Final thought for the morning. May's proposal will leave the UK in a " Taxation but no representation " state for 2 years. We'll pay almost full dues for transition but lose our MEP's , Commissioner and Council of Ministers representation on Brexit Day. For a bunch of Sovereignty fetishists who ran with " Take back Control " as a slogan that's a fairly astonishing short term achievement.
Not if we don't adopt any of the new rules.
Excellent so we'll see Commerzbank charging their customers for research via the trading desk?
I've no idea. I didn't want to move to Frankfurt...
"If we don't adopt any of the new rules" is, in financial services for example, a nonsensical statement. Perhaps it is likewise in others - if we don't like the new widget specs we need to comply with to sell our widgets in the EU we won't adopt them - I have no idea.
But for all practical purposes @YellowSubmarine is right, it is taxation without representation.
And after the transition period it is also taxation (in the form of necessary compliance with the rules) without representation.
Final thought for the morning. May's proposal will leave the UK in a " Taxation but no representation " state for 2 years. We'll pay almost full dues for transition but lose our MEP's , Commissioner and Council of Ministers representation on Brexit Day. For a bunch of Sovereignty fetishists who ran with " Take back Control " as a slogan that's a fairly astonishing short term achievement.
Not if we don't adopt any of the new rules.
Excellent so we'll see Commerzbank charging their customers for research via the trading desk?
I've no idea. I didn't want to move to Frankfurt...
"If we don't adopt any of the new rules" is, in financial services for example, a nonsensical statement. Perhaps it is likewise in others - if we don't like the new widget specs we need to comply with to sell our widgets in the EU we won't adopt them - I have no idea.
But for all practical purposes @YellowSubmarine is right, it is taxation without representation.
And after the transition period it is also taxation (in the form of necessary compliance with the rules) without representation.
Surely EU "... taxation without representation ..." is better known as the Norway Option?
Just asking...
Well of course it is. Derided, lauded, derided, lauded, etc...
I believe it could just be a good day to be British. The worry I have is whether she is able to provide an inspirational speech which is very necessary but we may as well wait and see.
It is only this afternoon after all
I share your concern Big_G. I fear a completely sodden damp squib.
I hope I am wrong but if you were looking for an inspirational came changing speech, May is the plast person you would turn to. Winston, she is not!
That is why I have my reservations but we will soon see.
It really should not be about remain and leave fighting their corners now, we do need to coalesce around a position that most voters can accept and a two year transition is a good start.
It does seem to be the majority view that we have to get on with this as evidenced by some on here but it seemed the question time audience last night were of the same opinion.
Just as a side issue how does anyone think Corbyn could do a speech of this importance
I am sure Corbyn can read a teleprompter , the same as May can.Both are not natural orators.However you are blinkered whatever he does.
I do not want a self confessed Marxist in association with the unions running this Country.
No -none of us consider we are European and never will
My wife and daughter have had recent DNA tests re their origins and they show that the family are entirely British with some small links to Scandinavia.
Dear god in heaven.... what is next? Will there be some PB poster trying to keep up by demonstrating their Aryan purity?
Fair point about both parties not recognising the need of the counterparty to sell the deal to their stakeholders. Both parties are guilty of this. The deal effectively is a load of cash and a limited UK extension of Freedom of Movement, which the EU27 want, against a time limited continued access to the EU system, which we want. The problem is that British people don't see why they should pay to partially retain the status quo. They don't realise that with their Leave vote they technically voted to break the treaties with the EU, which means the status quo is an extra that needs to be negotiated. These negotiations are burdened by the false premises that predicated our Leave vote.
Equally if the EU was upfront and said "this is a payment to retain the benefits of access to the Single Market" that would be a good reason. But they have presented it as a settlement of legal obligations.
It's not up to the EU side to make the argument to UK stakeholders. Our government should be doing that. As far as the EU is concerned this is money owing to them.
No -none of us consider we are European and never will
My wife and daughter have had recent DNA tests re their origins and they show that the family are entirely British with some small links to Scandinavia.
Dear god in heaven.... what is next? Will there be some PB poster trying to keep up by demonstrating their Aryan purity?
" Today's Brexit speech by the UK prime minister must show clear commitment to pro-business policies recommended to government ministers or "irrevocable" relocation plans will have to begin, City executives have warned "
But, but, but they'll all be frothing, reactionary Brexiteers by the time they're forty. Or so we're told.
As things stand the devastating demographic challenge for for the Brexiters is education. Every study shows it's the best predictor of how folk voted in the Referendum. And every year what % of the folk who die in Britain are Graduates ? And every year what % of 21 and 22 year olds Graduate ? Now there s ample time for Brexiters to fix that. We won't be having another Referendum anytime soon. But the specific campaign Leave ran was brilliant but left unchanged won't survive the tide of history.
A really bad misreading of the data. Almost all of the educational split between Leave and Remain is actually down to age. When a vastly larger number of young people go to university now compared to 30 years ago your education predictor is simply an alternative age predictor. If you are relying on all those graduates remaining pro EU as they are then you are in for a very nasty surprise.
Rather a simplification than a bad misreading, I suggest. The detailed multi-variate analysis I saw identified both education and age as the two principal factors correlated with local voting patterns - indeed together they explained a very large majority of voting behaviour with the remainder appearing to be due to regional factors such as the differerent political environment in Scotland and Wales.
The fact that age and education are themselves correlated doesn't negate the findings. Of the two I recall age being the stronger, but education was nevertheless significant regardless of age. In a political context it is interesting that the correlation of Tory voting with age, which was always there, has grown stronger over recent years whereas the correlation with education (to some extent a proxy for class) has almost entirely disappeared.
Final thought for the morning. May's proposal will leave the UK in a " Taxation but no representation " state for 2 years. We'll pay almost full dues for transition but lose our MEP's , Commissioner and Council of Ministers representation on Brexit Day. For a bunch of Sovereignty fetishists who ran with " Take back Control " as a slogan that's a fairly astonishing short term achievement.
Not if we don't adopt any of the new rules.
Excellent so we'll see Commerzbank charging their customers for research via the trading desk?
I've no idea. I didn't want to move to Frankfurt...
"If we don't adopt any of the new rules" is, in financial services for example, a nonsensical statement. Perhaps it is likewise in others - if we don't like the new widget specs we need to comply with to sell our widgets in the EU we won't adopt them - I have no idea.
But for all practical purposes @YellowSubmarine is right, it is taxation without representation.
And after the transition period it is also taxation (in the form of necessary compliance with the rules) without representation.
If we want to sell on a commercial basis we will need to comply with standards, just like we do with the US.
But that's not "taxation without representation" - the key point is that a company that doesn't export in the EU won't have to adopt the standards if they don't want to, unlike now. For example, I could see a niche whereby someone produces washing machines that wash and dishwashers that clean.
Like Ebac, you mean (first googles British washing machine company).
"By 1985, Ebac had become the best selling dehumidifier in the UK and was exporting to most countries throughout Europe."
Slightly OT, I saw a comment from Verhofstadt in response to Johnson's split allegiance accusation...
"It’s perfectly possible to feel English, British and European at the same time."
That entirely sums up how I feel, which is why Brexit is so painful.
Or Welsh/Scot and British
I am part English part Welsh, my wife is a Scot, and my three children and four grandchildren were all born in Wales.
We consider ourselves Welsh/Scot and British but none of us would call ourselves European.
Though you certainly are european, even if you do not consider yourselves as such
No -none of us consider we are European and never will
My wife and daughter have had recent DNA tests re their origins and they show that the family are entirely British with some small links to Scandinavia.
Er... both and which continent are both Britain and Scandanavia in?
You can try as much as you like Ben but my family would reject the idea we are European.
We are British
Fair enough - I get that your don't consider yourselves European. You are not alone in that; I suspect a majority (52%?) of the country feel the same. I know I won't change your mind and I am not really trying to. I was being a bit tongue in cheek when I pointed out that even if you don't feel European you do live in Europe.
I am, and feel, British too - I just happen to be and feel European and English at the same time
How would Jezza do?We'd know what he stands on Brexit; he would communicate well. I'm not sure we will have any further clue today, aside from some concrete measures if they are announced, where May stands on the whole thing.
What does he stand for on Brexit - remain or leave
Slightly OT, I saw a comment from Verhofstadt in response to Johnson's split allegiance accusation...
"It’s perfectly possible to feel English, British and European at the same time."
That entirely sums up how I feel, which is why Brexit is so painful.
Or Welsh/Scot and British
I am part English part Welsh, my wife is a Scot, and my three children and four grandchildren were all born in Wales.
We consider ourselves Welsh/Scot and British but none of us would call ourselves European.
Though you certainly are european, even if you do not consider yourselves as such
No -none of us consider we are European and never will
My wife and daughter have had recent DNA tests re their origins and they show that the family are entirely British with some small links to Scandinavia.
