There's probably only one course of action that could save Boris but it's very high risk.
And that's on Thursday to call a General Election. Go straight for the jugular: a do-or-die Brexit mandate. Election date in early September.
He won't because like most politicians he loves the trappings of power and he thinks he's got some Churchillian destiny about him. Which will be one of a myriad reasons for his downfall.
FTPA
Corbyn wouldn’t refuse. FTPA is a useless piece of legislation, and should be inked.
Agreed. It has been one of the coalition's worst enactments. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
Which is presumably what Cameron tells himself at night about the Referendum.
Such an odd sentiment. It seems to derive from the idea that governments should be allowed to scoop up the cards and redeal whenever life is getting too taxing for them. There's a lot to be said for giving MPs more power.
It's not 'odd.' I think most people now realise that far from strengthening MPs' hands it actually does the opposite. It has introduced constraints and some genuinely curious constitutional anomalies e.g. the 14 day cooling off period. Rather than empowering MPs through a VONC, that is no longer viewed as the inevitable downfall of a Gov't. The fixed 5-yr rule has introduced a sterility to proceedings and made MPs and the Govt in particular less, not more, accountable.
It's not a cooling-off period, rather it sets a deadline for a new government to be formed so that the PM-in-commission can't keep kicking the can in the hope something will come up. It's to allow for governing parties losing confidence in their leadership while still having a majority in the Commons.
To me the real flaw in the FTPA is too rigidly constraining what constitutes a VONC. It should at least included Loss of Supply as triggering the 14-day deadline and allowed PMs to designate a substantive vote as being a matter of confidence.
The president continued: ‘I disagree with it by the way. ‘It was quite a chant and I feel a little bit badly about it. ‘But I will say this. It started up rather fast, as you probably noticed.’
I'd imagine that the family of Lyra McKee may disagree with you, but I daresay you're of the 'Jo Cox, move on, nothing to see here' mindset.
It does seem to occupy the thoughts of those of a less blithe outlook though.
Fears of return to Troubles
About 16,600,000 results (0.40 seconds)
And you don't have to go far into the list to see that very many of those 16,600,000 aren't about Ireland. These are the ones from 61-80 with non-Ireland pages in bold..
The Guardian: 2019-07-18 - Unionists 'fear ... - PressReader
Understanding the Causes of Bathmophobia - Verywell Mind
What will happen to the Irish border after Brexit, when is the ...
The Trouble With Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong ...
German far right fuels Muslim 'takeover' fears – POLITICO
Thanks for correcting my loose search criteria.
Fears of return to Ireland Troubles
About 18,300,000 results (0.30 seconds)
So just to be clear - you don't think the unionist/nationalist divide is helping to create the land of milk and honey on the island of Ireland. But the land of milk and honey will be available in Scotland if they vote for independence?
It's only in binary Yoonworld that the terms of reference can solely be dystopian hellhole or land of milk and honey.
I'm aiming for better, and as long as we don't get a mass migration of NI Loyalists who no longer feel comfortable in a united Ireland pursuing their kulture of burning SF pols in effigy and daubing 'Taig' on Caflicks' houses, better is definitely attainable.
Why would loyalists move to iScot? Out of the frying pan into the fryer.
Don't worry - there will be plenty of real problems to deal with - and I seriously doubt it will be "better"
You support Brexit. Do you think it will make the UK better, worse or have no effect?
I've stated I'm ambivalent on Brexit. Nobody knows if the UK will be better or worse off.
We can be pretty sure that an iScot would be worse off.
Under what form of Brexit could the UK be better off?
Soft Brexit/Hard Brexit/No Deal Brexit.
Great so let’s have a No Deal Brexit. It could strengthen the union and give you what you want.
Getting bored now - say something interesting and I might respond
I'd imagine that the family of Lyra McKee may disagree with you, but I daresay you're of the 'Jo Cox, move on, nothing to see here' mindset.
It does seem to occupy the thoughts of those of a less blithe outlook though.
Fears of return to Troubles
About 16,600,000 results (0.40 seconds)
And you don't have to go far into the list to see that very many of those 16,600,000 aren't about Ireland. These are the ones from 61-80 with non-Ireland pages in bold..
The Guardian: 2019-07-18 - Unionists 'fear ... - PressReader
Understanding the Causes of Bathmophobia - Verywell Mind
What will happen to the Irish border after Brexit, when is the ...
The Trouble With Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong ...
German far right fuels Muslim 'takeover' fears – POLITICO
Thanks for correcting my loose search criteria.
Fears of return to Ireland Troubles
About 18,300,000 results (0.30 seconds)
So just to be clear - you don't think the unionist/nationalist divide is helping to create the land of milk and honey on the island of Ireland. But the land of milk and honey will be available in Scotland if they vote for independence?
It's only in binary Yoonworld that the terms of reference can solely be dystopian hellhole or land of milk and honey.
