Shrewd move by Dr Fox - excellent expectations management. The dream of a glorious post-EU sunny upland has faded, so we're now being groomed to hunker down and accept our lot. It was never on the side of any bus, but I suspect this was the Leavers' motive all along - a kind of cleansing of the national psyche through suffering and hardship. We've been pampered enough.
Brexit is being pushed through on barely majority support. Given the way it was sold at the referendum, some of that support is shallow. It is therefore important to make Brexit look inevitable. It may not be good, but it's going ahead.
Shrewd move by Dr Fox - excellent expectations management. The dream of a glorious post-EU sunny upland has faded, so we're now being groomed to hunker down and accept our lot. It was never on the side of any bus, but I suspect this was the Leavers' motive all along - a kind of cleansing of the national psyche through suffering and hardship. We've been pampered enough.
Brexit is being pushed through on barely majority support. Given the way it was sold at the referendum, some of that support is shallow. It is therefore important to make Brexit look inevitable. It may not be good, but it's going ahead.
If they push ahead and it goes down to the wire without a deal agreed I genuinely expect to see a major Kiev-style pro-EU protest in central London.
Mr. 43, some of the support for the EU was also shallow. Some of the votes for Corbyn's Labour was on the basis people thought the Conservatives would easily get a majority.
Shrewd move by Dr Fox - excellent expectations management. The dream of a glorious post-EU sunny upland has faded, so we're now being groomed to hunker down and accept our lot. It was never on the side of any bus, but I suspect this was the Leavers' motive all along - a kind of cleansing of the national psyche through suffering and hardship. We've been pampered enough.
Brexit is being pushed through on barely majority support. Given the way it was sold at the referendum, some of that support is shallow. It is therefore important to make Brexit look inevitable. It may not be good, but it's going ahead.
If they push ahead and it goes down to the wire without a deal agreed I genuinely expect to see a major Kiev-style pro-EU protest in central London.
A deal will be agreed IMO. The problem for those who want a rethink is that Brexit probably won't be disastrous enough. If it were, we would be be activating for re-entry, regardless of the referendum result. Brexit is a chronic condition like diabetes rather than an acute condition like a heart attack. You can live with chronic conditions.
Shrewd move by Dr Fox - excellent expectations management. The dream of a glorious post-EU sunny upland has faded, so we're now being groomed to hunker down and accept our lot. It was never on the side of any bus, but I suspect this was the Leavers' motive all along - a kind of cleansing of the national psyche through suffering and hardship. We've been pampered enough.
Brexit is being pushed through on barely majority support. Given the way it was sold at the referendum, some of that support is shallow. It is therefore important to make Brexit look inevitable. It may not be good, but it's going ahead.
If they push ahead and it goes down to the wire without a deal agreed I genuinely expect to see a major Kiev-style pro-EU protest in central London.
A deal will be agreed IMO. The problem for those who want a rethink is that Brexit probably won't be disastrous enough. If it were, we would be be activating for re-entry, regardless of the referendum result. Brexit is a chronic condition like diabetes rather than an acute condition like a heart attack. You can live with chronic conditions.
You're assuming that the pro-Brexit elite could live with the failure implied by a mediocre outcome for the UK beside a strong EU. I think their mindset when it comes down it is 'Brexit or bust', and if it looks like bust, they'll switch sides, even if they themselves would find that inconceivable at present.
Just bought a couple of Samsung A5's as replacements for my wife and my aging HTC One M8's. Having a bit of a wobble - have I made a good choice? Any thoughts from anyone?
The BBC salaries issue looks like another example of the right wing press not being as powerful as it thought it was.
I really think in the long-run this could be good for the BBC. Much harder for the right-wing press to criticise and distort when it's all out in the open.
And I think the BBC will find they don't struggle to hold onto talent as much they might think and/or that much of the talent is actually replaceable.
It isn't all out in the open though, far from it. Given how much over the odds they pay for radio presenters, if anything I expect a rush of applications.