Dear god in heaven.... what is next? Will there be some PB poster trying to keep up by demonstrating their Aryan purity?
We are entitled to consider ourselves British - those who want to be seen as European are entitled to their view. And if you are having a pop at my families DNA my wife discovered she had a sister and brother she had no knowledge of. She was 73 when she found out and they decided to have a DNA ancestry test to help them understand their origins
A pretty much perfect example of how utterly fecking ludicrous these sorts of bans are.
Not really - several EU member states already have bans. Several African nations introduced them following suicide bombings and even in some Islamic nations it is restricted or banned.
It's not difficult - full face coverings in public spaces should be banned for security reasons. The hijab is perfectly sufficient to demonstrate modesty - as demonstrated by its use by most Muslim women. The burqa is not about religion - but separation and treating women as second class citizens.
I believe it could just be a good day to be British. The worry I have is whether she is able to provide an inspirational speech which is very necessary but we may as well wait and see.
It is only this afternoon after all
I share your concern Big_G. I fear a completely sodden damp squib.
I hope I am wrong but if you were looking for an inspirational came changing speech, May is the plast person you would turn to. Winston, she is not!
That is why I have my reservations but we will soon see.
It really should not be about remain and leave fighting their corners now, we do need to coalesce around a position that most voters can accept and a two year transition is a good start.
It does seem to be the majority view that we have to get on with this as evidenced by some on here but it seemed the question time audience last night were of the same opinion.
Just as a side issue how does anyone think Corbyn could do a speech of this importance
I am sure Corbyn can read a teleprompter , the same as May can.Both are not natural orators.However you are blinkered whatever he does.
I do not want a self confessed Marxist in association with the unions running this Country.
You may not want it but it's very likely to happen!
Final thought for the morning. May's proposal will leave the UK in a " Taxation but no representation " state for 2 years. We'll pay almost full dues for transition but lose our MEP's , Commissioner and Council of Ministers representation on Brexit Day. For a bunch of Sovereignty fetishists who ran with " Take back Control " as a slogan that's a fairly astonishing short term achievement.
Not if we don't adopt any of the new rules.
Excellent so we'll see Commerzbank charging their customers for research via the trading desk?
I've no idea. I didn't want to move to Frankfurt...
"If we don't adopt any of the new rules" is, in financial services for example, a nonsensical statement. Perhaps it is likewise in others - if we don't like the new widget specs we need to comply with to sell our widgets in the EU we won't adopt them - I have no idea.
But for all practical purposes @YellowSubmarine is right, it is taxation without representation.
And after the transition period it is also taxation (in the form of necessary compliance with the rules) without representation.
Surely EU "... taxation without representation ..." is better known as the Norway Option?
Just asking...
Only to those who are ignorant of the Norway Option.
Fair point about both parties not recognising the need of the counterparty to sell the deal to their stakeholders. Both parties are guilty of this. The deal effectively is a load of cash and a limited UK extension of Freedom of Movement, which the EU27 want, against a time limited continued access to the EU system, which we want. The problem is that British people don't see why they should pay to partially retain the status quo. They don't realise that with their Leave vote they technically voted to break the treaties with the EU, which means the status quo is an extra that needs to be negotiated. These negotiations are burdened by the false premises that predicated our Leave vote.
Equally if the EU was upfront and said "this is a payment to retain the benefits of access to the Single Market" that would be a good reason. But they have presented it as a settlement of legal obligations.
It's not up to the EU side to make the argument to UK stakeholders. Our government should be doing that. As far as the EU is concerned this is money owing to them.
And we've asked them to explain why it is owing.
That's all. If they think a responsible government can write a cheque for that kind of money without justification then they are daft.
(and pedants, yes "write a cheque" is a turn of phrase. They will transfer the funds electronically)
Final thought for the morning. May's proposal will leave the UK in a " Taxation but no representation " state for 2 years. We'll pay almost full dues for transition but lose our MEP's , Commissioner and Council of Ministers representation on Brexit Day. For a bunch of Sovereignty fetishists who ran with " Take back Control " as a slogan that's a fairly astonishing short term achievement.
Not if we don't adopt any of the new rules.
Excellent so we'll see Commerzbank charging their customers for research via the trading desk?
I've no idea. I didn't want to move to Frankfurt...
"If we don't adopt any of the new rules" is, in financial services for example, a nonsensical statement. Perhaps it is likewise in others - if we don't like the new widget specs we need to comply with to sell our widgets in the EU we won't adopt them - I have no idea.
But for all practical purposes @YellowSubmarine is right, it is taxation without representation.
And after the transition period it is also taxation (in the form of necessary compliance with the rules) without representation.
Surely EU "... taxation without representation ..." is better known as the Norway Option?
Just asking...
Only to those who are ignorant of the Norway Option.
I must be ignorant - I thought the Norwegians paid but had no say ...
No -none of us consider we are European and never will
My wife and daughter have had recent DNA tests re their origins and they show that the family are entirely British with some small links to Scandinavia.
Fog in the channel, Britain not part of Europe.
What was the definition of 'entirely British' DNA?
No -none of us consider we are European and never will
My wife and daughter have had recent DNA tests re their origins and they show that the family are entirely British with some small links to Scandinavia.
Fog in the channel, Britain not part of Europe.
What was the definition of 'entirely British' DNA?
Ancestry DNA traced the family back to Scotland, Wales and parts of England with some Scandinavian. No where else on the trace
Do you regret no longer living in the 'invincible green suburbs' of Brent North ?
It's instructive to compare Brent North and neighbouring Harrow East. By now, White British people are less than 30% in each seat. But one is Labour, and the other Conservative. the difference is that in Brent North, big houses have been split up into multi-occupation, whereas in Harrow East, owner occupation is the norm.
Final thought for the morning. May's proposal will leave the UK in a " Taxation but no representation " state for 2 years. We'll pay almost full dues for transition but lose our MEP's , Commissioner and Council of Ministers representation on Brexit Day. For a bunch of Sovereignty fetishists who ran with " Take back Control " as a slogan that's a fairly astonishing short term achievement.
Not if we don't adopt any of the new rules.
Excellent so we'll see Commerzbank charging their customers for research via the trading desk?
I've no idea. I didn't want to move to Frankfurt...
"If we don't adopt any of the new rules" is, in financial services for example, a nonsensical statement. Perhaps it is likewise in others - if we don't like the new widget specs we need to comply with to sell our widgets in the EU we won't adopt them - I have no idea.
But for all practical purposes @YellowSubmarine is right, it is taxation without representation.
And after the transition period it is also taxation (in the form of necessary compliance with the rules) without representation.
If we want to sell on a commercial basis we will need to comply with standards, just like we do with the US.
But that's not "taxation without representation" - the key point is that a company that doesn't export in the EU won't have to adopt the standards if they don't want to, unlike now. For example, I could see a niche whereby someone produces washing machines that wash and dishwashers that clean.
Like Ebac, you mean (first googles British washing machine company).
"By 1985, Ebac had become the best selling dehumidifier in the UK and was exporting to most countries throughout Europe."
I was just whining about new new EU rules on powering electrical devices which mean that modern kitchen utilities are useless.
A pretty much perfect example of how utterly fecking ludicrous these sorts of bans are.
Not really - several EU member states already have bans. Several African nations introduced them following suicide bombings and even in some Islamic nations it is restricted or banned.
It's not difficult - full face coverings in public spaces should be banned for security reasons. The hijab is perfectly sufficient to demonstrate modesty - as demonstrated by its use by most Muslim women. The burqa is not about religion - but separation and treating women as second class citizens.
And a ski mask? Or a scarf? Do we allow those face masks if they are worn by Japanese tourists but not by Arabs? How cold do I have to be before I can wear a balaclava? It is ludicrous and the fact other European countries have similar rules is no defence
Slightly OT, I saw a comment from Verhofstadt in response to Johnson's split allegiance accusation...
"It’s perfectly possible to feel English, British and European at the same time."
That entirely sums up how I feel, which is why Brexit is so painful.
Or Welsh/Scot and British
I am part English part Welsh, my wife is a Scot, and my three children and four grandchildren were all born in Wales.
We consider ourselves Welsh/Scot and British but none of us would call ourselves European.
Though you certainly are european, even if you do not consider yourselves as such
No -none of us consider we are European and never will
My wife and daughter have had recent DNA tests re their origins and they show that the family are entirely British with some small links to Scandinavia.
Er... both and which continent are both Britain and Scandanavia in?
You can try as much as you like Ben but my family would reject the idea we are European.
We are British
Fair enough - I get that your don't consider yourselves European. You are not alone in that; I suspect a majority (52%?) of the country feel the same. I know I won't change your mind and I am not really trying to. I was being a bit tongue in cheek when I pointed out that even if you don't feel European you do live in Europe.