I'm aiming for better, and as long as we don't get a mass migration of NI Loyalists who no longer feel comfortable in a united Ireland pursuing their kulture of burning SF pols in effigy and daubing 'Taig' on Caflicks' houses, better is definitely attainable.
Why would loyalists move to iScot? Out of the frying pan into the fryer.
Don't worry - there will be plenty of real problems to deal with - and I seriously doubt it will be "better"
You support Brexit. Do you think it will make the UK better, worse or have no effect?
I've stated I'm ambivalent on Brexit. Nobody knows if the UK will be better or worse off.
We can be pretty sure that an iScot would be worse off.
Under what form of Brexit could the UK be better off?
Soft Brexit/Hard Brexit/No Deal Brexit.
Within three mins who knows if we are going to be better off or not after brexit to any form of brexit will make us better off!
We'll be saving 350 mil p/w(gross) for a start - So I guess you're right -I'm being too cautious - We'll be better off.
Oh, dear, be careful of simplistic mathematics. All those economists, the CBI, the TUC are all wrong. What are your credentials, or are you a maverick economist who likes to go against the vast body of opinion? More importantly, how can you think this same anti-logic does not apply to Scottish Independence?
We'll be saving 350 mil p/w(gross) for a start - So I guess you're right -I'm being too cautious - We'll be better off.
Oh, dear, be careful of simplistic mathematics. All those economists, the CBI, the TUC are all wrong. What are your credentials, or are you a maverick economist who likes to go against the vast body of opinion? More importantly, how can you think this same anti-logic does not apply to Scottish Independence?
I got a good pass in my economics course at the OU. So, yeah, I'm a maverick economist.
PS - nobodies mentioned short run/medium run/long run yet.
Under what form of Brexit could the UK be better off?
Economically worse off almost certainly.
But Brexit might make approx 17m people FEEL genuinely better. Feel more content, more empowered - more sovereign basically - as they go about their daily business.
I think Mr Francois thinks that he can be a pilot in the plural if we free ourselves from the dastardly EU. Thank you for the apostrophe pedantry, but I accept misappropriated apostrophes can confuse meaning, though not in this case methinks!
There's probably only one course of action that could save Boris but it's very high risk.
And that's on Thursday to call a General Election. Go straight for the jugular: a do-or-die Brexit mandate. Election date in early September.
He won't because like most politicians he loves the trappings of power and he thinks he's got some Churchillian destiny about him. Which will be one of a myriad reasons for his downfall.
FTPA
Corbyn wouldn’t refuse. FTPA is a useless piece of legislation, and should be inked.
Agreed. It has been one of the coalition's worst enactments. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
Which is presumably what Cameron tells himself at night about the Referendum.
Such an odd sentiment. It seems to derive from the idea that governments should be allowed to scoop up the cards and redeal whenever life is getting too taxing for them. There's a lot to be said for giving MPs more power.
It's not 'odd.' I think most people now realise that far from strengthening MPs' hands it actually does the opposite. It has introduced constraints and some genuinely curious constitutional anomalies e.g. the 14 day cooling off period. Rather than empowering MPs through a VONC, that is no longer viewed as the inevitable downfall of a Gov't. The fixed 5-yr rule has introduced a sterility to proceedings and made MPs and the Govt in particular less, not more, accountable.
I agree. I don't see how any government could possibly have survived the massive defeats sustained by Mrs May in relation to her deal which was almost her entire legislative program without the FTPA. Any government before would have fallen which might have made some of the more self indugent twats who voted against it on the government side think twice.
Whether they are capable of thought or not there should have been a greater consequence of their actions than the continuation of a zombified government.
Both of you regret that the government didn't have additional power to bludgeon MPs into submission. Your complaint is about the poor quality of MPs, not the balance of power.
I think that is the wrong way to look at it Alastair. My complaint is that a government demonstrably incapable of governing remained in office because of the FTPA. That is wrong.
Under what form of Brexit could the UK be better off?
Economically worse off almost certainly.
But Brexit might make approx 17m people FEEL genuinely better. Feel more content, more empowered - more sovereign basically - as they go about their daily business.
How to put a price on that?
An interesting question.
When I started reading this article, I thought it likely most relevant to looking at opinion polls: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/perverse-incentives …In one study, nineteen per cent of high-school students who claimed to be adopted turned out to be kidding. In another, ninety-nine per cent of students who said they used an artificial limb really didn’t. Adults aren’t immune to the temptations of mischief. The blogger Scott Alexander points out that four per cent of Americans tell pollsters that they think reptilian aliens rule the Earth. (Another seven per cent say that they are “not sure.”)…
But lower down, this: “On a societal level, the desire to exercise choice may create collective perversity…”
There's probably only one course of action that could save Boris but it's very high risk.
And that's on Thursday to call a General Election. Go straight for the jugular: a do-or-die Brexit mandate. Election date in early September.
He won't because like most politicians he loves the trappings of power and he thinks he's got some Churchillian destiny about him. Which will be one of a myriad reasons for his downfall.
