I was going to say that this is offtopic and apologise but I actually don't think it is.
twitter.com/toystory/status/1061966850131582976 (wait to the end although the spoon may be a clue)
Toy story 3 should have been the end!!!!! All other opinions are wrong.
Can anyone think of any franchise where the fourth or subsequent film was among the best? often, it can be an absolute shocker, following on from a very good third.
The X-Men franchise? I thought first class and days of future past were certainly among the best. IMDB agrees.
Absolutely agree with this, personally I think First Class is the high-point of the entire (recent) franchise so far.
The notion that our Bucanneering Leavers had any coherent, workable plan to leave was tested to death during the referendum. It was absolutely clear then that they didn’t. Of course now we know some of them didn’t even realise Britain is an island close to France, so in retrospect it’s less surprising than it once was.
how did Leave win then?
Because people wanted to stick it to the man and this was their opportunity to do so.
They certainly didn't vote Leave on account of Droite de Suite.
And how do you think they will vote next time, once it is framed as "Who governs Britain - the voters or the MPs?"
I am not at all sure that Remain would win if there were a second referendum.
I think Remain probably would. The mood has changed.
But if we are going full on hostile no deal Brexit seasoned by protectionism, then voters should at least agree to it.
Nobody 2016.
the immdeiate benefit is the UKs political mould has been broken. Remain is simply a rearguard action from people who wish to turn back the clock.
But the world has moved on and even the EU we voted to leave in 2016 isnt on offer
As for benefits look at the numkbers, wages rising, record employment, foreign investment continues etc etc.
How has the political mould been broken? At the next GE the choice will still be Labour or Tory. We had record employment before the referendum. Wages are rising slightly, inlation is making that pretty meaningless. As for foreign investment ...
the consensus of the Third Way where Labour and the Tories have had the same policies for 20 odd years is gone. We are dealing with parties being run by their extreme wings.
The centre has to find a new way to attract people.
The record on employment is now even higher, wages stagnated for 10 years or did you forget, and FDI continues.
I am not sure extremism is a Brexit benefit, so we'll have to disagree on that one. Yes, it is true that FDI has not totally dried up and that the precipitous decline in business investment has not fed through to job losses yet.
long term the political break will be a benefit as it allows politics to reconnect with its voters
If there were another referendum, I'd think seriously about voting to leave this time. This is because the EU are highly unlikely to offer a generous deal to persuade us to reverse the first People's Vote; in fact, the terms are highly likely to be pretty appalling. In any case so much damage has been done to EU-UK relations that I can't see how the UK could be treated as a trustworthy partner by the other EU countries, and the EU's negotiating stance on Brexit has been so appalling and has shown such bad faith that I think it would be hard for us to trust them. Rejoining like some badly-behaved school kid who has played truant and can now expect to be punished for it is deeply unattractive.
Doesn't that depend on whether such a referendum is before or after March 29th?
If before, we have never left so the terms are the pre-Cameron deal terms.
If after it's about Rejoining - which is a very different issue altogether.
I agree with you about trust. There would need to be generosity of attitude on both sides (not much in evidence I grant you). But simply going ahead with something that is damaging just because we cannot bear to admit an error seems daft to me.
Understanding the limits of the possible is a good lesson for everyone.
If we remain and the EU does not learn the lessons it needs to learn, that that leaves the risk of all the resentments which led to this vote in the first place re-erupting all over again. So there has to be some real soul-searching both here and in the EU for any renewed relationship to work. I see little sign of that now and it will, maybe, take the next generation of politicians to do this.
Why can't we sign up to a perpetual customs union ?
Call it Chequers 2 (Turkey ++) or some such. I know it upsets the hardcore brexiteers here - but if NI has to be in a CU permanently to avoid a hard border, and there is no Irish sea border (Which the Tories/DUP really could NEVER agree to) then it leaves a UK wide CU as the only possible outcome.
The question on the ballot was about exiting the EU and the major sentiment behind the question was about immigration controls. A customs union (& single market "access" with the FoM control) - Corbyn's position satisfies this.
tldr - It is an Irish sea customs border we should never sign up to, not a customs union.
Signing up to a perpetual CU with a backstop we cannot exit will be the modern No Taxation Without Representation issue of British politics. If you think the public at large will accept that to keep comfortable middle class people in cheap cleaners and easy access to tuscan holiday villas then you are wrong.
History shows that democracy is fragile. The default state is for the weak to be ruled roughshod by the powerful. If we cannot change our political masters through the ballot box then they will not be frightened of us and Europe will end up as Yugoslavia.
I'm not really looking through the looking glass of Polly Toynbee in Tuscany, more the economy in general. And reality. We are where we are, another referendum won't sort anything. There was a narrow majority to leave, so we should leave narrowly. Also this solves the Irish issues.
