So have a think about if you erect barriers to trade between two regions that have free trade, that are at the same level of development, why would one suffer more than the other?
I think if the two areas have different sized populations?
Have a think about who is a net importer and who is a next exporter. Think what happened in the 30's when trade barriers were erected.
I was in work til 9:30 and I'm in a train surrounded by noisy drunks. My capacity for cogent thought is diminished.
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
To take an actuarial position:
Elderly Remainers live longer than elderly Leavers. There is a considerable SE class tilt to Remain, and quite a marked higher SE class bias to longevity, often 10 or more years.
The trend is therefore for the percentage of Remainers to increase in this age range even above the raw mortality.
Most South East constituencies voted Leave even if London voted Remain
True, but nothing to do with my point. Demography is trending Remain.
If demography foretold political allegiance we would not now have a Tory government as the last time the Tories won the 18 to 24 vote was 1983
If demography didn't change political opinion then we would still have homophobic laws. The Tories are not successful because every 18 to 24 year old ends up with the same views older people had when they were young. The Tories are successful because they changed their political opinions to fit the opinions of those 18-24 year old people as they became the older sections of the electorate.
So, given Corbz hasn't demonstrated any capacity for changing his opinions since the 80s, what hope do you think his Labour party has of winning?
Corbz is lucky, or unlucky perhaps, in that many of his views, such as LGBT rights, anti nuclear weapons etc. were ahead of their time. His problem seemed to be waiting for society to catch up.
So racist Poland is now our supporter. The Swedish FM wants a second vote.
I wonder if FoM is back if Poland is supporting the UK government position.
Forgive me, I've only just started reading today, but the Poles are proposing the end to free movement. They want to tax 'exiting' individuals and businesses.
They are also against freedom of movement for recent arrivals into the EU.
Soon to be joined by Orban's Hungary and Salvini's Italy no doubt
A lot of Eastern European nations have seen massive population reductions due to free movement. The scale of it in places like Bulgaria, Romania and Latvia has been dramatic.
While it may have seemed like a nice idea to export your young people en masse to northern and Western Europe maybe its not desirable for the long term future of your own nation.
What could possibly go wrong with emptying out your nation of the best and brightest tax payers, leaving the sick and old behind?
It didn't seem to hold Ireland back in the late 20th Century.
Indeed there is considerable evidence that the diaspora often returns with new skills to set up new industries.
Ireland didn't have net emigration in the late 20th century.
Not sure what figures you are basing that on. In the 1950's ROI lost 15% of its population to migration, and net migration remained the rule for most of the rest of the century, with only a few years where this was not the case. There was a big outflow in the eighties too. The shift to inward migration came in 1995, and much of that was Irish diaspora returning home to a booming economy, at least until the GFC.
So have a think about if you erect barriers to trade between two regions that have free trade, that are at the same level of development, why would one suffer more than the other?
I think if the two areas have different sized populations?
Have a think about who is a net importer and who is a next exporter. Think what happened in the 30's when trade barriers were erected.
I was in work til 9:30 and I'm in a train surrounded by noisy drunks. My capacity for cogent thought is diminished.
I don’t agree with you that Brexit is a harmful policy; but just playing along for a second, if you’re going to persue a policy that some consider negative, wouldn’t you rather have the backing of your people?
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
To take an actuarial position:
Elderly Remainers live longer than elderly Leavers. There is a considerable SE class tilt to Remain, and quite a marked higher SE class bias to longevity, often 10 or more years.
The trend is therefore for the percentage of Remainers to increase in this age range even above the raw mortality.
Most South East constituencies voted Leave even if London voted Remain
True, but nothing to do with my point. Demography is trending Remain.
If demography foretold political allegiance we would not now have a Tory government as the last time the Tories won the 18 to 24 vote was 1983
Party voting for economic reasons may well change with age, but the same may well not apply to cultural issues like Brexitism.
The easy way to resolve t is a #peoplesvote of course, which even a third of Tory voters support.
In what way was EURef NOT a People's Vote?
Exactly. What bollocks the naming of “people’s vote” is.
I don’t agree with you that Brexit is a harmful policy; but just playing along for a second, if you’re going to persue a policy that some consider negative, wouldn’t you rather have the backing of your people?
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
To take an actuarial position:
Elderly Remainers live longer than elderly Leavers. There is a considerable SE class tilt to Remain, and quite a marked higher SE class bias to longevity, often 10 or more years.
The trend is therefore for the percentage of Remainers to increase in this age range even above the raw mortality.
Most South East constituencies voted Leave even if London voted Remain
True, but nothing to do with my point. Demography is trending Remain.
If demography foretold political allegiance we would not now have a Tory government as the last time the Tories won the 18 to 24 vote was 1983
If demography didn't change political opinion then we would still have homophobic laws. The Tories are not successful because every 18 to 24 year old ends up with the same views older people had when they were young. The Tories are successful because they changed their political opinions to fit the opinions of those 18-24 year old people as they became the older sections of the electorate.
Homosexuality was legal even in 1983. However voters always get more conservative when they get older and more willing to resist change for its own sake, for example the only time Labour have won the pensioner vote in the last 35 years was 1997 and the only time the Tories have won the youth vote in the last 35 years was 1983, both elections such big landslide wins of well over 100 seat majorities they swept all age groups across the board
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
To take an actuarial position:
Elderly Remainers live longer than elderly Leavers. There is a considerable SE class tilt to Remain, and quite a marked higher SE class bias to longevity, often 10 or more years.
The trend is therefore for the percentage of Remainers to increase in this age range even above the raw mortality.
Most South East constituencies voted Leave even if London voted Remain
True, but nothing to do with my point. Demography is trending Remain.
If demography foretold political allegiance we would not now have a Tory government as the last time the Tories won the 18 to 24 vote was 1983
#peoplesvote of course, which even a third of Tory voters support.
How is it an easy resolution?
Think about the possible outcomes:
1) Leave wins again. Nothing has changed except more time has been wasted. What is to stop anti-democrats demanding another? 2) Remain wins. Which referendum decision is followed? There will be as many, if not more, disgruntled by a flagrant lack of respect for the first referendum.
It resolves nothing.
It resolves the question of whether Remainers outnumber Leavers.
I don’t agree with you that Brexit is a harmful policy; but just playing along for a second, if you’re going to persue a policy that some consider negative, wouldn’t you rather have the backing of your people?
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
To take an actuarial position:
Elderly Remainers live longer than elderly Leavers. There is a considerable SE class tilt to Remain, and quite a marked higher SE class bias to longevity, often 10 or more years.
The trend is therefore for the percentage of Remainers to increase in this age range even above the raw mortality.
Most South East constituencies voted Leave even if London voted Remain
True, but nothing to do with my point. Demography is trending Remain.
If demography foretold political allegiance we would not now have a Tory government as the last time the Tories won the 18 to 24 vote was 1983
Party voting for economic reasons may well change with age, but the same may well not apply to cultural issues like Brexitism.