FTPA
Corbyn wouldn’t refuse. FTPA is a useless piece of legislation, and should be inked.
Agreed. It has been one of the coalition's worst enactments. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
Which is presumably what Cameron tells himself at night about the Referendum.
It was probably essential given how much the LibDems, apparently other than those around Clegg, mistrusted the Conservatives. The trust the other way was pretty limited, too.
Yet more constitutional outrages from the LDs. They are the reason we are stuck with constituency borders drafted in (what seems like) the dark ages.
FPTP is a travesty of an election system to anyone who believes that our legistaure should broadly represent the voters. Any inequality caused by the boundaries pale into insignificance by comparison
We'll be saving 350 mil p/w(gross) for a start - So I guess you're right -I'm being too cautious - We'll be better off.
What's the net figure?
Well, in June according to the ONS release this morning: "Every year the European Commission (EC) reports retrospective adjustments to the EU budget contributions of EU member states based on the latest Value Added Tax (VAT) and gross national income (GNI) data.
In June 2019, the UK paid £1,033 million to the EU budget through GNI- and VAT-based contributions, which are made net of the UK rebate. This payment consisted of our standard monthly VAT- and GNI-based contributions of £1,060 million, along with a £27 million credit covering adjustments for earlier years. By comparison, in June 2018, the UK received a £237 million credit from the EU. This reduction in credit accounts for around half of the observed £405 million year-on-year June increase in EU contributions."
Just over £1bn. Remaining in the EU is a seriously expensive hobby and the fringe benefits like the EU Medicines regulator left in January.
Corbyn wouldn’t refuse. FTPA is a useless piece of legislation, and should be inked.
Agreed. It has been one of the coalition's worst enactments. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
Which is presumably what Cameron tells himself at night about the Referendum.
Such an odd sentiment. It seems to derive from the idea that governments should be allowed to scoop up the cards and redeal whenever life is getting too taxing for them. There's a lot to be said for giving MPs more power.
It's not 'odd.' I think most people now realise that far from strengthening MPs' hands it actually does the opposite. It has introduced constraints and some genuinely curious constitutional anomalies e.g. the 14 day cooling off period. Rather than empowering MPs through a VONC, that is no longer viewed as the inevitable downfall of a Gov't. The fixed 5-yr rule has introduced a sterility to proceedings and made MPs and the Govt in particular less, not more, accountable.
I agree. I don't see how any government could possibly have survived the massive defeats sustained by Mrs May in relation to her deal which was almost her entire legislative program without the FTPA. Any government before would have fallen which might have made some of the more self indugent twats who voted against it on the government side think twice.
Whether they are capable of thought or not there should have been a greater consequence of their actions than the continuation of a zombified government.
Both of you regret that the government didn't have additional power to bludgeon MPs into submission. Your complaint is about the poor quality of MPs, not the balance of power.
I think that is the wrong way to look at it Alastair. My complaint is that a government demonstrably incapable of governing remained in office because of the FTPA. That is wrong.
The first mistake came at the formation of the government. It made no attempt to be strong and stable, ironically. The mistake at the time of the meaningful vote was that MPs did not follow through on the logic of their position.
I have never said that - as a non-Corbynite who ceased to be a party member 23 years ago. In 2015 I did register as a £3 supporter and voted for Yvette Cooper.
We'll be saving 350 mil p/w(gross) for a start - So I guess you're right -I'm being too cautious - We'll be better off.
Oh, dear, be careful of simplistic mathematics. All those economists, the CBI, the TUC are all wrong. What are your credentials, or are you a maverick economist who likes to go against the vast body of opinion? More importantly, how can you think this same anti-logic does not apply to Scottish Independence?
I got a good pass in my economics course at the OU. So, yeah, I'm a maverick economist.
PS - nobodies mentioned short run/medium run/long run yet.
Excellent, headhunters must have you on the top of the list for next post of Secretary General of the OECD, with such outstanding credentials. Perhaps in the same spirit I should use my GCE Physics to make pronouncements on the space-time continuum, cos I think most experts have got that wrong. In fact I think the earth just could possibly be flat.
It's not 'odd.' I think most people now realise that far from strengthening MPs' hands it actually does the opposite. It has introduced constraints and some genuinely curious constitutional anomalies e.g. the 14 day cooling off period. Rather than empowering MPs through a VONC, that is no longer viewed as the inevitable downfall of a Gov't. The fixed 5-yr rule has introduced a sterility to proceedings and made MPs and the Govt in particular less, not more, accountable.
I agree. I don't see how any government could possibly have survived the massive defeats sustained by Mrs May in relation to her deal which was almost her entire legislative program without the FTPA. Any government before would have fallen which might have made some of the more self indugent twats who voted against it on the government side think twice.
Whether they are capable of thought or not there should have been a greater consequence of their actions than the continuation of a zombified government.
Both of you regret that the government didn't have additional power to bludgeon MPs into submission. Your complaint is about the poor quality of MPs, not the balance of power.