Is the BBC paying over the odds for radio presenters? Radio ought to be the easiest place to establish market value., especially where there is a single DJ or presenter. Audience figures are published every month, and there is a large commercial sector.
Chris Evans gets the largest radio audience in the country. He has more listeners than the sainted Terry Wogan had in the same slot. Why should we be surprised that he also commands the most money?
Shrewd move by Dr Fox - excellent expectations management. The dream of a glorious post-EU sunny upland has faded, so we're now being groomed to hunker down and accept our lot. It was never on the side of any bus, but I suspect this was the Leavers' motive all along - a kind of cleansing of the national psyche through suffering and hardship. We've been pampered enough.
I'm becoming more Pro-Brexit by the day.
It is the only way to ensure proper austerity on the country, Brexit will ensure we live within our means, I'm sick and tired of subsidising the plebs.
The BBC salaries issue looks like another example of the right wing press not being as powerful as it thought it was.
I really think in the long-run this could be good for the BBC. Much harder for the right-wing press to criticise and distort when it's all out in the open.
And I think the BBC will find they don't struggle to hold onto talent as much they might think and/or that much of the talent is actually replaceable.
It isn't all out in the open though, far from it. Given how much over the odds they pay for radio presenters, if anything I expect a rush of applications.
Is the BBC paying over the odds for radio presenters? Radio ought to be the easiest place to establish market value., especially where there is a single DJ or presenter. Audience figures are published every month, and there is a large commercial sector.
Chris Evans gets the largest radio audience in the country. He has more listeners than the sainted Terry Wogan had in the same slot. Why should we be surprised that he also commands the most money?
Part of me thinks the BBC should be training and promoting its own talent rather than buying established presenters on big contracts. The shows are the institutions not their stars. Although I think Lineker is over paid I guess he is at least home grown talent in that respect.
Shrewd move by Dr Fox - excellent expectations management. The dream of a glorious post-EU sunny upland has faded, so we're now being groomed to hunker down and accept our lot. It was never on the side of any bus, but I suspect this was the Leavers' motive all along - a kind of cleansing of the national psyche through suffering and hardship. We've been pampered enough.
Brexit is being pushed through on barely majority support. Given the way it was sold at the referendum, some of that support is shallow. It is therefore important to make Brexit look inevitable. It may not be good, but it's going ahead.
If they push ahead and it goes down to the wire without a deal agreed I genuinely expect to see a major Kiev-style pro-EU protest in central London.
The Kiev protestors also sought to overturn a democratic election too!
We have seen plenty of these very white very middle class Islington and Camden type dominated protests already in London on the EU - and it's made no difference. Perhaps people else where are just a bit tired of being lectured to by then about what's right and in their best interests by the likes of them
And why should the Tories care about the views of a city - inner London - that has essentially abandoned them. Their votes are elsewhere now - and Tory voters are solidly pro Brexit.
Mr. 43, some of the support for the EU was also shallow. Some of the votes for Corbyn's Labour was on the basis people thought the Conservatives would easily get a majority.
I think that's an incredibly dangerous and naïve mind set for Conservatives to occupy. "Corbyn did well because some of our supporters didn't want us to do too well" - it's too easy and convenient and above all wrong. People just don't act that way.
On that basis, you could argue some people who would have voted Labour in 1997 voted Conservative because they didn't want Blair to have a big majority - it's absurd.
May failed to give sufficient reason for people to vote FOR the Conservatives. In the end, it came down to "trust me" and "I'm not Jeremy Corbyn". Trouble was, a lot of people didn't and others didn't care.
I though it read quite neutrally. If you can point me towards a similarly detailed analysis of a "No Deal" outcome by an author who meets your funding criteria, I'd be happy to read it.
Mr, Stodge, my point was that you can't (in the referendum) say some votes effectively have less weight because people were soft supporters, and that the same logic also means you can't do that for Corbyn. Votes all count the same, and now Corbyn starts from a higher base.
[NB some people were soft supporters either way in the referendum, and the above motivation may also be true, but what counts is the result. Soft support has the same voting power as a 100% backer].