The easy way to resolve t is a #peoplesvote of course, which even a third of Tory voters support.
In what way was EURef NOT a People's Vote?
Exactly. What bollocks the naming of “people’s vote” is.
I don’t agree with you that Brexit is a harmful policy; but just playing along for a second, if you’re going to persue a policy that some consider negative, wouldn’t you rather have the backing of your people?
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
To take an actuarial position:
Elderly Remainers live longer than elderly Leavers. There is a considerable SE class tilt to Remain, and quite a marked higher SE class bias to longevity, often 10 or more years.
The trend is therefore for the percentage of Remainers to increase in this age range even above the raw mortality.
Most South East constituencies voted Leave even if London voted Remain
True, but nothing to do with my point. Demography is trending Remain.
If demography foretold political allegiance we would not now have a Tory government as the last time the Tories won the 18 to 24 vote was 1983
Party voting for economic reasons may well change with age, but the same may well not apply to cultural issues like Brexitism.
The easy way to resolve t is a #peoplesvote of course, which even a third of Tory voters support.
The simple fact on demographics is that the more exposed to the EU you have been in your life the more anti EU you are. From the polls I believe the cut off was a few years under 40. It does not matter that the OAP's are dying off because the Eurosceptic base is constantly being refilled as more people experience the EU through life. Or why have all those enthusiastic EEC voters in 1973 when they were young now voted out.
Back in the 197'0s, the pro-EU leading team was made up of people from all political parties and none.
This time,the Remain campaign was headed by the leaders of the Tory Government - so naturally people voted against them.
Cameron and Osborne were singularly inept - they brought about their own downfall.
Nothing to do with the age of the voters, in my opinion.
True, but nothing to do with my point. Demography is trending Remain.
If demography foretold political allegiance we would not now have a Tory government as the last time the Tories won the 18 to 24 vote was 1983
If demography didn't change political opinion then we would still have homophobic laws. The Tories are not successful because every 18 to 24 year old ends up with the same views older people had when they were young. The Tories are successful because they changed their political opinions to fit the opinions of those 18-24 year old people as they became the older sections of the electorate.
Homosexuality was legal even in 1983. However voters always get more conservative when they get older and more willing to resist change for its own sake, for example the only time Labour have won the pensioner vote in the last 35 years was 1997 and the only time the Tories have won the youth vote in the last 35 years was 1983
I am not stating that all the things that led remain voters to vote remain will exist for the entirety of their lives, these young (18-24) remain voters will have their views evolve over time.
What I am doing is completely dismissing this idea that the 18-24 year olds inevitably end up with the same views of older people now as they get older. It is not exactly what you were stating (although it is in the ballpark) but the theme is popular among a few people on here.
Previous 18-24 year old Labour voters did not become the pensioner Tory voters that were around when they were younger, they became Tory pensioners with a different set of views. To compare the views of Tory pensioners on homosexuality in 1983 compared to Tory pensioners today would see a big contrast I'm sure. This isn't to say there might have been some drift in the current Tory pensioners views as they aged but they certainly didn't adopt the views of the older generation wholesale, many of the views they had when they were younger which were a rejection of older people's views (less negative towards homosexuality being an obvious one) are things they hung onto and as a result the inevitable churn of demography did change Britain as a country.
The simple fact on demographics is that the more exposed to the EU you have been in your life the more anti EU you are. From the polls I believe the cut off was a few years under 40. It does not matter that the OAP's are dying off because the Eurosceptic base is constantly being refilled as more people experience the EU through life. Or why have all those enthusiastic EEC voters in 1973 when they were young now voted out.
Back in the 197'0s, the pro-EU leading team was made up of people from all political parties and none.
This time,the Remain campaign was headed by the leaders of the Tory Government - so naturally people voted against them.
Cameron and Osborne were singularly inept - they brought about their own downfall.
Nothing to do with the age of the voters, in my opinion.
People use referendums to kick the government of the day, and this time there is a government of Leavers. The temptation to kick them up the arse is irresistable.
The simple fact on demographics is that the more exposed to the EU you have been in your life the more anti EU you are. From the polls I believe the cut off was a few years under 40. It does not matter that the OAP's are dying off because the Eurosceptic base is constantly being refilled as more people experience the EU through life. Or why have all those enthusiastic EEC voters in 1973 when they were young now voted out.
Back in the 197'0s, the pro-EU leading team was made up of people from all political parties and none.
This time,the Remain campaign was headed by the leaders of the Tory Government - so naturally people voted against them.
Cameron and Osborne were singularly inept - they brought about their own downfall.
Nothing to do with the age of the voters, in my opinion.
I disagree with the term "singularly." Cameron and Osborne got a hospital pass from BSIE. The board Mandelson, Sainsbury, Green and Alexander, plus Straw and Coetzee had messed it up so much, that Cammo and Osbo had no chance of saving the dire situation.
True, but nothing to do with my point. Demography is trending Remain.
If demography foretold political allegiance we would not now have a Tory government as the last time the Tories won the 18 to 24 vote was 1983
If demography didn't change political opinion then we would still have homophobic laws. The Tories are not successful because every 18 to 24 year old ends up with the same views older people had when they were young. The Tories are successful because they changed their political opinions to fit the opinions of those 18-24 year old people as they became the older sections of the electorate.
Homosexuality was legal even in 1983. However voters always get more conservative when they get older and more willing to resist change for its own sake, for example the only time Labour have won the pensioner vote in the last 35 years was 1997 and the only time the Tories have won the youth vote in the last 35 years was 1983
I am not stating that all the things that led remain voters to vote remain will exist for the entirety of their lives, these young (18-24) remain voters will have their views evolve over time.
What I am doing is completely dismissing this idea that the 18-24 year olds inevitably end up with the same views of older people now as they get older. It is not exactly what you were stating (although it is in the ballpark) but the theme is popular among a few people on here.
Previous 18-24 year old Labour voters did not become the pensioner Tory voters that were around when they were younger, they became Tory pensioners with a different set of views. To compare the views of Tory pensioners on homosexuality in 1983 compared to Tory pensioners today would see a big contrast I'm sure. This isn't to say there might have been some drift in the current Tory pensioners views as they aged but they certainly didn't adopt the views of the older generation wholesale, many of the views they had when they were younger which were a rejection of older people's views (less negative towards homosexuality being an obvious one) are things they hung onto and as a result the inevitable churn of demography did change Britain as a country.
Even now the group least supportive of gay marriage is pensioners
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
To take an actuarial position:
Elderly Remainers live longer than elderly Leavers. There is a considerable SE class tilt to Remain, and quite a marked higher SE class bias to longevity, often 10 or more years.
The trend is therefore for the percentage of Remainers to increase in this age range even above the raw mortality.
Most South East constituencies voted Leave even if London voted Remain
True, but nothing to do with my point. Demography is trending Remain.
If demography foretold political allegiance we would not now have a Tory government as the last time the Tories won the 18 to 24 vote was 1983
Party voting for economic reasons may well change with age, but the same may well not apply to cultural issues like Brexitism.