I think that is the wrong way to look at it Alastair. My complaint is that a government demonstrably incapable of governing remained in office because of the FTPA. That is wrong.
The first mistake came at the formation of the government. It made no attempt to be strong and stable, ironically. The mistake at the time of the meaningful vote was that MPs did not follow through on the logic of their position.
The government made lots of mistakes. And yet it remains in office. Don't you see the problem with that?
We'll be saving 350 mil p/w(gross) for a start - So I guess you're right -I'm being too cautious - We'll be better off.
Oh, dear, be careful of simplistic mathematics. All those economists, the CBI, the TUC are all wrong. What are your credentials, or are you a maverick economist who likes to go against the vast body of opinion? More importantly, how can you think this same anti-logic does not apply to Scottish Independence?
I got a good pass in my economics course at the OU. So, yeah, I'm a maverick economist.
PS - nobodies mentioned short run/medium run/long run yet.
Excellent, headhunters must have you on the top of the list for next post of Secretary General of the OECD, with such outstanding credentials. Perhaps in the same spirit I should use my GCE Physics to make pronouncements on the space-time continuum, cos I think most experts have got that wrong. In fact I think the earth just could possibly be flat.
lol - I haven't been employable for a while - Me and Ms Brisk thank our overlord Amber everyday and are very thankful!
We'll be saving 350 mil p/w(gross) for a start - So I guess you're right -I'm being too cautious - We'll be better off.
Oh, dear, be careful of simplistic mathematics. All those economists, the CBI, the TUC are all wrong. What are your credentials, or are you a maverick economist who likes to go against the vast body of opinion? More importantly, how can you think this same anti-logic does not apply to Scottish Independence?
I got a good pass in my economics course at the OU. So, yeah, I'm a maverick economist.
PS - nobodies mentioned short run/medium run/long run yet.
Excellent, headhunters must have you on the top of the list for next post of Secretary General of the OECD, with such outstanding credentials. Perhaps in the same spirit I should use my GCE Physics to make pronouncements on the space-time continuum, cos I think most experts have got that wrong. In fact I think the earth just could possibly be flat.
You're not the one who paints that on bridges are you?
There's probably only one course of action that could save Boris but it's very high risk.
And that's on Thursday to call a General Election. Go straight for the jugular: a do-or-die Brexit mandate. Election date in early September.
He won't because like most politicians he loves the trappings of power and he thinks he's got some Churchillian destiny about him. Which will be one of a myriad reasons for his downfall.
FTPA
Corbyn wouldn’t refuse. FTPA is a useless piece of legislation, and should be inked.
Agreed. It has been one of the coalition's worst enactments. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
Which is presumably what Cameron tells himself at night about the Referendum.
Such an odd sentiment. It seems to derive from the idea that governments should be allowed to scoop up the cards and redeal whenever life is getting too taxing for them. There's a lot to be said for giving MPs more power.
It's not 'odd.' I think most people now realise that far from strengthening MPs' hands it actually does the opposite. It has introduced constraints and some genuinely curious constitutional anomalies e.g. the 14 day cooling off period. Rather than empowering MPs through a VONC, that is no longer viewed as the inevitable downfall of a Gov't. The fixed 5-yr rule has introduced a sterility to proceedings and made MPs and the Govt in particular less, not more, accountable.
I agree. I don't see how any government could possibly have survived the massive defeats sustained by Mrs May in relation to her deal which was almost her entire legislative program without the FTPA. Any government before would have fallen which might have made some of the more self indugent twats who voted against it on the government side think twice.
Whether they are capable of thought or not there should have been a greater consequence of their actions than the continuation of a zombified government.
Both of you regret that the government didn't have additional power to bludgeon MPs into submission. Your complaint is about the poor quality of MPs, not the balance of power.
I think that is the wrong way to look at it Alastair. My complaint is that a government demonstrably incapable of governing remained in office because of the FTPA. That is wrong.
And without the FTPA how would they have been changed?
There still isn't the numbers for a VoNC to pass (it failed) and May wasn't going to try for a second election...
I don't think that's Gerard Batten's Twitter account.
Actually I think it is. He's not blue ticked but twitter doesn't like those on the right so that might be it. An attack directly on the Queen is extraordinary even by UKIP's standards !
Under what form of Brexit could the UK be better off?
Economically worse off almost certainly.
But Brexit might make approx 17m people FEEL genuinely better. Feel more content, more empowered - more sovereign basically - as they go about their daily business.
How to put a price on that?
But none of those things mean anything in reality how will they feel more empowered? Where are they going to use the new empowerment? The same for content and sovereign. It’s all mythical nonsense
I think that is the wrong way to look at it Alastair. My complaint is that a government demonstrably incapable of governing remained in office because of the FTPA. That is wrong.
And without the FTPA how would they have been changed?
There still isn't the numbers for a VoNC to pass (it failed) and May wasn't going to try for a second election...
