Mr. Glenn, the political union only came into being a couple of decades ago.
I think we can agree Fox is rubbish.
Mr. Brooke, odds on Erdogan opening the migration floodgates?
Hugh Gaitskell said of the EEC:
We must be clear about this; it does mean The end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: "Let it end." But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.
Assuming that you agree with that sentiment, why on earth would you vote for Brexit 40-odd years later when the most likely outcome would be a demonstration of Gaitskell's point in the most brutally humiliating way? Another one seeking one last hurrah before finally giving up in a moment of national catharsis?
So what in your eyes makes Scottish (or Welsh!) independence any different? It's a political union entered into before anyone alive could vote on it, unstitching it will be more complex than UK/EU, yet I recall you are in favour of it?
However, unstitching the UK from the EU will end in "humiliation", because we've been part of a political union for forty odd years even though most of us never saw it that way, and Ted Heath of all people (see example above posted by Nigelb) said it wasn't.
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
"We joined a political union."
Less of the "we", please. I didn't have a vote.
Of all the aspects of the modern world that you weren't consulted about, why is this one uniquely offensive to you?
'Uniquely' is perhaps the wrong word but it's close enough to pass muster.
It significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has.
Any examples? I am sure you will have them, I am genuinely trying to understand what drives ostensibly sensible people to have such bitterness for the EU.
Because it goes against my soul. Cooperation yes, political union no. No price on it.
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
"We joined a political union."
Less of the "we", please. I didn't have a vote.
Of all the aspects of the modern world that you weren't consulted about, why is this one uniquely offensive to you?
'Uniquely' is perhaps the wrong word but it's close enough to pass muster.
It significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has.
Any examples? I am sure you will have them, I am genuinely trying to understand what drives ostensibly sensible people to have such bitterness for the EU.
Although I was a remainer, I have to say I am still pretty angry about that ban on our beef in 1996 despite BSE (known in French as 'vache tremblé') being far more widespread on the continent with far fewer safety precautions and health checks than in the U.K.
To take only the worst example, France finally admitted in 2007 it had had 305,000 confirmed cases of BSE but the only effect was a wildcat ban by the Spanish which they ignored anyway. Meanwhile Britain's beef industry was enormously damaged at a cost of (ironically) £60 billion, but more pertinently, several suicides.
That was an absolutely blatant market grab by a corrupt elite, backed by the laughably named ECJ, and showed the EU in the worst light imaginable. It was my hope that we getting past this and could turn to all the good stuff it does that tipped me to remain. Barnier' attitude makes me wonder if I was wrong.
Mr. Glenn, the political union only came into being a couple of decades ago.
I think we can agree Fox is rubbish.
Mr. Brooke, odds on Erdogan opening the migration floodgates?
Hugh Gaitskell said of the EEC:
We must be clear about this; it does mean The end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: "Let it end." But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.
Assuming that you agree with that sentiment, why on earth would you vote for Brexit 40-odd years later when the most likely outcome would be a demonstration of Gaitskell's point in the most brutally humiliating way? Another one seeking one last hurrah before finally giving up in a moment of national catharsis?
So what in your eyes makes Scottish (or Welsh!) independence any different? It's a political union entered into before anyone alive could vote on it, unstitching it will be more complex than UK/EU, yet I recall you are in favour of it?
However, unstitching the UK from the EU will end in "humiliation", because we've been part of a political union for forty odd years even though most of us never saw it that way, and Ted Heath of all people (see example above posted by Nigelb) said it wasn't.
Scottish independence within the EU and Irish reunification would essentially be a tidying up exercise. One that might ultimately bring the British Isles as a whole closer together politically than they are today.
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
"We joined a political union."
Less of the "we", please. I didn't have a vote.
Of all the aspects of the modern world that you weren't consulted about, why is this one uniquely offensive to you?
'Uniquely' is perhaps the wrong word but it's close enough to pass muster.
It significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has.
Any examples? I am sure you will have them, I am genuinely trying to understand what drives ostensibly sensible people to have such bitterness for the EU.
Because it goes against my soul. Cooperation yes, political union no. No price on it.
That doesn't really qualify as an example of how our EU membership "significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has", which GeoffM referred to, does it?
Mr. Glenn, the political union only came into being a couple of decades ago.
I think we can agree Fox is rubbish.
Mr. Brooke, odds on Erdogan opening the migration floodgates?
Hugh Gaitskell said of the EEC:
We must be clear about this; it does mean The end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: "Let it end." But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.
Not sure why you are quoting Gaitskell given he not only opposed EEC membership but clearly was not believed. Heath and the Federalists were better liars. .
Mr. Glenn, the political union only came into being a couple of decades ago.
I think we can agree Fox is rubbish.
Mr. Brooke, odds on Erdogan opening the migration floodgates?
Hugh Gaitskell said of the EEC:
We must be clear about this; it does mean The end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: "Let it end." But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.
Assuming that you agree with that sentiment, why on earth would you vote for Brexit 40-odd years later when the most likely outcome would be a demonstration of Gaitskell's point in the most brutally humiliating way? Another one seeking one last hurrah before finally giving up in a moment of national catharsis?
So what in your eyes makes Scottish (or Welsh!) independence any different? It's a political union entered into before anyone alive could vote on it, unstitching it will be more complex than UK/EU, yet I recall you are in favour of it?
However, unstitching the UK from the EU will end in "humiliation", because we've been part of a political union for forty odd years even though most of us never saw it that way, and Ted Heath of all people (see example above posted by Nigelb) said it wasn't.
Scottish independence within the EU and Irish reunification would essentially be a tidying up exercise. One that might ultimately bring the British Isles as a whole closer together politically than they are today.
Lol! Just lol!
I'm not going to bite at "tidying up exercise". That one's already a corker in the pantheon of whoppers past.
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
"We joined a political union."
Less of the "we", please. I didn't have a vote.
Of all the aspects of the modern world that you weren't consulted about, why is this one uniquely offensive to you?
'Uniquely' is perhaps the wrong word but it's close enough to pass muster.
It significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has.
Any examples? I am sure you will have them, I am genuinely trying to understand what drives ostensibly sensible people to have such bitterness for the EU.
Because it goes against my soul. Cooperation yes, political union no. No price on it.
That doesn't really qualify as an example of how our EU membership "significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has", which GeoffM referred to, does it?
Mr. Glenn, the political union only came into being a couple of decades ago.
I think we can agree Fox is rubbish.
Mr. Brooke, odds on Erdogan opening the migration floodgates?
Hugh Gaitskell said of the EEC:
We must be clear about this; it does mean The end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: "Let it end." But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.
Assuming that you agree with that sentiment, why on earth would you vote for Brexit 40-odd years later when the most likely outcome would be a demonstration of Gaitskell's point in the most brutally humiliating way? Another one seeking one last hurrah before finally giving up in a moment of national catharsis?
