There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
OK - completely off topic but a question for the PB brains trust and/pr Stodge's valet.
I want to upgrade my computer (my Apple Mac being ca a decade old). A laptop would be good. I will have a website and be creating documents and presentations. It needs to be reliable. I don't need super fast gaming. It needs to be easy to use - as I will be my own IT department. And to have plenty of storage.
So Apple or not. What is Chrome? Etc etc. Any recommendations?
Thanks in advance.
A vm will do.
I'd be interested to know how long people have managed to make Windows laptops last as effective machines?
Until 2011 I went through a series of Windows PCs/laptops, then I bought a Macbook Air. I don't think any of the Windows machines managed to operate effectively for more than four years. Six years into my Macbook ownership and it's still performing as effectively as new (in sharp contrast to an IPad bought the same year, it has to be said!). The only issues with the Macbook are that it has a number of dents and dings around the edges, from being dropped a few times.
I feel I ought to be buying somethng newer, but why bother?!
Still using an HP I bought in 2014, though its fan dies from time to time.
A Dell I bought in 2011 still survives despite a broken hinge, though I only use it for games.
It's not at all supportive of the narrative we Remainers believe and have been pushing but in the spirit of fairness I thought I'd pop it on here, in case you haven't seen it.
Tbh, even as a Remainer, I hope he's right!
That is why you are such a valuable contributor on here. Like Nick Palmer and Southam Observer you fear the worst but hope for the best. It is a shame others seem to take such glee in the prospect of Brexit failing.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
Come on Mike, you know full well what a Parliamentary majority is and means. The referendum was in the Conservative Manifesto, and remain fully expected to win, which would have killed off Brexit forever.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
Come on Mike, you know full well what a Parliamentary majority is and means. The referendum was in the Conservative Manifesto, and remain fully expected to win, which would have killed off Brexit forever.
Only a convincing win would have done so. 52-48 to Remain would have fed the Eurosceptic cause and possibly led to a rerun in which the country was actually prepared for the event of Leave winning.
Michael Gove has told the Danish fishing industry that boats from EU countries will still be able to operate in UK waters after Brexit, as the UK does not have enough capacity to catch and process all its fish alone.
I saw this yesterday (though not from this source). I'm a bit nonplussed by this and why anyone should think that it's an odd suggestion. The point of controlling your waters is to conserve stocks properly, not to ban foreign vessels.
The CFP up until very recently has been a complete disaster both for UK commercial fishing (which it was always designed to be, right from 1970 when it was thrust upon the dimwitted Heath at the last moment by Brussels) and for conservation (a consequential side effect).
Returning to UK based controls is sensible, allowing others quotas to fish is also reasonable.
But clearly, after Brexit, if we do not have the capacity to fish as much, should we not increase the fish stock ? Unless, we would be selling fishing rights.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
There you go again, confusing your hopes with reality.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
What destruction ?
This 'destruction' perhaps:
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
' If you perchance thought that your London banking job would be safe with Britain outside the European Union, you were seemingly wrong. Consultants working for leading strategy firms in London say banks have activated their contingency plans and that the London job cuts are about to come thick and fast.
“You’re looking at anything from 50,000 to 70,000 London finance jobs being moved overseas in the next 12 months,” predicts one consultant working with one of the top finance strategy firms in the City. “Jobs are going to be cut, and those cuts are going to start next week.” '
It's not at all supportive of the narrative we Remainers believe and have been pushing but in the spirit of fairness I thought I'd pop it on here, in case you haven't seen it.
Tbh, even as a Remainer, I hope he's right!
That is why you are such a valuable contributor on here. Like Nick Palmer and Southam Observer you fear the worst but hope for the best. It is a shame others seem to take such glee in the prospect of Brexit failing.
Thank you. One of the things I like most about this site is the range of views Left to Right, hard Brexiteer to devout Europhile. Can there possibly be another site like it?
We should encourge those who only like to look in the mirror on Order-Order or The Canary to join us..
Oh, wait, maybe that's not such a good idea - let's keep it (relatively) civilised shall we
Just been to see Dunkirk and I'm disappointed. Lots of amazing action and cinematography with fantastic sound but very short on story. It doesn't compare at all with Saving Private Ryan or even the BBC2 series 15 years ago. There has to be a narrative.
I thought it was excellent but I can understand why it might not be for everyone. The Dunkirk scenes in Atonement were pretty impressive, to mention another film depiction.
They were.
For all the people who have attached Dunkirk how does it compare with the b&w film with John Mills ?
I don't know about you but as somebody not involved in selling or taking drugs it is the sort of thing I regular carry on me on a daily basis and would definitely try and get rid if the police tried to stop me...
LOL! This morning the news was that it wasn't a controlled substance and reported in a way to insinuate he had done nothing wrong.
Lets not jump to conclusions. He might have just had a bad cold.
Someone, somewhere in London is passing off Panadol Extra as ecstasy He's obviously not at the top of the chain if we think about it logically.
Tbh selling fake gear is probably quite a good way to make a living if you're into that sort of thing. What can the police bust you for ? Possessing calpol tablets and pro plus with intent to supply xD !
I guess you'd keep having to find new customers!, although there might well be a decent placebo effect at a rave...
I don't know about you but as somebody not involved in selling or taking drugs it is the sort of thing I regular carry on me on a daily basis and would definitely try and get rid if the police tried to stop me...
LOL! This morning the news was that it wasn't a controlled substance and reported in a way to insinuate he had done nothing wrong.
Lets not jump to conclusions. He might have just had a bad cold.
Someone, somewhere in London is passing off Panadol Extra as ecstasy He's obviously not at the top of the chain if we think about it logically.
Tbh selling fake gear is probably quite a good way to make a living if you're into that sort of thing. What can the police bust you for ?
I don't know about you but as somebody not involved in selling or taking drugs it is the sort of thing I regular carry on me on a daily basis and would definitely try and get rid if the police tried to stop me...
LOL! This morning the news was that it wasn't a controlled substance and reported in a way to insinuate he had done nothing wrong.
Lets not jump to conclusions. He might have just had a bad cold.
Someone, somewhere in London is passing off Panadol Extra as ecstasy He's obviously not at the top of the chain if we think about it logically.
Tbh selling fake gear is probably quite a good way to make a living if you're into that sort of thing. What can the police bust you for ? Possessing calpol tablets and pro plus with intent to supply xD !
I guess you'd keep having to find new customers!, although there might well be a decent placebo effect at a rave...
Apparently the police has a really hard time prosecuting people for dealing the former "legal highes", because every month the shit they are selling is slightly different and so then have to run a load of tests to establish what it is and what it does.
Michael Gove has told the Danish fishing industry that boats from EU countries will still be able to operate in UK waters after Brexit, as the UK does not have enough capacity to catch and process all its fish alone.
I saw this yesterday (though not from this source). I'm a bit nonplussed by this and why anyone should think that it's an odd suggestion. The point of controlling your waters is to conserve stocks properly, not to ban foreign vessels.
The CFP up until very recently has been a complete disaster both for UK commercial fishing (which it was always designed to be, right from 1970 when it was thrust upon the dimwitted Heath at the last moment by Brussels) and for conservation (a consequential side effect).
Returning to UK based controls is sensible, allowing others quotas to fish is also reasonable.
But clearly, after Brexit, if we do not have the capacity to fish as much, should we not increase the fish stock ? Unless, we would be selling fishing rights.