Mr. 43, some of the support for the EU was also shallow. Some of the votes for Corbyn's Labour was on the basis people thought the Conservatives would easily get a majority.
Undoubtedly. There is no consensus one way or the other. The problems for Brexit are that it is controversial, it will be painful and it was sold on a fundamentally false prospectus. Those promoting it can't either wish the pain away nor deny their original promises. So they fall back on, well it's going to happen - that's all you need to know.
Fourth largest economy under Blair; fifth under Cameron; sixth under May...
The biggest until Lord North buggered it up.
". In the early twentieth century a revisionism emphasized his strengths in administering the Treasury, handling the House of Commons, and in defending the Church of England."
@BethRigby: Barnier: sees "no alternative" to #ECJ overseeing citizens rights in the UK > big stumbles at the first (rather fundamental) hurdle #Brexit
Shrewd move by Dr Fox - excellent expectations management. The dream of a glorious post-EU sunny upland has faded, so we're now being groomed to hunker down and accept our lot. It was never on the side of any bus, but I suspect this was the Leavers' motive all along - a kind of cleansing of the national psyche through suffering and hardship. We've been pampered enough.
Brexit is being pushed through on barely majority support. Given the way it was sold at the referendum, some of that support is shallow. It is therefore important to make Brexit look inevitable. It may not be good, but it's going ahead.
If they push ahead and it goes down to the wire without a deal agreed I genuinely expect to see a major Kiev-style pro-EU protest in central London.
The Kiev protestors also sought to overturn a democratic election too!
We have seen plenty of these very white very middle class Islington and Camden type dominated protests already in London on the EU - and it's made no difference. Perhaps people else where are just a bit tired of being lectured to by then about what's right and in their best interests by the likes of them
And why should the Tories care about the views of a city - inner London - that has essentially abandoned them. Their votes are elsewhere now - and Tory voters are solidly pro Brexit.
A quarter of Tory voters tell pollsters they think it is wrong to leave the EU.
Mr, Stodge, my point was that you can't (in the referendum) say some votes effectively have less weight because people were soft supporters, and that the same logic also means you can't do that for Corbyn. Votes all count the same, and now Corbyn starts from a higher base.
[NB some people were soft supporters either way in the referendum, and the above motivation may also be true, but what counts is the result. Soft support has the same voting power as a 100% backer].
That's true of all elections in all honesty. A "tactical" vote carries as much weight as a vote from a Party member. That's democracy but elections are about absolutes and referenda even more so.
From the YouGov info a few days ago, both Conservative and Labour vote bases are made up of a significant minority who are simply either anti-the other party and/or anti-the other party's leader (and for those who claim replacing Corbyn would be the answer, I suspect those opposed to Corbyn now would quickly find a reason to be opposed to his successor).
That's how politics works. I suspect there are Labour and Conservative voters who don't like Corbyn and May respectively but still voted for the party.
No, there are markets for "next leader" in other parties and we all know Vince is a caretaker leader so I don't feel trolled or insulted and as I never bet with the Magic Sign, not that bothered.
Evens for Jo Swinson isn't the worst price you'll ever see.
The headline voting figures for this month show little change from last month’s election result, with the parties neck-and-neck; Labour is on 42 per cent, up one point, the Conservatives 41 per cent, down two points, and Liberal Democrats nine per cent, up nearly two points.
Barnier presents no legal justification for the money he demands, and not even a total (so he can cut and come again with new demands in years to come). Barnier says the UK is not taking him seriously...
We cannot have a foreign court over and above British laws for acts and individuals within the United Kingdom. It's an outrageous attempt of judicial colonialism.
Interesting dynamics from the Barnier/Davis press conference. Barnier very assertive about controlling the agenda and pushing the pace. Davis in bargaining mode.
We cannot have a foreign court over and above British laws for acts and individuals within the United Kingdom. It's an outrageous attempt of judicial colonialism.