The government would have fallen at the first MV, and there would have been an election.
Yes - interesting. I was being semi sarcastic but semi serious too. Brexit is most certainly in the main about things other than pounds and pence. Deeper things to do with identity.
Same applies to the most passionate ANTI Brexiters for that matter. Although perhaps not quite to the same extent.
I agree. I don't see how any government could possibly have survived the massive defeats sustained by Mrs May in relation to her deal which was almost her entire legislative program without the FTPA. Any government before would have fallen which might have made some of the more self indugent twats who voted against it on the government side think twice.
Whether they are capable of thought or not there should have been a greater consequence of their actions than the continuation of a zombified government.
Both of you regret that the government didn't have additional power to bludgeon MPs into submission. Your complaint is about the poor quality of MPs, not the balance of power.
I think that is the wrong way to look at it Alastair. My complaint is that a government demonstrably incapable of governing remained in office because of the FTPA. That is wrong.
And without the FTPA how would they have been changed?
There still isn't the numbers for a VoNC to pass (it failed) and May wasn't going to try for a second election...
Before the FTPA a government which failed to pass its core legislation had no right or expectation of remaining in office. Given no alternative majority is available we would have had an election then. Instead we have wasted the best part of 9 months at a cost of approximately £9bn of extra contributions. We have had no functioning government in that time and made no progress because there are no consequences for the inexplicable stupidity of our MPs. May eventually recognised that and quit but even now remains our PM. Its absurd.
I don't think that's Gerard Batten's Twitter account.
Actually I think it is. He's not blue ticked but twitter doesn't like those on the right so that might be it. An attack directly on the Queen is extraordinary even by UKIP's standards !
I was sceptical because Google says his Twitter account is @GerardBattenMEP. But when I click on the link it says there's no such account. Strange.
I think that is the wrong way to look at it Alastair. My complaint is that a government demonstrably incapable of governing remained in office because of the FTPA. That is wrong.
And without the FTPA how would they have been changed?
There still isn't the numbers for a VoNC to pass (it failed) and May wasn't going to try for a second election...
The government would have fallen at the first MV, and there would have been an election.
No it wouldn't - after losing the MV a VoNC would have been required and that was what happened.
Governments lose votes all the time - occasional a VoNC follows and its that VoNC that results in the government falling see Labour 1979 and the Tories from 1995 through to 97..
Granted the last 9 months have been absurd but that is as much because no-one wants their name against the final decision and outcome..
I don't think that's Gerard Batten's Twitter account.
Actually I think it is. He's not blue ticked but twitter doesn't like those on the right so that might be it. An attack directly on the Queen is extraordinary even by UKIP's standards !
I was sceptical because Google says his Twitter account is @GerardBattenMEP. But when I click on the link it says there's no such account. Strange.
I saw the same. Probably can’t call himself MEP when he no longer is one.
I don't think that's Gerard Batten's Twitter account.
Actually I think it is. He's not blue ticked but twitter doesn't like those on the right so that might be it. An attack directly on the Queen is extraordinary even by UKIP's standards !
I was sceptical because Google says his Twitter account is @GerardBattenMEP. But when I click on the link it says there's no such account. Strange.
I think that is the wrong way to look at it Alastair. My complaint is that a government demonstrably incapable of governing remained in office because of the FTPA. That is wrong.
And without the FTPA how would they have been changed?
There still isn't the numbers for a VoNC to pass (it failed) and May wasn't going to try for a second election...
The government would have fallen at the first MV, and there would have been an election.
No it wouldn't - after losing the MV a VoNC would have been required and that was what happened.
Governments lose votes all the time - occasional a VoNC follows....
Not if it was a confidence issue. Many examples in the past where a separate confidence motion was not required.
We'll be saving 350 mil p/w(gross) for a start - So I guess you're right -I'm being too cautious - We'll be better off.
Oh, dear, be careful of simplistic mathematics. All those economists, the CBI, the TUC are all wrong. What are your credentials, or are you a maverick economist who likes to go against the vast body of opinion? More importantly, how can you think this same anti-logic does not apply to Scottish Independence?
I got a good pass in my economics course at the OU. So, yeah, I'm a maverick economist.
PS - nobodies mentioned short run/medium run/long run yet.
Excellent, headhunters must have you on the top of the list for next post of Secretary General of the OECD, with such outstanding credentials. Perhaps in the same spirit I should use my GCE Physics to make pronouncements on the space-time continuum, cos I think most experts have got that wrong. In fact I think the earth just could possibly be flat.
You're not the one who paints that on bridges are you?
Yes, I was trying to get to a high point to see if I could see the edge of the earth. You know, the bit on the map that says "here be dragons"
Under what form of Brexit could the UK be better off?
Economically worse off almost certainly.
But Brexit might make approx 17m people FEEL genuinely better. Feel more content, more empowered - more sovereign basically - as they go about their daily business.
How to put a price on that?