We might be exchanging certain rights for others I suppose, but these will be matters for negotiation. Also, I'm no marine biologist, but all species feed on something, so there may be ecological reasons why a sudden increase in stocks might create other less positive effects elsewhere. But that would be pure speculation on my part.
It's not at all supportive of the narrative we Remainers believe and have been pushing but in the spirit of fairness I thought I'd pop it on here, in case you haven't seen it.
Tbh, even as a Remainer, I hope he's right!
That is why you are such a valuable contributor on here. Like Nick Palmer and Southam Observer you fear the worst but hope for the best. It is a shame others seem to take such glee in the prospect of Brexit failing.
Thank you. One of the things I like most about this site is the range of views Left to Right, hard Brexiteer to devout Europhile. Can there possibly be another site like it?
We should encourge those who only like to look in the mirror on Order-Order or The Canary to join us..
Oh, wait, maybe that's not such a good idea - let's keep it (relatively) civilised shall we
What's The Canary - a LibDem site ???
Most of the comments on Guido's site are deranged, it makes me wonder if people are like that in real life.
I get a bit irritated with British war films that are always about defeats. Why no film about El Alamein, for example?
You get the films made in wartime, which tended to be a little too far the other way. One of my favourites is 'the foreman went to France'. Even better, it was based on a real story about a real, ordinary man flung into extraordinary events, whose bravery helped the war effort. Coincidentally enough, it was set during the fall of France.
I'd love to see a film about Charles Howard and his retinue. Immensely brave men (and woman), who seems to pop up frequently when reading about wartime derring-do. During the fall of France he tried to get France's heavy water out of the country along with some scientists, but the ship had to leave and the trucks were late arriving. His solution was to get the scared crew drunk so they couldn't sail. They later died whilst defusing an unexploded bomb.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
When UKIP were coming 2nd in by elections 2012-2015, we had to endure endless patronising thread headers & comments in the "Coming 2nd in FPTP elections is no good, you need to be winning them" vein.
Well the same goes in a referendum, only now the people who lost are crying its not fair.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
Come on Mike, you know full well what a Parliamentary majority is and means. The referendum was in the Conservative Manifesto, and remain fully expected to win, which would have killed off Brexit forever.
Er, not according to Farage (see thread header)!
Farage would have been a busted flush. The referendum has finished UKIP, but it would have done that anyway I suspect, whatever the result. A few headbangers would have carped on I'm sure, but most folks tend to know when the game's up.
OK - completely off topic but a question for the PB brains trust and/pr Stodge's valet.
I want to upgrade my computer (my Apple Mac being ca a decade old). A laptop would be good. I will have a website and be creating documents and presentations. It needs to be reliable. I don't need super fast gaming. It needs to be easy to use - as I will be my own IT department. And to have plenty of storage.
So Apple or not. What is Chrome? Etc etc. Any recommendations?
Thanks in advance.
A vm will do.
I'd be interested to know how long people have managed to make Windows laptops last as effective machines?
Until 2011 I went through a series of Windows PCs/laptops, then I bought a Macbook Air. I don't think any of the Windows machines managed to operate effectively for more than four years. Six years into my Macbook ownership and it's still performing as effectively as new (in sharp contrast to an IPad bought the same year, it has to be said!). The only issues with the Macbook are that it has a number of dents and dings around the edges, from being dropped a few times.
I feel I ought to be buying somethng newer, but why bother?!
I've used Windows ever since it first appeared, and rarely had any problems at all. I think it's largely a question of what you're used to, like Pepsi vs Coke, and that's definitely the case with browsers, which for normal users seem virtually interchangeable (I use Firefox, Explorer and Chrome regularly on different machines and occasionally Edge). Apple is too much of a closed world for me - unnecessary learning curve to enter a protected system: I'veworked with a Mac, but it never felt as convenient. I know people who think exactly the opposite, of course.
Fair but of course I was very used to Windows before I switched to Mac at home, and I have continued to (have to) use Windows at work. No comparison in ease of use once you recognise that you will have an initial learning curve to switch to Mac. Of course, you have to climb that learning curve to a large extent with each new major release of Windows.
While I am slipping into PC O/S rant mode, I shudder at the sheer cost to industry to try to keep current and supported on Windows. I worked for a bank that has run two successive, phenomenally expensive Windows upgrade roll-outs - and it's still only got them to Win 7. Bill Gates has a lot to answer for!
US think the malware "hero" is not the messiah but a very naughty boy....
According to an indictment released by the US Department of Justice on Thursday, Hutchins is accused of having helped to create, spread and maintain the banking trojan Kronos between 2014 and 2015.
The Kronos malware was spread through emails with malicious attachments such as compromised Microsoft word documents, and hijacks credentials like internet banking passwords to let its user steal money with ease.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
Come on Mike, you know full well what a Parliamentary majority is and means. The referendum was in the Conservative Manifesto, and remain fully expected to win, which would have killed off Brexit forever.
Er, not according to Farage (see thread header)!
Farage would have been a busted flush. The referendum has finished UKIP, but it would have done that anyway I suspect, whatever the result. A few headbangers would have carped on I'm sure, but most folks tend to know when the game's up.
I can't agree Tony, one of the thoughts I console myself with is that if/when we do come out, then the matter will be truly put to rest and we can get on with being a country again. I do not believe that would have been the case if it had been 52% - 48% the other way.
Fair but of course I was very used to Windows before I switched to Mac at home, and I have continued to (have to) use Windows at work. No comparison in ease of use once you recognise that you will have an initial learning curve to switch to Mac. Of course, you have to climb that learning curve to a large extent with each new major release of Windows.
While I am slipping into PC O/S rant mode, I shudder at the sheer cost to industry to try to keep current and supported on Windows. I worked for a bank that has run two successive, phenomenally expensive Windows upgrade roll-outs - and it's still only got them to Win 7. Bill Gates has a lot to answer for!
Yes, thanks to Bill Gates we have a massively lively and successful computer industry. Without him, we might have what we had in the early to mid 1980s: a magnificent array of differing standards and incompatible hardware and software. Now, for most purposes, we just have Wintel, Apple, Linux and ARM/Android, with Wintel winning on Desktops and ARM/Android on mobile devices. (*)
As I've said passim, MS do an amazing job in ensuring that their OSs work on the massive numbers and combinations of hardware out there. Apple, who control their own hardware, have it easy in comparison.
Yes, MS have made mistakes. But technology wouldn't be as advanced as it is today without them.
(*) Yes, I know it's more complex than that. But compare it to the early 1980s and it's much simpler.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are particularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
I get a bit irritated with British war films that are always about defeats. Why no film about El Alamein, for example?
You get the films made in wartime, which tended to be a little too far the other way. One of my favourites is 'the foreman went to France'. Even better, it was based on a real story about a real, ordinary man flung into extraordinary events, whose bravery helped the war effort. Coincidentally enough, it was set during the fall of France.
I'd love to see a film about Charles Howard and his retinue. Immensely brave men (and woman), who seems to pop up frequently when reading about wartime derring-do. During the fall of France he tried to get France's heavy water out of the country along with some scientists, but the ship had to leave and the trucks were late arriving. His solution was to get the scared crew drunk so they couldn't sail. They later died whilst defusing an unexploded bomb.
As for a 'victory' film, how about the Dam Busters?
Wasn't someone trying to remake The Dam Busters? Could be done quite well given the technology available now. Another one I quite like is The Heroes of Telemark.