Myself and @Anazina are onboard. So that is two of us xD
And SeanF, too, it would appear.
With we three on board, surely everything else is ancillary? Let's do it!
Former Labour PM Gordon Brown has just said he believes a second EU referendum 'will happen' as he becomes the latest big name to back a 'People's Vote' in a speech in London
typical of the vacuous prick
he wouldnt hold one referendum when he was PM now he wants somebody else to give two
Indeed but 3/4 living ex PMs Major, Brown and Blair know back a ' People's Vote.'
Just needs Dave for the full set (we know Osborne backs one)
yes all the PMs who fked up and created the conditions for Brexit dont have the balls to say sorry we got it wrong
I don't think Brexiteers can lecture people on fucking things up. None of those three have done anything quite as clusterfucked.
Iraq, ERM the Great Financial crisis
try looking at history occasionally
ERM was Nigel Lawson, followed by Norman Lamont, both arch-Leavers. Iraq was most vociferously opposed by the likes of Ken Clarke and the LDs. IDS accused Blair of being too soft!! The great financial crisis was global.
NL started ERM Major continued it and was left holding the hot potato, Blair led us in to the Iraq fiasco and caused a caesura in the peoples trust in government, Brown fked up the economy by making the UK one of the worst exposed to a downturn,
Lamont was left holding the hot potato. On the others, as I observed previously there was no "Leave" constituency demanding alternatives.
And if we hadn't screwed up British Democracy by calling referendums we wouldn't be in this mess...
True.
Cameron tried to use a referendum to solve an internal party dispute. That was not a good idea.
Without the referendum UKIP would be polling well over 30% now
What if we had actually implemented the restrictions on free movement that are available right now that we aren't doing?
If that was implememted in 2004 then it may have made a difference, the mass immigration since 2004 caused UKIPs popularity and the Brexit vote, all other stuff is inconsequentional in comparison. Whole commujities were changed due to the immigration and people did not like it. That situation remains the same and I think if the referendum was run again Leave would still win.
Forget about transition controls. Ignore the transition controls. Transition controls are meaningless, they were temporary.
I'm talking about the permanent means we have to restrict EU migration. Demanding migrants have a job after 3 months or have health insurance and sufficient funds to not be a burden on the state. We don't do this.
We don't do any of that so saying we have to leave the EU to restrict migration is false.
I was going to say that this is offtopic and apologise but I actually don't think it is.
twitter.com/toystory/status/1061966850131582976 (wait to the end although the spoon may be a clue)
Toy story 3 should have been the end!!!!! All other opinions are wrong.
Can anyone think of any franchise where the fourth or subsequent film was among the best? often, it can be an absolute shocker, following on from a very good third.
Former Labour PM Gordon Brown has just said he believes a second EU referendum 'will happen' as he becomes the latest big name to back a 'People's Vote' in a speech in London
typical of the vacuous prick
he wouldnt hold one referendum when he was PM now he wants somebody else to give two
Indeed but 3/4 living ex PMs Major, Brown and Blair know back a ' People's Vote.'
Just needs Dave for the full set (we know Osborne backs one)
yes all the PMs who fked up and created the conditions for Brexit dont have the balls to say sorry we got it wrong
I don't think Brexiteers can lecture people on fucking things up. None of those three have done anything quite as clusterfucked.
Iraq, ERM the Great Financial crisis
try looking at history occasionally
ERM was Nigel Lawson, followed by Norman Lamont, both arch-Leavers. Iraq was most vociferously opposed by the likes of Ken Clarke and the LDs. IDS accused Blair of being too soft!! The great financial crisis was global.
NL started ERM Major continued it and was left holding the hot potato, Blair led us in to the Iraq fiasco and caused a caesura in the peoples trust in government, Brown fked up the economy by making the UK one of the worst exposed to a downturn,
The ERM was an economic disaster, Iraq was a political disaster and 2008 was a financial disaster. Brexit is an economic, political and financial disaster and threatens the integrity of the UK and its influence in world affairs to boot. There has been no similar circumstances in the U.K., or any western country, since 1945. The closest comparison is perhaps the Algerian crisis in France in the late 1950s.
Simply Brexit hysteria, You dont how it will work out and neither do I so to call the result without doing the tally is somewhat premature.
As for influence on world affairs Im happily in a boat where that will go population shifts alone will dicate that, You still seem to believe we have some mission civilatrice.
Former Labour PM Gordon Brown has just said he believes a second EU referendum 'will happen' as he becomes the latest big name to back a 'People's Vote' in a speech in London
typical of the vacuous prick
he wouldnt hold one referendum when he was PM now he wants somebody else to give two
Indeed but 3/4 living ex PMs Major, Brown and Blair know back a ' People's Vote.'
