No.
There are only two options: Tory or Labour.
If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.
What about if they're both unfit to govern?
Snap
Then we might as well change the existing one for the other lot. The old consulting rule of "If what you are doing does not work, then stop doing it and try something else" is what seems to apply here.
OR do what sensible people do when confronted by two equally useless products which is refuse to buy either.
Indeed Richard, but if something HAS to be purchased ....?
Off topic, I had a very disturbing email first thing this morning from a close friend of mine who is very senior in a pharmaceutical firm. He went to a small dinner last night and had people (colleagues) literally screaming at him demanding he justify his vote to Leave, which he admitted to.
He is one of the most decent and nicest people I know (think David Herdson or Nick Palmer levels of politeness) and isn't usually fazed, but is quite upset about it. It's really shaken him up.
It is getting quite nasty out there.
Maybe because the industry is under serious threat from Brexit
What on earth do all other counties that aren't in the EU do to access "life saving medicines? "
It really is astonishing really that any other country can possibly function without Jean Claude Juncker...
The only country i have heard of in recent times that had trouble accessing medicines was Greece and that was directly because of the EU pushing the country to the edge of destructuon.
Over the last year there have been quite a shortage of various staple pharmaceuticals that I prescibe. Apparently it is because the NHS has negotiated such low rates that the companies supply the Continent instead, as in the single market they can, and make bigger profits.
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
No.
There are only two options: Tory or Labour.
If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.
They are not unfit to govern. And, even if they were, they'd be ten times better than Corbyn/McDonnell who are professional nation fucker-uppers.
"Fuckers-up", surely. In no language with which I am acquainted does the preposition have to agree with the adjacent noun, even if used adverbially as here.
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
No.
There are only two options: Tory or Labour.
If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.
They are not unfit to govern. And, even if they were, they'd be ten times better than Corbyn/McDonnell who are professional nation fucker-uppers.
The ability of remainers to embrace the batshit craziness of Corbyn & McDonnell is worrying !
Tell me about it, I spent six hours with JohnO of this parish, that's what's really worrying us, and a Brexit recession were it happen = Corbyn landslide.
Oh and the worry that the only way the people will oppose Corbyn's economic policies is when they've had five years of it.
"Once the door is opened, they will find the art of persuasion more difficult. “Hi, we’re here to talk about starving your nan and selling your child’s liver” may have its limits as an opening gambit."
It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
No.
There are only two options: Tory or Labour.
If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.
That's daft - we had a two party coalition just over two years ago & we're not far away from one at the moment. The Lib Dems would improve any government that they took part in.
With so much talent concentrated into just 14 MPs, the LibDems are clearly intellectual crack cocaine compared to the blandly insipid alcopops of the other parties' MPs. They won so few seats only because the electorate are simply too glacially stupid to appreciate what Titans the LibDems are. They are the bald albino bodybuilders of Prometheus; other MPs are Guy Pearce in comparison.
Tim Farron's gravitas is so extreme he distorts local space-time and is thereby ironically Dopplered into looking like a hapless, abject lightweight who would narrowly fail an audition for Grange Hill.
Still, we must not repine. Instead we must be grateful for the 14 LibDem MPs with which we have been blessed, while ruefully wishing there were more, so that they could even more "improve any government that they took part in".
Comments
That is the official Government position. We will pay in after we leave.
I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.
So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.
Vote for Corbyn
This has never been the big issue about Brexit - it's always been about repatriation of Law and the power of self government. Financially in the short term, it was always likely to be neutral via EEA, or a little worse than neutral via any other method.
The 'departing' bit is where the value is. Actually I don't really mind too much if they pick our pockets on the way out. We'll make it back with the increase in international trade in the medium term.
Getting out is the key goal. Everything else is noise.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/05/22/global-trade-cant-replace-the-value-of-the-eu-single-market-for-the-uk/
It's a demonstration of how International trade requires International bodies, and by departing from one we need to duplicate it at great expense and effort for no gain.
It's a demonstration of the idiocy of Brexit and the fools who championed it.
"over the last decade the UK saw a larger decline in mortality amenable to healthcare than the other countries studied,” the report says. Experts view that as a key measure, because it captures how well a health system is doing at preventing, detecting and treating illness."
So closing the gap.
We score poorly on the disease specific outcomes in particular. Like breast cancer, colon cancer survival rates....
Still it's disgusting to not officially know what the Leader of the Opposition (and the Opposition in general) stand for.
Edited extra bit: practice in twenty minutes or so.
One understanding to take, is that nearly all of the bodies that need repatriating have 'National' arms - ones that were taken under EU control as the single market was built, or ones that were constituted to uphold the values of the single market. They simply need the power to act autonomously, which is currently via EU legislation and UK SI's mainly. So there are staff and structures in most cases, just legal authority is needed.
And the fools who voted for it?
You appear to have been fooled that rewriting 40 years of bureaucracy in 2 years would be a piece of cake and shocked that there are difficulties. The process was never going to be easy but with Article 50 enacted it can no longer be reversed. I have full confidence that the country will be in more prosperous position 10 years down the line than it is now. People no longer want key decisions that affect their lives and businesses made in Brussels on their behalf, and that's completely understandable.