I really would like to see a reasoned argument that tells me we are going to be better out of the EU. It needs to go beyond "take back control" etc just tell me how we will be better off in ten years time without resorting to insults and codeming me for being a remoaner.
Millions of individuals will be better off. People like me will be worse off. Net net that's good for the country.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
When UKIP were coming 2nd in by elections 2012-2015, we had to endure endless patronising thread headers & comments in the "Coming 2nd in FPTP elections is no good, you need to be winning them" vein.
Well the same goes in a referendum, only now the people who lost are crying its not fair.
I really would like to see a reasoned argument that tells me we are going to be better out of the EU. It needs to go beyond "take back control" etc just tell me how we will be better off in ten years time without resorting to insults and codeming me for being a remoaner.
Millions of individuals will be better off. People like me will be worse off. Net net that's good for the country.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are particularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
I get a bit irritated with British war films that are always about defeats. Why no film about El Alamein, for example?
You get the films made in wartime, which tended to be a little too far the other way. One of my favourites is 'the foreman went to France'. Even better, it was based on a real story about a real, ordinary man flung into extraordinary events, whose bravery helped the war effort. Coincidentally enough, it was set during the fall of France.
I'd love to see a film about Charles Howard and his retinue. Immensely brave men (and woman), who seems to pop up frequently when reading about wartime derring-do. During the fall of France he tried to get France's heavy water out of the country along with some scientists, but the ship had to leave and the trucks were late arriving. His solution was to get the scared crew drunk so they couldn't sail. They later died whilst defusing an unexploded bomb.
As for a 'victory' film, how about the Dam Busters?
Wasn't someone trying to remake The Dam Busters? Could be done quite well given the technology available now. Another one I quite like is The Heroes of Telemark.
I don't know about you but as somebody not involved in selling or taking drugs it is the sort of thing I regular carry on me on a daily basis and would definitely try and get rid if the police tried to stop me...
LOL! This morning the news was that it wasn't a controlled substance and reported in a way to insinuate he had done nothing wrong.
Lets not jump to conclusions. He might have just had a bad cold.
Someone, somewhere in London is passing off Panadol Extra as ecstasy He's obviously not at the top of the chain if we think about it logically.
Tbh selling fake gear is probably quite a good way to make a living if you're into that sort of thing. What can the police bust you for ?
Fraud, if nothing else, I suspect.
Surely only if a client was prepared to testify they thought they were buying illegal drugs
I get a bit irritated with British war films that are always about defeats. Why no film about El Alamein, for example?
You get the films made in wartime, which tended to be a little too far the other way. One of my favourites is 'the foreman went to France'. Even better, it was based on a real story about a real, ordinary man flung into extraordinary events, whose bravery helped the war effort. Coincidentally enough, it was set during the fall of France.
I'd love to see a film about Charles Howard and his retinue. Immensely brave men (and woman), who seems to pop up frequently when reading about wartime derring-do. During the fall of France he tried to get France's heavy water out of the country along with some scientists, but the ship had to leave and the trucks were late arriving. His solution was to get the scared crew drunk so they couldn't sail. They later died whilst defusing an unexploded bomb.
As for a 'victory' film, how about the Dam Busters?
Wasn't someone trying to remake The Dam Busters? Could be done quite well given the technology available now. Another one I quite like is The Heroes of Telemark.
Will they include the scenes of factory workers drowning from the original?
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are particularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are particularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
Deal or Status Quo
There is no status quo. We're on a path towards the exit.
I get a bit irritated with British war films that are always about defeats. Why no film about El Alamein, for example?
You get the films made in wartime, which tended to be a little too far the other way. One of my favourites is 'the foreman went to France'. Even better, it was based on a real story about a real, ordinary man flung into extraordinary events, whose bravery helped the war effort. Coincidentally enough, it was set during the fall of France.
I'd love to see a film about Charles Howard and his retinue. Immensely brave men (and woman), who seems to pop up frequently when reading about wartime derring-do. During the fall of France he tried to get France's heavy water out of the country along with some scientists, but the ship had to leave and the trucks were late arriving. His solution was to get the scared crew drunk so they couldn't sail. They later died whilst defusing an unexploded bomb.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are particularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats...
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are particularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats...
I get a bit irritated with British war films that are always about defeats. Why no film about El Alamein, for example?
You get the films made in wartime, which tended to be a little too far the other way. One of my favourites is 'the foreman went to France'. Even better, it was based on a real story about a real, ordinary man flung into extraordinary events, whose bravery helped the war effort. Coincidentally enough, it was set during the fall of France.
I'd love to see a film about Charles Howard and his retinue. Immensely brave men (and woman), who seems to pop up frequently when reading about wartime derring-do. During the fall of France he tried to get France's heavy water out of the country along with some scientists, but the ship had to leave and the trucks were late arriving. His solution was to get the scared crew drunk so they couldn't sail. They later died whilst defusing an unexploded bomb.
As for a 'victory' film, how about the Dam Busters?
My highly recommended lesser-known WWII films: Divided we Fall, Come and See, April 9th, and not quite so lesser-known Fury and Enemy at the Gates. Of the classics, The Longest Day and Twelve O'Clock High are underrated. And of course Black Book.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are particularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
I really would like to see a reasoned argument that tells me we are going to be better out of the EU. It needs to go beyond "take back control" etc just tell me how we will be better off in ten years time without resorting to insults and codeming me for being a remoaner.
Millions of individuals will be better off. People like me will be worse off. Net net that's good for the country.
Well that sounds good.
But who and how and where and when ?
People whose wages have been compressed by businesses having access to a pool of 270m employees. Taxpayers who will have to pay out less in working tax credits as wages rise.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are parQticularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
Deal or Status Quo
What do you mean by "status quo"?
Remaining on current terms (or with any improvements the EU might be willing to offer).
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are particularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are particularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
Deal or Status Quo
I think that it would be deal or no deal i.e. Rock Hard Brexit. In practice, I think that these will barely be distinguishable, so little point.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are particularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
Trump - And I guess our friend Greg Norman, he is doing very well?
Turnbull - He is a great mutual friend yes.
Reading the full transcripts is interesting. Trump doesn't sound nuts or really stupid - he sounds like a middle-ranking wheeler-dealer politician, perhaps the mayor of a medium-sized city, trying to wheedle the best out of his counterparts - but he does sound out of his depth.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are particularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats...
A goat must surely be easier to look after than an owl?
I get a bit irritated with British war films that are always about defeats. Why no film about El Alamein, for example?
You get the films made in wartime, which tended to be a little too far the other way. One of my favourites is 'the foreman went to France'. Even better, it was based on a real story about a real, ordinary man flung into extraordinary events, whose bravery helped the war effort. Coincidentally enough, it was set during the fall of France.
I'd love to see a film about Charles Howard and his retinue. Immensely brave men (and woman), who seems to pop up frequently when reading about wartime derring-do. During the fall of France he tried to get France's heavy water out of the country along with some scientists, but the ship had to leave and the trucks were late arriving. His solution was to get the scared crew drunk so they couldn't sail. They later died whilst defusing an unexploded bomb.
As for a 'victory' film, how about the Dam Busters?
My highly recommended lesser-known WWII films: Divided we Fall, Come and See, April 9th, and not quite so lesser-known Fury and Enemy at the Gates. Of the classics, The Longest Day and Twelve O'Clock High are underrated. And of course Black Book.