It might make the other half of the population feel genuinely worse. The subjective part of the equation seems to cancel itself out.
I don't think that's Gerard Batten's Twitter account.
Actually I think it is. He's not blue ticked but twitter doesn't like those on the right so that might be it. An attack directly on the Queen is extraordinary even by UKIP's standards !
He has made this anti-HMQ point on Twitter before. It's excessively tedious given that we are a constitutional monarchy and so Parliament can choose another Monarch, should it wish.
Under what form of Brexit could the UK be better off?
Economically worse off almost certainly.
But Brexit might make approx 17m people FEEL genuinely better. Feel more content, more empowered - more sovereign basically - as they go about their daily business.
How to put a price on that?
It might make the other half of the population feel genuinely worse. The subjective part of the equation seems to cancel itself out.
Really - I suspect the empowerment would disappear quickly as going abroad on holiday became obviously more expensive...
Yes - interesting. I was being semi sarcastic but semi serious too. Brexit is most certainly in the main about things other than pounds and pence. Deeper things to do with identity. Same applies to the most passionate ANTI Brexiters for that matter. Although perhaps not quite to the same extent.
Though I'd argue that the anti-brexit argument is the more rational one, you are quite correct, I think.
The choice thing is of particular importance, and explains the Brexiteer obsession with EU regulation (whether invented or not), which represents a closing down of choices, imposed from 'outside', whether or not that particular regulation might affect your own life. (As we've seen time and again, many of these so called EU impositions are of course choices made by our own government.)
I liked the end of the article, Morgenbesser being something of a hero of mine.
An example that I admire is simpler, more modest, and more absurd. It concerns the Columbia University philosopher Sidney Morgenbesser, who was famous for quips and one-liners. It’s said that a waitress once asked Morgenbesser what he wanted for dessert—apple pie or blueberry pie. He chose the apple pie. Then she returned with news: there was also cherry pie. “In that case,” Morgenbesser said, “I’ll have the blueberry.”
We'll be saving 350 mil p/w(gross) for a start - So I guess you're right -I'm being too cautious - We'll be better off.
Oh, dear, be careful of simplistic mathematics. All those economists, the CBI, the TUC are all wrong. What are your credentials, or are you a maverick economist who likes to go against the vast body of opinion? More importantly, how can you think this same anti-logic does not apply to Scottish Independence?
I got a good pass in my economics course at the OU. So, yeah, I'm a maverick economist.
PS - nobodies mentioned short run/medium run/long run yet.
Excellent, headhunters must have you on the top of the list for next post of Secretary General of the OECD, with such outstanding credentials. Perhaps in the same spirit I should use my GCE Physics to make pronouncements on the space-time continuum, cos I think most experts have got that wrong. In fact I think the earth just could possibly be flat.
You're not the one who paints that on bridges are you?
Yes, I was trying to get to a high point to see if I could see the edge of the earth. You know, the bit on the map that says "here be dragons"
You should have tried NI. There were 3 dragons there at one time and one is still unaccounted for.
Speaking of 'here there be dragons', local news had a brilliant line the other night. The Government's supporting calls for more rail in the North (asked for by Dan Jarvis, mayor of the little bit of Yorkshire the Westminster nitwits think acceptable).
There's no more money available.
Luckily, Grayling's found £2bn to cock up Stonehenge with a tunnel.
Speaking of 'here there be dragons', local news had a brilliant line the other night. The Government's supporting calls for more rail in the North (asked for by Dan Jarvis, mayor of the little bit of Yorkshire the Westminster nitwits think acceptable).
There's no more money available.
Luckily, Grayling's found £2bn to cock up Stonehenge with a tunnel.
I thought the tunnel was a Good Thing that removed the road from the vista surrounding the site?
Speaking of 'here there be dragons', local news had a brilliant line the other night. The Government's supporting calls for more rail in the North (asked for by Dan Jarvis, mayor of the little bit of Yorkshire the Westminster nitwits think acceptable).
There's no more money available.
Luckily, Grayling's found £2bn to cock up Stonehenge with a tunnel.
I thought the tunnel was a Good Thing that removed the road from the vista surrounding the site?
Catching a glimpse of Stonehenge as you are static on the 303 is one of the small mercies of that journey.
Speaking of 'here there be dragons', local news had a brilliant line the other night. The Government's supporting calls for more rail in the North (asked for by Dan Jarvis, mayor of the little bit of Yorkshire the Westminster nitwits think acceptable).
There's no more money available.
Luckily, Grayling's found £2bn to cock up Stonehenge with a tunnel.
I thought the tunnel was a Good Thing that removed the road from the vista surrounding the site?
Catching a glimpse of Stonehenge as you are static on the 303 is one of the small mercies of that journey.
We'll be saving 350 mil p/w(gross) for a start - So I guess you're right -I'm being too cautious - We'll be better off.
Oh, dear, be careful of simplistic mathematics. All those economists, the CBI, the TUC are all wrong. What are your credentials, or are you a maverick economist who likes to go against the vast body of opinion? More importantly, how can you think this same anti-logic does not apply to Scottish Independence?