I'd vote Green before Corbyn's Labour. Corbyn as PM will* cause massive damage to the UK. Trident will be no more, our already large deficit will balloon again, and we'll have a self-declared friend of people who throw gays from rooftops in charge of our government.
Edited extra bit: would* not will. I hope.
Anyway, I must be off.
https://twitter.com/ProfKAArmstrong/status/885827760844918784
Dipshit means dipshit.
Just kidding, of course, because we know that Leave painted a NUMBER on a BUS, and who could be expected to prevail against such fiendish ingenuity?
That 20-unit limit now seems to have dropped to 14 for both XX and XY types, something I find very odd considering XYs have something like 1/3 more body weight and organ capacity than XXs. Is there another agenda here? Booze is broadly equally calorific per unit regardless of what it is - beer 89 calories, wine 70, soyder 83, spirits 60 but that's before the sugary mixers - so is there maybe a stealth anti-obesity thing going on? But if so why hasn't the XX "allowance" been reduced too?
Yes, for the first time in years we're going to have to make a bit of effort and do some work ourselves rather than rely on rules being imposed on us.
That said, the challenges are not as tricky as some of those who walk amongst us would have us believe. There is a motive behind their scaremongering and it is not one that works in the interests of our country.
Basil: Can't we get you on Mastermind, Sybil? Next contestant - Sybil Fawlty from Torquay, specialist subject: the bleedin' obvious.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885769944482414593
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885817217455140864
Any comment from PB's lefties?
The first line of defence against further secessions from the EU is to make it as painful as possible to secede, but once out the EU can do very little to hinder former members from becoming prosperous. Should that happen to UK there will be other countries that decide to leave too; in which case the logical precaution is to remove Article 50 altogether and make secession constructively impossible, either overtly or otherwise. Perhaps compulsory euro membership will be the preferred route to achieve this?
I do think that Remainers who imagine we'll one day rejoin are living in a bit of a dreamworld. The manner of our exit from the EU will not make it fondly remembered, and the terms to rejoin would likely include deeper membership than was previously rejected that is also irreversible. The idea that anyone will win an election on such a platform strikes me as fanciful.
In other words, the recommendation is a load of nonsense - and quite dangerous, IMO, because it subverts public faith in sensible advice.
Broadly speaking, men are far more likely to kill themselves by behaving ridiculously when pissed, hence the recommendations. The precise limits are fairly irrelevant (who counts units anyway ?) - the message that limiting your drinking is healthy is entirely sensible.
He is one of the most decent and nicest people I know (think David Herdson or Nick Palmer levels of politeness) and isn't usually fazed, but is quite upset about it. It's really shaken him up.
It is getting quite nasty out there.
How awful!
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/885808266688835584
Translated from French by Bing
The presence today at my side of the President of the United States, Mr Donald Trump, is the sign of friendship that transcends time. "
My best friend that I've known since we were 5 voted Leave. I haven't spoken to him since.
Whoever it was earlier this morning assuring us that beyond the weird world of PB no-one was getting exercised about Brexit should clearly get out more.
How far would you take this? Would you actually go as far as a civil war over Jean Claude Juncker?
I would never sacrifice a close friendship over political differences.
If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.
To start with, there's no effort to explain the difference between dose and dosage - the very basics of toxicology.
If they were to try to explain that alcohol in small doses could be good for you - that would confuse the message. They suspect you'd all think ... if it could be good in small doses, perhaps I should be drinking to excess. You can't trust the voters with anything - look at the Brexit referendum.
It does help...
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/885413082817757185
I suggest you keep very quiet in darkest Lincolnshire.
I have many friends who voted for Remain. I don't mind, no one's perfect.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/07/in_paris_macron_turns_on_the_charm_for_trump.html
(edit - and the subtext is perhaps that not even Trump can destroy the friendship between the two nations.)
edit: Mr. Tyndall got there first.
It really is astonishing really that any other country can possibly function without Jean Claude Juncker...
He thinks it's going to be fine.
Brexit will make medicine more expensive.
Why didn't they put that on the side of a bus?
It's really quite sad that you can't even admit that there were good and bad reasons for voting Remain and Leave. Neither side had a monopoly of virtue or wisdom.
But when the Great French Hope was elected POF did the lefties and "centrists" on here really believe Macron would rolling out the red carpet and sucking up to Donald Trump by Bastille Day?
Macron = Letdown for the left?
https://www.libdems.org.uk/coalition
It isn't worth it.
This is not complicated, unless you are a Brexiteer apparently
Oh and the worry that the only way the people will oppose Corbyn's economic policies is when they've had five years of it.
Anyone who voted for Brexit, and loses their job, will be cheering, right?
Let them eat Sovereignty...
Oh, wait...
"Once the door is opened, they will find the art of persuasion more difficult. “Hi, we’re here to talk about starving your nan and selling your child’s liver” may have its limits as an opening gambit."
https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-a5a9-Can-the-Conservatives-find-momentum#.WWi38YQrLIU
Tim Farron's gravitas is so extreme he distorts local space-time and is thereby ironically Dopplered into looking like a hapless, abject lightweight who would narrowly fail an audition for Grange Hill.
Still, we must not repine. Instead we must be grateful for the 14 LibDem MPs with which we have been blessed, while ruefully wishing there were more, so that they could even more "improve any government that they took part in".