The easy way to resolve t is a #peoplesvote of course, which even a third of Tory voters support.
In what way was EURef NOT a People's Vote?
Exactly. What bollocks the naming of “people’s vote” is.
Who voted last time? Giraffes?
People, and people can vote again
Perhaps we should start with referenda on the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon.
And if any of those are opposed reverse the EU back to what it was beforehand.
If demography didn't change political opinion then we would still have homophobic laws. The Tories are not successful because every 18 to 24 year old ends up with the same views older people had when they were young. The Tories are successful because they changed their political opinions to fit the opinions of those 18-24 year old people as they became the older sections of the electorate.
Homosexuality was legal even in 1983. However voters always get more conservative when they get older and more willing to resist change for its own sake, for example the only time Labour have won the pensioner vote in the last 35 years was 1997 and the only time the Tories have won the youth vote in the last 35 years was 1983
I am not stating that all the things that led remain voters to vote remain will exist for the entirety of their lives, these young (18-24) remain voters will have their views evolve over time.
What I am doing is completely dismissing this idea that the 18-24 year olds inevitably end up with the same views of older people now as they get older. It is not exactly what you were stating (although it is in the ballpark) but the theme is popular among a few people on here.
Previous 18-24 year old Labour voters did not become the pensioner Tory voters that were around when they were younger, they became Tory pensioners with a different set of views. To compare the views of Tory pensioners on homosexuality in 1983 compared to Tory pensioners today would see a big contrast I'm sure. This isn't to say there might have been some drift in the current Tory pensioners views as they aged but they certainly didn't adopt the views of the older generation wholesale, many of the views they had when they were younger which were a rejection of older people's views (less negative towards homosexuality being an obvious one) are things they hung onto and as a result the inevitable churn of demography did change Britain as a country.
Even now the group least supportive of gay marriage is pensioners
And I imagine the trend has been relentlessly more in favour of gay marriage as demographics shift the people in the group to those born more recently and away from those in the more distant past.
The people who claim the EU wants to erect a hard border in Ireland and Britain doesn't want have got it backwards. The hard border issue only arises because the UK government potentially wants to diverge from the EU and prioritizes that divergence over a soft border in Ireland. You can debate which is better. Nevertheless the hard border is the consequence of the UK's desire to diverge.
I'd be very surprised if the UK would refuse to recognise EU standards.
It is the EU worrying about what comes in that drives the EU desire for a hard border.
Then we commit to the single market, customs union, single regulatory framework and common VAT area and the hard NI border goes away.
I'm so disappointed about CrossRail. I really thought it would be delivered on time. Doesn't bode well for HS2.
Re HS2, being delivered on time pales into insignificance compared to the risk of not being delivered on budget. Now that the tetchy matter of parliamentary approval is out of the way, it's already breached the £100bn barrier.
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
Maybe they don't want a FTA that badly. They know the UK wants one badly.
The UK will be the EU's largest export market post Brexit
The UK will still buy EU produce regardless of any deal. I am not so confident about UK exports.
Will it? There are plenty of Australian, South African even English wines now to choose from, Japanese cars etc
If there's no deal, I will actively seek out alternatives to European goods, natch.
The people who claim the EU wants to erect a hard border in Ireland and Britain doesn't want have got it backwards. The hard border issue only arises because the UK government potentially wants to diverge from the EU and prioritizes that divergence over a soft border in Ireland. You can debate which is better. Nevertheless the hard border is the consequence of the UK's desire to diverge.
I'd be very surprised if the UK would refuse to recognise EU standards.
It is the EU worrying about what comes in that drives the EU desire for a hard border.
Then we commit to the single market, customs union, single regulatory framework and common VAT area and the hard NI border goes away.
Staying in the single market for goods as May has proposed effectively resolves the NI border issue
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
Maybe they don't want a FTA that badly. They know the UK wants one badly.
The UK will be the EU's largest export market post Brexit
The UK will still buy EU produce regardless of any deal. I am not so confident about UK exports.
Will it? There are plenty of Australian, South African even English wines now to choose from, Japanese cars etc
If there's no deal, I will actively seek out alternatives to European goods, natch.
The people who claim the EU wants to erect a hard border in Ireland and Britain doesn't want have got it backwards. The hard border issue only arises because the UK government potentially wants to diverge from the EU and prioritizes that divergence over a soft border in Ireland. You can debate which is better. Nevertheless the hard border is the consequence of the UK's desire to diverge.
I'd be very surprised if the UK would refuse to recognise EU standards.
It is the EU worrying about what comes in that drives the EU desire for a hard border.
Then we commit to the single market, customs union, single regulatory framework and common VAT area and the hard NI border goes away.
Staying in the single market for goods as May has proposed effectively resolves the NI border issue
The people who claim the EU wants to erect a hard border in Ireland and Britain doesn't want have got it backwards. The hard border issue only arises because the UK government potentially wants to diverge from the EU and prioritizes that divergence over a soft border in Ireland. You can debate which is better. Nevertheless the hard border is the consequence of the UK's desire to diverge.
I'd be very surprised if the UK would refuse to recognise EU standards.
It is the EU worrying about what comes in that drives the EU desire for a hard border.
Then we commit to the single market, customs union, single regulatory framework and common VAT area and the hard NI border goes away.
Not going to happen. So the EU’s Irish bluff is going to be called.
The people who claim the EU wants to erect a hard border in Ireland and Britain doesn't want have got it backwards. The hard border issue only arises because the UK government potentially wants to diverge from the EU and prioritizes that divergence over a soft border in Ireland. You can debate which is better. Nevertheless the hard border is the consequence of the UK's desire to diverge.
I'd be very surprised if the UK would refuse to recognise EU standards.
It is the EU worrying about what comes in that drives the EU desire for a hard border.
Then we commit to the single market, customs union, single regulatory framework and common VAT area and the hard NI border goes away.
Staying in the single market for goods as May has proposed effectively resolves the NI border issue
It’s a necessary but not sufficient condition.
In your view nothing will be a sufficient condition bar reversing Brexit
In regards to a people's vote, or more specifically calling it a people's vote rather than a 2nd referendum. Why do people get so annoyed with it?
It clearly is a 2nd referendum but with a different name, they gave it the different name (I'm sure I read) because polling showed a people's vote polled better than a 2nd referendum. So of course they are going to use that wording, the vast majority of people in their position would do exactly the same thing.
If you want to make clear that it isn't actually different from a 2nd referendum that is fine, I agree completely. If people want to push the idea that the first vote was also a people's vote, which it was just as much as this 2nd one would be, that is also fine, I agree completely. Beyond that though you may as well complain about politics in general. It is obvious why they are doing it and most would do the same.
"Cassian Harrison, the editor of BBC Four, told the Edinburgh International Television Festival last week that no one wants to watch white men explaining stuff on TV any more. ‘There’s a mode of programming that involves a presenter, usually white, middle-aged and male, standing on a hill and “telling you like it is”,’ he said. ‘We all recognise the era of that has passed.’"