Black Book is exceptional. Full of ambiguity and heroism.
Trump - And I guess our friend Greg Norman, he is doing very well?
Turnbull - He is a great mutual friend yes.
Reading the full transcripts is interesting. Trump doesn't sound nuts or really stupid - he sounds like a middle-ranking wheeler-dealer politician, perhaps the mayor of a medium-sized city, trying to wheedle the best out of his counterparts - but he does sound out of his depth.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are parQticularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
Deal or Status Quo
What do you mean by "status quo"?
Remaining on current terms (or with any improvements the EU might be willing to offer).
Well, I'm glad you have sufficient faith in our negotiators as to believe that they can negotiate two deals in the next 18 months.
I get a bit irritated with British war films that are always about defeats. Why no film about El Alamein, for example?
You get the films made in wartime, which tended to be a little too far the other way. One of my favourites is 'the foreman went to France'. Even better, it was based on a real story about a real, ordinary man flung into extraordinary events, whose bravery helped the war effort. Coincidentally enough, it was set during the fall of France.
I'd love to see a film about Charles Howard and his retinue. Immensely brave men (and woman), who seems to pop up frequently when reading about wartime derring-do. During the fall of France he tried to get France's heavy water out of the country along with some scientists, but the ship had to leave and the trucks were late arriving. His solution was to get the scared crew drunk so they couldn't sail. They later died whilst defusing an unexploded bomb.
As for a 'victory' film, how about the Dam Busters?
My highly recommended lesser-known WWII films: Divided we Fall, Come and See, April 9th, and not quite so lesser-known Fury and Enemy at the Gates. Of the classics, The Longest Day and Twelve O'Clock High are underrated. And of course Black Book.
Black Book is exceptional. Full of ambiguity and heroism.
Dutch Women score...
England got pulled out of shape by a rudimentary move that wouldn't have worked in the Isthmian League.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are parQticularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
Deal or Status Quo
What do you mean by "status quo"?
Remaining on current terms (or with any improvements the EU might be willing to offer).
Well, I'm glad you have sufficient faith in our negotiators as to believe that they can negotiate two deals in the next 18 months.
Quite the reverse. Anything they might likely to negotiate is almost certain to be deleterious compared to our current circumstance such that any sane and sensible person would want at least the chance to put a stop to this whole madcap misadventure.
I get a bit irritated with British war films that are always about defeats. Why no film about El Alamein, for example?
You get the films made in wartime, which tended to be a little too far the other way. One of my favourites is 'the foreman went to France'. Even better, it was based on a real story about a real, ordinary man flung into extraordinary events, whose bravery helped the war effort. Coincidentally enough, it was set during the fall of France.
I'd love to see a film about Charles Howard and his retinue. Immensely brave men (and woman), who seems to pop up frequently when reading about wartime derring-do. During the fall of France he tried to get France's heavy water out of the country along with some scientists, but the ship had to leave and the trucks were late arriving. His solution was to get the scared crew drunk so they couldn't sail. They later died whilst defusing an unexploded bomb.
As for a 'victory' film, how about the Dam Busters?
My highly recommended lesser-known WWII films: Divided we Fall, Come and See, April 9th, and not quite so lesser-known Fury and Enemy at the Gates. Of the classics, The Longest Day and Twelve O'Clock High are underrated. And of course Black Book.
Black Book is exceptional. Full of ambiguity and heroism.
Dutch Women score...
England got pulled out of shape by a rudimentary move that wouldn't have worked in the Isthmian League.
England finally starting to push forward rather than hoof it.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are parQticularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
Deal or Status Quo
What do you mean by "status quo"?
Remaining on current terms (or with any improvements the EU might be willing to offer).
Well, I'm glad you have sufficient faith in our negotiators as to believe that they can negotiate two deals in the next 18 months.
Quite the reverse.
But that is the only way the referendum you suggest can happen. Remaining on the terms of membership pre-29th March 2017 hasn't been an option since 30th March 2017 - certainly not one that can be offered unconditionally by HMG. The only way that it can be an option is for it to be agreed by the EU27, which requires it to come out of the negotiations.
In reality, if HMG were stupid enough to attempt to reverse the democratic instruction of the British people, the other option would have to be "become a full member of the EU" with all the trappings (euro, Schengen etc.)
For this reason the politicians won't risk calling a second referendum, because it almost certainly wont go the way they expect.
The likely outcome of a second referendum IMHO would be a larger Leave win on a substantially lower turnout as unfussed 2016 Remain voters stayed at home disgusted by the whole exercise.
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are particularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
Deal or Status Quo
What do you mean by "status quo"?
Ever closer union, dressed up as "no change"
It won't be the status quo, it will be on us giving up our rebate, joining the euro and Schengen.
On second thought bring on the second referendum...... REMAIN would lose so badly on these terms they would be licking their wounds for years.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are parQticularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
Deal or Status Quo
What do you mean by "status quo"?
Remaining on current terms (or with any improvements the EU might be willing to offer).
Well, I'm glad you have sufficient faith in our negotiators as to believe that they can negotiate two deals in the next 18 months.
Quite the reverse.
But that is the only way the referendum you suggest can happen. Remaining on the terms of membership pre-29th March 2017 hasn't been an option since 30th March 2017 - certainly not one that can be offered unconditionally by HMG. The only way that it can be an option is for it to be agreed by the EU27, which requires it to come out of the negotiations.
In reality, if HMG were stupid enough to attempt to reverse the democratic instruction of the British people, the other option would have to be "become a full member of the EU" with all the trappings (euro, Schengen etc.)
Nonsense. HMG doesn't come into it - parliament votes for another referendum, the people vote to remain, and the EU agrees to continue current terms, or very close to it. This is clearly the most sensible exit route from the self-destructive cul-de-sac into which the Brexit headbangers are leading us; the only question is whether Labour recognises such a route as being in its own self interest as well as our country's.
In reality, if HMG were stupid enough to attempt to reverse the democratic instruction of the British people, the other option would have to be "become a full member of the EU" with all the trappings (euro, Schengen etc.)
And when it comes, that's what the Eurosceptics will demand because they think it will guarantee their victory, and they will lose.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
There you go again, confusing your hopes with reality.
Cameron's mandate was to hold a referendum. Voters own the consequences of how they voted.
For this reason the politicians won't risk calling a second referendum, because it almost certainly wont go the way they expect.
The likely outcome of a second referendum IMHO would be a larger Leave win on a substantially lower turnout as unfussed 2016 Remain voters stayed at home disgusted by the whole exercise.
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
I think you're right.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
For this reason the politicians won't risk calling a second referendum, because it almost certainly wont go the way they expect.
The likely outcome of a second referendum IMHO would be a larger Leave win on a substantially lower turnout as unfussed 2016 Remain voters stayed at home disgusted by the whole exercise.
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
I think you're right.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
I think you are confusing how they would feel right now if a new referendum were called, with how they would feel in reality in the circumstances in which a new referendum would happen.
For this reason the politicians won't risk calling a second referendum, because it almost certainly wont go the way they expect.
The likely outcome of a second referendum IMHO would be a larger Leave win on a substantially lower turnout as unfussed 2016 Remain voters stayed at home disgusted by the whole exercise.
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
I think you're right.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
I think you are confusing how they would feel right now if a new referendum were called, with how they would feel in reality in the circumstances in which a new referendum would happen.
For this reason the politicians won't risk calling a second referendum, because it almost certainly wont go the way they expect.