Well of course, that's why we're negotating. Any side presenting as the other is the sole party causing difficulty is lying, since the whole point is we cannot agree on certain things and need to hash it out, and in that scenario both sides will present the other as being patently unreasonable. I'm prepared to accept one side, including ours, may be the more unreasonable, depending on the issues, but we're tangoing here, and they're playing the game too.
We cannot have a foreign court over and above British laws for acts and individuals within the United Kingdom. It's an outrageous attempt of judicial colonialism.
1. Countries can end the jurisdiction of the Privy Council whenever they wish (as Jamaica has recently done).
2. The Privy Council is interpreting the law of the nation that submits to its jurisdiction. It isn't trying to impose English law on the nation in question.
3. The Privy Council is not asserting that English nationals in the country in question are subject to a different set of laws to the locals.
We cannot have a foreign court over and above British laws for acts and individuals within the United Kingdom. It's an outrageous attempt of judicial colonialism.
It's a problem. The circle that needs squaring:
1. No extraterritorial reach of a court that that is outside the jurisdiction. 2. Conformity of law and interpretation across the territory the deal applies to. 3. As the remaining, bigger and already multilateral partner, the EU will not change the way it does things and will remain subject to the ECJ.
The UK problem is that it can reject point number 1 but it doesn't have an alternative that addresses points 2 and 3.
We cannot have a foreign court over and above British laws for acts and individuals within the United Kingdom. It's an outrageous attempt of judicial colonialism.
It's a problem. The circle that needs squaring:
1. No extraterritorial reach of a court that that is outside the jurisdiction. 2. Conformity of law and interpretation across the territory the deal applies to. 3. As the remaining, bigger and already multilateral partner, the EU will not change the way it does things and will remain subject to the ECJ.
The UK problem is that it can reject point number 1 but it doesn't have an alternative that addresses points 2 and 3.
Interesting dynamics from the Barnier/Davis press conference. Barnier very assertive about controlling the agenda and pushing the pace. Davis in bargaining mode.
The basic problem is that the UK does not have settled positions on a number of key issues. That's because it cannot get them as the Cabinet and the wider Conservative party is split on so many issues. Thus, we are largely dependent on the EU coming up with proposals. If they don't, or if these proposals are unacceptable, then things stall - and all the time the clock is ticking down. It really is no way to run a negotiation.
The BBC salaries issue looks like another example of the right wing press not being as powerful as it thought it was.
I really think in the long-run this could be good for the BBC. Much harder for the right-wing press to criticise and distort when it's all out in the open.
And I think the BBC will find they don't struggle to hold onto talent as much they might think and/or that much of the talent is actually replaceable.
It isn't all out in the open though, far from it. Given how much over the odds they pay for radio presenters, if anything I expect a rush of applications.
Is the BBC paying over the odds for radio presenters? Radio ought to be the easiest place to establish market value., especially where there is a single DJ or presenter. Audience figures are published every month, and there is a large commercial sector.
Chris Evans gets the largest radio audience in the country. He has more listeners than the sainted Terry Wogan had in the same slot. Why should we be surprised that he also commands the most money?
Part of me thinks the BBC should be training and promoting its own talent rather than buying established presenters on big contracts. The shows are the institutions not their stars. Although I think Lineker is over paid I guess he is at least home grown talent in that respect.
It strikes me that even when they do promote BBC trained staff as soon as they are given a profile their salary goes through the roof. I am thinking Matt Baker, Victoria Derbyshire, Alex Jones and Dan Walker.
Whoever negotiates these contracts should be fired as they are not exactly buttoning down value deals.
Even if one can justify some of the top talent earning astronomical money, and I can think of few who deserve it, paying some of these autocue reading non-entities hundreds of thousands of pounds a year is a joke!
We cannot have a foreign court over and above British laws for acts and individuals within the United Kingdom. It's an outrageous attempt of judicial colonialism.
It's a problem. The circle that needs squaring:
1. No extraterritorial reach of a court that that is outside the jurisdiction. 2. Conformity of law and interpretation across the territory the deal applies to. 3. As the remaining, bigger and already multilateral partner, the EU will not change the way it does things and will remain subject to the ECJ.