In regards to a people's vote, or more specifically calling it a people's vote rather than a 2nd referendum. Why do people get so annoyed with it?
It clearly is a 2nd referendum but with a different name, they gave it the different name (I'm sure I read) because polling showed a people's vote polled better than a 2nd referendum. So of course they are going to use that wording, the vast majority of people in their position would do exactly the same thing.
If you want to make clear that it isn't actually different from a 2nd referendum that is fine, I agree completely. If people want to push the idea that the first vote was also a people's vote, which it was just as much as this 2nd one would be, that is also fine, I agree completely. Beyond that though you may as well complain about politics in general. It is obvious why they are doing it and most would do the same.
3rd referendum. The last one was the 2nd referendum.
Celebrity Big Brother has sparked more than 11,000 complaints to media regulator Ofcom following allegations of an altercation between two former soap actors taking part in the show.
As regular PBers will know, I pride myself in my close interest in popular culture, but I have to confess this one had passed me by. I'm still struggling to comprehend how there can be eleven thousand people so incensed as to make a complaint to Ofcom about almost anything, let alone something on Celebrity Big Brother. Kudos to the producers, though,
In regards to a people's vote, or more specifically calling it a people's vote rather than a 2nd referendum. Why do people get so annoyed with it?
It clearly is a 2nd referendum but with a different name, they gave it the different name (I'm sure I read) because polling showed a people's vote polled better than a 2nd referendum. So of course they are going to use that wording, the vast majority of people in their position would do exactly the same thing.
If you want to make clear that it isn't actually different from a 2nd referendum that is fine, I agree completely. If people want to push the idea that the first vote was also a people's vote, which it was just as much as this 2nd one would be, that is also fine, I agree completely. Beyond that though you may as well complain about politics in general. It is obvious why they are doing it and most would do the same.
3rd referendum. The last one was the 2nd referendum.
I did think about mentioning that but the post was getting confused enough as it was, my guess is it is referred to as a 2nd referendum as we would be making the decision again quite quickly and/or because we would be making the same decision again. The previous (1st) referendum was for a slightly different thing IMO.
It would of course be the 3rd referendum related to our relationship in Europe.
Celebrity Big Brother has sparked more than 11,000 complaints to media regulator Ofcom following allegations of an altercation between two former soap actors taking part in the show.
As regular PBers will know, I pride myself in my close interest in popular culture, but I have to confess this one had passed me by. I'm still struggling to comprehend how there can be eleven thousand people so incensed as to make a complaint to Ofcom about almost anything, let alone something on Celebrity Big Brother. Kudos to the producers, though,
I thought the whole idea was for the 'celebrities' to have altercations.
Celebrity Big Brother has sparked more than 11,000 complaints to media regulator Ofcom following allegations of an altercation between two former soap actors taking part in the show.
As regular PBers will know, I pride myself in my close interest in popular culture, but I have to confess this one had passed me by. I'm still struggling to comprehend how there can be eleven thousand people so incensed as to make a complaint to Ofcom about almost anything, let alone something on Celebrity Big Brother. Kudos to the producers, though,
I thought the whole idea was for the 'celebrities' to have altercations.
Yeah, and sex, and rows and emotional reconciliations. Surely the viewers should complain if they don't get that? What do they want, celebrities knitting in front of the TV and making cups of Horlicks for each other?
Celebrity Big Brother has sparked more than 11,000 complaints to media regulator Ofcom following allegations of an altercation between two former soap actors taking part in the show.
As regular PBers will know, I pride myself in my close interest in popular culture, but I have to confess this one had passed me by. I'm still struggling to comprehend how there can be eleven thousand people so incensed as to make a complaint to Ofcom about almost anything, let alone something on Celebrity Big Brother. Kudos to the producers, though,
I thought the whole idea was for the 'celebrities' to have altercations.
Yeah, and sex, and rows and emotional reconciliations. Surely the viewers should complain if they don't get that? What do they want, celebrities knitting in front of the TV and making cups of Horlicks for each other?
Corbz is lucky, or unlucky perhaps, in that many of his views, such as LGBT rights, anti nuclear weapons etc. were ahead of their time. His problem seemed to be waiting for society to catch up.
I can't let that one go. You cannot be a champion of LGBT+ rights and at the same time cosy up to regimes that actively seek the destruction of LGBT+ people. He isn't seeking to bring about change - he is just propping them up.
And even within his own Front Bench, he actively supported a Welsh MP who was deeply homophobic towards one of her staff. And this was in the past few weeks - not years ago. This is his current thinking.
He is no friend of the LGBT+ community. No friend at all.
Celebrity Big Brother has sparked more than 11,000 complaints to media regulator Ofcom following allegations of an altercation between two former soap actors taking part in the show.
As regular PBers will know, I pride myself in my close interest in popular culture, but I have to confess this one had passed me by. I'm still struggling to comprehend how there can be eleven thousand people so incensed as to make a complaint to Ofcom about almost anything, let alone something on Celebrity Big Brother. Kudos to the producers, though,
I thought the whole idea was for the 'celebrities' to have altercations.
Allegedly it was not really an 'altercation' but a stitch up of Ryan Thomas by Roxanne Pallett as he is close to her ex (forget Brexit, this is what most under 35s are discussing tonight)
"Cassian Harrison, the editor of BBC Four, told the Edinburgh International Television Festival last week that no one wants to watch white men explaining stuff on TV any more. ‘There’s a mode of programming that involves a presenter, usually white, middle-aged and male, standing on a hill and “telling you like it is”,’ he said. ‘We all recognise the era of that has passed.’"
"Cassian Harrison, the editor of BBC Four, told the Edinburgh International Television Festival last week that no one wants to watch white men explaining stuff on TV any more. ‘There’s a mode of programming that involves a presenter, usually white, middle-aged and male, standing on a hill and “telling you like it is”,’ he said. ‘We all recognise the era of that has passed.’"
"Cassian Harrison, the editor of BBC Four, told the Edinburgh International Television Festival last week that no one wants to watch white men explaining stuff on TV any more. ‘There’s a mode of programming that involves a presenter, usually white, middle-aged and male, standing on a hill and “telling you like it is”,’ he said. ‘We all recognise the era of that has passed.’"
Off topic... could Beto O'Rourke beat Ted Cruz in Texas? Cruz has terrible favourables, Beto seems like a very likable candidate, and the voters seem keen to give the Republicans a kicking.
It would be an extraordinary Senate election if the Dems lost Florida and gained Texas.
"Cassian Harrison, the editor of BBC Four, told the Edinburgh International Television Festival last week that no one wants to watch white men explaining stuff on TV any more. ‘There’s a mode of programming that involves a presenter, usually white, middle-aged and male, standing on a hill and “telling you like it is”,’ he said. ‘We all recognise the era of that has passed.’"