I am, and feel, British too - I just happen to be and feel European and English at the same time
Ben - we may not agree all the time but it is good to have a sensible discussion between ourselves with tolerance of views. It is something that is missing from some on here who are completely deaf to opposing arguments
A pretty much perfect example of how utterly fecking ludicrous these sorts of bans are.
Not really - several EU member states already have bans. Several African nations introduced them following suicide bombings and even in some Islamic nations it is restricted or banned.
It's not difficult - full face coverings in public spaces should be banned for security reasons. The hijab is perfectly sufficient to demonstrate modesty - as demonstrated by its use by most Muslim women. The burqa is not about religion - but separation and treating women as second class citizens.
It is perfectly possible to dress modestly without a hijab.
Dear god in heaven.... what is next? Will there be some PB poster trying to keep up by demonstrating their Aryan purity?
'British' DNA. It's in the Daily Mail so must be right.
'The average Briton is only really 37 per cent British - with the remainder of their genes coming from European ancestors from as far afield as Scandinavia, Spain and Greece. DNA testing has also revealed how the people of Yorkshire are officially the most British people in the land, with their genetic makeup containing an average 41 per cent Anglo-Saxon stock. London, meanwhile, is the most ethnically diverse, while the people of Wales have the highest proportion of ancestry from Spain and Portugal.'
Final thought for the morning. May's proposal will leave the UK in a " Taxation but no representation " state for 2 years. We'll pay almost full dues for transition but lose our MEP's , Commissioner and Council of Ministers representation on Brexit Day. For a bunch of Sovereignty fetishists who ran with " Take back Control " as a slogan that's a fairly astonishing short term achievement.
Not if we don't adopt any of the new rules.
Excellent so we'll see Commerzbank charging their customers for research via the trading desk?
I've no idea. I didn't want to move to Frankfurt...
"If we don't adopt any of the new rules" is, in financial services for example, a nonsensical statement. Perhaps it is likewise in others - if we don't like the new widget specs we need to comply with to sell our widgets in the EU we won't adopt them - I have no idea.
But for all practical purposes @YellowSubmarine is right, it is taxation without representation.
And after the transition period it is also taxation (in the form of necessary compliance with the rules) without representation.
If we want to sell on a commercial basis we will need to comply with standards, just like we do with the US.
But that's not "taxation without representation" - the key point is that a company that doesn't export in the EU won't have to adopt the standards if they don't want to, unlike now. For example, I could see a niche whereby someone produces washing machines that wash and dishwashers that clean.
Like Ebac, you mean (first googles British washing machine company).
"By 1985, Ebac had become the best selling dehumidifier in the UK and was exporting to most countries throughout Europe."
I was just whining about new new EU rules on powering electrical devices which mean that modern kitchen utilities are useless.
Yes I need to lift my head from the desk once in a while to see the actual real world!
Final thought for the morning. May's proposal will leave the UK in a " Taxation but no representation " state for 2 years. We'll pay almost full dues for transition but lose our MEP's , Commissioner and Council of Ministers representation on Brexit Day. For a bunch of Sovereignty fetishists who ran with " Take back Control " as a slogan that's a fairly astonishing short term achievement.
Not if we don't adopt any of the new rules.
Excellent so we'll see Commerzbank charging their customers for research via the trading desk?
I've no idea. I didn't want to move to Frankfurt...
"If we don't adopt any of the new rules" is, in financial services for example, a nonsensical statement. Perhaps it is likewise in others - if we don't like the new widget specs we need to comply with to sell our widgets in the EU we won't adopt them - I have no idea.
But for all practical purposes @YellowSubmarine is right, it is taxation without representation.
And after the transition period it is also taxation (in the form of necessary compliance with the rules) without representation.
Surely EU "... taxation without representation ..." is better known as the Norway Option?
Just asking...
Only to those who are ignorant of the Norway Option.
I must be ignorant - I thought the Norwegians paid but had no say ...
A pretty much perfect example of how utterly fecking ludicrous these sorts of bans are.
Not really - several EU member states already have bans. Several African nations introduced them following suicide bombings and even in some Islamic nations it is restricted or banned.
It's not difficult - full face coverings in public spaces should be banned for security reasons. The hijab is perfectly sufficient to demonstrate modesty - as demonstrated by its use by most Muslim women. The burqa is not about religion - but separation and treating women as second class citizens.
It is perfectly possible to dress modestly without a hijab.
It is perfectly possible for me to walk in winter without a balaclava. But at times, for reasons of comfort or just practicality, I do wear one.
I've no problem with such bans in certain circumstances - e.g. banning face coverings in banks. But a general ban seems to be about restricting people from doing something harmless with no reason other than some of us don't like it. And I feel that's wrong.
As an aside, feeling you have X identity doesn't mean you necessarily want that to be either your primary identity or to have any political role. I may have mentioned this once or twice, but I'm not in favour of a Yorkshire Parliament/Assembly.
No -none of us consider we are European and never will
My wife and daughter have had recent DNA tests re their origins and they show that the family are entirely British with some small links to Scandinavia.
Fog in the channel, Britain not part of Europe.
What was the definition of 'entirely British' DNA?
No -none of us consider we are European and never will
My wife and daughter have had recent DNA tests re their origins and they show that the family are entirely British with some small links to Scandinavia.
Fog in the channel, Britain not part of Europe.
What was the definition of 'entirely British' DNA?
Ancestry DNA traced the family back to Scotland, Wales and parts of England with some Scandinavian. No where else on the trace
Why does 'some Scandinavian' not prevent DNA from being 'entirely British'?
Fair point about both parties not recognising the need of the counterparty to sell the deal to their stakeholders. Both parties are guilty of this. The deal effectively is a load of cash and a limited UK extension of Freedom of Movement, which the EU27 want, against a time limited continued access to the EU system, which we want. The problem is that British people don't see why they should pay to partially retain the status quo. They don't realise that with their Leave vote they technically voted to break the treaties with the EU, which means the status quo is an extra that needs to be negotiated. These negotiations are burdened by the false premises that predicated our Leave vote.
Equally if the EU was upfront and said "this is a payment to retain the benefits of access to the Single Market" that would be a good reason. But they have presented it as a settlement of legal obligations.
It's not up to the EU side to make the argument to UK stakeholders. Our government should be doing that. As far as the EU is concerned this is money owing to them.
And we've asked them to explain why it is owing.
That's all. If they think a responsible government can write a cheque for that kind of money without justification then they are daft.
(and pedants, yes "write a cheque" is a turn of phrase. They will transfer the funds electronically)
In general, if I demand money from someone, they're entitled to know why it is due.
A pretty much perfect example of how utterly fecking ludicrous these sorts of bans are.
Nice to agree with you, Richard. I think this sort of Arabian facecovering is ridiculous (but no more so, than say, the fortunately disappearing fashion for showing your underpants), but attempting to ban them is stupider again.
A pretty much perfect example of how utterly fecking ludicrous these sorts of bans are.
Not really - several EU member states already have bans. Several African nations introduced them following suicide bombings and even in some Islamic nations it is restricted or banned.
It's not difficult - full face coverings in public spaces should be banned for security reasons. The hijab is perfectly sufficient to demonstrate modesty - as demonstrated by its use by most Muslim women. The burqa is not about religion - but separation and treating women as second class citizens.
It is perfectly possible to dress modestly without a hijab.
It is perfectly possible for me to walk in winter without a balaclava. But at times, for reasons of comfort or just practicality, I do wear one.
I've no problem with such bans in certain circumstances - e.g. banning face coverings in banks. But a general ban seems to be about restricting people from doing something harmless with no reason other than some of us don't like it. And I feel that's wrong.
I didn't say anything about banning the hijab. Just that it's perfectly possible to dress modestly without wearing one. Maybe the motivation for wearing one is simply "Look at me, look at how pious a Muslim I am!".
Slightly OT, I saw a comment from Verhofstadt in response to Johnson's split allegiance accusation...
"It’s perfectly possible to feel English, British and European at the same time."
That entirely sums up how I feel, which is why Brexit is so painful.
Or Welsh/Scot and British
I am part English part Welsh, my wife is a Scot, and my three children and four grandchildren were all born in Wales.
We consider ourselves Welsh/Scot and British but none of us would call ourselves European.
Though you certainly are european, even if you do not consider yourselves as such
No -none of us consider we are European and never will
My wife and daughter have had recent DNA tests re their origins and they show that the family are entirely British with some small links to Scandinavia.
Er... both and which continent are both Britain and Scandanavia in?
You can try as much as you like Ben but my family would reject the idea we are European.
