There are many forms of democracy, and separation of powers between legislature, judiciary and executive in the EU is a more advanced form than our own FPTP system.
This paragraph is rather confusing - FPTP is an electoral system, the way that Commons seats gets filled, it doesn't have anything to do with the powers of parliament and how they might interact with other sources of power. You could replace FPTP with multi-member STV or AV or PR and there'd be no difference on the separation of powers front.
The traditional UK constitutional line (Bagehot) has been to prefer fusion of powers. Separation of powers is an alternative doctrine. I am not sure it is fair to say that fusion is less "advanced" than separation, though I will admit separation is a more modern concept, since each system has its own advantages and disadvantages. There has been a trend towards viewing the UK system as a seriously flawed separation of powers, rather than thinking of it in terms of whether fusion has been well-implemented or not, and to my mind this has led to some muddled thinking. I believe there were good practical arguments for keeping the Law Lords in the House of Lords, for example - if they were to speak or vote there it would be exceptional, but that would grant their voices the exceptional import they would deserve if something so serious occurred as to provoke them to. Other people may beg to differ with me on the pros and cons of that case, but I don't think it makes any more sense to say that separation is an evolution and advancement on fusion, than saying that civil law systems are an improvement on common law systems. In some ways Britain is unusual among European countries, not least as a result of staying outside the influence of Napoleon and never having had a radical rebuilding or refounding of the state from the bottom up (for England arguably since 1066, or given that many important Anglo-Saxon institutions survived the Conquest, ever - though obviously in the 17th century we lost the monarchy which constitutes one-third of our Parliament for a couple of years).
I'm not even sure that the claim holds much water of European democracies simply lifting the model the British had earlier developed and going on to perfect it - the development and widening of democratic control in Europe (and North America) was not modelled on the British parliament alone, occurred in fits and starts, but was broadly simultaneous across several polities.
Know you're not currently about to argue the point, but the point you are trying to make here eludes me.
Surrey's opening bowler Jade Dernbach. Is 204 enough?
No, I was at the game and Birmingham Bears won it in the final overs
Towards it the end it was looking like a close finish but that late and brilliant catch given Not Out on review finished it as a contest.
I hope you had a great evening there. Watching on television is a poor substitute.
Yes it was an excellent evening, as you say the catch was decisive (and had endless TV replays). The fact we were in with some very boisterous Bear fans only added to the atmosphere. Night
There is some speculation that another networked, multi party IS attack in Western Europe is due over the next few days.
Trumpton.
Pay attention to Mitch McConnell, the GOP Senate leader. There are reasons to believe he is in the key group considering how to oust Trump.
There is speculation about an IS attack almost every week, only today there were attscks in Belgium and at Buckingham Palace. What is new?
McConnell is despised by the GOP base and ultimately they elect the candidates, if he tries anything before the midterms expect a bloodbath in next year's GOP primaries
An interesting cricket fact is that the striker can only be run out off a no-ball if he or she is attempting a run. However this doesn't apply to the non-striker. The reason is that the striker has a genuine reason to be out of his crease other than running, which is to play a shot. On the other hand, the only reason for the non-striker to be out of his/her crease is to run. What this means is that if no ball is called, the striker hits the ball straight back down the pitch, it flicks the bowler's hand, hits the stumps at the non-striker's end, and the non-striker is out of his/her ground and not actually attempting a run, he or she (the non-striker) is still out, paradoxically. They are deemed to have been attempting a run by definition, even if they weren't actually doing so and were just being absent-minded, dawdling, etc.
An interesting cricket fact is that the striker can only be run out off a no-ball if he or she is attempting a run. However this doesn't apply to the non-striker. The reason is that the striker has a genuine reason to be out of his crease other than running, which is to play a shot. On the other hand, the only reason for the non-striker to be out of his/her crease is to run. What this means is that if no ball is called, the striker hits the ball straight back down the pitch, it flicks the bowler's hand, hits the stumps at the non-striker's end, and the non-striker is out of his/her ground and not actually attempting a run, he or she (the non-striker) is still out, paradoxically. They are deemed to have been attempting a run by definition, even if they weren't actually doing so and were just being absent-minded, dawdling, etc.
Not really surprising. There is a tendency for non-strikers to drift out and down the pitch a bit in order to get a head start when starting a run. If they'd stayed within their crease then they couldn't get run out under this method. Being absent-minded isn't an excuse many umpires would expect to take into account!
It's like fishing with dynamite on here these days.
Drop a stick of Brexit over the side, and all the dead "retweet"ers float to the surface where you can haul them in.
Maybe not very sporting, but passes the time...
Who's bothered about Brexit except for people who'd waste a year getting worked up about it rather than admit defeat and move on?