Just needs Dave for the full set (we know Osborne backs one)
yes all the PMs who fked up and created the conditions for Brexit dont have the balls to say sorry we got it wrong
I don't think Brexiteers can lecture people on fucking things up. None of those three have done anything quite as clusterfucked.
Iraq, ERM the Great Financial crisis
try looking at history occasionally
ERM was Nigel Lawson, followed by Norman Lamont, both arch-Leavers. Iraq was most vociferously opposed by the likes of Ken Clarke and the LDs. IDS accused Blair of being too soft!! The great financial crisis was global.
If there were another referendum, I'd think seriously about voting to leave this time. This is because the EU are highly unlikely to offer a generous deal to persuade us to reverse the first People's Vote; in fact, the terms are highly likely to be pretty appalling. In any case so much damage has been done to EU-UK relations that I can't see how the UK could be treated as a trustworthy partner by the other EU countries, and the EU's negotiating stance on Brexit has been so appalling and has shown such bad faith that I think it would be hard for us to trust them. Rejoining like some badly-behaved school kid who has played truant and can now expect to be punished for it is deeply unattractive.
So you think a no-deal would be less damaging for the UK? As its fairly clear there is no chance of reaching a deal in the short term and even if May reaches one with the EU it isn't getting past parliament.
No Deal is better than Remaining without informed consent from a large number of those who previously voted leave.
Certainly, the damage to the economy from a No Deal outcome would be severe but the damage to the country's political and social organism would be much worse were the votes of so many people to be overriden without providing reasons that *they* accept. Trust in democracy and the norms of political behaviour could well break down, taking the country down a very dark road.
Doesn't that depend on whether such a referendum is before or after March 29th?
If before, we have never left so the terms are the pre-Cameron deal terms.
If after it's about Rejoining - which is a very different issue altogether.
[snip]
If (as I think is near-certain) we don't have the option of unilaterally revoking Article 50, then the terms would be whatever the EU is prepared to grant. Certainly all the progress made by the Cameron would be thrown away, probably the rebate, and on a more general level we'd never have the influence we had before - so damaging regulation for the City would be extremely likely.
So you think a no-deal would be less damaging for the UK? As its fairly clear there is no chance of reaching a deal in the short term and even if May reaches one with the EU it isn't getting past parliament.
As Alastair says, starting from here there are no good options. The least bad one is as you say at significant risk of being torpedoed in parliament (even assuming we get that far). We'd be in a new situation if that failed, but I'd be guided by the maxim that you should never give in to blackmail.
I think it might be wise to check if the rest of the country are as principled as you regarding not giving into blackmail - 'bathing their hands in blood' and all that.
Also, while reversing Brexit now would leave us in a weakened position in the EU, it would be a stronger position than if we rejoined in a decade or two.
I was going to say that this is offtopic and apologise but I actually don't think it is.
twitter.com/toystory/status/1061966850131582976 (wait to the end although the spoon may be a clue)
Toy story 3 should have been the end!!!!! All other opinions are wrong.
Can anyone think of any franchise where the fourth or subsequent film was among the best? often, it can be an absolute shocker, following on from a very good third.
Depending on which way you order them either LoTR(1) or Hobbit(1) count as the 4th film, and both are excellent. (Far better than half a film's worth of saying goodbye...)
"I'm not really looking through the looking glass of Polly Toynbee in Tuscany, more the economy in general. And reality. We are where we are, another referendum won't sort anything. There was a narrow majority to leave, so we should leave narrowly. Also this solves the Irish issues.
Myself and @Anazina are onboard. So that is two of us"xD
I like "There was a narrow majority to leave, so we should leave narrowly". I voted remain but that ship has sailed and re-running the referendum is going to increase the rancour. I think the UK should leave, suffer the consequences and learn the lessons. Yes it will cost a lot of money but boy will it be a learning experience and the Tory party owns the whole thing.
Scotland may well finally decide to leave the UK and NI seems to be on some sort of tipping point. We are going over the cliff, let's hope it is a low one and we can all swim.
I was going to say that this is offtopic and apologise but I actually don't think it is.
twitter.com/toystory/status/1061966850131582976 (wait to the end although the spoon may be a clue)
Toy story 3 should have been the end!!!!! All other opinions are wrong.
Can anyone think of any franchise where the fourth or subsequent film was among the best? often, it can be an absolute shocker, following on from a very good third.
Mission Impossible 4 (Ghost Protocol) was very good, and generally the second trio of those were better than the initial three (though I think the first stands out from those).
Doesn't that depend on whether such a referendum is before or after March 29th?
If before, we have never left so the terms are the pre-Cameron deal terms.
If after it's about Rejoining - which is a very different issue altogether.
[snip]
If (as I think is near-certain) we don't have the option of unilaterally revoking Article 50, then the terms would be whatever the EU is prepared to grant. Certainly all the progress made by the Cameron would be thrown away, probably the rebate, and on a more general level we'd never have the influence we had before - so damaging regulation for the City would be extremely likely.