We are British
Fair enough - I get that your don't consider yourselves European. You are not alone in that; I suspect a majority (52%?) of the country feel the same. I know I won't change your mind and I am not really trying to. I was being a bit tongue in cheek when I pointed out that even if you don't feel European you do live in Europe.
I am, and feel, British too - I just happen to be and feel European and English at the same time
Ben - we may not agree all the time but it is good to have a sensible discussion between ourselves with tolerance of views. It is something that is missing from some on here who are completely deaf to opposing arguments
The EU has toxified the word European.
In Victorian times, although obviously racially charged, "European" was much more commonly used as shorthand to describe native and non-native populations in colonies.
'Why does 'some Scandinavian' not prevent DNA from being 'entirely British'?'
To be honest the Scandinavian connection is not surprising to Scotland with the long history of Vikings and Scotland but on the wider point my family have claim to England, Scotland and Wales and have always considered ourselves British, but never thought of ourselves as European.
That does not in anyway mean we do not want to get on with the Europeans anymore than the Kiwis, Aussies, Canadians etc
As an aside, feeling you have X identity doesn't mean you necessarily want that to be either your primary identity or to have any political role. I may have mentioned this once or twice, but I'm not in favour of a Yorkshire Parliament/Assembly.
You should back the Mayor/Governor of Yorkshire instead.
If it happens, it'll be managed by the Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, or YMCA for short.
A pretty much perfect example of how utterly fecking ludicrous these sorts of bans are.
Not really - several EU member states already have bans. Several African nations introduced them following suicide bombings and even in some Islamic nations it is restricted or banned.
It's not difficult - full face coverings in public spaces should be banned for security reasons. The hijab is perfectly sufficient to demonstrate modesty - as demonstrated by its use by most Muslim women. The burqa is not about religion - but separation and treating women as second class citizens.
It is perfectly possible to dress modestly without a hijab.
It is perfectly possible for me to walk in winter without a balaclava. But at times, for reasons of comfort or just practicality, I do wear one.
I've no problem with such bans in certain circumstances - e.g. banning face coverings in banks. But a general ban seems to be about restricting people from doing something harmless with no reason other than some of us don't like it. And I feel that's wrong.
I didn't say anything about banning the hijab. Just that it's perfectly possible to dress modestly without wearing one. Maybe the motivation for wearing one is simply "Look at me, look at how pious a Muslim I am!".
The same way a young woman who wears very little on a wintry Friday night in Newcastle is saying: "look at me, look at how beautiful I am!". Some countries (wrongly, IMO) ban such clothing, when it does little harm (except perhaps to the immediate health of the wearer).
Let people be, and wear, what they want, as long as they don't hurt people or cause problems.
I must admit, I have trouble with the above when it comes to full nudity. At least, if it's not mine.
But, but, but they'll all be frothing, reactionary Brexiteers by the time they're forty. Or so we're told.
As things stand the devastating demographic challenge for for the Brexiters is education. Every study shows it's the best predictor of how folk voted in the Referendum. And every year what % of the folk who die in Britain are Graduates ? And every year what % of 21 and 22 year olds Graduate ? Now there s ample time for Brexiters to fix that. We won't be having another Referendum anytime soon. But the specific campaign Leave ran was brilliant but left unchanged won't survive the tide of history.
It's not correlated with education, it's correlated with age. Less old people went to university than younger people.
The young are told repeatedly how wonderful the EU is in the education system. As people get older and gain more life experience they realise they were sold a load of old bollocks and vote accordingly.
.
David Goodhart is good on this - he thinks that the expansion of tertiary education is one of the biggest social revolutions since the 60s, but is never written about as such. The fact that almost all students are residential (ie they leave their families, old friends and move to an entirely different part of the country) helps to boost their 'Anywhere' sentiments, more than say Spain where most people just go to the local university and there is less of a hierarchy.
I've seen this happen with my own eyes to four of my friends (three women, one guy) who started off as Conservatives aged 18, and are now, in their early 30s, very much on the soft-Left, without realising they're now actually voting for the hard left.
Of course, they all live in London.
Two others are *still* voting Conservative, but one is rather internationalist and voted Remain, and the other struggled but voted Remain (just) because of Erasmus etc (he's a linguist) and then tried to convince himself if we stayed we could reform the EU (again) from the inside.
My closest three male friends from university - who were also members of my university Conservative association - have stayed staunchly on the Right, but they're very politically engaged, which is unusual.
We are entitled to consider ourselves British - those who want to be seen as European are entitled to their view. And if you are having a pop at my families DNA my wife discovered she had a sister and brother she had no knowledge of. She was 73 when she found out and they decided to have a DNA ancestry test to help them understand their origins
I am NOT having a pop at your family.
I am having a pop at the idea of national purity via genetics and I should not really have to explain why...
As an aside, feeling you have X identity doesn't mean you necessarily want that to be either your primary identity or to have any political role. I may have mentioned this once or twice, but I'm not in favour of a Yorkshire Parliament/Assembly.
You should back the Mayor/Governor of Yorkshire instead.
If it happens, it'll be managed by the Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, or YMCA for short.
Yorkshireman, there's no need to feel down I said, Yorkshireman, pick yourself off the ground I said, Yorkshireman, 'cause you're in a new town There's no need to be unhappy Yorkshireman, there's a place you can go I said, Yorkshireman, when you're short on your dough You can stay there, and I'm sure you will find Many ways to have a good time It's fun to stay at the YMCA It's fun to stay at the YMCA They have everything for you men to enjoy You can hang out with all the boys It's fun to stay at the YMCA It's fun to stay at the YMCA You can get yourself clean, you can have a good meal You can do what about you feel Yorkshireman, are you listening to me? I said, Yorkshireman, what do you want to be? I said, Yorkshireman, you can make real your dreams But you… No man does it all by himself I said, Yorkshireman, put your pride on the shelf And just go there, to the YMCA I'm sure they can help you today It's fun to stay at the YMCA It's fun to stay at the YMCA They have everything for you men to enjoy You can hang out with all the boys It's fun to stay at the YMCA It's fun to stay at the YMCA You can get yourself clean, you can have a good meal You can do what about you feel Yorkshireman, I was once in your shoes I said, I was down and out with the blues I felt no man cared if I were alive I felt the whole world was so tight That's when someone came up to me And said, Yorkshireman, take a walk up the street There's a place there called the YMCA They can start you back on your way It's fun to stay at the YMCA It's fun to stay at the YMCA They have everything for you men to enjoy You can hang out with all the boys YMCA you'll find it at the YMCA Yorkshireman, Yorkshireman, there's no need to feel down Yorkshireman, Yorkshireman, pick yourself off the ground YMCA, it's fun to stay at the YMCA Yorkshireman, Yorkshireman, are you listening to me Yorkshireman, Yorkshireman, what do you wanna be? YMCA, you'll find it YMCA No man, Yorkshireman, does it all by himself Yorkshireman, Yorkshireman, put your pride on the shelf YMCA, and just go to the YMCA Yorkshireman, Yorkshireman I was once in your shoes Yorkshireman, Yorkshireman I was down with the blues, YMCA
Do you regret no longer living in the 'invincible green suburbs' of Brent North ?
It's instructive to compare Brent North and neighbouring Harrow East. By now, White British people are less than 30% in each seat. But one is Labour, and the other Conservative. the difference is that in Brent North, big houses have been split up into multi-occupation, whereas in Harrow East, owner occupation is the norm.
Affluent Indians living in North London can be very Right wing.
A pretty much perfect example of how utterly fecking ludicrous these sorts of bans are.
Not really - several EU member states already have bans. Several African nations introduced them following suicide bombings and even in some Islamic nations it is restricted or banned.
It's not difficult - full face coverings in public spaces should be banned for security reasons. The hijab is perfectly sufficient to demonstrate modesty - as demonstrated by its use by most Muslim women. The burqa is not about religion - but separation and treating women as second class citizens.
It is perfectly possible to dress modestly without a hijab.
It is perfectly possible for me to walk in winter without a balaclava. But at times, for reasons of comfort or just practicality, I do wear one.
I've no problem with such bans in certain circumstances - e.g. banning face coverings in banks. But a general ban seems to be about restricting people from doing something harmless with no reason other than some of us don't like it. And I feel that's wrong.
I didn't say anything about banning the hijab. Just that it's perfectly possible to dress modestly without wearing one. Maybe the motivation for wearing one is simply "Look at me, look at how pious a Muslim I am!".
The same way a young woman who wears very little on a wintry Friday night in Newcastle is saying: "look at me, look at how beautiful I am!". Some countries (wrongly, IMO) ban such clothing, when it does little harm (except perhaps to the immediate health of the wearer).
Let people be, and wear, what they want, as long as they don't hurt people or cause problems.
I must admit, I have trouble with the above when it comes to full nudity. At least, if it's not mine.