In regards to a people's vote, or more specifically calling it a people's vote rather than a 2nd referendum. Why do people get so annoyed with it?
It clearly is a 2nd referendum but with a different name, they gave it the different name (I'm sure I read) because polling showed a people's vote polled better than a 2nd referendum. So of course they are going to use that wording, the vast majority of people in their position would do exactly the same thing.
If you want to make clear that it isn't actually different from a 2nd referendum that is fine, I agree completely. If people want to push the idea that the first vote was also a people's vote, which it was just as much as this 2nd one would be, that is also fine, I agree completely. Beyond that though you may as well complain about politics in general. It is obvious why they are doing it and most would do the same.
3rd referendum. The last one was the 2nd referendum.
We had the democratic decency to wait 41 years between those two referendums - of course we never voted to remain in the European Union in 1975 but in the Common Market which was a totally different entity.
I am happy to have a people's vote on rejoining. How about June 2057?
"Cassian Harrison, the editor of BBC Four, told the Edinburgh International Television Festival last week that no one wants to watch white men explaining stuff on TV any more. ‘There’s a mode of programming that involves a presenter, usually white, middle-aged and male, standing on a hill and “telling you like it is”,’ he said. ‘We all recognise the era of that has passed.’"
Sounds like with that level of critical thinking, he is well worth his £170k+ a year. He is the very epitome of white, male and stale.
Time for him to step down surely.
There's only one Cassian Harrison, there's only one Cassian Harrison - please god that's true. He surely lives in Islington.
Does the editor of BBC4 - a channel which hardly anyone watches - really deserve to be paid £170K?
Perhaps we need to end the era of white middle class editors at the BBC and start by sacking him? Or does he mean other white men should lose their jobs at the BBC but not of course him!
Off topic... could Beto O'Rourke beat Ted Cruz in Texas? Cruz has terrible favourables, Beto seems like a very likable candidate, and the voters seem keen to give the Republicans a kicking.
It would be an extraordinary Senate election if the Dems lost Florida and gained Texas.
Florida is Trump country, the state which saw his first big gain of an Obama state on the last presidential election night and home of Mar a Lago, the winter White House, Texas swung towards the Democrats in 2016 against the national trend and has a growing Hispanic population
I'm so disappointed about CrossRail. I really thought it would be delivered on time. Doesn't bode well for HS2.
Re HS2, being delivered on time pales into insignificance compared to the risk of not being delivered on budget. Now that the tetchy matter of parliamentary approval is out of the way, it's already breached the £100bn barrier.
In 2010 the Crossrail budget was £15.9 billion but the Coalition government and Boris agreed savings to cut it to £14.8 billion. It's now forecast to cost £15.4 billion.
So it's still forecast to cost £500m less than the original budget even with the current projected £600m overspend against the revised lower budget!
In hindsight maybe it would have been better not to publicly announce the original change to the budget - so they could at least say not on time but below budget!
Off topic... could Beto O'Rourke beat Ted Cruz in Texas? Cruz has terrible favourables, Beto seems like a very likable candidate, and the voters seem keen to give the Republicans a kicking.
It would be an extraordinary Senate election if the Dems lost Florida and gained Texas.
“Democrats in Texas have been losing statewide elections for Senate for 30 years,” he said. “So you can keep doing the same things, talk to the same consultants, run the same polls, focus-group drive the message. Or you can run like you’ve got nothing to lose. That’s what my wife, Amy, and I decided at the outset. What do we have to lose? Let’s do this the right way, the way that feels good to us. We don’t have a pollster. Let’s talk about the things that are important to us, regardless of how they poll. Let’s not even know how they poll.”
Off topic... could Beto O'Rourke beat Ted Cruz in Texas? Cruz has terrible favourables, Beto seems like a very likable candidate, and the voters seem keen to give the Republicans a kicking.
It would be an extraordinary Senate election if the Dems lost Florida and gained Texas.
“Democrats in Texas have been losing statewide elections for Senate for 30 years,” he said. “So you can keep doing the same things, talk to the same consultants, run the same polls, focus-group drive the message. Or you can run like you’ve got nothing to lose. That’s what my wife, Amy, and I decided at the outset. What do we have to lose? Let’s do this the right way, the way that feels good to us. We don’t have a pollster. Let’s talk about the things that are important to us, regardless of how they poll. Let’s not even know how they poll.”
Corbz is lucky, or unlucky perhaps, in that many of his views, such as LGBT rights, anti nuclear weapons etc. were ahead of their time. His problem seemed to be waiting for society to catch up.
I can't let that one go. You cannot be a champion of LGBT+ rights and at the same time cosy up to regimes that actively seek the destruction of LGBT+ people. He isn't seeking to bring about change - he is just propping them up.
And even within his own Front Bench, he actively supported a Welsh MP who was deeply homophobic towards one of her staff. And this was in the past few weeks - not years ago. This is his current thinking.
He is no friend of the LGBT+ community. No friend at all.
I'm not sure if you believe this yourself or write it in the hope that somebody else does, without wishing to be too disrespectful that is nonsense.
Corbyn (and of course other people in politics) supported gay rights when it wasn't the standard positive PR position it is today, it was society that caught up with people with his views. I imagine many politicians now are supportive of gay rights but any sensible one that wasn't would keep their mouth shut. I'm sure this angle makes Tory voters happy but it just doesn't really work for people who don't already dislike Corbyn.
The angle of Hamas (or other Palestinians) are homophobic in relation to the Israeli-Palestine struggle gets pushed in different ways, this incarnation seems to involve Corbyn must hate gay people (or at least not care for gay rights) because he has met with various Palestinians and supports the Palestinian cause. The problem with this is if we take the example of apartheid South Africa then more homophobia on the part of the oppressed non whites would not in any way justify apartheid or take away from those campaigning to end it.
Those who really do want LGBT+ rights in Palestine have to want the Palestinians to have a viable state, insisting on bombing and starving the Palestinians into submission whilst simultaneously expecting them to adopt modern LGBT+ values even Western societies didn't have a few decades ago is insane. The simplest and most likely way to get Palestinian society to evolve to the point where it is more accepting of LGBT+ rights is to not to force them to have a society based on survival and fighting back. That is not a society where liberal social values will flourish. I suspect though that it is largely a stick to beat them with and justify the oppression.
Corbz is lucky, or unlucky perhaps, in that many of his views, such as LGBT rights, anti nuclear weapons etc. were ahead of their time. His problem seemed to be waiting for society to catch up.
I can't let that one go. You cannot be a champion of LGBT+ rights and at the same time cosy up to regimes that actively seek the destruction of LGBT+ people. He isn't seeking to bring about change - he is just propping them up.
And even within his own Front Bench, he actively supported a Welsh MP who was deeply homophobic towards one of her staff. And this was in the past few weeks - not years ago. This is his current thinking.
He is no friend of the LGBT+ community. No friend at all.
I'm not sure if you believe this yourself or write it in the hope that somebody else does, without wishing to be too disrespectful that is nonsense.