The likely outcome of a second referendum IMHO would be a larger Leave win on a substantially lower turnout as unfussed 2016 Remain voters stayed at home disgusted by the whole exercise.
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
I think you're right.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
All true. There'd be more Remain --> Leave than Leave --> Remain switchers I reckon - it'd be a simple matter for Vote Leave 2.0 to compare and contrast what Remain said would happen to the economy with what's actually happened.
All this gets a part of me quite liking the idea of a second referendum, because winning again with a bigger margin would be pretty damn sweet. However, actually holding a second referendum makes a mockery of the democratic process first time round, so I'd rather not.
In reality, if HMG were stupid enough to attempt to reverse the democratic instruction of the British people, the other option would have to be "become a full member of the EU" with all the trappings (euro, Schengen etc.)
And when it comes, that's what the Eurosceptics will demand because they think it will guarantee their victory, and they will lose.
On those terms I would unhesitatingly vote leave. Schengen I can take or leave, but the Euro has been the most disastrous act of political economy since Charles Townshend proposed a tax on tea in 1767, and if we had joined it would have been a still more cataclysmic failure.
For this reason the politicians won't risk calling a second referendum, because it almost certainly wont go the way they expect.
The likely outcome of a second referendum IMHO would be a larger Leave win on a substantially lower turnout as unfussed 2016 Remain voters stayed at home disgusted by the whole exercise.
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
I think you're right.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
All true. There'd be more Remain --> Leave than Leave --> Remain switchers I reckon - it'd be a simple matter for Vote Leave 2.0 to compare and contrast what Remain said would happen to the economy with what's actually happened.
All this gets a part of me quite liking the idea of a second referendum, because winning again with a bigger margin would be pretty damn sweet. However, actually holding a second referendum makes a mockery of the democratic process first time round, so I'd rather not.
You seem to be missing the point that the next referendum will take place when what was said about the economy will largely be happening.
My brother runs a restaurant in the Home Counties, and voted Leave, influenced (it seemed to me) by the views of many of his regular customers. Now, his mostly Eastern European staff are wanting to return home, and his food costs a significant amount more; in a second vote he would vote remain in a heartbeat. He already says he didn't expect Leave to win and it was supposed to be just a protest vote.
My highly recommended lesser-known WWII films: Divided we Fall, Come and See, April 9th, and not quite so lesser-known Fury and Enemy at the Gates. Of the classics, The Longest Day and Twelve O'Clock High are underrated. And of course Black Book.
Authenticity fans hate Battle of the Bulge, because the German tanks aren't really Panzers and the plot is a melange of history, but as a drama it's exceptionally good, giving some time to German as well as allied heroism and making the lead German a genuinely interesting character.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are particularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
Deal or Status Quo
I think that it would be deal or no deal i.e. Rock Hard Brexit. In practice, I think that these will barely be distinguishable, so little point.
But what is the 'deal'? We are led to believe that this will comprise the financial settlement plus a transitional arrangement. The final deal will only emerge as a FTA some years after 2019. A transitional deal is surely not an adequate basis for a second referendum.
I could envisage a scenario where the negotiations break down or the ratification fails. In such circumstances we would be set to crash out onto WTO trading. This would be presented as apocalyptic and the people may then be asked in a referendum EITHER give up and remain OR leave in chaos.
For this reason the politicians won't risk calling a second referendum, because it almost certainly wont go the way they expect.
The likely outcome of a second referendum IMHO would be a larger Leave win on a substantially lower turnout as unfussed 2016 Remain voters stayed at home disgusted by the whole exercise.
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
I think you're right.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
I think you are confusing how they would feel right now if a new referendum were called, with how they would feel in reality in the circumstances in which a new referendum would happen.
To quote from the greatest British war film ever:
Captain Keene: [news of the native revolt arrives] What do you intend to do, sir?
Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond: Do? Do? We’re British. We won’t do anything…
Major Shorthouse: …until it’s too late.
Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond: Exactly. That’s the first sensible thing you’ve said all day.
I get a bit irritated with British war films that are always about defeats. Why no film about El Alamein, for example?
You get the films made in wartime, which tended to be a little too far the other way. One of my favourites is 'the foreman went to France'. Even better, it was based on a real story about a real, ordinary man flung into extraordinary events, whose bravery helped the war effort. Coincidentally enough, it was set during the fall of France.
I'd love to see a film about Charles Howard and his retinue. Immensely brave men (and woman), who seems to pop up frequently when reading about wartime derring-do. During the fall of France he tried to get France's heavy water out of the country along with some scientists, but the ship had to leave and the trucks were late arriving. His solution was to get the scared crew drunk so they couldn't sail. They later died whilst defusing an unexploded bomb.
As for a 'victory' film, how about the Dam Busters?
My highly recommended lesser-known WWII films: Divided we Fall, Come and See, April 9th, and not quite so lesser-known Fury and Enemy at the Gates. Of the classics, The Longest Day and Twelve O'Clock High are underrated. And of course Black Book.
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. (and. even better, A Matter of Life and Death, though strictly speaking that came out in 1946.)
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are particularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
Deal or Status Quo
I think that it would be deal or no deal i.e. Rock Hard Brexit. In practice, I think that these will barely be distinguishable, so little point.
But what is the 'deal'. We are led to believe that this will comprise the financial settlement plus a transitional arrangement. The final deal will only emerge as a FTA some years after 2019. A transitional deal is surely not an adequate basis for a second referendum.
I could envisage a scenario where the negotiations break down or the ratification fails. In such circumstances we would be set to crash out onto WTO trading. This would be presented as apocalyptic and the people may then be asked in a referendum EITHER give up and remain OR leave in chaos.
A very risky strategy for the EU. They are already placing the blame for the forthcoming failure of talks on the British side. However, if voters do not believe them (and so far their demands have veered from the unreasonable to the utterly ridiculous - I can easily see them being blamed for a breakdown despite the current state of affairs) then the very strong likelihood would be for a Hard Brexit which would cause them significant economic and political damage too.
I get a bit irritated with British war films that are always about defeats. Why no film about El Alamein, for example?
You get the films made in wartime, which tended to be a little too far the other way. One of my favourites is 'the foreman went to France'. Even better, it was based on a real story about a real, ordinary man flung into extraordinary events, whose bravery helped the war effort. Coincidentally enough, it was set during the fall of France.
I'd love to see a film about Charles Howard and his retinue. Immensely brave men (and woman), who seems to pop up frequently when reading about wartime derring-do. During the fall of France he tried to get France's heavy water out of the country along with some scientists, but the ship had to leave and the trucks were late arriving. His solution was to get the scared crew drunk so they couldn't sail. They later died whilst defusing an unexploded bomb.
As for a 'victory' film, how about the Dam Busters?
My highly recommended lesser-known WWII films: Divided we Fall, Come and See, April 9th, and not quite so lesser-known Fury and Enemy at the Gates. Of the classics, The Longest Day and Twelve O'Clock High are underrated. And of course Black Book.
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. (and. even better, A Matter of Life and Death, though strictly speaking that came out in 1946.)
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp is particularly interesting for coming out during the war, as did two other classics "Went the day Well?" and " The Way Ahead".
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are parQticularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
Deal or Status Quo
What do you mean by "status quo"?
Remaining on current terms (or with any improvements the EU might be willing to offer).
Well, I'm glad you have sufficient faith in our negotiators as to believe that they can negotiate two deals in the next 18 months.