I tend to agree. Not surprisingly, one sees lots of women in burkas in Luton. I think it's a stupid garment, but they aren't harming me.
We are entitled to consider ourselves British - those who want to be seen as European are entitled to their view. And if you are having a pop at my families DNA my wife discovered she had a sister and brother she had no knowledge of. She was 73 when she found out and they decided to have a DNA ancestry test to help them understand their origins
I am NOT having a pop at your family.
I am having a pop at the idea of national purity via genetics and I should not really have to explain why...
Of course you don't and that had not entered my thinking in anyway whatsoever. We are proud to have a British heritage but at the same tine respect every ones claim to their own heritage, no one being superior than anyone else
In a striking departure from the customary protocol surrounding a visit by a head of government, May has no official host in Florence, where she will give a speech that the prime minister’s office has billed as a milestone in the Brexit process.
The unusual arrangements around the speech only serve to highlight the oddness of the event itself — a head of government giving a major speech in a foreign country outside of any international forum and without the high-level involvement of the host country’s government.
A senior official in the Florence city administration said although the British government had been in touch with the mayor’s office, they did not follow usual diplomatic norms and had not included city officials in setting up the logistics of the venue.
One of the reasons why Mrs Thatcher was a believer in climate change is down to the Falklands War.
The people that showed her climate change was happening were the people that gave such accurate weather reports to the task force to liberate the Falklands.
She was a scientist, and understood the science.
Bloody hell, that is bonkers. She had a bad chemistry degree, ffs. You do realise there are different sorts of science, do you? You don't put an eminent botanist in charge of a hadron collider.
And it's not about understanding the science, anyway. The scientific claim about AGW is broadly comprehensible, and coherent, but that doesn't make it right. It means it could be right. Go and read one of the better conspiracy theories about, say, 9/11 (plane fires not hot enough to melt steel etc.) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, some of them are coherent and comprehensible. That doesn't make them right. I used to do litigation about bad stuff happening to ships and/or their cargoes. Every single case involved scientific expert evidence, and all the expert opinions I ever saw looked on the face of it coherent and convincing, until you saw the equal and opposite report commissioned by the other side. And these are "what happened a couple of years ago" studies, not what might happen in 30 years time.
Btw Steven E. Jones (9/11 conspiracy fan) is a professor emeritus of physics, so he understands the science, right?
And btw 2 if Thatcher seriously thought AGW must be a thing because of some relatively accurate 3 day weather forecasts, that's an embarrassing fact which all true conservatives should suppress.
Don't patronise me. I did maths, further maths, physics and chemistry at A-level, and read Civil Engineering as a masters at university.
I am well aware there of different sorts of science, and Chemistry is absolutely the right degree to understand the issues of CFCs and the ozone layer, as well as AGW more broadly.
She was well-versed in the scientific method, and the need for it to be evidence based.
A pretty much perfect example of how utterly fecking ludicrous these sorts of bans are.
Not really - several EU member states already have bans. Several African nations introduced them following suicide bombings and even in some Islamic nations it is restricted or banned.
It's not difficult - full face coverings in public spaces should be banned for security reasons. The hijab is perfectly sufficient to demonstrate modesty - as demonstrated by its use by most Muslim women. The burqa is not about religion - but separation and treating women as second class citizens.
It is perfectly possible to dress modestly without a hijab.
It is perfectly possible for me to walk in winter without a balaclava. But at times, for reasons of comfort or just practicality, I do wear one.
I've no problem with such bans in certain circumstances - e.g. banning face coverings in banks. But a general ban seems to be about restricting people from doing something harmless with no reason other than some of us don't like it. And I feel that's wrong.
I didn't say anything about banning the hijab. Just that it's perfectly possible to dress modestly without wearing one. Maybe the motivation for wearing one is simply "Look at me, look at how pious a Muslim I am!".
The same way a young woman who wears very little on a wintry Friday night in Newcastle is saying: "look at me, look at how beautiful I am!". Some countries (wrongly, IMO) ban such clothing, when it does little harm (except perhaps to the immediate health of the wearer).
Let people be, and wear, what they want, as long as they don't hurt people or cause problems.
I must admit, I have trouble with the above when it comes to full nudity. At least, if it's not mine.
Yebbut Grand Ayatollah Nudistani reminds us that:
"It is the Will of Allah (SWT) that we are all born stark, raving naked!"
Surely EU "... taxation without representation ..." is better known as the Norway Option?
Just asking...
Barnier seems to be pushing the Norway option. No doubt with ulterior motives - continued payments, freedom of movement and no competitive reduction of standards. However our supposed choice of the "Canada plus" model is problematic, not just on the "plus" aspect but on the timing and sequencing.
So we (hopefully, and I believe will) agree a destination of comprehensive FTA with a strict two year transition deal. So we Brexit in 2019, start desultory talks on the FTA and immediately the question is what happens at the end of the two year transition. We won't be any nearer to having our FTA in place and there will be continued uncertainty about third party arrangements. Do we really want to crash out to WTO only to partially reconstruct things later. In any case the Canada model is pretty crap compared with the level of integration we had before. So I think pressure will build up for a Norway type deal, just to get some kind of stability. The problem with that is that the UK isn't Norway. We are not prepared to outsource our external relations to a third party. So my central prediction is that we end up with a massively compromised Brexit. Unless as William has consistently argued, we decide, why are we doing this? We are better off in the EU.
Either way this is going to run and run, pace Mr Eagles' headline, The War Without End.
Do you regret no longer living in the 'invincible green suburbs' of Brent North ?
It's instructive to compare Brent North and neighbouring Harrow East. By now, White British people are less than 30% in each seat. But one is Labour, and the other Conservative. the difference is that in Brent North, big houses have been split up into multi-occupation, whereas in Harrow East, owner occupation is the norm.
Affluent Indians living in North London can be very Right wing.
Affluent anyones living anywhere can be very Right wing.
In a striking departure from the customary protocol surrounding a visit by a head of government, May has no official host in Florence, where she will give a speech that the prime minister’s office has billed as a milestone in the Brexit process.
The unusual arrangements around the speech only serve to highlight the oddness of the event itself — a head of government giving a major speech in a foreign country outside of any international forum and without the high-level involvement of the host country’s government.
A senior official in the Florence city administration said although the British government had been in touch with the mayor’s office, they did not follow usual diplomatic norms and had not included city officials in setting up the logistics of the venue.
Do you regret no longer living in the 'invincible green suburbs' of Brent North ?
It's instructive to compare Brent North and neighbouring Harrow East. By now, White British people are less than 30% in each seat. But one is Labour, and the other Conservative. the difference is that in Brent North, big houses have been split up into multi-occupation, whereas in Harrow East, owner occupation is the norm.
Affluent Indians living in North London can be very Right wing.
Affluent anyones living anywhere can be very Right wing.
(Apart from the champagne socialists, obvs)
Often not, actually; you have the other sort, which you allude to, who are so wealthy, diversified or protected they feel they can preach high principle and unfettered ideology safe in the knowledge it'll never really hit them where it hurts.
In a striking departure from the customary protocol surrounding a visit by a head of government, May has no official host in Florence, where she will give a speech that the prime minister’s office has billed as a milestone in the Brexit process.
The unusual arrangements around the speech only serve to highlight the oddness of the event itself — a head of government giving a major speech in a foreign country outside of any international forum and without the high-level involvement of the host country’s government.
A senior official in the Florence city administration said although the British government had been in touch with the mayor’s office, they did not follow usual diplomatic norms and had not included city officials in setting up the logistics of the venue.
Good for Theresa - makes it more news worthy and adds to the coverage.
But also puts lots of pressure on her to strike the right tone and impress.
A pretty much perfect example of how utterly fecking ludicrous these sorts of bans are.
Not really - several EU member states already have bans. Several African nations introduced them following suicide bombings and even in some Islamic nations it is restricted or banned.
It's not difficult - full face coverings in public spaces should be banned for security reasons. The hijab is perfectly sufficient to demonstrate modesty - as demonstrated by its use by most Muslim women. The burqa is not about religion - but separation and treating women as second class citizens.
It is perfectly possible to dress modestly without a hijab.
It is perfectly possible for me to walk in winter without a balaclava. But at times, for reasons of comfort or just practicality, I do wear one.
I've no problem with such bans in certain circumstances - e.g. banning face coverings in banks. But a general ban seems to be about restricting people from doing something harmless with no reason other than some of us don't like it. And I feel that's wrong.
I didn't say anything about banning the hijab. Just that it's perfectly possible to dress modestly without wearing one. Maybe the motivation for wearing one is simply "Look at me, look at how pious a Muslim I am!".
The same way a young woman who wears very little on a wintry Friday night in Newcastle is saying: "look at me, look at how beautiful I am!". Some countries (wrongly, IMO) ban such clothing, when it does little harm (except perhaps to the immediate health of the wearer).