Because in the real world as opposed to your fantasies we will actually leave the EU. I look forward to your impotent rage on the day that happens.
Mr. Glenn, the political union only came into being a couple of decades ago.
I think we can agree Fox is rubbish.
Mr. Brooke, odds on Erdogan opening the migration floodgates?
Hugh Gaitskell said of the EEC:
We must be clear about this; it does mean The end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: "Let it end." But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.
Assuming that you agree with that sentiment, why on earth would you vote for Brexit 40-odd years later when the most likely outcome would be a demonstration of Gaitskell's point in the most brutally humiliating way? Another one seeking one last hurrah before finally giving up in a moment of national catharsis?
So what in your eyes makes Scottish (or Welsh!) independence any different? It's a political union entered into before anyone alive could vote on it, unstitching it will be more complex than UK/EU, yet I recall you are in favour of it?
However, unstitching the UK from the EU will end in "humiliation", because we've been part of a political union for forty odd years even though most of us never saw it that way, and Ted Heath of all people (see example above posted by Nigelb) said it wasn't.
Scottish independence within the EU and Irish reunification would essentially be a tidying up exercise. One that might ultimately bring the British Isles as a whole closer together politically than they are today.
Lol! Just lol!
I'm not going to bite at "tidying up exercise". That one's already a corker in the pantheon of whoppers past.
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
"We joined a political union."
Less of the "we", please. I didn't have a vote.
Of all the aspects of the modern world that you weren't consulted about, why is this one uniquely offensive to you?
'Uniquely' is perhaps the wrong word but it's close enough to pass muster.
It significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has.
Any examples? I am sure you will have them, I am genuinely trying to understand what drives ostensibly sensible people to have such bitterness for the EU.
Because it goes against my soul. Cooperation yes, political union no. No price on it.
That doesn't really qualify as an example of how our EU membership "significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has", which GeoffM referred to, does it?
I didn't intend it to. Ultimately it's about how we feel within ourselves really what attitude we have.
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
"We joined a political union."
Less of the "we", please. I didn't have a vote.
Of all the aspects of the modern world that you weren't consulted about, why is this one uniquely offensive to you?
'Uniquely' is perhaps the wrong word but it's close enough to pass muster.
It significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has.
Any examples? I am sure you will have them, I am genuinely trying to understand what drives ostensibly sensible people to have such bitterness for the EU.
Although I was a remainer, I have to say I am still pretty angry about that ban on our beef in 1996 despite BSE (known in French as 'vache tremblé') being far more widespread on the continent with far fewer safety precautions and health checks than in the U.K.
To take only the worst example, France finally admitted in 2007 it had had 305,000 confirmed cases of BSE but the only effect was a wildcat ban by the Spanish which they ignored anyway. Meanwhile Britain's beef industry was enormously damaged at a cost of (ironically) £60 billion, but more pertinently, several suicides.
That was an absolutely blatant market grab by a corrupt elite, backed by the laughably named ECJ, and showed the EU in the worst light imaginable. It was my hope that we getting past this and could turn to all the good stuff it does that tipped me to remain. Barnier' attitude makes me wonder if I was wrong.
Ok thanks for that. I agree the UK was badly treated in that instance. I am going to have to point out that it would have been no better and probably much worse if we had not been in the EU but it is at least an example.
I suspect though, that welshowl has articulated what drives most devout Brexiters - an irrational but heartfelt dislike of any type of union with other countries.
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
"We joined a political union."
Less of the "we", please. I didn't have a vote.
Of all the aspects of the modern world that you weren't consulted about, why is this one uniquely offensive to you?
'Uniquely' is perhaps the wrong word but it's close enough to pass muster.
It significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has.
Any examples? I am sure you will have them, I am genuinely trying to understand what drives ostensibly sensible people to have such bitterness for the EU.
Although I was a remainer, I have to say I am still pretty angry about that ban on our beef in 1996 despite BSE (known in French as 'vache tremblé') being far more widespread on the continent with far fewer safety precautions and health checks than in the U.K.
To take only the worst example, France finally admitted in 2007 it had had 305,000 confirmed cases of BSE but the only effect was a wildcat ban by the Spanish which they ignored anyway. Meanwhile Britain's beef industry was enormously damaged at a cost of (ironically) £60 billion, but more pertinently, several suicides.
That was an absolutely blatant market grab by a corrupt elite, backed by the laughably named ECJ, and showed the EU in the worst light imaginable. It was my hope that we getting past this and could turn to all the good stuff it does that tipped me to remain. Barnier' attitude makes me wonder if I was wrong.
Ok thanks for that. I agree the UK was badly treated in that instance. I am going to have to point out that it would have been no better and probably much worse if we had not been in the EU but it is at least an example.
I suspect though, that welshowl has articulated what drives most devout Brexiters - an irrational but heartfelt dislike of any type of union with other countries.
Except we wouldn't have been paying for them to stuff us.
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
"We joined a political union."
Less of the "we", please. I didn't have a vote.
Of all the aspects of the modern world that you weren't consulted about, why is this one uniquely offensive to you?
'Uniquely' is perhaps the wrong word but it's close enough to pass muster.
It significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has.
Any examples? I am sure you will have them, I am genuinely trying to understand what drives ostensibly sensible people to have such bitterness for the EU.
Because it goes against my soul. Cooperation yes, political union no. No price on it.
That doesn't really qualify as an example of how our EU membership "significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has", which GeoffM referred to, does it?
I didn't intend it to. Ultimately it's about how we feel within ourselves really what attitude we have.
That's fair enough - I disagree with you of course but I respect that your views are honestly held and I suspect shared by many other Leave voters.
I was just keen to understand if Geoff (or anyone else) had some real meaningful examples of how the EU has blighted their lives.
ydoethur - I remember a Dutch company selling animal feed to Dorset dairy farms, that was so contaminated with lead that farmers who bought the feed couldn't sell their milk.
Mr. Glenn, the political union only came into being a couple of decades ago.
I think we can agree Fox is rubbish.
Mr. Brooke, odds on Erdogan opening the migration floodgates?
Hugh Gaitskell said of the EEC:
We must be clear about this; it does mean The end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: "Let it end." But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.
Assuming that you agree with that sentiment, why on earth would you vote for Brexit 40-odd years later when the most likely outcome would be a demonstration of Gaitskell's point in the most brutally humiliating way? Another one seeking one last hurrah before finally giving up in a moment of national catharsis?
Because in the real world as opposed to your fantasies we will actually leave the EU. I look forward to your impotent rage on the day that happens.
EU-philes have loved and exploited our membership of the EU to death. It will be, quite frankly, delicious to see their reactions when we leave.
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
"We joined a political union."
Less of the "we", please. I didn't have a vote.