I got a good pass in my economics course at the OU. So, yeah, I'm a maverick economist.
PS - nobodies mentioned short run/medium run/long run yet.
Excellent, headhunters must have you on the top of the list for next post of Secretary General of the OECD, with such outstanding credentials. Perhaps in the same spirit I should use my GCE Physics to make pronouncements on the space-time continuum, cos I think most experts have got that wrong. In fact I think the earth just could possibly be flat.
You're not the one who paints that on bridges are you?
Yes, I was trying to get to a high point to see if I could see the edge of the earth. You know, the bit on the map that says "here be dragons"
You should have tried NI. There were 3 dragons there at one time and one is still unaccounted for.
You are being a little pedantic Richard. Yes technically it derives from the crown and we are all simply the Sovereign's "subjects", but in practice the constitutional monarchy does not work that way. In practice the Executive derives its delegated power through the Legislature, that is partly elected, and ludicrously, partly not. All of this should be reformed, but we have chosen to argue about one part of our constitutional settlement that needed much less reform; namely our relationship with the EU
I don't deny it needs reform. I have argued for a long time on here that the last vestiges of Royal Prerogative need to be removed and all these decisions rest completely with Parliament.
But at present that is not the case and the only way to make it the case in time to do anything serious about Brexit (assuming Johnson is being true to his word for the first time in his life) would be to force through the legislation without proper scrutiny and debate. Something that we know from history is a very bad thing to do.
Which brings us back to the original point. If Boris really does refuse to ask for an extension or revoke, then the only means left open to Parliament is to vote him out and agree a replacement. All this talk of getting someone else to ask for an extension in his place without actually getting rid of him is simply fanciful rubbish.
Yes - interesting. I was being semi sarcastic but semi serious too. Brexit is most certainly in the main about things other than pounds and pence. Deeper things to do with identity. Same applies to the most passionate ANTI Brexiters for that matter. Although perhaps not quite to the same extent.
Though I'd argue that the anti-brexit argument is the more rational one, you are quite correct, I think.
The choice thing is of particular importance, and explains the Brexiteer obsession with EU regulation (whether invented or not), which represents a closing down of choices, imposed from 'outside', whether or not that particular regulation might affect your own life. (As we've seen time and again, many of these so called EU impositions are of course choices made by our own government.)
I liked the end of the article, Morgenbesser being something of a hero of mine.
An example that I admire is simpler, more modest, and more absurd. It concerns the Columbia University philosopher Sidney Morgenbesser, who was famous for quips and one-liners. It’s said that a waitress once asked Morgenbesser what he wanted for dessert—apple pie or blueberry pie. He chose the apple pie. Then she returned with news: there was also cherry pie. “In that case,” Morgenbesser said, “I’ll have the blueberry.”
Morgenbesser sounds a bit thick to me. Why did he switch from apple to blueberry?
Speaking of 'here there be dragons', local news had a brilliant line the other night. The Government's supporting calls for more rail in the North (asked for by Dan Jarvis, mayor of the little bit of Yorkshire the Westminster nitwits think acceptable).
There's no more money available.
Luckily, Grayling's found £2bn to cock up Stonehenge with a tunnel.
There was a classic little Grayling anecdote on a Smart Motorways piece on WatO today.
In a discussion, he was asked what he'd do if he broke down on the running lane of a motorway.
"I'd get out" "You'd be dead now, Minister"
I felt the urge to bash my head against something hard.
Now Parliament can of course decide to change the Constitutional arrangements but to do so would require Primary legislation passed by both Houses. I am sure that as someone who rightly opposed any idea of abusing Parliamentary process by proroguing Parliament you are not suggesting similar abuse by forcing through major constitutional change without proper consideration and debate just to achieve a particular short term political objective?
I don't think that parliament exercising its sovereignty can possibly be abuse, and this wouldn't be to achieve a short-term political aim but to keep options open for parliament to consider the matter further without an artificial deadline imposed entirely by Boris trying to curry favour with a party which has gone bonkers. Anyway, the main point is not about the merits of this approach, but that it is not the case that a VONC is the only option open to parliament.
It is abuse if it runs counter to the current constitutional arrangements. You can't say it is not abuse simply because you happen to agree with their aims. So if Parliament decided that there would be no more elections and they could all sit for life, under your terms they would be exercising their sovereignty but in my eyes and the eyes of most people it would still be abuse.
As it stands if Boris chooses not to listen to Parliament then the only legal way to work around that is to get rid of him.
Speaking of 'here there be dragons', local news had a brilliant line the other night. The Government's supporting calls for more rail in the North (asked for by Dan Jarvis, mayor of the little bit of Yorkshire the Westminster nitwits think acceptable).
There's no more money available.
Luckily, Grayling's found £2bn to cock up Stonehenge with a tunnel.