I'm bothered about Brexit because I have no idea if and under what conditions my customers in Germany and Luxembourg will be able to trade with me after March 2019! I know it's all theoretical for some, but it's very concrete for me.
It's like fishing with dynamite on here these days.
Drop a stick of Brexit over the side, and all the dead "retweet"ers float to the surface where you can haul them in.
Maybe not very sporting, but passes the time...
Who's bothered about Brexit except for people who'd waste a year getting worked up about it rather than admit defeat and move on?
I'm bothered about Brexit because I have no idea if and under what conditions my customers in Germany and Luxembourg will be able to trade with me after March 2019! I know it's all theoretical for some, but it's very concrete for me.
It really is a shame the EU doesn't want to talk trade, and instead is making totally unreasonable demands about ECJ jurisdiction.
It's like fishing with dynamite on here these days.
Drop a stick of Brexit over the side, and all the dead "retweet"ers float to the surface where you can haul them in.
Maybe not very sporting, but passes the time...
Who's bothered about Brexit except for people who'd waste a year getting worked up about it rather than admit defeat and move on?
I'm bothered about Brexit because I have no idea if and under what conditions my customers in Germany and Luxembourg will be able to trade with me after March 2019! I know it's all theoretical for some, but it's very concrete for me.
It really is a shame the EU doesn't want to talk trade, and instead is making totally unreasonable demands about ECJ jurisdiction.
What is a shame is that we'll no longer be in the club of countries whose citizens could trade with one another with the minimum of bureaucracy. And it wasn't the EU that chose to walk away from this, it was the UK.
It's like fishing with dynamite on here these days.
Drop a stick of Brexit over the side, and all the dead "retweet"ers float to the surface where you can haul them in.
Maybe not very sporting, but passes the time...
Who's bothered about Brexit except for people who'd waste a year getting worked up about it rather than admit defeat and move on?
I'm bothered about Brexit because I have no idea if and under what conditions my customers in Germany and Luxembourg will be able to trade with me after March 2019! I know it's all theoretical for some, but it's very concrete for me.
It really is a shame the EU doesn't want to talk trade, and instead is making totally unreasonable demands about ECJ jurisdiction.
What is a shame is that we'll no longer be in the club of countries whose citizens could trade with one another with the minimum of bureaucracy. And it wasn't the EU that chose to walk away from this, it was the UK.
More to the point though, my customers have no idea if they'll still be able to trade with me after March 2019. They are, understandably, going to be looking for new service providers if there is no clarity before long, and I'll be, basically, fucked. One less exporter of British services.
It's like fishing with dynamite on here these days.
Drop a stick of Brexit over the side, and all the dead "retweet"ers float to the surface where you can haul them in.
Maybe not very sporting, but passes the time...
Who's bothered about Brexit except for people who'd waste a year getting worked up about it rather than admit defeat and move on?
I'm bothered about Brexit because I have no idea if and under what conditions my customers in Germany and Luxembourg will be able to trade with me after March 2019! I know it's all theoretical for some, but it's very concrete for me.
It really is a shame the EU doesn't want to talk trade, and instead is making totally unreasonable demands about ECJ jurisdiction.
What is a shame is that we'll no longer be in the club of countries whose citizens could trade with one another with the minimum of bureaucracy. And it wasn't the EU that chose to walk away from this, it was the UK.
If the club was only about 'trading with one another with the minimum of bureaucracy' I doubt we'd have voted to leave.
It's like fishing with dynamite on here these days.
Drop a stick of Brexit over the side, and all the dead "retweet"ers float to the surface where you can haul them in.
Maybe not very sporting, but passes the time...
Who's bothered about Brexit except for people who'd waste a year getting worked up about it rather than admit defeat and move on?
I'm bothered about Brexit because I have no idea if and under what conditions my customers in Germany and Luxembourg will be able to trade with me after March 2019! I know it's all theoretical for some, but it's very concrete for me.
It really is a shame the EU doesn't want to talk trade, and instead is making totally unreasonable demands about ECJ jurisdiction.
What is a shame is that we'll no longer be in the club of countries whose citizens could trade with one another with the minimum of bureaucracy. And it wasn't the EU that chose to walk away from this, it was the UK.
If the club was only about 'trading with one another with the minimum of bureaucracy' I doubt we'd have voted to leave.
No need to be coy. Perhaps you can explain what we're gaining that will make up for the fact that sole international traders such as myself are likely to go out of business as our customers switch to other service providers within the EU. Hopefully it'll be sufficient to pay my dole money.
It's like fishing with dynamite on here these days.
Drop a stick of Brexit over the side, and all the dead "retweet"ers float to the surface where you can haul them in.
Maybe not very sporting, but passes the time...