I disagree with that analysis. I think we can probably unilaterally revoke A50, and keep terms. The EU would much rather we stayed in and this ugly problem go away.
If there were another referendum, I'd think seriously about voting to leave this time. This is because the EU are highly unlikely to offer a generous deal to persuade us to reverse the first People's Vote; in fact, the terms are highly likely to be pretty appalling. In any case so much damage has been done to EU-UK relations that I can't see how the UK could be treated as a trustworthy partner by the other EU countries, and the EU's negotiating stance on Brexit has been so appalling and has shown such bad faith that I think it would be hard for us to trust them. Rejoining like some badly-behaved school kid who has played truant and can now expect to be punished for it is deeply unattractive.
At the moment I think I would abstain if there were a second referendum. All outcomes would be disastrous.
I felt like that about the first one. Far too difficult and finely balanced decision (heart and head): lots of push factors but the pull factor i.e. what were we moving to was a chimera.
I am beginning to feel that there is no point in voting anymore. My vote in my constituency doesn't matter. It didn't matter in 2016 and I won't get one now.
So blathering on the internet is the only thing left or, as Voltaire put it, cultivating one's jardin.
And if we hadn't screwed up British Democracy by calling referendums we wouldn't be in this mess...
True.
Cameron tried to use a referendum to solve an internal party dispute. That was not a good idea.
Without the referendum UKIP would be polling well over 30% now
What if we had actually implemented the restrictions on free movement that are available right now that we aren't doing?
If that was implememted in 2004 then it may have made a difference, the mass immigration since 2004 caused UKIPs popularity and the Brexit vote, all other stuff is inconsequentional in comparison. Whole commujities were changed due to the immigration and people did not like it. That situation remains the same and I think if the referendum was run again Leave would still win.
Forget about transition controls. Ignore the transition controls. Transition controls are meaningless, they were temporary.
I'm talking about the permanent means we have to restrict EU migration. Demanding migrants have a job after 3 months or have health insurance and sufficient funds to not be a burden on the state. We don't do this.
We don't do any of that so saying we have to leave the EU to restrict migration is false.
you are correct, but UK politicians refused to tackle the social security system to make it more like other EU countries so that immigrants couldnt just claim clash. The reforms would have upset too many voters, but then the unleashed mass immigration and that upset the voters too..
Doesn't that depend on whether such a referendum is before or after March 29th?
If before, we have never left so the terms are the pre-Cameron deal terms.
If after it's about Rejoining - which is a very different issue altogether.
[snip]
If (as I think is near-certain) we don't have the option of unilaterally revoking Article 50, then the terms would be whatever the EU is prepared to grant. Certainly all the progress made by the Cameron would be thrown away, probably the rebate, and on a more general level we'd never have the influence we had before - so damaging regulation for the City would be extremely likely.
"the Cameron"
Well, we knew you had a high opinion of him, Richard...
Doesn't that depend on whether such a referendum is before or after March 29th?
If before, we have never left so the terms are the pre-Cameron deal terms.
If after it's about Rejoining - which is a very different issue altogether.
[snip]
If (as I think is near-certain) we don't have the option of unilaterally revoking Article 50, then the terms would be whatever the EU is prepared to grant. Certainly all the progress made by the Cameron would be thrown away, probably the rebate, and on a more general level we'd never have the influence we had before - so damaging regulation for the City would be extremely likely.
"the Cameron"
Well, we knew you had a high opinion of him, Richard...
LOL! I think I was trying to write 'the Cameron negotiation'.
If there were another referendum, I'd think seriously about voting to leave this time. This is because the EU are highly unlikely to offer a generous deal to persuade us to reverse the first People's Vote; in fact, the terms are highly likely to be pretty appalling. In any case so much damage has been done to EU-UK relations that I can't see how the UK could be treated as a trustworthy partner by the other EU countries, and the EU's negotiating stance on Brexit has been so appalling and has shown such bad faith that I think it would be hard for us to trust them. Rejoining like some badly-behaved school kid who has played truant and can now expect to be punished for it is deeply unattractive.
So you think a no-deal would be less damaging for the UK? As its fairly clear there is no chance of reaching a deal in the short term and even if May reaches one with the EU it isn't getting past parliament.
No Deal is better than Remaining without informed consent from a large number of those who previously voted leave.
I'd agree with this - a referendum with No Deal or Remain and a 60% threshold for Remain would be my preference.
If there were another referendum, I'd think seriously about voting to leave this time. This is because the EU are highly unlikely to offer a generous deal to persuade us to reverse the first People's Vote; in fact, the terms are highly likely to be pretty appalling. In any case so much damage has been done to EU-UK relations that I can't see how the UK could be treated as a trustworthy partner by the other EU countries, and the EU's negotiating stance on Brexit has been so appalling and has shown such bad faith that I think it would be hard for us to trust them. Rejoining like some badly-behaved school kid who has played truant and can now expect to be punished for it is deeply unattractive.