Let people be, and wear, what they want, as long as they don't hurt people or cause problems.
I must admit, I have trouble with the above when it comes to full nudity. At least, if it's not mine.
I tend to agree. Not surprisingly, one sees lots of women in burkas in Luton. I think it's a stupid garment, but they aren't harming me.
Personally, I draw the line at covering your face, in public, as a matter of course.
I don't buy the "whatabouttery" arguments about Balaclavas.
In a striking departure from the customary protocol surrounding a visit by a head of government, May has no official host in Florence, where she will give a speech that the prime minister’s office has billed as a milestone in the Brexit process.
The unusual arrangements around the speech only serve to highlight the oddness of the event itself — a head of government giving a major speech in a foreign country outside of any international forum and without the high-level involvement of the host country’s government.
A senior official in the Florence city administration said although the British government had been in touch with the mayor’s office, they did not follow usual diplomatic norms and had not included city officials in setting up the logistics of the venue.
In a striking departure from the customary protocol surrounding a visit by a head of government, May has no official host in Florence, where she will give a speech that the prime minister’s office has billed as a milestone in the Brexit process.
The unusual arrangements around the speech only serve to highlight the oddness of the event itself — a head of government giving a major speech in a foreign country outside of any international forum and without the high-level involvement of the host country’s government.
A senior official in the Florence city administration said although the British government had been in touch with the mayor’s office, they did not follow usual diplomatic norms and had not included city officials in setting up the logistics of the venue.
Good for Theresa - makes it more news worthy and adds to the coverage.
But also puts lots of pressure on her to strike the right tone and impress.
Do you regret no longer living in the 'invincible green suburbs' of Brent North ?
It's instructive to compare Brent North and neighbouring Harrow East. By now, White British people are less than 30% in each seat. But one is Labour, and the other Conservative. the difference is that in Brent North, big houses have been split up into multi-occupation, whereas in Harrow East, owner occupation is the norm.
Affluent Indians living in North London can be very Right wing.
Affluent anyones living anywhere can be very Right wing.
(Apart from the champagne socialists, obvs)
Often not, actually; you have the other sort, which you allude to, who are so wealthy, diversified or protected they feel they can preach high principle and unfettered ideology safe in the knowledge it'll never really hit them where it hurts.
Oh god yes - no doubt about that but on balance there are more wealthier people voting for the Cons than helping to save humanity by voting Jezza.
In a striking departure from the customary protocol surrounding a visit by a head of government, May has no official host in Florence, where she will give a speech that the prime minister’s office has billed as a milestone in the Brexit process.
The unusual arrangements around the speech only serve to highlight the oddness of the event itself — a head of government giving a major speech in a foreign country outside of any international forum and without the high-level involvement of the host country’s government.
A senior official in the Florence city administration said although the British government had been in touch with the mayor’s office, they did not follow usual diplomatic norms and had not included city officials in setting up the logistics of the venue.
Good for Theresa - makes it more news worthy and adds to the coverage.
But also puts lots of pressure on her to strike the right tone and impress.
As I have said before, let's wait and see
Good for Theresa!?
She's PM ffs how's she getting there, Ryanair?
As someone noted earlier this morning it would be like Angela Merkel coming over here, on a private visit and giving a speech at the Manchester Trade Hall (apols can't remember who it was) without involving anyone else.
Do you regret no longer living in the 'invincible green suburbs' of Brent North ?
It's instructive to compare Brent North and neighbouring Harrow East. By now, White British people are less than 30% in each seat. But one is Labour, and the other Conservative. the difference is that in Brent North, big houses have been split up into multi-occupation, whereas in Harrow East, owner occupation is the norm.
Affluent Indians living in North London can be very Right wing.
Affluent anyones living anywhere can be very Right wing.
(Apart from the champagne socialists, obvs)
Often not, actually; you have the other sort, which you allude to, who are so wealthy, diversified or protected they feel they can preach high principle and unfettered ideology safe in the knowledge it'll never really hit them where it hurts.
Oh god yes - no doubt about that but on balance there are more wealthier people voting for the Cons than helping to save humanity by voting Jezza.
Personally, I think the values of the better-off are moving (socially, ethically, culturally) to the soft-left/internationalist/identity politics sphere but, those in the private sector will continue to vote Conservative for the time being for economic reasons.
There is a strange movement in the opposite direction amongst the working class.
Their definition of 'British' originates with Germanic tribes from the 5th century. Ein volk etc.
I have never had one of these tests but would be surprised if I had any British (by which I mean correlating with the Brythonic languages) DNA at all.
From my name & family history I know I have Irish, Hebridean, Norman & travelling folk in my recent (1000 years) ancestry. I guess it would be interesting to have DNA to quantify the various strands.
I always liked William McIlvaney's 'Never forget that we are the bastard people of a mongrel nation' as a starting point.
Final thought for the morning. May's proposal will leave the UK in a " Taxation but no representation " state for 2 years. We'll pay almost full dues for transition but lose our MEP's , Commissioner and Council of Ministers representation on Brexit Day. For a bunch of Sovereignty fetishists who ran with " Take back Control " as a slogan that's a fairly astonishing short term achievement.
Not if we don't adopt any of the new rules.
Excellent so we'll see Commerzbank charging their customers for research via the trading desk?
I've no idea. I didn't want to move to Frankfurt...
"If we don't adopt any of the new rules" is, in financial services for example, a nonsensical statement. Perhaps it is likewise in others - if we don't like the new widget specs we need to comply with to sell our widgets in the EU we won't adopt them - I have no idea.
But for all practical purposes @YellowSubmarine is right, it is taxation without representation.
And after the transition period it is also taxation (in the form of necessary compliance with the rules) without representation.
If we want to sell on a commercial basis we will need to comply with standards, just like we do with the US.
But that's not "taxation without representation" - the key point is that a company that doesn't export in the EU won't have to adopt the standards if they don't want to, unlike now. For example, I could see a niche whereby someone produces washing machines that wash and dishwashers that clean.
Like Ebac, you mean (first googles British washing machine company).
"By 1985, Ebac had become the best selling dehumidifier in the UK and was exporting to most countries throughout Europe."
I was just whining about new new EU rules on powering electrical devices which mean that modern kitchen utilities are useless.
Nowhere near as useless as the US, where 110v means that electric kettles and toasters take forever.
Personally, I draw the line at covering your face, in public, as a matter of course.
I don't buy the "whatabouttery" arguments about Balaclavas.
Why is it whatabouttery? It looks like something I sometimes wear, and with good reason, would be banned for no good reason. And that's just one side effect of this sort of terrible legislation.
Let's criminalise activities that hurt people, not harmless lifestyle choices.
I find burkhas distasteful. But the fact that I find them distasteful does not mean they should be criminalised.
Then there are the side evils of such legislation, in that it disenfranchises many women.
In a striking departure from the customary protocol surrounding a visit by a head of government, May has no official host in Florence, where she will give a speech that the prime minister’s office has billed as a milestone in the Brexit process.
The unusual arrangements around the speech only serve to highlight the oddness of the event itself — a head of government giving a major speech in a foreign country outside of any international forum and without the high-level involvement of the host country’s government.
A senior official in the Florence city administration said although the British government had been in touch with the mayor’s office, they did not follow usual diplomatic norms and had not included city officials in setting up the logistics of the venue.
Good for Theresa - makes it more news worthy and adds to the coverage.
But also puts lots of pressure on her to strike the right tone and impress.
As I have said before, let's wait and see
Good for Theresa!?
She's PM ffs how's she getting there, Ryanair?
As someone noted earlier this morning it would be like Angela Merkel coming over here, on a private visit and giving a speech at the Manchester Trade Hall (apols can't remember who it was) without involving anyone else.
White Hispanics are oddly enough, not deemed to be White in the USA, for census purposes. But, a large number vote Republican. Asian-Americans tend to be hard hit by affirmative action policies that keep them out of top universities, which gives them a reason to vote Republican as well.
Fair point about both parties not recognising the need of the counterparty to sell the deal to their stakeholders. Both parties are guilty of this. The deal effectively is a load of cash and a limited UK extension of Freedom of Movement, which the EU27 want, against a time limited continued access to the EU system, which we want. The problem is that British people don't see why they should pay to partially retain the status quo. They don't realise that with their Leave vote they technically voted to break the treaties with the EU, which means the status quo is an extra that needs to be negotiated. These negotiations are burdened by the false premises that predicated our Leave vote.
Equally if the EU was upfront and said "this is a payment to retain the benefits of access to the Single Market" that would be a good reason. But they have presented it as a settlement of legal obligations.