Corbyn (and of course other people in politics) supported gay rights when it wasn't the standard positive PR position it is today, it was society that caught up with people with his views. I imagine many politicians now are supportive of gay rights but any sensible one that wasn't would keep their mouth shut. I'm sure this angle makes Tory voters happy but it just doesn't really work for people who don't already dislike Corbyn.
The angle of Hamas (or other Palestinians) are homophobic in relation to the Israeli-Palestine struggle gets pushed in different ways, this incarnation seems to involve Corbyn must hate gay people (or at least not care for gay rights) because he has met with various Palestinians and supports the Palestinian cause. The problem with this is if we take the example of apartheid South Africa then more homophobia on the part of the oppressed non whites would not in any way justify apartheid or take away from those campaigning to end it.
Those who really do want LGBT+ rights in Palestine have to want the Palestinians to have a viable state, insisting on bombing and starving the Palestinians into submission whilst simultaneously expecting them to adopt modern LGBT+ values even Western societies didn't have a few decades ago is insane. The simplest and most likely way to get Palestinian society to evolve to the point where it is more accepting of LGBT+ rights is to not to force them to have a society based on survival and fighting back. That is not a society where liberal social values will flourish. I suspect though that it is largely a stick to beat them with and justify the oppression.
Off topic... could Beto O'Rourke beat Ted Cruz in Texas? Cruz has terrible favourables, Beto seems like a very likable candidate, and the voters seem keen to give the Republicans a kicking.
It would be an extraordinary Senate election if the Dems lost Florida and gained Texas.
“Democrats in Texas have been losing statewide elections for Senate for 30 years,” he said. “So you can keep doing the same things, talk to the same consultants, run the same polls, focus-group drive the message. Or you can run like you’ve got nothing to lose. That’s what my wife, Amy, and I decided at the outset. What do we have to lose? Let’s do this the right way, the way that feels good to us. We don’t have a pollster. Let’s talk about the things that are important to us, regardless of how they poll. Let’s not even know how they poll.”
I'm not sure if you believe this yourself or write it in the hope that somebody else does, without wishing to be too disrespectful that is nonsense.
Corbyn (and of course other people in politics) supported gay rights when it wasn't the standard positive PR position it is today, it was society that caught up with people with his views. I imagine many politicians now are supportive of gay rights but any sensible one that wasn't would keep their mouth shut. I'm sure this angle makes Tory voters happy but it just doesn't really work for people who don't already dislike Corbyn.
The angle of Hamas (or other Palestinians) are homophobic in relation to the Israeli-Palestine struggle gets pushed in different ways, this incarnation seems to involve Corbyn must hate gay people (or at least not care for gay rights) because he has met with various Palestinians and supports the Palestinian cause. The problem with this is if we take the example of apartheid South Africa then more homophobia on the part of the oppressed non whites would not in any way justify apartheid or take away from those campaigning to end it.
Those who really do want LGBT+ rights in Palestine have to want the Palestinians to have a viable state, insisting on bombing and starving the Palestinians into submission whilst simultaneously expecting them to adopt modern LGBT+ values even Western societies didn't have a few decades ago is insane. The simplest and most likely way to get Palestinian society to evolve to the point where it is more accepting of LGBT+ rights is to not to force them to have a society based on survival and fighting back. That is not a society where liberal social values will flourish. I suspect though that it is largely a stick to beat them with and justify the oppression.
What else can they do in the name of survival?
If you are asking what they are allowed or what is morally permissible for them to do then you didn't read my post properly.
If you are asking the much more accurate in reply to my question what else will they do in the name of survival?
My answer would probably be there probably aren't many limitations of what humans will resort to in the name of survival regardless of their nationality.
I'm not sure if you believe this yourself or write it in the hope that somebody else does, without wishing to be too disrespectful that is nonsense.
Corbyn (and of course other people in politics) supported gay rights when it wasn't the standard positive PR position it is today, it was society that caught up with people with his views. I imagine many politicians now are supportive of gay rights but any sensible one that wasn't would keep their mouth shut. I'm sure this angle makes Tory voters happy but it just doesn't really work for people who don't already dislike Corbyn.
The angle of Hamas (or other Palestinians) are homophobic in relation to the Israeli-Palestine struggle gets pushed in different ways, this incarnation seems to involve Corbyn must hate gay people (or at least not care for gay rights) because he has met with various Palestinians and supports the Palestinian cause. The problem with this is if we take the example of apartheid South Africa then more homophobia on the part of the oppressed non whites would not in any way justify apartheid or take away from those campaigning to end it.
Those who really do want LGBT+ rights in Palestine have to want the Palestinians to have a viable state, insisting on bombing and starving the Palestinians into submission whilst simultaneously expecting them to adopt modern LGBT+ values even Western societies didn't have a few decades ago is insane. The simplest and most likely way to get Palestinian society to evolve to the point where it is more accepting of LGBT+ rights is to not to force them to have a society based on survival and fighting back. That is not a society where liberal social values will flourish. I suspect though that it is largely a stick to beat them with and justify the oppression.
What else can they do in the name of survival?
If you are asking what they are allowed or what is morally permissible for them to do then you didn't read my post properly.
If you are asking the much more accurate in reply to my question what else will they do in the name of survival?
My answer would probably be there probably aren't many limitations of what humans will resort to in the name of survival regardless of their nationality.
I was curious at what point you'd stop excusing their actions.
The Baby Shark one is too good, the timing is spot on. My favourite so far, if you only watch one.
I can't imagine people will feel negatively towards May for this, aside from people not rating her dancing skills and who really cares about that she deserves praise for giving it a go and I like to see people smiling and having a good time.
The idea of her being not being a great dancer would have been largely priced in anyway, nobody expected great moves. She may get credit from those who didn't expect her to give it a go and enjoy it. She gets credit from me for it although obviously I'm not switching my vote...
In regards to a people's vote, or more specifically calling it a people's vote rather than a 2nd referendum. Why do people get so annoyed with it?
It clearly is a 2nd referendum but with a different name, they gave it the different name (I'm sure I read) because polling showed a people's vote polled better than a 2nd referendum. So of course they are going to use that wording, the vast majority of people in their position would do exactly the same thing.
If you want to make clear that it isn't actually different from a 2nd referendum that is fine, I agree completely. If people want to push the idea that the first vote was also a people's vote, which it was just as much as this 2nd one would be, that is also fine, I agree completely. Beyond that though you may as well complain about politics in general. It is obvious why they are doing it and most would do the same.
3rd referendum. The last one was the 2nd referendum.
We had the democratic decency to wait 41 years between those two referendums - of course we never voted to remain in the European Union in 1975 but in the Common Market which was a totally different entity.
I am happy to have a people's vote on rejoining. How about June 2057?
Was it a totally different entity?
It contained the "four freedoms": of capital, goods, services and labour - albeit there was more bureaucracy then.
It had "ever closer union" enshrined in its treaty.