So you think a no-deal would be less damaging for the UK? As its fairly clear there is no chance of reaching a deal in the short term and even if May reaches one with the EU it isn't getting past parliament.
No Deal is better than Remaining without informed consent from a large number of those who previously voted leave.
I'd agree with this - a referendum with No Deal or Remain and a 60% threshold for Remain would be my preference.
That is insanity, 59% in favour of Remain brings a catastrophe – No Deal. No sane PM would even put that on the ballot, never mind request a super majority.
I was going to say that this is offtopic and apologise but I actually don't think it is.
twitter.com/toystory/status/1061966850131582976 (wait to the end although the spoon may be a clue)
Toy story 3 should have been the end!!!!! All other opinions are wrong.
Can anyone think of any franchise where the fourth or subsequent film was among the best? often, it can be an absolute shocker, following on from a very good third.
If there were another referendum, I'd think seriously about voting to leave this time. This is because the EU are highly unlikely to offer a generous deal to persuade us to reverse the first People's Vote; in fact, the terms are highly likely to be pretty appalling. In any case so much damage has been done to EU-UK relations that I can't see how the UK could be treated as a trustworthy partner by the other EU countries, and the EU's negotiating stance on Brexit has been so appalling and has shown such bad faith that I think it would be hard for us to trust them. Rejoining like some badly-behaved school kid who has played truant and can now expect to be punished for it is deeply unattractive.
At the moment I think I would abstain if there were a second referendum. All outcomes would be disastrous.
I felt like that about the first one. Far too difficult and finely balanced decision (heart and head): lots of push factors but the pull factor i.e. what were we moving to was a chimera.
I am beginning to feel that there is no point in voting anymore. My vote in my constituency doesn't matter. It didn't matter in 2016 and I won't get one now.
So blathering on the internet is the only thing left or, as Voltaire put it, cultivating one's jardin.
Come on you two. You're both better than that. Get a grip. This is the moment where good people get to work. If you don't like the choice on offer, get off your backsides and stand.
Doesn't that depend on whether such a referendum is before or after March 29th?
If before, we have never left so the terms are the pre-Cameron deal terms.
If after it's about Rejoining - which is a very different issue altogether.
[snip]
If (as I think is near-certain) we don't have the option of unilaterally revoking Article 50, then the terms would be whatever the EU is prepared to grant. Certainly all the progress made by the Cameron would be thrown away, probably the rebate, and on a more general level we'd never have the influence we had before - so damaging regulation for the City would be extremely likely.
What if the government just passed an Act cancelling Art. 50 and sent a letter saying we're withdrawing it, all before 29 March? The EU could argue - no you can't do that - you're out. And legally, it may well be true that Art. 50 is not revocable unilaterally.
But politically? Would the EU really say no - go away - or let's have different terms - with all the need for more endless bloody negotiation. Might it not breathe a sigh of relief and carry on on the same basis as before?
Your point about damaging regulation is well made but that would likely have happened anyway had we stayed in and will happen if we end up in a position where we have to follow the rules but have no say in them. When you're in you have the possibility of influence. We're going to lose that without any of the possible advantages.
If there were another referendum, I'd think seriously about voting to leave this time. This is because the EU are highly unlikely to offer a generous deal to persuade us to reverse the first People's Vote; in fact, the terms are highly likely to be pretty appalling. In any case so much damage has been done to EU-UK relations that I can't see how the UK could be treated as a trustworthy partner by the other EU countries, and the EU's negotiating stance on Brexit has been so appalling and has shown such bad faith that I think it would be hard for us to trust them. Rejoining like some badly-behaved school kid who has played truant and can now expect to be punished for it is deeply unattractive.
At the moment I think I would abstain if there were a second referendum. All outcomes would be disastrous.
I felt like that about the first one. Far too difficult and finely balanced decision (heart and head): lots of push factors but the pull factor i.e. what were we moving to was a chimera.
I am beginning to feel that there is no point in voting anymore. My vote in my constituency doesn't matter. It didn't matter in 2016 and I won't get one now.
So blathering on the internet is the only thing left or, as Voltaire put it, cultivating one's jardin.
Come on you two. You're both better than that. Get a grip. This is the moment where good people get to work. If you don't like the choice on offer, get off your backsides and stand.
I am of an age where even if I wanted to I would not even be considered. Parties want biddable youngsters not feisty women with knowledge and experience who know their own mind and are not afraid of saying what they think.
Yes. Probably both, definitely Labour. Perhaps I'm cynical but it doesn't look like it is falling apart, just that more are noticing they are claiming to be all things on the issue. But if no one is leaving the party over it then it's immaterial.