Of all the aspects of the modern world that you weren't consulted about, why is this one uniquely offensive to you?
'Uniquely' is perhaps the wrong word but it's close enough to pass muster.
It significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has.
Any examples? I am sure you will have them, I am genuinely trying to understand what drives ostensibly sensible people to have such bitterness for the EU.
Because it goes against my soul. Cooperation yes, political union no. No price on it.
That doesn't really qualify as an example of how our EU membership "significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has", which GeoffM referred to, does it?
I didn't intend it to. Ultimately it's about how we feel within ourselves really what attitude we have.
That's fair enough - I disagree with you of course but I respect that your views are honestly held and I suspect shared by many other Leave voters.
I was just keen to understand if Geoff (or anyone else) had some real meaningful examples of how the EU has blighted their lives.
Droit de suite has had a significant bureaucratic impact on the art market for no recognisable benefit to anyone. Interfering, lickspittle demands for papers and form filling is the raison d'etre of supranational bureaucracies like the EU.
Although I was a remainer, I have to say I am still pretty angry about that ban on our beef in 1996 despite BSE (known in French as 'vache tremblé') being far more widespread on the continent with far fewer safety precautions and health checks than in the U.K.
To take only the worst example, France finally admitted in 2007 it had had 305,000 confirmed cases of BSE but the only effect was a wildcat ban by the Spanish which they ignored anyway. Meanwhile Britain's beef industry was enormously damaged at a cost of (ironically) £60 billion, but more pertinently, several suicides.
That was an absolutely blatant market grab by a corrupt elite, backed by the laughably named ECJ, and showed the EU in the worst light imaginable. It was my hope that we getting past this and could turn to all the good stuff it does that tipped me to remain. Barnier' attitude makes me wonder if I was wrong.
Ok thanks for that. I agree the UK was badly treated in that instance. I am going to have to point out that it would have been no better and probably much worse if we had not been in the EU but it is at least an example.
I suspect though, that welshowl has articulated what drives most devout Brexiters - an irrational but heartfelt dislike of any type of union with other countries.
They might have stopped us trading with them.
It would not have stopped us trading with the rest of the world.
Nor would we have been treated differently from the French, Germans, Austrians and Belgians.
The whole thing, as you rightly observe, still stinks.
It's not merely "irrational" (and even if it were so what frankly?) for example, I cannot see how a real vibrant democracy is going to function with, at present, 23 (or thereabouts depends where you draw the line on mutual intelligibility on a few) languages competing for space. There is just no hope of a real shared culture or world view, without at the least a lingua franca. I don't recall the French promoting English as the obvious candidate here over the years (and to be fair why would they?).
How do you have national democratic debate, a proper court system, a press to hold to account etc etc?
It's not merely "irrational" (and even if it were so what frankly?) for example, I cannot see how a real vibrant democracy is going to function with, at present, 23 (or thereabouts depends where you draw the line on mutual intelligibility on a few) languages competing for space. There is just no hope of a real shared culture or world view, without at the least a lingua franca. I don't recall the French promoting English as the obvious candidate here over the years (and to be fair why would they?).
How do you have national democratic debate, a proper court system, a press to hold to account etc etc?
Quite.
Political union between such diverse nations with little in common is far more irrational: logically and historically.
ydoethur - I remember a Dutch company selling animal feed to Dorset dairy farms, that was so contaminated with lead that farmers who bought the feed couldn't sell their milk.
On that subject, shall we talk about the supposedly Europe wide animal welfare standards we obeyed and the Dutch and Danish ignored (and are still ignoring) for decades? Without penalty?
The EU has many great virtues but I can fully understand why over half the population had had enough.
Mr. Glenn, the political union only came into being a couple of decades ago.
I think we can agree Fox is rubbish.
Mr. Brooke, odds on Erdogan opening the migration floodgates?
Hugh Gaitskell said of the EEC:
We must be clear about this; it does mean The end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: "Let it end." But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.
Assuming that you agree with that sentiment, why on earth would you vote for Brexit 40-odd years later when the most likely outcome would be a demonstration of Gaitskell's point in the most brutally humiliating way? Another one seeking one last hurrah before finally giving up in a moment of national catharsis?
Because in the real world as opposed to your fantasies we will actually leave the EU. I look forward to your impotent rage on the day that happens.
EU-philes have loved and exploited our membership of the EU to death. It will be, quite frankly, delicious to see their reactions when we leave.
Not so much epater, as contrarier les bourgeois... ?
ydoethur - I remember a Dutch company selling animal feed to Dorset dairy farms, that was so contaminated with lead that farmers who bought the feed couldn't sell their milk.
Again, I am not sure how that wouldn't have happened if we weren't in the EU. I could start quoting stories of UK tourists and businesses scamming Mediterranean holiday resorts...
Shit happens (pun intended) and every nation has it's share of rogues. But that's not a powerfull argument against the EU, any more than it is against the UK union.
ydoethur - I remember a Dutch company selling animal feed to Dorset dairy farms, that was so contaminated with lead that farmers who bought the feed couldn't sell their milk.
Again, I am not sure how that wouldn't have happened if we weren't in the EU. I could start quoting stories of UK tourists and businesses scamming Mediterranean holiday resorts...
Shit happens (pun intended) and every nation has it's share of rogues. But that's not a powerfull argument against the EU, any more than it is against the UK union.
None so blind as those who cannot see - even if they profess they want to.
We're meant to be part of the Union. We're the second largest budget contributor. If this is how they treat the friends who subsidise them, then time to go.
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
"We joined a political union."
Less of the "we", please. I didn't have a vote.
Of all the aspects of the modern world that you weren't consulted about, why is this one uniquely offensive to you?
'Uniquely' is perhaps the wrong word but it's close enough to pass muster.
It significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has.
Any examples? I am sure you will have them, I am genuinely trying to understand what drives ostensibly sensible people to have such bitterness for the EU.
Because it goes against my soul. Cooperation yes, political union no. No price on it.
That doesn't really qualify as an example of how our EU membership "significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has", which GeoffM referred to, does it?
I didn't intend it to. Ultimately it's about how we feel within ourselves really what attitude we have.
That's fair enough - I disagree with you of course but I respect that your views are honestly held and I suspect shared by many other Leave voters.
I was just keen to understand if Geoff (or anyone else) had some real meaningful examples of how the EU has blighted their lives.
Droit de suite has had a significant bureaucratic impact on the art market for no recognisable benefit to anyone. Interfering, lickspittle demands for papers and form filling is the raison d'etre of supranational bureaucracies like the EU.
Blimey! No wonder it's taking me so long to complete my fine art collection!
That's a pretty deep barrel you're scraping there.
Mr. Glenn, the Commission and seventy-three presidents, as well as national leaders, and Council of Ministers all have political roles too.
The Parliament is mostly a rubber stamp for drunken madness (such as the VAT idiocy, and now the even more stupid link tax).