The UK problem is that it can reject point number 1 but it doesn't have an alternative that addresses points 2 and 3.
I can think of a very realistic alternative.
I am guessing not addressing the point at all, don't be concerned about the lack of any deal and let a ship containing nuclear waste drift vaguely in the direction of Antwerp and hope the wind doesn't change direction?
Mr. Ace, is the ICJ seeking to give more rights to non-Britons than Britons, and to override UK law within the UK?
Or, put another way, the EU27 is seeking to maintain the current rights enjoyed by EU27 citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU27; the British government is seeking to reduce the rights of EU27 citizens in the UK and those enjoyed by British citizens in the EU27.
We cannot have a foreign court over and above British laws for acts and individuals within the United Kingdom. It's an outrageous attempt of judicial colonialism.
It's a problem. The circle that needs squaring:
1. No extraterritorial reach of a court that that is outside the jurisdiction. 2. Conformity of law and interpretation across the territory the deal applies to. 3. As the remaining, bigger and already multilateral partner, the EU will not change the way it does things and will remain subject to the ECJ.
The UK problem is that it can reject point number 1 but it doesn't have an alternative that addresses points 2 and 3.
I see no difficulty with the UK guaranteeing that any legislative changes that it makes will apply equally to British nationals and EU nationals.
But, there is no way that the government can guarantee that it will never change the law in ways that may conflict with EU laws.
We cannot have a foreign court over and above British laws for acts and individuals within the United Kingdom. It's an outrageous attempt of judicial colonialism.
It's a problem. The circle that needs squaring:
1. No extraterritorial reach of a court that that is outside the jurisdiction. 2. Conformity of law and interpretation across the territory the deal applies to. 3. As the remaining, bigger and already multilateral partner, the EU will not change the way it does things and will remain subject to the ECJ.
The UK problem is that it can reject point number 1 but it doesn't have an alternative that addresses points 2 and 3.
I can think of a very realistic alternative.
I am guessing not addressing the point at all, don't be concerned about the lack of any deal and let a ship containing nuclear waste drift vaguely in the direction of Antwerp and hope the wind doesn't change direction?
Good point - I hadn't taken the wind direction in to account.
When Jacob Rees-Mogg is 13-2 3rd favourite,it tells you just how poor a field the next Tory leadership contest is.I'm on at 25-1 for Damian Green,not the 70-1 Mike advised,but I wonder if he isn't too close to TMay to win support.There's nothing to say you can't bet on more than 1 horse in each race and at these good double-figure prices,there's nothing to stop you Dutching on 2,3 or 4. I'm having a quarter point on someone from the current generation where,despite clearly being in the shadow of his far more famous brother,he has been quietly impressing on the gallops.Jo Johnson is 100-1 with 2 books.Maybe worth a small punt.
We cannot have a foreign court over and above British laws for acts and individuals within the United Kingdom. It's an outrageous attempt of judicial colonialism.
It's a problem. The circle that needs squaring:
1. No extraterritorial reach of a court that that is outside the jurisdiction. 2. Conformity of law and interpretation across the territory the deal applies to. 3. As the remaining, bigger and already multilateral partner, the EU will not change the way it does things and will remain subject to the ECJ.
The UK problem is that it can reject point number 1 but it doesn't have an alternative that addresses points 2 and 3.
I see no difficulty with the UK guaranteeing that any legislative changes that it makes will apply equally to British nationals and EU nationals.
But, there is no way that the government can guarantee that it will never change the law in ways that may conflict with EU laws.
On citizen rights, I think that's mostly correct*. Incidentally the UK proposal doesn't guarantee the same rights to UK and resident EU citizens. If it did, I think the UK would be able to deal with the edge cases more effectively.
* It's worth pointing out that citizenship rules have changed in the past but previous rights have always been grandfathered and never altered as far as I know. It's reasonable to have the expectation that the same applies here.