Quite the reverse.
But that is the only way the referendum you suggest can happen. Remaining on the terms of membership pre-29th March 2017 hasn't been an option since 30th March 2017 - certainly not one that can be offered unconditionally by HMG. The only way that it can be an option is for it to be agreed by the EU27, which requires it to come out of the negotiations.
In reality, if HMG were stupid enough to attempt to reverse the democratic instruction of the British people, the other option would have to be "become a full member of the EU" with all the trappings (euro, Schengen etc.)
Nonsense. HMG doesn't come into it - parliament votes for another referendum, the people vote to remain, and the EU agrees to continue current terms, or very close to it. This is clearly the most sensible exit route from the self-destructive cul-de-sac into which the Brexit headbangers are leading us; the only question is whether Labour recognises such a route as being in its own self interest as well as our country's.
Of course HMG comes into it - Parliament can only call a referendum on options negotiated between HMG and the EU27. You seem to be suggesting that the second referendum should happen before we tell the EU27 "actually, we want to Remain in our special privileged half-in, half-out semi-membership".
For this reason the politicians won't risk calling a second referendum, because it almost certainly wont go the way they expect.
The likely outcome of a second referendum IMHO would be a larger Leave win on a substantially lower turnout as unfussed 2016 Remain voters stayed at home disgusted by the whole exercise.
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
I think you're right.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
All true. There'd be more Remain --> Leave than Leave --> Remain switchers I reckon - it'd be a simple matter for Vote Leave 2.0 to compare and contrast what Remain said would happen to the economy with what's actually happened.
All this gets a part of me quite liking the idea of a second referendum, because winning again with a bigger margin would be pretty damn sweet. However, actually holding a second referendum makes a mockery of the democratic process first time round, so I'd rather not.
You seem to be missing the point that the next referendum will take place when what was said about the economy will largely be happening.
My brother runs a restaurant in the Home Counties, and voted Leave, influenced (it seemed to me) by the views of many of his regular customers. Now, his mostly Eastern European staff are wanting to return home, and his food costs a significant amount more; in a second vote he would vote remain in a heartbeat. He already says he didn't expect Leave to win and it was supposed to be just a protest vote.
What was said about the economy will largely not be happening. Project Fear was Project Total BS. In any case the thread header argued that there was no majority for any particular Brexit, rather than anything about the economy.
If you really have identified a Leave-Remain switcher then well done.
My highly recommended lesser-known WWII films: Divided we Fall, Come and See, April 9th, and not quite so lesser-known Fury and Enemy at the Gates. Of the classics, The Longest Day and Twelve O'Clock High are underrated. And of course Black Book.
Authenticity fans hate Battle of the Bulge, because the German tanks aren't really Panzers and the plot is a melange of history, but as a drama it's exceptionally good, giving some time to German as well as allied heroism and making the lead German a genuinely interesting character.
I get a bit irritated with British war films that are always about defeats. Why no film about El Alamein, for example?
You get the films made in wartime, which tended to be a little too far the other way. One of my favourites is 'the foreman went to France'. Even better, it was based on a real story about a real, ordinary man flung into extraordinary events, whose bravery helped the war effort. Coincidentally enough, it was set during the fall of France.
I'd love to see a film about Charles Howard and his retinue. Immensely brave men (and woman), who seems to pop up frequently when reading about wartime derring-do. During the fall of France he tried to get France's heavy water out of the country along with some scientists, but the ship had to leave and the trucks were late arriving. His solution was to get the scared crew drunk so they couldn't sail. They later died whilst defusing an unexploded bomb.
As for a 'victory' film, how about the Dam Busters?
My highly recommended lesser-known WWII films: Divided we Fall, Come and See, April 9th, and not quite so lesser-known Fury and Enemy at the Gates. Of the classics, The Longest Day and Twelve O'Clock High are underrated. And of course Black Book.
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. (and. even better, A Matter of Life and Death, though strictly speaking that came out in 1946.)
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp is particularly interesting for coming out during the war, as did two other classics "Went the day Well?" and " The Way Ahead".
Blimp was officially discouraged because of its portrayal of British officers as stuffy and not very bright upper class twits (one of whom has to be taught his job by a German).
I once read a book which suggested that this official discouragement was so much rubbish and in fact the government secretly provided all the military equipment for free because they wanted to show they'd got rid of all the useless old duffers to the Home Guard and their newer officers were intelligent and enterprising. Wasn't convinced but it's not completely implausible.
If that was true however, the government must have been pretty cross when those vital first twenty minutes were cut for the theatrical release, robbing the film of much of its potency.
In reality, if HMG were stupid enough to attempt to reverse the democratic instruction of the British people, the other option would have to be "become a full member of the EU" with all the trappings (euro, Schengen etc.)
And when it comes, that's what the Eurosceptics will demand because they think it will guarantee their victory, and they will lose.
Fair but of course I was very used to Windows before I switched to Mac at home, and I have continued to (have to) use Windows at work. No comparison in ease of use once you recognise that you will have an initial learning curve to switch to Mac. Of course, you have to climb that learning curve to a large extent with each new major release of Windows.
While I am slipping into PC O/S rant mode, I shudder at the sheer cost to industry to try to keep current and supported on Windows. I worked for a bank that has run two successive, phenomenally expensive Windows upgrade roll-outs - and it's still only got them to Win 7. Bill Gates has a lot to answer for!
Yes, thanks to Bill Gates we have a massively lively and successful computer industry. Without him, we might have what we had in the early to mid 1980s: a magnificent array of differing standards and incompatible hardware and software. Now, for most purposes, we just have Wintel, Apple, Linux and ARM/Android, with Wintel winning on Desktops and ARM/Android on mobile devices. (*)
As I've said passim, MS do an amazing job in ensuring that their OSs work on the massive numbers and combinations of hardware out there. Apple, who control their own hardware, have it easy in comparison.
Yes, MS have made mistakes. But technology wouldn't be as advanced as it is today without them.
(*) Yes, I know it's more complex than that. But compare it to the early 1980s and it's much simpler.
Yes, I am not really an anti-Windows zealot, but it can be frustrating, particularly as implemented by large organisations. Also, Bill Gates deserves a lot of credit for what he has done with the vast wealth he's accumulated.
Anyhow, let's not add a schism on OSX/Windows to Leave/Remain and Con/Lab on this site eh?!
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are parQticularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
Deal or Status Quo
What do you mean by "status quo"?
Remaining on current terms (or with any improvements the EU might be willing to offer).
Well, I'm glad you have sufficient faith in our negotiators as to believe that they can negotiate two deals in the next 18 months.
Quite the reverse.
But that is the only way the referendum you suggest can happen. Remaining on the terms of membership pre-29th March 2017 hasn't been an option since 30th March 2017 - certainly not one that can be offered unconditionally by HMG. The only way that it can be an option is for it to be agreed by the EU27, which requires it to come out of the negotiations.
In reality, if HMG were stupid enough to attempt to reverse the democratic instruction of the British people, the other option would have to be "become a full member of the EU" with all the trappings (euro, Schengen etc.)
Nonsense. HMG doesn't come into it - parliament votes for another referendum, the people vote to remain, and the EU agrees to continue current terms, or very close to it. This is clearly the most sensible exit route from the self-destructive cul-de-sac into which the Brexit headbangers are leading us; the only question is whether Labour recognises such a route as being in its own self interest as well as our country's.