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
"We joined a political union."
Less of the "we", please. I didn't have a vote.
Of all the aspects of the modern world that you weren't consulted about, why is this one uniquely offensive to you?
'Uniquely' is perhaps the wrong word but it's close enough to pass muster.
It significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has.
Any examples? I am sure you will have them, I am genuinely trying to understand what drives ostensibly sensible people to have such bitterness for the EU.
Because it goes against my soul. Cooperation yes, political union no. No price on it.
That doesn't really qualify as an example of how our EU membership "significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has", which GeoffM referred to, does it?
I didn't intend it to. Ultimately it's about how we feel within ourselves really what attitude we have.
That's fair enough - I disagree with you of course but I respect that your views are honestly held and I suspect shared by many other Leave voters.
I was just keen to understand if Geoff (or anyone else) had some real meaningful examples of how the EU has blighted their lives.
Droit de suite has had a significant bureaucratic impact on the art market for no recognisable benefit to anyone. Interfering, lickspittle demands for papers and form filling is the raison d'etre of supranational bureaucracies like the EU.
Blimey! No wonder it's taking me so long to complete my fine art collection!
That's a pretty deep barrel you're scraping there.
You asked for examples. Not my fault that you don't care for them or want to hear them.
The Council of Ministers and European Commission were both there when we joined, along with the ECJ. We joined a political union. You may not like it, but the denial of that reality is one of the reasons we are currently in so much trouble.
"We joined a political union."
Less of the "we", please. I didn't have a vote.
Of all the aspects of the modern world that you weren't consulted about, why is this one uniquely offensive to you?
'Uniquely' is perhaps the wrong word but it's close enough to pass muster.
It significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has.
Any examples? I am sure you will have them, I am genuinely trying to understand what drives ostensibly sensible people to have such bitterness for the EU.
Because it goes against my soul. Cooperation yes, political union no. No price on it.
That doesn't really qualify as an example of how our EU membership "significantly affects, directly and indirectly, my professional and personal life on a daily basis in a way that no other single decision ever has", which GeoffM referred to, does it?
I didn't intend it to. Ultimately it's about how we feel within ourselves really what attitude we have.
That's fair enough - I disagree with you of course but I respect that your views are honestly held and I suspect shared by many other Leave voters.
I was just keen to understand if Geoff (or anyone else) had some real meaningful examples of how the EU has blighted their lives.
Droit de suite has had a significant bureaucratic impact on the art market for no recognisable benefit to anyone. Interfering, lickspittle demands for papers and form filling is the raison d'etre of supranational bureaucracies like the EU.
Blimey! No wonder it's taking me so long to complete my fine art collection!
That's a pretty deep barrel you're scraping there.
You asked for examples. Not my fault that you don't care for them or want to hear them.
This website uses cookies.
OK, technically it's an annoyance rather than a blight, but it's damn annoying.
On the subject of enigmas, Moeen is our leading wicket taker in the series and has a hat trick. Do you think Bayliss might feel a bit of a muppet for calling him a second string spinner?
But I'm fully supportive of a democratic pan-European state of which the UK would be a part of.
It's just not the EU with it's (for me) lack of democratic mandate (the thing that really annoys me are the 'keep voting until we get the right answer' or just 'change the header and forget the vote' which has been going on since 1992).
But the EU could overcome this (eventually) but what it also needs to do, as mentioned above, is pick a language - and a culture - and run with that.
I suppose the one regret I have about leaving is that *IF* the EU does manage to overcome all its problems and start to become a proper state in its own right that our culture and our language (English) are unlikely to be picked. It's now more likely to be German (or French).
Of course, the above is 100 years away... if ever.
On the subject of enigmas, Moeen is our leading wicket taker in the series and has a hat trick. Do you think Bayliss might feel a bit of a muppet for calling him a second string spinner?
Moeen and Stokes are both genuinely world class all rounders. It is like having 13 players in your team. I was there on Friday when Stokes got to his 100 with 3 sixes in an over. Will never forget it.
On the subject of enigmas, Moeen is our leading wicket taker in the series and has a hat trick. Do you think Bayliss might feel a bit of a muppet for calling him a second string spinner?
Moeen and Stokes are both genuinely world class all rounders. It is like having 13 players in your team. I was there on Friday when Stokes got to his 100 with 3 sixes in an over. Will never forget it.
Perhaps.
But Moeen should be at 5, not 8. He's averaging nearly 50 in the last year and he is far too good to play at 8. Put Woakes at 8 and have an extra bowler. After all, Ballance and Malan add nothing to the batting.
On the subject of enigmas, Moeen is our leading wicket taker in the series and has a hat trick. Do you think Bayliss might feel a bit of a muppet for calling him a second string spinner?
Moeen and Stokes are both genuinely world class all rounders. It is like having 13 players in your team. I was there on Friday when Stokes got to his 100 with 3 sixes in an over. Will never forget it.
Perhaps.
But Moeen should be at 5, not 8. He's averaging nearly 50 in the last year and he is far too good to play at 8. Put Woakes at 8 and have an extra bowler. After all, Ballance and Malan add nothing to the batting.
Indeed - MOEEN should be at 5. He'll get far more tons that way.
On the subject of enigmas, Moeen is our leading wicket taker in the series and has a hat trick. Do you think Bayliss might feel a bit of a muppet for calling him a second string spinner?
Our leading wicket taker in the previous series was dropped in favour of Dawson.... I'm not sure Bayliss is the best judge.
On the subject of enigmas, Moeen is our leading wicket taker in the series and has a hat trick. Do you think Bayliss might feel a bit of a muppet for calling him a second string spinner?
Our leading wicket taker in the previous series was dropped in favour of Dawson.... I'm not sure Bayliss is the best judge.
Why is Joss Buttler not playing? Injured? Ineligible? Caught in bed with Mrs Bayliss?
On the subject of enigmas, Moeen is our leading wicket taker in the series and has a hat trick. Do you think Bayliss might feel a bit of a muppet for calling him a second string spinner?
Our leading wicket taker in the previous series was dropped in favour of Dawson.... I'm not sure Bayliss is the best judge.
Why is Joss Buttler not playing? Injured? Ineligible? Caught in bed with Mrs Bayliss?
Why would you pick Malan ahead of him?
Hasn't he only played about three first class matches in the last two years? He's more or less a white ball specialist now.
To my mind the real question is why they feel they need six front line batsmen, one batting at eight, plus Bairstow and Stokes. That suggests to me a deep-seated problem with the top order, to which with luck Westley is a partial solution.
On the subject of enigmas, Moeen is our leading wicket taker in the series and has a hat trick. Do you think Bayliss might feel a bit of a muppet for calling him a second string spinner?
Moeen and Stokes are both genuinely world class all rounders. It is like having 13 players in your team. I was there on Friday when Stokes got to his 100 with 3 sixes in an over. Will never forget it.