Comments
Just bought a couple of Samsung A5's as replacements for my wife and my aging HTC One M8's. Having a bit of a wobble - have I made a good choice? Any thoughts from anyone?
Chris Evans gets the largest radio audience in the country. He has more listeners than the sainted Terry Wogan had in the same slot. Why should we be surprised that he also commands the most money?
It is the only way to ensure proper austerity on the country, Brexit will ensure we live within our means, I'm sick and tired of subsidising the plebs.
We have seen plenty of these very white very middle class Islington and Camden type dominated protests already in London on the EU - and it's made no difference. Perhaps people else where are just a bit tired of being lectured to by then about what's right and in their best interests by the likes of them
And why should the Tories care about the views of a city - inner London - that has essentially abandoned them. Their votes are elsewhere now - and Tory voters are solidly pro Brexit.
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/887980406724857856
On that basis, you could argue some people who would have voted Labour in 1997 voted Conservative because they didn't want Blair to have a big majority - it's absurd.
May failed to give sufficient reason for people to vote FOR the Conservatives. In the end, it came down to "trust me" and "I'm not Jeremy Corbyn". Trouble was, a lot of people didn't and others didn't care.
“We will assume a reasonable worst outcome,” Cryan said. “The worst is always likely to be worse than people can imagine.”
[NB some people were soft supporters either way in the referendum, and the above motivation may also be true, but what counts is the result. Soft support has the same voting power as a 100% backer].
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/887984967875264512
https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/887983404792336385
From the YouGov info a few days ago, both Conservative and Labour vote bases are made up of a significant minority who are simply either anti-the other party and/or anti-the other party's leader (and for those who claim replacing Corbyn would be the answer, I suspect those opposed to Corbyn now would quickly find a reason to be opposed to his successor).
That's how politics works. I suspect there are Labour and Conservative voters who don't like Corbyn and May respectively but still voted for the party.
Evens for Jo Swinson isn't the worst price you'll ever see.
The headline voting figures for this month show little change from last month’s election result, with the parties neck-and-neck; Labour is on 42 per cent, up one point, the Conservatives 41 per cent, down two points, and Liberal Democrats nine per cent, up nearly two points.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-scores-higher-than-theresa-may-for-the-first-time-in-approval-ratings-poll-a3592111.html
We cannot have a foreign court over and above British laws for acts and individuals within the United Kingdom. It's an outrageous attempt of judicial colonialism.
https://www.jcpc.uk/
If countries subject to that court wished to change the situation I would support that. Nations ought to be free to determine their own future.
1. Countries can end the jurisdiction of the Privy Council whenever they wish (as Jamaica has recently done).
2. The Privy Council is interpreting the law of the nation that submits to its jurisdiction. It isn't trying to impose English law on the nation in question.
3. The Privy Council is not asserting that English nationals in the country in question are subject to a different set of laws to the locals.
1. No extraterritorial reach of a court that that is outside the jurisdiction.
2. Conformity of law and interpretation across the territory the deal applies to.
3. As the remaining, bigger and already multilateral partner, the EU will not change the way it does things and will remain subject to the ECJ.
The UK problem is that it can reject point number 1 but it doesn't have an alternative that addresses points 2 and 3.
Whoever negotiates these contracts should be fired as they are not exactly buttoning down value deals.
Even if one can justify some of the top talent earning astronomical money, and I can think of few who deserve it, paying some of these autocue reading non-entities hundreds of thousands of pounds a year is a joke!
I'd probably have much higher betting stakes if the taxpayer threw £3bn a year at me
Anyway, I must be off.
But, there is no way that the government can guarantee that it will never change the law in ways that may conflict with EU laws.
NEW THREAD
I'm having a quarter point on someone from the current generation where,despite clearly being in the shadow of his far more famous brother,he has been quietly impressing on the gallops.Jo Johnson is 100-1 with 2 books.Maybe worth a small punt.
* It's worth pointing out that citizenship rules have changed in the past but previous rights have always been grandfathered and never altered as far as I know. It's reasonable to have the expectation that the same applies here.