It had the ECJ that could overrule UK law*.
It had a secretariat that produced reams of product specifications**.
It had the Common Agriculture Policy, and Common Fishiries Policy.
It had a Common External Tariff.
It did not intrude into working conditions via the Social Chapter. It did not allow financial services regulated in one country to provide services to one in another. It did not enshrine the non-discrimination principle for all EU citizens. And it did not enforce uniformity in the provision of goods, and (to a lesser) extent services.
It seems to me that the two big developments were the Eurozone and the accession of the Eastern European countries. Together these two were probably largely responsible for our departure (in that they resulted in rush of immigration), but it seems far fetched to say that it was a totally different institution.
* Technically we were merely treaty bound to accept its rulings. ** Although, of course, a fair amount of that is just a regurgitation into Eurolegalese of product specifications out of various international groupings such as the ITU.
Corbz is lucky, or unlucky perhaps, in that many of his views, such as LGBT rights, anti nuclear weapons etc. were ahead of their time. His problem seemed to be waiting for society to catch up.
I can't let that one go. You cannot be a champion of LGBT+ rights and at the same time cosy up to regimes that actively seek the destruction of LGBT+ people. He isn't seeking to bring about change - he is just propping them up.
And even within his own Front Bench, he actively supported a Welsh MP who was deeply homophobic towards one of her staff. And this was in the past few weeks - not years ago. This is his current thinking.
He is no friend of the LGBT+ community. No friend at all.
And if you want to be ahead of the curve on social issues, you don't need to dally with the far left, anyhow; Liberals have a better track record, including on LGBT+.
Corbz is lucky, or unlucky perhaps, in that many of his views, such as LGBT rights, anti nuclear weapons etc. were ahead of their time. His problem seemed to be waiting for society to catch up.
I can't let that one go. You cannot be a champion of LGBT+ rights and at the same time cosy up to regimes that actively seek the destruction of LGBT+ people. He isn't seeking to bring about change - he is just propping them up.
And even within his own Front Bench, he actively supported a Welsh MP who was deeply homophobic towards one of her staff. And this was in the past few weeks - not years ago. This is his current thinking.
He is no friend of the LGBT+ community. No friend at all.
And if you want to be ahead of the curve on social issues, you don't need to dally with the far left, anyhow; Liberals have a better track record, including on LGBT+.
I'm not sure if you believe this yourself or write it in the hope that somebody else does, without wishing to be too disrespectful that is nonsense.
Corbyn (and of course other people in politics) supported gay rights when it wasn't the standard positive PR position it is today, it was society that caught up with people with his views. I imagine many politicians now are supportive of gay rights but any sensible one that wasn't would keep their mouth shut. I'm sure this angle makes Tory voters happy but it just doesn't really work for people who don't already dislike Corbyn.
The angle of Hamas (or other Palestinians) are homophobic in relation to the Israeli-Palestine struggle gets pushed in different ways, this incarnation seems to involve Corbyn must hate gay people (or at least not care for gay rights) because he has met with various Palestinians and supports the Palestinian cause. The problem with this is if we take the example of apartheid South Africa then more homophobia on the part of the oppressed non whites would not in any way justify apartheid or take away from those campaigning to end it.
Those who really do want LGBT+ rights in Palestine have to want the Palestinians to have a viable state, insisting on bombing and starving the Palestinians into submission whilst simultaneously expecting them to adopt modern LGBT+ values even Western societies didn't have a few decades ago is insane. The simplest and most likely way to get Palestinian society to evolve to the point where it is more accepting of LGBT+ rights is to not to force them to have a society based on survival and fighting back. That is not a society where liberal social values will flourish. I suspect though that it is largely a stick to beat them with and justify the oppression.
What else can they do in the name of survival?
If you are asking what they are allowed or what is morally permissible for them to do then you didn't read my post properly.
If you are asking the much more accurate in reply to my question what else will they do in the name of survival?
My answer would probably be there probably aren't many limitations of what humans will resort to in the name of survival regardless of their nationality.
I was curious at what point you'd stop excusing their actions.
Then you didn't read my post properly.
I was going to quote relevant parts but that ends up being almost the whole post again.
Off topic... could Beto O'Rourke beat Ted Cruz in Texas? Cruz has terrible favourables, Beto seems like a very likable candidate, and the voters seem keen to give the Republicans a kicking.
It would be an extraordinary Senate election if the Dems lost Florida and gained Texas.
Florida is Trump country, the state which saw his first big gain of an Obama state on the last presidential election night and home of Mar a Lago, the winter White House, Texas swung towards the Democrats in 2016 against the national trend and has a growing Hispanic population
Corbz is lucky, or unlucky perhaps, in that many of his views, such as LGBT rights, anti nuclear weapons etc. were ahead of their time. His problem seemed to be waiting for society to catch up.
He is no friend of the LGBT+ community. No friend at all.
I'm not sure if you believe this yourself or write it in the hope that somebody else does, without wishing to be too disrespectful that is nonsense.
Corbyn (and of course other people in politics) supported gay rights when it wasn't the standard positive PR position it is today, it was society that caught up with people with his views. I imagine many politicians now are supportive of gay rights but any sensible one that wasn't would keep their mouth shut. I'm sure this angle makes Tory voters happy but it just doesn't really work for people who don't already dislike Corbyn.
The angle of Hamas (or other Palestinians) are homophobic in relation to the Israeli-Palestine struggle gets pushed in different ways, this incarnation seems to involve Corbyn must hate gay people (or at least not care for gay rights) because he has met with various Palestinians and supports the Palestinian cause. The problem with this is if we take the example of apartheid South Africa then more homophobia on the part of the oppressed non whites would not in any way justify apartheid or take away from those campaigning to end it.
Those who really do want LGBT+ rights in Palestine have to want the Palestinians to have a viable state, insisting on bombing and starving the Palestinians into submission whilst simultaneously expecting them to adopt modern LGBT+ values even Western societies didn't have a few decades ago is insane. The simplest and most likely way to get Palestinian society to evolve to the point where it is more accepting of LGBT+ rights is to not to force them to have a society based on survival and fighting back. That is not a society where liberal social values will flourish. I suspect though that it is largely a stick to beat them with and justify the oppression.
I do genuinely question his commitment to global LGBT+ rights.
You cannot justify support for oppressive regimes (in this regard) on the basis that they might change if you give them what they want.
There is so little tolerance in the sorts of states that he encourages by his words and his actions. There is no hope of progress when oppressive theocracies are the norm. And it is not just Hamas.
You cannot support LGBT+ rights at home and viciously oppressive regimes abroad at the same time and not be a hypocrite.
Any good you might do at home is immediately negated by support for such regimes.
Plus supporting a clearly homophobic colleague is just not acceptable. He did not condemn or sack her. She is a bigot and he supported her.
Comments
Ugh, on a Friday. Commiserations.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/TCM-Emigration-Ireland-FINAL.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjmkriznZjdAhUUVsAKHb98AYwQFjAPegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw1ukDLy0orvICisWML7wPzM
Who voted last time? Giraffes?