It's not up to the EU side to make the argument to UK stakeholders. Our government should be doing that. As far as the EU is concerned this is money owing to them.
And we've asked them to explain why it is owing.
That's all. If they think a responsible government can write a cheque for that kind of money without justification then they are daft.
(and pedants, yes "write a cheque" is a turn of phrase. They will transfer the funds electronically)
In general, if I demand money from someone, they're entitled to know why it is due.
I tried to cover that point in my analogy. They are commitments collectively entered into but one party is removing itself from the enterprise. Is he liable for all, part, or none of those commitments? There is no hard and fast rule. On the whole you are likely to cover more if you value the ongoing relationship than if you don't. That doesn't stop the group thinking they are owed the full whack or the individual thinking, I'm out, why should I bother?
Fair point about both parties not recognising the need of the counterparty to sell the deal to their stakeholders. Both parties are guilty of this. The deal effectively is a load of cash and a limited UK extension of Freedom of Movement, which the EU27 want, against a time limited continued access to the EU system, which we want. The problem is that British people don't see why they should pay to partially retain the status quo. They don't realise that with their Leave vote they technically voted to break the treaties with the EU, which means the status quo is an extra that needs to be negotiated. These negotiations are burdened by the false premises that predicated our Leave vote.
Equally if the EU was upfront and said "this is a payment to retain the benefits of access to the Single Market" that would be a good reason. But they have presented it as a settlement of legal obligations.
It's not up to the EU side to make the argument to UK stakeholders. Our government should be doing that. As far as the EU is concerned this is money owing to them.
And we've asked them to explain why it is owing.
That's all. If they think a responsible government can write a cheque for that kind of money without justification then they are daft.
(and pedants, yes "write a cheque" is a turn of phrase. They will transfer the funds electronically)
In general, if I demand money from someone, they're entitled to know why it is due.
I tried to cover that point in my analogy. They are commitments collectively entered into but one party is removing itself from the enterprise. Is he liable for all, part, or none of those commitments? There is no hard and fast rule. On the whole you are likely to cover more if you value the ongoing relationship than if you don't. That doesn't stop the group thinking they are owed the full whack or the individual thinking, I'm out, why should I bother?
Wouldn't that money be better spent on our NHS? Why throw money at Brussels?
In a striking departure from the customary protocol surrounding a visit by a head of government, May has no official host in Florence, where she will give a speech that the prime minister’s office has billed as a milestone in the Brexit process.
The unusual arrangements around the speech only serve to highlight the oddness of the event itself — a head of government giving a major speech in a foreign country outside of any international forum and without the high-level involvement of the host country’s government.
A senior official in the Florence city administration said although the British government had been in touch with the mayor’s office, they did not follow usual diplomatic norms and had not included city officials in setting up the logistics of the venue.
Good for Theresa - makes it more news worthy and adds to the coverage.
But also puts lots of pressure on her to strike the right tone and impress.
As I have said before, let's wait and see
Good for Theresa!?
She's PM ffs how's she getting there, Ryanair?
As someone noted earlier this morning it would be like Angela Merkel coming over here, on a private visit and giving a speech at the Manchester Trade Hall (apols can't remember who it was) without involving anyone else.
Wow. Whilst I dislike Uber immensely, the taxi drivers' case seemed extraordinarily weak and protectionist.
I like Uber a lot. It is a monumentally stupid decision. Like banning Aldi, Lidl and all the other supermarkets but leaving Fortnums as the only place to buy groceries.
Fair point about both parties not recognising the need of the counterparty to sell the deal to their stakeholders. Both parties are guilty of this. The deal effectively is a load of cash and a limited UK extension of Freedom of Movement, which the EU27 want, against a time limited continued access to the EU system, which we want. The problem is that British people don't see why they should pay to partially retain the status quo. They don't realise that with their Leave vote they technically voted to break the treaties with the EU, which means the status quo is an extra that needs to be negotiated. These negotiations are burdened by the false premises that predicated our Leave vote.
Equally if the EU was upfront and said "this is a payment to retain the benefits of access to the Single Market" that would be a good reason. But they have presented it as a settlement of legal obligations.
It's not up to the EU side to make the argument to UK stakeholders. Our government should be doing that. As far as the EU is concerned this is money owing to them.
And we've asked them to explain why it is owing.
That's all. If they think a responsible government can write a cheque for that kind of money without justification then they are daft.
(and pedants, yes "write a cheque" is a turn of phrase. They will transfer the funds electronically)
In general, if I demand money from someone, they're entitled to know why it is due.
I tried to cover that point in my analogy. They are commitments collectively entered into but one party is removing itself from the enterprise. Is he liable for all, part, or none of those commitments? There is no hard and fast rule. On the whole you are likely to cover more if you value the ongoing relationship than if you don't. That doesn't stop the group thinking they are owed the full whack or the individual thinking, I'm out, why should I bother?
Wouldn't that money be better spent on our NHS? Why throw money at Brussels?
If we don't value a relationship with the EU, we will think that and crash out with no Article 50 arrangement. Article 50 is simply an opportunity to sort out some things before leave. Otherwise everything will be pushed back to afterwards.
Do you regret no longer living in the 'invincible green suburbs' of Brent North ?
It's instructive to compare Brent North and neighbouring Harrow East. By now, White British people are less than 30% in each seat. But one is Labour, and the other Conservative. the difference is that in Brent North, big houses have been split up into multi-occupation, whereas in Harrow East, owner occupation is the norm.
Affluent Indians living in North London can be very Right wing.
Affluent anyones living anywhere can be very Right wing.
(Apart from the champagne socialists, obvs)
Often not, actually; you have the other sort, which you allude to, who are so wealthy, diversified or protected they feel they can preach high principle and unfettered ideology safe in the knowledge it'll never really hit them where it hurts.
Do you regret no longer living in the 'invincible green suburbs' of Brent North ?
It's instructive to compare Brent North and neighbouring Harrow East. By now, White British people are less than 30% in each seat. But one is Labour, and the other Conservative. the difference is that in Brent North, big houses have been split up into multi-occupation, whereas in Harrow East, owner occupation is the norm.
Affluent Indians living in North London can be very Right wing.
Affluent anyones living anywhere can be very Right wing.
(Apart from the champagne socialists, obvs)
Often not, actually; you have the other sort, which you allude to, who are so wealthy, diversified or protected they feel they can preach high principle and unfettered ideology safe in the knowledge it'll never really hit them where it hurts.
Oh god yes - no doubt about that but on balance there are more wealthier people voting for the Cons than helping to save humanity by voting Jezza.
Personally, I think the values of the better-off are moving (socially, ethically, culturally) to the soft-left/internationalist/identity politics sphere but, those in the private sector will continue to vote Conservative for the time being for economic reasons.
There is a strange movement in the opposite direction amongst the working class.
It is not really strange though. Class/income as a predictor of voting behaviour has been declining at a reasonably steady rate for 50 years (at least). It is now a very weak indicator compared to age, education, location and ethnicity.
Comments
I hope I am wrong but if you were looking for an inspirational came changing speech, May is the plast person you would turn to. Winston, she is not!
That is why I have my reservations but we will soon see.
It really should not be about remain and leave fighting their corners now, we do need to coalesce around a position that most voters can accept and a two year transition is a good start.
It does seem to be the majority view that we have to get on with this as evidenced by some on here but it seemed the question time audience last night were of the same opinion.
Just as a side issue how does anyone think Corbyn could do a speech of this importance
I am sure Corbyn can read a teleprompter , the same as May can.Both are not natural orators.However you are blinkered whatever he does.
I do not want a self confessed Marxist in association with the unions running this Country.
" Today's Brexit speech by the UK prime minister must show clear commitment to pro-business policies recommended to government ministers or "irrevocable" relocation plans will have to begin, City executives have warned "
https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/city-outlines-wishlist-for-mays-brexit-speech-20170922
The fact that age and education are themselves correlated doesn't negate the findings. Of the two I recall age being the stronger, but education was nevertheless significant regardless of age. In a political context it is interesting that the correlation of Tory voting with age, which was always there, has grown stronger over recent years whereas the correlation with education (to some extent a proxy for class) has almost entirely disappeared.
"By 1985, Ebac had become the best selling dehumidifier in the UK and was exporting to most countries throughout Europe."
We are British
Fair enough - I get that your don't consider yourselves European. You are not alone in that; I suspect a majority (52%?) of the country feel the same. I know I won't change your mind and I am not really trying to. I was being a bit tongue in cheek when I pointed out that even if you don't feel European you do live in Europe.
I am, and feel, British too - I just happen to be and feel European and English at the same time
My wife and daughter have had recent DNA tests re their origins and they show that the family are entirely British with some small links to Scandinavia.
Dear god in heaven.... what is next? Will there be some PB poster trying to keep up by demonstrating their Aryan purity?