Perhaps.
But Moeen should be at 5, not 8. He's averaging nearly 50 in the last year and he is far too good to play at 8. Put Woakes at 8 and have an extra bowler. After all, Ballance and Malan add nothing to the batting.
Moeen is fine at 8, though I'd probably move up both Stokes and Bairstow (both of whom are better batsmen) a place and play him at 7. England's real problem in the batting is at the top of the order, and messing around in the middle does nothing to address that. (And Moeen's technique is more likely to be found out higher up the order.) Hameed, I hope, will regain form and return soon at 2. A decent number 3 is the toughest position to fill. Ballance clearly isn't a test 3 - though would quite probably have prospered at 5 - but there is no standout candidate for the position. Root, our best batsman, clearly prefers playing at 4, and there is little point in suggesting the captain move.
If we had a reliable no.2 and a world class 3 (or vice versa), we would have the ability to play an extra bowler at will to suit the conditions, and would probably dominate test cricket for the next few years.
But I'm fully supportive of a democratic pan-European state of which the UK would be a part of.
It's just not the EU with it's (for me) lack of democratic mandate (the thing that really annoys me are the 'keep voting until we get the right answer' or just 'change the header and forget the vote' which has been going on since 1992).
But the EU could overcome this (eventually) but what it also needs to do, as mentioned above, is pick a language - and a culture - and run with that.
I suppose the one regret I have about leaving is that *IF* the EU does manage to overcome all its problems and start to become a proper state in its own right that our culture and our language (English) are unlikely to be picked. It's now more likely to be German (or French).
Of course, the above is 100 years away... if ever.
And therein, to use the word of the day, is the enigma.
By creating a successful nation from 20 odd disparate and individualistic Nations, foisting one language as the National Language, creating a culture that is alien to vast swathes of the demos, inflicting one currency, a common fiscal, tax and monetary policy upon those who welcome it and resent it. One legal system and so on.
The closer the 'Union' the greater the resentment and disillusion. Look at Ireland, Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England over the last 50 or 150 years. Hardly a picture of harmony, but I don't think those are the by any stretch of the imagination the most volatile races on the continent.
Success in building a pan European Super State will only result in the inevitable destruction of the superstate caused by the stresses created through the perceived unfairness, perceived inequality and perceived national differences of the original Nation states.
Blimey! No wonder it's taking me so long to complete my fine art collection!
That's a pretty deep barrel you're scraping there.
Fire extinguishers. EU rules changed them so instead of being different colours for different types and so identifiable at a distance, they are now all the same colour with a small colour bar of no more than 5% of the body differentiating between the types. It is dangerous to the point of being deadly as the time it takes to identify the right type or the ability to misidentify and use the wrong type could cause deaths. In most onshore cases it is not so much of an issue as in public places it is usually only the one type - water. But in industry or particularly on ships and rigs it is extremely dangerous as the five different types can be found in close proximity to each other.
I know from a 'user' point of view this is very worrying and in the past Twisted Fire Starter on here has said similar concerns are shared by the professionals.
On the subject of enigmas, Moeen is our leading wicket taker in the series and has a hat trick. Do you think Bayliss might feel a bit of a muppet for calling him a second string spinner?
Moeen and Stokes are both genuinely world class all rounders. It is like having 13 players in your team. I was there on Friday when Stokes got to his 100 with 3 sixes in an over. Will never forget it.
Perhaps.
But Moeen should be at 5, not 8. He's averaging nearly 50 in the last year and he is far too good to play at 8. Put Woakes at 8 and have an extra bowler. After all, Ballance and Malan add nothing to the batting.
Moeen is fine at 8, though I'd probably move up both Stokes and Bairstow (both of whom are better batsmen) a place and play him at 7. England's real problem in the batting is at the top of the order, and messing around in the middle does nothing to address that. (And Moeen's technique is more likely to be found out higher up the order.) Hameed, I hope, will regain form and return soon at 2. A decent number 3 is the toughest position to fill. Ballance clearly isn't a test 3 - though would quite probably have prospered at 5 - but there is no standout candidate for the position. Root, our best batsman, clearly prefers playing at 4, and there is little point in suggesting the captain move.
If we had a reliable no.2 and a world class 3 (or vice versa), we would have the ability to play an extra bowler at will to suit the conditions, and would probably dominate test cricket for the next few years.
Westley showed class at number 3 so let's hope he can fill that role successfully.
Jenkins looked as though he was batting for the first time and had little aptitude for it.
On the subject of enigmas, Moeen is our leading wicket taker in the series and has a hat trick. Do you think Bayliss might feel a bit of a muppet for calling him a second string spinner?
Our leading wicket taker in the previous series was dropped in favour of Dawson.... I'm not sure Bayliss is the best judge.
Why is Joss Buttler not playing? Injured? Ineligible? Caught in bed with Mrs Bayliss?
Why would you pick Malan ahead of him?
Hasn't he only played about three first class matches in the last two years? He's more or less a white ball specialist now.
To my mind the real question is why they feel they need six front line batsmen, one batting at eight, plus Bairstow and Stokes. That suggests to me a deep-seated problem with the top order, to which with luck Westley is a partial solution.
A good opener would help too though.
You are a very reasonable chap (aka we appear to agree). Though I'm very far from convinced Westley is a world class three...
On the subject of enigmas, Moeen is our leading wicket taker in the series and has a hat trick. Do you think Bayliss might feel a bit of a muppet for calling him a second string spinner?
Moeen and Stokes are both genuinely world class all rounders. It is like having 13 players in your team. I was there on Friday when Stokes got to his 100 with 3 sixes in an over. Will never forget it.
Perhaps.
But Moeen should be at 5, not 8. He's averaging nearly 50 in the last year and he is far too good to play at 8. Put Woakes at 8 and have an extra bowler. After all, Ballance and Malan add nothing to the batting.
Moeen is fine at 8, though I'd probably move up both Stokes and Bairstow (both of whom are better batsmen) a place and play him at 7. England's real problem in the batting is at the top of the order, and messing around in the middle does nothing to address that. (And Moeen's technique is more likely to be found out higher up the order.) Hameed, I hope, will regain form and return soon at 2. A decent number 3 is the toughest position to fill. Ballance clearly isn't a test 3 - though would quite probably have prospered at 5 - but there is no standout candidate for the position. Root, our best batsman, clearly prefers playing at 4, and there is little point in suggesting the captain move.
If we had a reliable no.2 and a world class 3 (or vice versa), we would have the ability to play an extra bowler at will to suit the conditions, and would probably dominate test cricket for the next few years.
Westley showed class at number 3 so let's hope he can fill that role successfully.
Jenkins looked as though he was batting for the first time and had little aptitude for it.
Roland-Jones might become a regular.
Just an opener alongside Cook is missing.