Who's bothered about Brexit except for people who'd waste a year getting worked up about it rather than admit defeat and move on?
I'm bothered about Brexit because I have no idea if and under what conditions my customers in Germany and Luxembourg will be able to trade with me after March 2019! I know it's all theoretical for some, but it's very concrete for me.
It really is a shame the EU doesn't want to talk trade, and instead is making totally unreasonable demands about ECJ jurisdiction.
What is a shame is that we'll no longer be in the club of countries whose citizens could trade with one another with the minimum of bureaucracy. And it wasn't the EU that chose to walk away from this, it was the UK.
If the club was only about 'trading with one another with the minimum of bureaucracy' I doubt we'd have voted to leave.
Yeah, that would have been a landslide remain victory.
It's like fishing with dynamite on here these days.
Drop a stick of Brexit over the side, and all the dead "retweet"ers float to the surface where you can haul them in.
Maybe not very sporting, but passes the time...
Who's bothered about Brexit except for people who'd waste a year getting worked up about it rather than admit defeat and move on?
I'm bothered about Brexit because I have no idea if and under what conditions my customers in Germany and Luxembourg will be able to trade with me after March 2019! I know it's all theoretical for some, but it's very concrete for me.
It really is a shame the EU doesn't want to talk trade, and instead is making totally unreasonable demands about ECJ jurisdiction.
What is a shame is that we'll no longer be in the club of countries whose citizens could trade with one another with the minimum of bureaucracy. And it wasn't the EU that chose to walk away from this, it was the UK.
If the club was only about 'trading with one another with the minimum of bureaucracy' I doubt we'd have voted to leave.
No need to be coy. Perhaps you can explain what we're gaining that will make up for the fact that sole international traders such as myself are likely to go out of business as our customers switch to other service providers within the EU. Hopefully it'll be sufficient to pay my dole money.
I don't know your business, but surely its good business practice to diversify your customer base? Why would your customers switch to other providers - presumably your cost to them has become more competitive with sterling's devaluation?
Comments
The traditional UK constitutional line (Bagehot) has been to prefer fusion of powers. Separation of powers is an alternative doctrine. I am not sure it is fair to say that fusion is less "advanced" than separation, though I will admit separation is a more modern concept, since each system has its own advantages and disadvantages. There has been a trend towards viewing the UK system as a seriously flawed separation of powers, rather than thinking of it in terms of whether fusion has been well-implemented or not, and to my mind this has led to some muddled thinking. I believe there were good practical arguments for keeping the Law Lords in the House of Lords, for example - if they were to speak or vote there it would be exceptional, but that would grant their voices the exceptional import they would deserve if something so serious occurred as to provoke them to. Other people may beg to differ with me on the pros and cons of that case, but I don't think it makes any more sense to say that separation is an evolution and advancement on fusion, than saying that civil law systems are an improvement on common law systems. In some ways Britain is unusual among European countries, not least as a result of staying outside the influence of Napoleon and never having had a radical rebuilding or refounding of the state from the bottom up (for England arguably since 1066, or given that many important Anglo-Saxon institutions survived the Conquest, ever - though obviously in the 17th century we lost the monarchy which constitutes one-third of our Parliament for a couple of years).
I'm not even sure that the claim holds much water of European democracies simply lifting the model the British had earlier developed and going on to perfect it - the development and widening of democratic control in Europe (and North America) was not modelled on the British parliament alone, occurred in fits and starts, but was broadly simultaneous across several polities.
Know you're not currently about to argue the point, but the point you are trying to make here eludes me.
Trumpton.
Pay attention to Mitch McConnell, the GOP Senate leader. There are reasons to believe he is in the key group considering how to oust Trump.
Everyday is vibrant and diverse
McConnell is despised by the GOP base and ultimately they elect the candidates, if he tries anything before the midterms expect a bloodbath in next year's GOP primaries
An interesting cricket fact is that the striker can only be run out off a no-ball if he or she is attempting a run. However this doesn't apply to the non-striker. The reason is that the striker has a genuine reason to be out of his crease other than running, which is to play a shot. On the other hand, the only reason for the non-striker to be out of his/her crease is to run. What this means is that if no ball is called, the striker hits the ball straight back down the pitch, it flicks the bowler's hand, hits the stumps at the non-striker's end, and the non-striker is out of his/her ground and not actually attempting a run, he or she (the non-striker) is still out, paradoxically. They are deemed to have been attempting a run by definition, even if they weren't actually doing so and were just being absent-minded, dawdling, etc.
https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/901240056748396545
https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/901251258790662144
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqfExHpvLRY
Harvey, approaching Corpus Christi, Texas is Category 4. Of course most people who die don't do so from the wind, but from drowning, in their cars.