Of course HMG comes into it - Parliament can only call a referendum on options negotiated between HMG and the EU27. You seem to be suggesting that the second referendum should happen before we tell the EU27 "actually, we want to Remain in our special privileged half-in, half-out semi-membership".
Good luck with that.
Dominic Cummings on the no to the Euro campaign in 99: "I had so many arguments at the time with eurosceptics explaining to them that if we accepted Blair’s framing of the euro debate as IN/OUT of the EU, we would lose."
For this reason the politicians won't risk calling a second referendum, because it almost certainly wont go the way they expect.
The likely outcome of a second referendum IMHO would be a larger Leave win on a substantially lower turnout as unfussed 2016 Remain voters stayed at home disgusted by the whole exercise.
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
I think you're right.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
All true. There'd be more Remain --> Leave than Leave --> Remain switchers I reckon - it'd be a simple matter for Vote Leave 2.0 to compare and contrast what Remain said would happen to the economy with what's actually happened.
All this gets a part of me quite liking the idea of a second referendum, because winning again with a bigger margin would be pretty damn sweet. However, actually holding a second referendum makes a mockery of the democratic process first time round, so I'd rather not.
You seem to be missing the point that the next referendum will take place when what was said about the economy will largely be happening.
Dominic Cummings on the no to the Euro campaign in 99: "I had so many arguments at the time with eurosceptics explaining to them that if we accepted Blair’s framing of the euro debate as IN/OUT of the EU, we would lose."
It is interesting to speculate on whether the result would have been different had Leave been honest about leaving the single market rather than getting Dan Hannan to lie with his usual straight face on the subject.
My guess would be not, candidly, because I think anyone stupid enough to have believed that wouldn't have understood or even known what the single market was anyway or why it matters, still less cared. But it is an interesting point.
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are particularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
Deal or Status Quo
I think that it would be deal or no deal i.e. Rock Hard Brexit. In practice, I think that these will barely be distinguishable, so little point.
But what is the 'deal'. We are led to believe that this will comprise the financial settlement plus a transitional arrangement. The final deal will only emerge as a FTA some years after 2019. A transitional deal is surely not an adequate basis for a second referendum.
I could envisage a scenario where the negotiations break down or the ratification fails. In such circumstances we would be set to crash out onto WTO trading. This would be presented as apocalyptic and the people may then be asked in a referendum EITHER give up and remain OR leave in chaos.
A very risky strategy for the EU. They are already placing the blame for the forthcoming failure of talks on the British side. However, if voters do not believe them (and so far their demands have veered from the unreasonable to the utterly ridiculous - I can easily see them being blamed for a breakdown despite the current state of affairs) then the very strong likelihood would be for a Hard Brexit which would cause them significant economic and political damage too.
That's true. I don't believe that the EU negotiators really want a 'no deal' outcome. But the ratification is a minefield which has to pass around 40 separate votes involving individual legislators. The chances of failure here are surely considerable.
I get a bit irritated with British war films that are always about defeats. Why no film about El Alamein, for example?
You get the films made in wartime, which tended to be a little too far the other way. One of my favourites is 'the foreman went to France'. Even better, it was based on a real story about a real, ordinary man flung into extraordinary events, whose bravery helped the war effort. Coincidentally enough, it was set during the fall of France.
As for a 'victory' film, how about the Dam Busters?
My highly recommended lesser-known WWII films: Divided we Fall, Come and See, April 9th, and not quite so lesser-known Fury and Enemy at the Gates. Of the classics, The Longest Day and Twelve O'Clock High are underrated. And of course Black Book.
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. (and. even better, A Matter of Life and Death, though strictly speaking that came out in 1946.)
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp is particularly interesting for coming out during the war, as did two other classics "Went the day Well?" and " The Way Ahead".
Blimp was officially discouraged because of its portrayal of British officers as stuffy and not very bright upper class twits (one of whom has to be taught his job by a German).
I once read a book which suggested that this official discouragement was so much rubbish and in fact the government secretly provided all the military equipment for free because they wanted to show they'd got rid of all the useless old duffers to the Home Guard and their newer officers were intelligent and enterprising. Wasn't convinced but it's not completely implausible.
If that was true however, the government must have been pretty cross when those vital first twenty minutes were cut for the theatrical release, robbing the film of much of its potency.
Blimp is fascinating for many reasons, and I would place it as one of the best British films ever.
It is particularly unusual for its depiction of the complexities and ambiguities of war, while still carrying a good propaganda punch of British values.
As "Blimp" himself says "you mock my moustache, but don't know why I wear it!" The film explains why...
< A very risky strategy for the EU. They are already placing the blame for the forthcoming failure of talks on the British side. However, if voters do not believe them (and so far their demands have veered from the unreasonable to the utterly ridiculous - I can easily see them being blamed for a breakdown despite the current state of affairs) then the very strong likelihood would be for a Hard Brexit which would cause them significant economic and political damage too.
That's true. I don't believe that the EU negotiators really want a 'no deal' outcome. But the ratification is a minefield which has to pass around 40 separate votes involving individual legislators. The chances of failure here are surely considerable.
Do the EU negotiators know what they want?
Worryingly, that is a serious question. I have still yet to see an itemised bill in this 60 billion, a serious proposal on mutual citizens' rights or any ideas on trading relationships. Moreover, they are led by Barnier, who is obviously not very intelligent, and backed by Juncker and Verhofstadt, one of whom is a notorious drunk and one of whom is so ardently pro-Federal he would cheerfully destroy the whole project rather than do what the people of Europe ask him to.
I think they may be genuinely trying to spin things out or screw them up completely in the belief that if we can't get a deal we will change our minds. In which they are clearly entirely wrong. There is no government that could be formed that would support that.
It's worrying, but unfortunately short of Merkel firing Juncker and Verhofstadt and a new negotiator being appointed there isn't much we can do.
I get a bit irritated with British war films that are always about defeats. Why no film about El Alamein, for example?
You get the films made in wartime, which tended to be a little too far the other way. One of my favourites is 'the foreman went to France'. Even better, it was based on a real story about a real, ordinary man flung into extraordinary events, whose bravery helped the war effort. Coincidentally enough, it was set during the fall of France.
As for a 'victory' film, how about the Dam Busters?
My highly recommended lesser-known WWII films: Divided we Fall, Come and See, April 9th, and not quite so lesser-known Fury and Enemy at the Gates. Of the classics, The Longest Day and Twelve O'Clock High are underrated. And of course Black Book.
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. (and. even better, A Matter of Life and Death, though strictly speaking that came out in 1946.)
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp is particularly interesting for coming out during the war, as did two other classics "Went the day Well?" and " The Way Ahead".
Blimp was officially discouraged because of its portrayal of British officers as stuffy and not very bright upper class twits (one of whom has to be taught his job by a German).
I once read a book which suggested that this official discouragement was so much rubbish and in fact the government secretly provided all the military equipment for free because they wanted to show they'd got rid of all the useless old duffers to the Home Guard and their newer officers were intelligent and enterprising. Wasn't convinced but it's not completely implausible.
If that was true however, the government must have been pretty cross when those vital first twenty minutes were cut for the theatrical release, robbing the film of much of its potency.
Blimp is fascinating for many reasons, and I would place it as one of the best British films ever.
It is particularly unusual for its depiction of the complexities and ambiguities of war, while still carrying a good propaganda punch of British values.
As "Blimp" himself says "you mock my moustache, but don't know why I wear it!" The film explains why...