What if the government just passed an Act cancelling Art. 50 and sent a letter saying we're withdrawing it, all before 29 March? The EU could argue - no you can't do that - you're out. And legally, it may well be true that Art. 50 is not revocable unilaterally.
But politically? Would the EU really say no - go away - or let's have different terms - with all the need for more endless bloody negotiation. Might it not breathe a sigh of relief and carry on on the same basis as before?
[snip]
I don't think the EU could do that (even leaving aside the question of who 'the EU' is). This is because that would leave the whole thing open to an action in the ECJ, for example by a company who wanted to shut out a UK bidder for a European government contract. There would have to be legal certainty.
I was going to say that this is offtopic and apologise but I actually don't think it is.
twitter.com/toystory/status/1061966850131582976 (wait to the end although the spoon may be a clue)
Toy story 3 should have been the end!!!!! All other opinions are wrong.
Can anyone think of any franchise where the fourth or subsequent film was among the best? often, it can be an absolute shocker, following on from a very good third.
The X-Men franchise? I thought first class and days of future past were certainly among the best. IMDB agrees.
Absolutely agree with this, personally I think First Class is the high-point of the entire (recent) franchise so far.
Agreed. Downhill since but it's a long and convoluted series
I was going to say that this is offtopic and apologise but I actually don't think it is.
twitter.com/toystory/status/1061966850131582976 (wait to the end although the spoon may be a clue)
Toy story 3 should have been the end!!!!! All other opinions are wrong.
Can anyone think of any franchise where the fourth or subsequent film was among the best? often, it can be an absolute shocker, following on from a very good third.
Depending on which way you order them either LoTR(1) or Hobbit(1) count as the 4th film, and both are excellent. (Far better than half a film's worth of saying goodbye...)
Hobbit 1 is the fourth in the series as far as the films go and is way too slow and long. The Hobbit should have been made as a single film (the usual rule is 100 pages of book translates into 1 hour of film). Had LotR not been successfully made as three films, it's surely likely that the Hobbit would have been made to a much shorter format - but then it was right to spend so much time on LotR precisely because there was so much more source material to begin with (I know The Hobbit films mine other parts of the Middle-Earth saga but really, that's just padding it out for what are ultimately commercial rather than artistic reasons.
... There is a very real risk that if offered Remain or No Deal, the people would vote for No Deal ...
Which is why Leave should be campaigning on that very basis. If the public do back No Deal then the Leavers will survive Brexit on the basis that the public knew precisely what the consequences were and still voted for it.
If "Leave" loses and the public vote "Remain" then the Leavers can say, we tried to take you out so do not moan at us because you decided to stay in.
For "Leave" the 2nd Referendum is a great safety valve.
Can anyone think of any franchise where the fourth or subsequent film was among the best? often, it can be an absolute shocker, following on from a very good third.
Can anyone think of any franchise where the fourth or subsequent film was among the best? often, it can be an absolute shocker, following on from a very good third.
Batman Begins and subsequent films were better than the previous Batman movies.
Can anyone think of any franchise where the fourth or subsequent film was among the best? often, it can be an absolute shocker, following on from a very good third.
DIE HARD
We all got our copies ready for Christmas viewing?
And if we hadn't screwed up British Democracy by calling referendums we wouldn't be in this mess...
True.
Cameron tried to use a referendum to solve an internal party dispute. That was not a good idea.
Without the referendum UKIP would be polling well over 30% now
What if we had actually implemented the restrictions on free movement that are available right now that we aren't doing?
If that was implememted in 2004 then it may have made a difference, the mass immigration since 2004 caused UKIPs popularity and the Brexit vote, all other stuff is inconsequentional in comparison. Whole commujities were changed due to the immigration and people did not like it. That situation remains the same and I think if the referendum was run again Leave would still win.
Forget about transition controls. Ignore the transition controls. Transition controls are meaningless, they were temporary.
I'm talking about the permanent means we have to restrict EU migration. Demanding migrants have a job after 3 months or have health insurance and sufficient funds to not be a burden on the state. We don't do this.
We don't do any of that so saying we have to leave the EU to restrict migration is false.
you are correct, but UK politicians refused to tackle the social security system to make it more like other EU countries so that immigrants couldnt just claim clash. The reforms would have upset too many voters, but then the unleashed mass immigration and that upset the voters too..
Don't even to make us have a contributory benefits system. Three months without a job and you can chuck an EU migrant out.
Certainly, the damage to the economy from a No Deal outcome would be severe but the damage to the country's political and social organism would be much worse were the votes of so many people to be overriden without providing reasons that *they* accept. Trust in democracy and the norms of political behaviour could well break down, taking the country down a very dark road.
I don't think is true.