Though there have been a few tv programs about CrossRail which suggested things were going well.
This time,the Remain campaign was headed by the leaders of the Tory Government - so naturally people voted against them.
Cameron and Osborne were singularly inept - they brought about their own downfall.
Nothing to do with the age of the voters, in my opinion.
What I am doing is completely dismissing this idea that the 18-24 year olds inevitably end up with the same views of older people now as they get older. It is not exactly what you were stating (although it is in the ballpark) but the theme is popular among a few people on here.
Previous 18-24 year old Labour voters did not become the pensioner Tory voters that were around when they were younger, they became Tory pensioners with a different set of views. To compare the views of Tory pensioners on homosexuality in 1983 compared to Tory pensioners today would see a big contrast I'm sure. This isn't to say there might have been some drift in the current Tory pensioners views as they aged but they certainly didn't adopt the views of the older generation wholesale, many of the views they had when they were younger which were a rejection of older people's views (less negative towards homosexuality being an obvious one) are things they hung onto and as a result the inevitable churn of demography did change Britain as a country.
And if any of those are opposed reverse the EU back to what it was beforehand.
It clearly is a 2nd referendum but with a different name, they gave it the different name (I'm sure I read) because polling showed a people's vote polled better than a 2nd referendum. So of course they are going to use that wording, the vast majority of people in their position would do exactly the same thing.
If you want to make clear that it isn't actually different from a 2nd referendum that is fine, I agree completely. If people want to push the idea that the first vote was also a people's vote, which it was just as much as this 2nd one would be, that is also fine, I agree completely. Beyond that though you may as well complain about politics in general. It is obvious why they are doing it and most would do the same.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/why-is-a-bbc-executive-calling-for-the-removal-of-middle-aged-white-men-from-television/
Celebrity Big Brother has sparked more than 11,000 complaints to media regulator Ofcom following allegations of an altercation between two former soap actors taking part in the show.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/aug/31/thousands-of-complaints-made-to-ofcom-over-big-brother-altercation
As regular PBers will know, I pride myself in my close interest in popular culture, but I have to confess this one had passed me by. I'm still struggling to comprehend how there can be eleven thousand people so incensed as to make a complaint to Ofcom about almost anything, let alone something on Celebrity Big Brother. Kudos to the producers, though,
It would of course be the 3rd referendum related to our relationship in Europe.
And even within his own Front Bench, he actively supported a Welsh MP who was deeply homophobic towards one of her staff. And this was in the past few weeks - not years ago. This is his current thinking.
He is no friend of the LGBT+ community. No friend at all.
Time for him to step down surely.
Although I'll admit that I'm using a green screen ($40 from Amazon) and faking the hill.
It would be an extraordinary Senate election if the Dems lost Florida and gained Texas.
I am happy to have a people's vote on rejoining. How about June 2057?
Perhaps we need to end the era of white middle class editors at the BBC and start by sacking him? Or does he mean other white men should lose their jobs at the BBC but not of course him!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/sep/27/crossrail-budget-cuts
So it's still forecast to cost £500m less than the original budget even with the current projected £600m overspend against the revised lower budget!
In hindsight maybe it would have been better not to publicly announce the original change to the budget - so they could at least say not on time but below budget!
https://twitter.com/VanityFair/status/1035654211093110784
Corbyn (and of course other people in politics) supported gay rights when it wasn't the standard positive PR position it is today, it was society that caught up with people with his views. I imagine many politicians now are supportive of gay rights but any sensible one that wasn't would keep their mouth shut. I'm sure this angle makes Tory voters happy but it just doesn't really work for people who don't already dislike Corbyn.
The angle of Hamas (or other Palestinians) are homophobic in relation to the Israeli-Palestine struggle gets pushed in different ways, this incarnation seems to involve Corbyn must hate gay people (or at least not care for gay rights) because he has met with various Palestinians and supports the Palestinian cause. The problem with this is if we take the example of apartheid South Africa then more homophobia on the part of the oppressed non whites would not in any way justify apartheid or take away from those campaigning to end it.
Those who really do want LGBT+ rights in Palestine have to want the Palestinians to have a viable state, insisting on bombing and starving the Palestinians into submission whilst simultaneously expecting them to adopt modern LGBT+ values even Western societies didn't have a few decades ago is insane. The simplest and most likely way to get Palestinian society to evolve to the point where it is more accepting of LGBT+ rights is to not to force them to have a society based on survival and fighting back. That is not a society where liberal social values will flourish. I suspect though that it is largely a stick to beat them with and justify the oppression.
Jean Giraudoux
French diplomat, dramatist, & novelist (1882 - 1944)
If you are asking the much more accurate in reply to my question what else will they do in the name of survival?
My answer would probably be there probably aren't many limitations of what humans will resort to in the name of survival regardless of their nationality.
https://twitter.com/scozzabc/status/1035426191786815489
https://twitter.com/florenceblackuk/status/1035632525257977857?s=21
That is truly joyous!
I can't imagine people will feel negatively towards May for this, aside from people not rating her dancing skills and who really cares about that she deserves praise for giving it a go and I like to see people smiling and having a good time.
The idea of her being not being a great dancer would have been largely priced in anyway, nobody expected great moves. She may get credit from those who didn't expect her to give it a go and enjoy it. She gets credit from me for it although obviously I'm not switching my vote...
It contained the "four freedoms": of capital, goods, services and labour - albeit there was more bureaucracy then.
It had "ever closer union" enshrined in its treaty.
It had the ECJ that could overrule UK law*.
It had a secretariat that produced reams of product specifications**.
It had the Common Agriculture Policy, and Common Fishiries Policy.
It had a Common External Tariff.
It did not intrude into working conditions via the Social Chapter. It did not allow financial services regulated in one country to provide services to one in another. It did not enshrine the non-discrimination principle for all EU citizens. And it did not enforce uniformity in the provision of goods, and (to a lesser) extent services.
It seems to me that the two big developments were the Eurozone and the accession of the Eastern European countries. Together these two were probably largely responsible for our departure (in that they resulted in rush of immigration), but it seems far fetched to say that it was a totally different institution.
* Technically we were merely treaty bound to accept its rulings.
** Although, of course, a fair amount of that is just a regurgitation into Eurolegalese of product specifications out of various international groupings such as the ITU.
I was going to quote relevant parts but that ends up being almost the whole post again.
You cannot justify support for oppressive regimes (in this regard) on the basis that they might change if you give them what they want.
There is so little tolerance in the sorts of states that he encourages by his words and his actions. There is no hope of progress when oppressive theocracies are the norm. And it is not just Hamas.
You cannot support LGBT+ rights at home and viciously oppressive regimes abroad at the same time and not be a hypocrite.
Any good you might do at home is immediately negated by support for such regimes.
Plus supporting a clearly homophobic colleague is just not acceptable. He did not condemn or sack her. She is a bigot and he supported her.