We are entitled to consider ourselves British - those who want to be seen as European are entitled to their view. And if you are having a pop at my families DNA my wife discovered she had a sister and brother she had no knowledge of. She was 73 when she found out and they decided to have a DNA ancestry test to help them understand their origins
It's not difficult - full face coverings in public spaces should be banned for security reasons. The hijab is perfectly sufficient to demonstrate modesty - as demonstrated by its use by most Muslim women. The burqa is not about religion - but separation and treating women as second class citizens.
It really should not be about remain and leave fighting their corners now, we do need to coalesce around a position that most voters can accept and a two year transition is a good start.
It does seem to be the majority view that we have to get on with this as evidenced by some on here but it seemed the question time audience last night were of the same opinion.
Just as a side issue how does anyone think Corbyn could do a speech of this importance
I am sure Corbyn can read a teleprompter , the same as May can.Both are not natural orators.However you are blinkered whatever he does.
I do not want a self confessed Marxist in association with the unions running this Country.
You may not want it but it's very likely to happen!
That's all. If they think a responsible government can write a cheque for that kind of money without justification then they are daft.
(and pedants, yes "write a cheque" is a turn of phrase. They will transfer the funds electronically)
are less than 30% in each seat. But one is Labour, and the other Conservative. the difference is that in Brent North, big houses have been split up into multi-occupation, whereas in Harrow East, owner occupation is the norm.
I am, and feel, British too - I just happen to be and feel European and English at the same time
Ben - we may not agree all the time but it is good to have a sensible discussion between ourselves with tolerance of views. It is something that is missing from some on here who are completely deaf to opposing arguments
'British' DNA. It's in the Daily Mail so must be right.
'The average Briton is only really 37 per cent British - with the remainder of their genes coming from European ancestors from as far afield as Scandinavia, Spain and Greece.
DNA testing has also revealed how the people of Yorkshire are officially the most British people in the land, with their genetic makeup containing an average 41 per cent Anglo-Saxon stock.
London, meanwhile, is the most ethnically diverse, while the people of Wales have the highest proportion of ancestry from Spain and Portugal.'
http://tinyurl.com/h4l2w7x
Their definition of 'British' originates with Germanic tribes from the 5th century. Ein volk etc.
I've no problem with such bans in certain circumstances - e.g. banning face coverings in banks. But a general ban seems to be about restricting people from doing something harmless with no reason other than some of us don't like it. And I feel that's wrong.
He's been one of the biggest disappointments to me - lots of potential but have underwhelmed massively in government
The EU has toxified the word European.
In Victorian times, although obviously racially charged, "European" was much more commonly used as shorthand to describe native and non-native populations in colonies.
'Why does 'some Scandinavian' not prevent DNA from being 'entirely British'?'
To be honest the Scandinavian connection is not surprising to Scotland with the long history of Vikings and Scotland but on the wider point my family have claim to England, Scotland and Wales and have always considered ourselves British, but never thought of ourselves as European.
That does not in anyway mean we do not want to get on with the Europeans anymore than the Kiwis, Aussies, Canadians etc
If it happens, it'll be managed by the Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, or YMCA for short.
Let people be, and wear, what they want, as long as they don't hurt people or cause problems.
I must admit, I have trouble with the above when it comes to full nudity. At least, if it's not mine.
Of course, they all live in London.
Two others are *still* voting Conservative, but one is rather internationalist and voted Remain, and the other struggled but voted Remain (just) because of Erasmus etc (he's a linguist) and then tried to convince himself if we stayed we could reform the EU (again) from the inside.
My closest three male friends from university - who were also members of my university Conservative association - have stayed staunchly on the Right, but they're very politically engaged, which is unusual.
When White Nationalists Get DNA Tests That Reveal African Ancestry
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/white-nationalists-dna-ancestry/537108/
I am having a pop at the idea of national purity via genetics and I should not really have to explain why...
I said, Yorkshireman, pick yourself off the ground
I said, Yorkshireman, 'cause you're in a new town
There's no need to be unhappy
Yorkshireman, there's a place you can go
I said, Yorkshireman, when you're short on your dough
You can stay there, and I'm sure you will find
Many ways to have a good time
It's fun to stay at the YMCA
It's fun to stay at the YMCA
They have everything for you men to enjoy
You can hang out with all the boys
It's fun to stay at the YMCA
It's fun to stay at the YMCA
You can get yourself clean, you can have a good meal
You can do what about you feel
Yorkshireman, are you listening to me?
I said, Yorkshireman, what do you want to be?
I said, Yorkshireman, you can make real your dreams
But you…
No man does it all by himself
I said, Yorkshireman, put your pride on the shelf
And just go there, to the YMCA
I'm sure they can help you today
It's fun to stay at the YMCA
It's fun to stay at the YMCA
They have everything for you men to enjoy
You can hang out with all the boys
It's fun to stay at the YMCA
It's fun to stay at the YMCA
You can get yourself clean, you can have a good meal
You can do what about you feel
Yorkshireman, I was once in your shoes
I said, I was down and out with the blues
I felt no man cared if I were alive
I felt the whole world was so tight
That's when someone came up to me
And said, Yorkshireman, take a walk up the street
There's a place there called the YMCA
They can start you back on your way
It's fun to stay at the YMCA
It's fun to stay at the YMCA
They have everything for you men to enjoy
You can hang out with all the boys
YMCA you'll find it at the YMCA
Yorkshireman, Yorkshireman, there's no need to feel down
Yorkshireman, Yorkshireman, pick yourself off the ground
YMCA, it's fun to stay at the YMCA
Yorkshireman, Yorkshireman, are you listening to me
Yorkshireman, Yorkshireman, what do you wanna be?
YMCA, you'll find it YMCA
No man, Yorkshireman, does it all by himself
Yorkshireman, Yorkshireman, put your pride on the shelf
YMCA, and just go to the YMCA
Yorkshireman, Yorkshireman I was once in your shoes
Yorkshireman, Yorkshireman I was down with the blues, YMCA
http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-government-protocol-florence-speech/
In a striking departure from the customary protocol surrounding a visit by a head of government, May has no official host in Florence, where she will give a speech that the prime minister’s office has billed as a milestone in the Brexit process.
The unusual arrangements around the speech only serve to highlight the oddness of the event itself — a head of government giving a major speech in a foreign country outside of any international forum and without the high-level involvement of the host country’s government.
A senior official in the Florence city administration said although the British government had been in touch with the mayor’s office, they did not follow usual diplomatic norms and had not included city officials in setting up the logistics of the venue.
I am well aware there of different sorts of science, and Chemistry is absolutely the right degree to understand the issues of CFCs and the ozone layer, as well as AGW more broadly.
She was well-versed in the scientific method, and the need for it to be evidence based.
"It is the Will of Allah (SWT) that we are all born stark, raving naked!"
So we (hopefully, and I believe will) agree a destination of comprehensive FTA with a strict two year transition deal. So we Brexit in 2019, start desultory talks on the FTA and immediately the question is what happens at the end of the two year transition. We won't be any nearer to having our FTA in place and there will be continued uncertainty about third party arrangements. Do we really want to crash out to WTO only to partially reconstruct things later. In any case the Canada model is pretty crap compared with the level of integration we had before. So I think pressure will build up for a Norway type deal, just to get some kind of stability. The problem with that is that the UK isn't Norway. We are not prepared to outsource our external relations to a third party. So my central prediction is that we end up with a massively compromised Brexit. Unless as William has consistently argued, we decide, why are we doing this? We are better off in the EU.
Either way this is going to run and run, pace Mr Eagles' headline, The War Without End.
(Apart from the champagne socialists, obvs)
But also puts lots of pressure on her to strike the right tone and impress.
As I have said before, let's wait and see
I don't buy the "whatabouttery" arguments about Balaclavas.
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/911165792821170176
She's PM ffs how's she getting there, Ryanair?
As someone noted earlier this morning it would be like Angela Merkel coming over here, on a private visit and giving a speech at the Manchester Trade Hall (apols can't remember who it was) without involving anyone else.
There is a strange movement in the opposite direction amongst the working class.
And yet (UNLIKE Trump), Theresa won the popular vote!
No more ubers??
I always liked William McIlvaney's 'Never forget that we are the bastard people of a mongrel nation' as a starting point.
Let's criminalise activities that hurt people, not harmless lifestyle choices.
I find burkhas distasteful. But the fact that I find them distasteful does not mean they should be criminalised.
Then there are the side evils of such legislation, in that it disenfranchises many women.
But did she get the booking wrong? The EEC was set up by the Treaty of Rome.
https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/911171056286695426
Regulation should never seek to protect the (or a) producer, only the consumer.
Banning Uber is a great boon to private hire firms and black cab drivers. It is clearly a disaster for consumers.