If we leave with no deal, those that voted to leave are not going to be silent and happy about their lot.
As things get worse they will be noisy and angry at the politicians who promised them £350m a week for the NHS, among other things, which were of course not predicated on a deal. They were the dividends of leaving, full stop.
So yes, there might be riots if we remained, but to think that leaving with no deal is the way to avoid them is naive
Can anyone think of any franchise where the fourth or subsequent film was among the best? often, it can be an absolute shocker, following on from a very good third.
Star Trek IV
IMO, numbers 2, 4 and 6 were good and numbers 1, 3 and 5 were rubbish.
I am of an age where even if I wanted to I would not even be considered. Parties want biddable youngsters not feisty women with knowledge and experience who know their own mind and are not afraid of saying what they think.
That is true of most men, never mind political parties
Yes. Probably both, definitely Labour. Perhaps I'm cynical but it doesn't look like it is falling apart, just that more are noticing they are claiming to be all things on the issue. But if no one is leaving the party over it then it's immaterial.
Labour is fortunate that it is not in power, and is very unlikely to be in power before March 2019. As such, its internal contradictions on Brexit policy don't really matter. That may change once it does matter - in an election or, even more, in office - but for the time being, as long as they're largely politically powerless on the issue, they'll get away with it.
I am of an age where even if I wanted to I would not even be considered. Parties want biddable youngsters not feisty women with knowledge and experience who know their own mind and are not afraid of saying what they think.
That is true of most men, never mind political parties
So you think a no-deal would be less damaging for the UK? As its fairly clear there is no chance of reaching a deal in the short term and even if May reaches one with the EU it isn't getting past parliament.
As Alastair says, starting from here there are no good options. The least bad one is as you say at significant risk of being torpedoed in parliament (even assuming we get that far). We'd be in a new situation if that failed, but I'd be guided by the maxim that you should never give in to blackmail.
I think it might be wise to check if the rest of the country are as principled as you regarding not giving into blackmail - 'bathing their hands in blood' and all that.
Also, while reversing Brexit now would leave us in a weakened position in the EU, it would be a stronger position than if we rejoined in a decade or two.
You might struggle to persuade those who voted Leave previously to accept staying in the EU 'in a weakened position'.
I've just watched yesterday's GP, and I'm now going to say something incredibly controversial:
Max Verstappen was to blame for the collision with Ocon.
I suspect you are right - Even when I first saw it yesterday I really don't think Ocon was given enough track to avoid a collusion....
When I heard it live on the radio, I thought it was a slam-dunk against Ocon: it sounded like he made a dive in the corner to get past.
They went around one bend together without colliding, and Max knew he was there. He did not leave room for Ocon on the second bend.
Drivers are allowed to unlap themselves, and Ocon was obviously faster. Given that, if they had been for racing position then there's no way Ocon did anything wrong.
The stewards got that one wrong IMO. And Max's behaviour afterwards was lamentable. And Red Bull should have stopped him.
I've just watched yesterday's GP, and I'm now going to say something incredibly controversial:
Max Verstappen was to blame for the collision with Ocon.
I suspect you are right - Even when I first saw it yesterday I really don't think Ocon was given enough track to avoid a collusion....
When I heard it live on the radio, I thought it was a slam-dunk against Ocon: it sounded like he made a dive in the corner to get past.
They went around one bend together without colliding, and Max knew he was there. He did not leave room for Ocon on the second bend.
Drivers are allowed to unlap themselves, and Ocon was obviously faster. Given that, if they had been for racing position then there's no way Ocon did anything wrong.
The stewards got that one wrong IMO. And Max's behaviour afterwards was lamentable. And Red Bull should have stopped him.
Verstappen drove into Ocon so Verstappen was in the wrong - not Ocon who just held his line alongside Verstappen.
The Stewards gave too much weight to the fact Verstappen was a lap ahead and based their decision on Ocon not been allowed to unlap himself when he was allowed to do so.
Yet again your complete failure to understand monarchy and tradition not free market liberalism is the epitome of conservatism either if neither are socialism
All those conservatives in America love their monarch of course.
Don't be a numpty.
Trump is a nationalist not a conservative.
Conservatives in Australia, New Zealand and Canada and Japan are also all monarchist and conservatism arose in Europe in defence of the monarchy and landed classes, it was liberalism that arose from support for the free market and merchant classes
Can anyone think of any franchise where the fourth or subsequent film was among the best? often, it can be an absolute shocker, following on from a very good third.
Batman Begins and subsequent films were better than the previous Batman movies.
"Brexit has cost you your strength! Victory has defeated you!"
Yet again your complete failure to understand monarchy and tradition not free market liberalism is the epitome of conservatism either if neither are socialism
All those conservatives in America love their monarch of course.
Don't be a numpty.
Trump is a nationalist not a conservative.