All the Test nations are starting to suffer under the onslaught of limited overs cricket. England have shown it time and time again in recent years. They have by and large lost the ability to build a slow innings total on a good bowling pitch. They are forced to resort to slugging the ball around and hoping luck stays with them. It seems that South Africa have similar issues. Elgar was the brilliant exception today.
On the subject of enigmas, Moeen is our leading wicket taker in the series and has a hat trick. Do you think Bayliss might feel a bit of a muppet for calling him a second string spinner?
Our leading wicket taker in the previous series was dropped in favour of Dawson.... I'm not sure Bayliss is the best judge.
Why is Joss Buttler not playing? Injured? Ineligible? Caught in bed with Mrs Bayliss?
Why would you pick Malan ahead of him?
Hasn't he only played about three first class matches in the last two years? He's more or less a white ball specialist now.
To my mind the real question is why they feel they need six front line batsmen, one batting at eight, plus Bairstow and Stokes. That suggests to me a deep-seated problem with the top order, to which with luck Westley is a partial solution.
A good opener would help too though.
Essex are my team and there are three other players I would have picked ahead of Westley.
First pick would have been 20 yo David Lawrence, an exceptionally talented batsman - usually bast four or five, but versatile.
Second would have been Cook's opening partner, 25 yo David Browne, who recently smashed Finn and Roland Jones all over Chelmsford for his third double century.
I would have picked 24 yo Jamie Porter ahead of Roland-Jones (who incidentally took 0-90 in that Chelmsford match), although I'm glad R-J has made a success of his pick if only because he bats a bit, which Porter does not.
Westley is good, but not exceptional. He is however durable and, crucially, in form. Bayliss seems to have a liking for out-of-form players. Jennings is a good example. Everybody knows he is good, but he was short of form with Durham even before his recent spell for England.
I suspect everyone is agreed that Dawson's selection is a mystery of Bermuda Triangle proportions.
Cricket is far more important than politics and also has the advantage that there is no need to talk about the mind-blowing damage cricketers do to the national economy.
On the subject of enigmas, Moeen is our leading wicket taker in the series and has a hat trick. Do you think Bayliss might feel a bit of a muppet for calling him a second string spinner?
Our leading wicket taker in the previous series was dropped in favour of Dawson.... I'm not sure Bayliss is the best judge.
Why is Joss Buttler not playing? Injured? Ineligible? Caught in bed with Mrs Bayliss?
Why would you pick Malan ahead of him?
Hasn't he only played about three first class matches in the last two years? He's more or less a white ball specialist now.
To my mind the real question is why they feel they need six front line batsmen, one batting at eight, plus Bairstow and Stokes. That suggests to me a deep-seated problem with the top order, to which with luck Westley is a partial solution.
A good opener would help too though.
Essex are my team and there are three other players I would have picked ahead of Westley.
First pick would have been 20 yo David Lawrence, an exceptionally talented batsman - usually bast four or five, but versatile.
Second would have been Cook's opening partner, 25 yo David Browne, who recently smashed Finn and Roland Jones all over Chelmsford for his third double century.
I would have picked 24 yo Jamie Porter ahead of Roland-Jones (who incidentally took 0-90 in that Chelmsford match), although I'm glad R-J has made a success of his pick if only because he bats a bit, which Porter does not.
Westley is good, but not exceptional. He is however durable and, crucially, in form. Bayliss seems to have a liking for out-of-form players. Jennings is a good example. Everybody knows he is good, but he was short of form with Durham even before his recent spell for England.
I suspect everyone is agreed that Dawson's selection is a mystery of Bermuda Triangle proportions.
I would have picked Hildreth or Stoneman ahead of Westley. But he did OK. He may turn out better than expected.
Your last paragraph is I fear wrong. It is a mystery of far greater proportions than the Bermuda Triangle.
On the subject of enigmas, Moeen is our leading wicket taker in the series and has a hat trick. Do you think Bayliss might feel a bit of a muppet for calling him a second string spinner?
Our leading wicket taker in the previous series was dropped in favour of Dawson.... I'm not sure Bayliss is the best judge.
Why is Joss Buttler not playing? Injured? Ineligible? Caught in bed with Mrs Bayliss?
Why would you pick Malan ahead of him?
H
A good opener would help too though.
Essex are my team and there are three other players I would have picked ahead of Westley.
First pick would have been 20 yo David Lawrence, an exceptionally talented batsman - usually bast four or five, but versatile.
Second would have been Cook's opening partner, 25 yo David Browne, who recently smashed Finn and Roland Jones all over Chelmsford for his third double century.
I would have picked 24 yo Jamie Porter ahead of Roland-Jones (who incidentally took 0-90 in that Chelmsford match), although I'm glad R-J has made a success of his pick if only because he bats a bit, which Porter does not.
Westley is good, but not exceptional. He is however durable and, crucially, in form. Bayliss seems to have a liking for out-of-form players. Jennings is a good example. Everybody knows he is good, but he was short of form with Durham even before his recent spell for England.
I suspect everyone is agreed that Dawson's selection is a mystery of Bermuda Triangle proportions.
I would have picked Hildreth or Stoneman ahead of Westley. But he did OK. He may turn out better than expected.
Your last paragraph is I fear wrong. It is a mystery of far greater proportions than the Bermuda Triangle.
Yes, I'm talking from an Essex perspective as these are the players I know. I'm sure there are other players with equally strong if not stronger credentials. Form matters a lot though when you are asking a player to make the huge leap from County to Test Cricket. Poor Jennings is struggling in a weak Division 2 side. Why not let him find his form with Durham first?
Essex look like they are going to win Division 1, so most of the side is in form and confident. That must have helped Westley, and following a promising Test debut there's a decent chance he'll build on it. I was disappointed Lawrence was overlooked - for Buttler I could have understood, but Malan?
Yes, I'm talking from an Essex perspective as these are the players I know. I'm sure there are other players with equally strong if not stronger credentials. Form matters a lot though when you are asking a player to make the huge leap from County to Test Cricket. Poor Jennings is struggling in a weak Division 2 side. Why not let him find his form with Durham first?
Essex look like they are going to win Division 1, so most of the side is in form and confident. That must have helped Westley, and following a promising Test debut there's a decent chance he'll build on it. I was disappointed Lawrence was overlooked - for Buttler I could have understood, but Malan?
Not sure the quality of the side you play for is as important as the ones you play against, and there are some good bowlers in division 2. Norwell is as tall, fast and nasty as anyone in Division 1.
Also, although this gulf between divisions is taken for granted, I am dubious about the actual extent of it. Essex were Division 2 last year and set to be overall champions, while Durham are rooted firmly to the foot of Div 2 having actually avoided relegation last year (although the squad has been gravely weakened since). Moreover Lyth, Robson, Ballance all struggled just as much as Jennings (who scored runs for fun in Div 1 last year) or Duckett.