I've got it in a box set with A Matter of Life and Death.
Four hours of superb acting from Roger Livesey, magnificent technicolor from Jack Cardiff (among others) brilliant writing by Emeric Pressburger and some nice extras too. What's not to like?
More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too.
Comments
A Dell I bought in 2011 still survives despite a broken hinge, though I only use it for games.
This 'destruction' perhaps:
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/david-cameron-and-george-osborne-brexit-would-put-our-economy-in/
Oh wait ...
Or perhaps this 'destruction':
' If you perchance thought that your London banking job would be safe with Britain outside the European Union, you were seemingly wrong. Consultants working for leading strategy firms in London say banks have activated their contingency plans and that the London job cuts are about to come thick and fast.
“You’re looking at anything from 50,000 to 70,000 London finance jobs being moved overseas in the next 12 months,” predicts one consultant working with one of the top finance strategy firms in the City. “Jobs are going to be cut, and those cuts are going to start next week.” '
http://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/248265/london-banking-redundancies-brexit/
Oh wait ...
Or we could take a look at the stock markets for this 'destruction'.
Oh wait ...
And then there's all the predictions certain PBers made, some real choice quotes there.
We should encourge those who only like to look in the mirror on Order-Order or The Canary to join us..
Oh, wait, maybe that's not such a good idea - let's keep it (relatively) civilised shall we
For all the people who have attached Dunkirk how does it compare with the b&w film with John Mills ?
He's obviously not at the top of the chain if we think about it logically.
Tbh selling fake gear is probably quite a good way to make a living if you're into that sort of thing.
What can the police bust you for ?
Possessing calpol tablets and pro plus with intent to supply xD !
I guess you'd keep having to find new customers!, although there might well be a decent placebo effect at a rave...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/australia-mexico-transcripts/
Turnbull - Good evening.
Trump - Mr. Prime Minister, how are you?
Turnbull - I am doing very well.
Trump - And I guess our friend Greg Norman, he is doing very well?
Turnbull - He is a great mutual friend yes.
Most of the comments on Guido's site are deranged, it makes me wonder if people are like that in real life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_Johns
I'd love to see a film about Charles Howard and his retinue. Immensely brave men (and woman), who seems to pop up frequently when reading about wartime derring-do. During the fall of France he tried to get France's heavy water out of the country along with some scientists, but the ship had to leave and the trucks were late arriving. His solution was to get the scared crew drunk so they couldn't sail. They later died whilst defusing an unexploded bomb.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Howard,_20th_Earl_of_Suffolk
As for a 'victory' film, how about the Dam Busters?
Well the same goes in a referendum, only now the people who lost are crying its not fair.
Yum yum it does taste best cold (ooer missus)
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/893069903883898881
While I am slipping into PC O/S rant mode, I shudder at the sheer cost to industry to try to keep current and supported on Windows. I worked for a bank that has run two successive, phenomenally expensive Windows upgrade roll-outs - and it's still only got them to Win 7. Bill Gates has a lot to answer for!
And the current lot are engaged in another cunning plan for who knows what other purpose.
According to an indictment released by the US Department of Justice on Thursday, Hutchins is accused of having helped to create, spread and maintain the banking trojan Kronos between 2014 and 2015.
The Kronos malware was spread through emails with malicious attachments such as compromised Microsoft word documents, and hijacks credentials like internet banking passwords to let its user steal money with ease.
As I've said passim, MS do an amazing job in ensuring that their OSs work on the massive numbers and combinations of hardware out there. Apple, who control their own hardware, have it easy in comparison.
Yes, MS have made mistakes. But technology wouldn't be as advanced as it is today without them.
(*) Yes, I know it's more complex than that. But compare it to the early 1980s and it's much simpler.
The referendum provided a mandate for Brexit
https://www.thecanary.co/
But who and how and where and when ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dam_Busters_(film)#Remake
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4758072/Diego-Costa-s-lawyer-legal-action-Chelsea.html
Dutch Women score...
1) Tory majority
2) Leave vote
3) Corbyn surge
For this reason the politicians won't risk calling a second referendum, because it almost certainly wont go the way they expect.
In reality, if HMG were stupid enough to attempt to reverse the democratic instruction of the British people, the other option would have to be "become a full member of the EU" with all the trappings (euro, Schengen etc.)
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
On second thought bring on the second referendum...... REMAIN would lose so badly on these terms they would be licking their wounds for years.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
All this gets a part of me quite liking the idea of a second referendum, because winning again with a bigger margin would be pretty damn sweet. However, actually holding a second referendum makes a mockery of the democratic process first time round, so I'd rather not.
My brother runs a restaurant in the Home Counties, and voted Leave, influenced (it seemed to me) by the views of many of his regular customers. Now, his mostly Eastern European staff are wanting to return home, and his food costs a significant amount more; in a second vote he would vote remain in a heartbeat. He already says he didn't expect Leave to win and it was supposed to be just a protest vote.
I could envisage a scenario where the negotiations break down or the ratification fails. In such circumstances we would be set to crash out onto WTO trading. This would be presented as apocalyptic and the people may then be asked in a referendum EITHER give up and remain OR leave in chaos.
Captain Keene: [news of the native revolt arrives] What do you intend to do, sir?
Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond: Do? Do? We’re British. We won’t do anything…
Major Shorthouse: …until it’s too late.
Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond: Exactly. That’s the first sensible thing you’ve said all day.
(and. even better, A Matter of Life and Death, though strictly speaking that came out in 1946.)
Good luck with that.
If you really have identified a Leave-Remain switcher then well done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gallant_Hours
No action and the history is altered but an interesting attempt at looking at things at different levels and from both sides.
I once read a book which suggested that this official discouragement was so much rubbish and in fact the government secretly provided all the military equipment for free because they wanted to show they'd got rid of all the useless old duffers to the Home Guard and their newer officers were intelligent and enterprising. Wasn't convinced but it's not completely implausible.
If that was true however, the government must have been pretty cross when those vital first twenty minutes were cut for the theatrical release, robbing the film of much of its potency.
Anyhow, let's not add a schism on OSX/Windows to Leave/Remain and Con/Lab on this site eh?!
My guess would be not, candidly, because I think anyone stupid enough to have believed that wouldn't have understood or even known what the single market was anyway or why it matters, still less cared. But it is an interesting point.
It is particularly unusual for its depiction of the complexities and ambiguities of war, while still carrying a good propaganda punch of British values.
As "Blimp" himself says "you mock my moustache, but don't know why I wear it!" The film explains why...
Worryingly, that is a serious question. I have still yet to see an itemised bill in this 60 billion, a serious proposal on mutual citizens' rights or any ideas on trading relationships. Moreover, they are led by Barnier, who is obviously not very intelligent, and backed by Juncker and Verhofstadt, one of whom is a notorious drunk and one of whom is so ardently pro-Federal he would cheerfully destroy the whole project rather than do what the people of Europe ask him to.
I think they may be genuinely trying to spin things out or screw them up completely in the belief that if we can't get a deal we will change our minds. In which they are clearly entirely wrong. There is no government that could be formed that would support that.
It's worrying, but unfortunately short of Merkel firing Juncker and Verhofstadt and a new negotiator being appointed there isn't much we can do.
Four hours of superb acting from Roger Livesey, magnificent technicolor from Jack Cardiff (among others) brilliant writing by Emeric Pressburger and some nice extras too. What's not to like?