Conservatives in Australia, New Zealand and Canada and Japan are also all monarchist and conservatism arose in Europe in defence of the monarchy and landed classes, it was liberalism that arose from support for the free market and merchant classes
The USA is a Republic France is a Republic Germany is Republic
Comments
If before, we have never left so the terms are the pre-Cameron deal terms.
If after it's about Rejoining - which is a very different issue altogether.
I agree with you about trust. There would need to be generosity of attitude on both sides (not much in evidence I grant you). But simply going ahead with something that is damaging just because we cannot bear to admit an error seems daft to me.
Understanding the limits of the possible is a good lesson for everyone.
If we remain and the EU does not learn the lessons it needs to learn, that that leaves the risk of all the resentments which led to this vote in the first place re-erupting all over again. So there has to be some real soul-searching both here and in the EU for any renewed relationship to work. I see little sign of that now and it will, maybe, take the next generation of politicians to do this.
What a mess!
With we three on board, surely everything else is ancillary? Let's do it!
I'm talking about the permanent means we have to restrict EU migration. Demanding migrants have a job after 3 months or have health insurance and sufficient funds to not be a burden on the state. We don't do this.
We don't do any of that so saying we have to leave the EU to restrict migration is false.
Great question. Am racking my brains.
As for influence on world affairs Im happily in a boat where that will go population shifts alone will dicate that, You still seem to believe we have some mission civilatrice.
Certainly, the damage to the economy from a No Deal outcome would be severe but the damage to the country's political and social organism would be much worse were the votes of so many people to be overriden without providing reasons that *they* accept. Trust in democracy and the norms of political behaviour could well break down, taking the country down a very dark road.
Also, while reversing Brexit now would leave us in a weakened position in the EU, it would be a stronger position than if we rejoined in a decade or two.
And reality. We are where we are, another referendum won't sort anything. There was a narrow majority to leave, so we should leave narrowly. Also this solves the Irish issues.
Myself and @Anazina are onboard. So that is two of us"xD
I like "There was a narrow majority to leave, so we should leave narrowly". I voted remain but that ship has sailed and re-running the referendum is going to increase the rancour. I think the UK should leave, suffer the consequences and learn the lessons. Yes it will cost a lot of money but boy will it be a learning experience and the Tory party owns the whole thing.
Scotland may well finally decide to leave the UK and NI seems to be on some sort of tipping point. We are going over the cliff, let's hope it is a low one and we can all swim.
Star Trek 2009?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/
Great shout.
I am beginning to feel that there is no point in voting anymore. My vote in my constituency doesn't matter. It didn't matter in 2016 and I won't get one now.
So blathering on the internet is the only thing left or, as Voltaire put it, cultivating one's jardin.
Well, we knew you had a high opinion of him, Richard...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46179270
I agree. The behaviour of cyclist on paths and roads can be atrocious for pedestrians.
But politically? Would the EU really say no - go away - or let's have different terms - with all the need for more endless bloody negotiation. Might it not breathe a sigh of relief and carry on on the same basis as before?
Your point about damaging regulation is well made but that would likely have happened anyway had we stayed in and will happen if we end up in a position where we have to follow the rules but have no say in them. When you're in you have the possibility of influence. We're going to lose that without any of the possible advantages.
All a fantasy I know......
If "Leave" loses and the public vote "Remain" then the Leavers can say, we tried to take you out so do not moan at us because you decided to stay in.
For "Leave" the 2nd Referendum is a great safety valve.
If we leave with no deal, those that voted to leave are not going to be silent and happy about their lot.
As things get worse they will be noisy and angry at the politicians who promised them £350m a week for the NHS, among other things, which were of course not predicated on a deal. They were the dividends of leaving, full stop.
So yes, there might be riots if we remained, but to think that leaving with no deal is the way to avoid them is naive
NEW THREAD
IMO, numbers 2, 4 and 6 were good and numbers 1, 3 and 5 were rubbish.
They went around one bend together without colliding, and Max knew he was there. He did not leave room for Ocon on the second bend.
Drivers are allowed to unlap themselves, and Ocon was obviously faster. Given that, if they had been for racing position then there's no way Ocon did anything wrong.
The stewards got that one wrong IMO. And Max's behaviour afterwards was lamentable. And Red Bull should have stopped him.
Verstappen drove into Ocon so Verstappen was in the wrong - not Ocon who just held his line alongside Verstappen.
The Stewards gave too much weight to the fact Verstappen was a lap ahead and based their decision on Ocon not been allowed to unlap himself when he was allowed to do so.
Conservatives in Australia, New Zealand and Canada and Japan are also all monarchist and conservatism arose in Europe in defence of the monarchy and landed classes, it was liberalism that arose from support for the free market and merchant classes
France is a Republic
Germany is Republic
Monarchy = jobs for life = Socialism!