Blimey! No wonder it's taking me so long to complete my fine art collection!
That's a pretty deep barrel you're scraping there.
Fire extinguishers. EU rules changed them so instead of being different colours for different types and so identifiable at a distance, they are now all the same colour with a small colour bar of no more than 5% of the body differentiating between the types. It is dangerous to the point of being deadly as the time it takes to identify the right type or the ability to misidentify and use the wrong type could cause deaths. In most onshore cases it is not so much of an issue as in public places it is usually only the one type - water. But in industry or particularly on ships and rigs it is extremely dangerous as the five different types can be found in close proximity to each other.
I know from a 'user' point of view this is very worrying and in the past Twisted Fire Starter on here has said similar concerns are shared by the professionals.
Blimey! No wonder it's taking me so long to complete my fine art collection!
That's a pretty deep barrel you're scraping there.
Fire extinguishers. EU rules changed them so instead of being different colours for different types and so identifiable at a distance, they are now all the same colour with a small colour bar of no more than 5% of the body differentiating between the types. It is dangerous to the point of being deadly as the time it takes to identify the right type or the ability to misidentify and use the wrong type could cause deaths. In most onshore cases it is not so much of an issue as in public places it is usually only the one type - water. But in industry or particularly on ships and rigs it is extremely dangerous as the five different types can be found in close proximity to each other.
I know from a 'user' point of view this is very worrying and in the past Twisted Fire Starter on here has said similar concerns are shared by the professionals.
On the subject of enigmas, Moeen is our leading wicket taker in the series and has a hat trick. Do you think Bayliss might feel a bit of a muppet for calling him a second string spinner?
Our leading wicket taker in the previous series was dropped in favour of Dawson.... I'm not sure Bayliss is the best judge.
Why is Joss Buttler not playing? Injured? Ineligible? Caught in bed with Mrs Bayliss?
Why would you pick Malan ahead of him?
H
A good opener would help too though.
Essex are my team and there are three other players I would have picked ahead of Westley.
First pick would have been 20 yo David Lawrence, an exceptionally talented batsman - usually bast four or five, but versatile.
Second would have been Cook's opening partner, 25 yo David Browne, who recently smashed Finn and Roland Jones all over Chelmsford for his third double century....
I suspect everyone is agreed that Dawson's selection is a mystery of Bermuda Triangle proportions.
I would have picked Hildreth or Stoneman ahead of Westley. But he did OK. He may turn out better than expected.
Your last paragraph is I fear wrong. It is a mystery of far greater proportions than the Bermuda Triangle.
Yes, I'm talking from an Essex perspective as these are the players I know. I'm sure there are other players with equally strong if not stronger credentials. Form matters a lot though when you are asking a player to make the huge leap from County to Test Cricket. Poor Jennings is struggling in a weak Division 2 side. Why not let him find his form with Durham first?
Essex look like they are going to win Division 1, so most of the side is in form and confident. That must have helped Westley, and following a promising Test debut there's a decent chance he'll build on it. I was disappointed Lawrence was overlooked - for Buttler I could have understood, but Malan?
On the strength of his T20 (!) performance ('temperament'), and recent history with the Lions. If he doesn't make big runs, he'll probably be discarded fairly quickly.
There is little logic, a fair amount of ignorance (Bayliss hadn't seen at least one of the picks bat, for example), and no little prejudice (*cough* Pietersen) in selection, so I think some of it is simply having your name talked about by the right people.
To be fair, they have also taken some notice of current form (cf Ballance at the top of the first class averages)... though that doesn't always work out, either.
To be fair, they have also taken some notice of current form (cf Ballance at the top of the first class averages)... though that doesn't always work out, either.
****************************************************************** It's the lack of logic that's hard to live with. You can sympathise with the selectors when they pick good in form players and they fail (Lyth, Ballance etc) or when they are trying to follow a consistent plan and it doesn't pan out. But when they pick out of form players, like Jennings, and there's no coherent plan, as evidenced by the peculiar inclusion of Dawson, you can't help speculating about the criteria they are applying. Your comments about ignorance, prejudice and the mischievious Pietersen ring all too true, as do the generations old complaints that your chances of being selected to play for England improve proportionally to your proximity to St John's Wood.
Current selectors have a problem their predecessors didn't in that there is so little County Championship cricket played these days that it can be difficult to know who is in form and who isn't. I indicated that Essex were in fine fettle this year....or so they were until 29th June, when they last took the field in a four day county championship match. Otoh, they have the advantage of extensive TV and hi-tec coverage, so they can get a good look at any player that interests them without leaving their office desk. On balance, I think the job is probably easier than it ever was.
Finally, as to Ydoethur's point, I accept there's probably not much difference between 1st and 2nd Division Cricket. To me, the split is artificial. But I still reckon form is crucial. The selectors did Jennings no favours, and I suspect the same will prove true of Malan.
Comments
However, unstitching the UK from the EU will end in "humiliation", because we've been part of a political union for forty odd years even though most of us never saw it that way, and Ted Heath of all people (see example above posted by Nigelb) said it wasn't.
To take only the worst example, France finally admitted in 2007 it had had 305,000 confirmed cases of BSE but the only effect was a wildcat ban by the Spanish which they ignored anyway. Meanwhile Britain's beef industry was enormously damaged at a cost of (ironically) £60 billion, but more pertinently, several suicides.
That was an absolutely blatant market grab by a corrupt elite, backed by the laughably named ECJ, and showed the EU in the worst light imaginable. It was my hope that we getting past this and could turn to all the good stuff it does that tipped me to remain. Barnier' attitude makes me wonder if I was wrong.
I'm not going to bite at "tidying up exercise". That one's already a corker in the pantheon of whoppers past.
Since it was live radio I bet the producers were sweating in case Boycs really lost it and said something he might, shall we say, regret later!
I suspect though, that welshowl has articulated what drives most devout Brexiters - an irrational but heartfelt dislike of any type of union with other countries.
I was just keen to understand if Geoff (or anyone else) had some real meaningful examples of how the EU has blighted their lives.
It would not have stopped us trading with the rest of the world.
Nor would we have been treated differently from the French, Germans, Austrians and Belgians.
The whole thing, as you rightly observe, still stinks.
@Benpointer
It's not merely "irrational" (and even if it were so what frankly?) for example, I cannot see how a real vibrant democracy is going to function with, at present, 23 (or thereabouts depends where you draw the line on mutual intelligibility on a few) languages competing for space. There is just no hope of a real shared culture or world view, without at the least a lingua franca. I don't recall the French promoting English as the obvious candidate here over the years (and to be fair why would they?).
How do you have national democratic debate, a proper court system, a press to hold to account etc etc?
Political union between such diverse nations with little in common is far more irrational: logically and historically.
The EU has many great virtues but I can fully understand why over half the population had had enough.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4721572/Crackdown-bogus-holiday-sickness-scam-firms.html
Shit happens (pun intended) and every nation has it's share of rogues. But that's not a powerfull argument against the EU, any more than it is against the UK union.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/07/31/the_8_most_british_things_about_dunkirk.html
We're meant to be part of the Union. We're the second largest budget contributor. If this is how they treat the friends who subsidise them, then time to go.
That's a pretty deep barrel you're scraping there.
OK, technically it's an annoyance rather than a blight, but it's damn annoying.
Match over, surely?
Apparently this is the first time there's even been as many as four primaries in an innings in a Test - make that five.
But I'm fully supportive of a democratic pan-European state of which the UK would be a part of.
It's just not the EU with it's (for me) lack of democratic mandate (the thing that really annoys me are the 'keep voting until we get the right answer' or just 'change the header and forget the vote' which has been going on since 1992).
But the EU could overcome this (eventually) but what it also needs to do, as mentioned above, is pick a language - and a culture - and run with that.
I suppose the one regret I have about leaving is that *IF* the EU does manage to overcome all its problems and start to become a proper state in its own right that our culture and our language (English) are unlikely to be picked. It's now more likely to be German (or French).
Of course, the above is 100 years away... if ever.
I was there on Friday when Stokes got to his 100 with 3 sixes in an over. Will never forget it.
But Moeen should be at 5, not 8. He's averaging nearly 50 in the last year and he is far too good to play at 8. Put Woakes at 8 and have an extra bowler. After all, Ballance and Malan add nothing to the batting.
I'm not sure Bayliss is the best judge.
Why would you pick Malan ahead of him?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05b5j5t
REMAIN 48%
To my mind the real question is why they feel they need six front line batsmen, one batting at eight, plus Bairstow and Stokes. That suggests to me a deep-seated problem with the top order, to which with luck Westley is a partial solution.
A good opener would help too though.
England's real problem in the batting is at the top of the order, and messing around in the middle does nothing to address that. (And Moeen's technique is more likely to be found out higher up the order.)
Hameed, I hope, will regain form and return soon at 2. A decent number 3 is the toughest position to fill. Ballance clearly isn't a test 3 - though would quite probably have prospered at 5 - but there is no standout candidate for the position.
Root, our best batsman, clearly prefers playing at 4, and there is little point in suggesting the captain move.
If we had a reliable no.2 and a world class 3 (or vice versa), we would have the ability to play an extra bowler at will to suit the conditions, and would probably dominate test cricket for the next few years.
By creating a successful nation from 20 odd disparate and individualistic Nations, foisting one language as the National Language, creating a culture that is alien to vast swathes of the demos, inflicting one currency, a common fiscal, tax and monetary policy upon those who welcome it and resent it. One legal system and so on.
The closer the 'Union' the greater the resentment and disillusion. Look at Ireland, Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England over the last 50 or 150 years. Hardly a picture of harmony, but I don't think those are the by any stretch of the imagination the most volatile races on the continent.
Success in building a pan European Super State will only result in the inevitable destruction of the superstate caused by the stresses created through the perceived unfairness, perceived inequality and perceived national differences of the original Nation states.
I know from a 'user' point of view this is very worrying and in the past Twisted Fire Starter on here has said similar concerns are shared by the professionals.
Jenkins looked as though he was batting for the first time and had little aptitude for it.
Roland-Jones might become a regular.
Just an opener alongside Cook is missing.
Though I'm very far from convinced Westley is a world class three...
First pick would have been 20 yo David Lawrence, an exceptionally talented batsman - usually bast four or five, but versatile.
Second would have been Cook's opening partner, 25 yo David Browne, who recently smashed Finn and Roland Jones all over Chelmsford for his third double century.
I would have picked 24 yo Jamie Porter ahead of Roland-Jones (who incidentally took 0-90 in that Chelmsford match), although I'm glad R-J has made a success of his pick if only because he bats a bit, which Porter does not.
Westley is good, but not exceptional. He is however durable and, crucially, in form. Bayliss seems to have a liking for out-of-form players. Jennings is a good example. Everybody knows he is good, but he was short of form with Durham even before his recent spell for England.
I suspect everyone is agreed that Dawson's selection is a mystery of Bermuda Triangle proportions.
Your last paragraph is I fear wrong. It is a mystery of far greater proportions than the Bermuda Triangle.
Don't be greedy.
American Lies About the War In Another Film
Essex look like they are going to win Division 1, so most of the side is in form and confident. That must have helped Westley, and following a promising Test debut there's a decent chance he'll build on it. I was disappointed Lawrence was overlooked - for Buttler I could have understood, but Malan?
Also, although this gulf between divisions is taken for granted, I am dubious about the actual extent of it. Essex were Division 2 last year and set to be overall champions, while Durham are rooted firmly to the foot of Div 2 having actually avoided relegation last year (although the squad has been gravely weakened since). Moreover Lyth, Robson, Ballance all struggled just as much as Jennings (who scored runs for fun in Div 1 last year) or Duckett.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/31/cheer-young-people-worked-nearly-50-years-state-pension-do/
I thought it an excellent review.
If he doesn't make big runs, he'll probably be discarded fairly quickly.
There is little logic, a fair amount of ignorance (Bayliss hadn't seen at least one of the picks bat, for example), and no little prejudice (*cough* Pietersen) in selection, so I think some of it is simply having your name talked about by the right people.
To be fair, they have also taken some notice of current form (cf Ballance at the top of the first class averages)... though that doesn't always work out, either.
******************************************************************
It's the lack of logic that's hard to live with. You can sympathise with the selectors when they pick good in form players and they fail (Lyth, Ballance etc) or when they are trying to follow a consistent plan and it doesn't pan out. But when they pick out of form players, like Jennings, and there's no coherent plan, as evidenced by the peculiar inclusion of Dawson, you can't help speculating about the criteria they are applying. Your comments about ignorance, prejudice and the mischievious Pietersen ring all too true, as do the generations old complaints that your chances of being selected to play for England improve proportionally to your proximity to St John's Wood.
Current selectors have a problem their predecessors didn't in that there is so little County Championship cricket played these days that it can be difficult to know who is in form and who isn't. I indicated that Essex were in fine fettle this year....or so they were until 29th June, when they last took the field in a four day county championship match. Otoh, they have the advantage of extensive TV and hi-tec coverage, so they can get a good look at any player that interests them without leaving their office desk. On balance, I think the job is probably easier than it ever was.
Finally, as to Ydoethur's point, I accept there's probably not much difference between 1st and 2nd Division Cricket. To me, the split is artificial. But I still reckon form is crucial. The selectors did Jennings no favours, and I suspect the same will prove true of Malan.
The US marines had a number of parts to play a bit later in far flung places, from Italy to the Pacific Ocean.