I thought the tunnel was a Good Thing that removed the road from the vista surrounding the site?
In general, yes, but the site is a lot larger than just Stonehenge and I believe that there are concerns that the design chosen risks destroying parts of the wider area that haven't been as closely investigated as Stonehenge.
Short of shutting the road down completely there doesn't seem to be an answer that doesn't involve some degree of actual/potential damage though.
You are being a little pedantic Richard. Yes technically it derives from the crown and we are all simply the Sovereign's "subjects", but in practice the constitutional monarchy does not work that way. In practice the Executive derives its delegated power through the Legislature, that is partly elected, and ludicrously, partly not. All of this should be reformed, but we have chosen to argue about one part of our constitutional settlement that needed much less reform; namely our relationship with the EU
I don't deny it needs reform. I have argued for a long time on here that the last vestiges of Royal Prerogative need to be removed and all these decisions rest completely with Parliament.
But at present that is not the case and the only way to make it the case in time to do anything serious about Brexit (assuming Johnson is being true to his word for the first time in his life) would be to force through the legislation without proper scrutiny and debate. Something that we know from history is a very bad thing to do.
Which brings us back to the original point. If Boris really does refuse to ask for an extension or revoke, then the only means left open to Parliament is to vote him out and agree a replacement. All this talk of getting someone else to ask for an extension in his place without actually getting rid of him is simply fanciful rubbish.
Agree with your last point. Incidentally, I have often wondered whether Brexit is a constitutional distraction to prevent the masses form noticing our own system of "democracy" is crap
You are being a little pedantic Richard. Yes technically it derives from the crown and we are all simply the Sovereign's "subjects", but in practice the constitutional monarchy does not work that way. In practice the Executive derives its delegated power through the Legislature, that is partly elected, and ludicrously, partly not. All of this should be reformed, but we have chosen to argue about one part of our constitutional settlement that needed much less reform; namely our relationship with the EU
I don't deny it needs reform. I have argued for a long time on here that the last vestiges of Royal Prerogative need to be removed and all these decisions rest completely with Parliament.
But at present that is not the case and the only way to make it the case in time to do anything serious about Brexit (assuming Johnson is being true to his word for the first time in his life) would be to force through the legislation without proper scrutiny and debate. Something that we know from history is a very bad thing to do.
Which brings us back to the original point. If Boris really does refuse to ask for an extension or revoke, then the only means left open to Parliament is to vote him out and agree a replacement. All this talk of getting someone else to ask for an extension in his place without actually getting rid of him is simply fanciful rubbish.
Agree with your last point. Incidentally, I have often wondered whether Brexit is a constitutional distraction to prevent the masses form noticing our own system of "democracy" is crap
Our politicians are crap. Brexit is more a distraction to hide the fact nothing has been done (or will ever be done) to tackle the reasons why people voted for it.
Now Parliament can of course decide to change the Constitutional arrangements but to do so would require Primary legislation passed by both Houses. I am sure that as someone who rightly opposed any idea of abusing Parliamentary process by proroguing Parliament you are not suggesting similar abuse by forcing through major constitutional change without proper consideration and debate just to achieve a particular short term political objective?
I don't think that parliament exercising its sovereignty can possibly be abuse, and this wouldn't be to achieve a short-term political aim but to keep options open for parliament to consider the matter further without an artificial deadline imposed entirely by Boris trying to curry favour with a party which has gone bonkers. Anyway, the main point is not about the merits of this approach, but that it is not the case that a VONC is the only option open to parliament.
It is abuse if it runs counter to the current constitutional arrangements. You can't say it is not abuse simply because you happen to agree with their aims. So if Parliament decided that there would be no more elections and they could all sit for life, under your terms they would be exercising their sovereignty but in my eyes and the eyes of most people it would still be abuse.
As it stands if Boris chooses not to listen to Parliament then the only legal way to work around that is to get rid of him.
The Commons did precisely that during the Second World War and the reason it wasn't generally considered abusive was because most people agreed with their aims - to retain stability while the war was won. Do you agree that example contradicts your argument?
btw it's not of particular interest to anyone else but as PB is a group of people I associate with (internetically) I think you should know that I have now successfully transitioned.
Edit: sorry, I mean from iOS to Android
Do you now have a *ahem* headphone jack?
I had an ancient iPhone so I have never been jackless.
Likewise, it's the main reason I'm sticking with my old one Not sure what I'll do when it breaks.
Bluetooth headphones.
Honestly it was like when Apple ditched the CD/DVD drive from the laptops, then everybody followed suit.
Unless it is more like Coca Cola introducing new Coke in 1985 and unintroducing it 3 months later.
Under what form of Brexit could the UK be better off?
Economically worse off almost certainly.
But Brexit might make approx 17m people FEEL genuinely better. Feel more content, more empowered - more sovereign basically - as they go about their daily business.
How to put a price on that?
But there is no sign of Leavers actually feeling good about Brexit. Unless they actually ENJOY their new sense of betrayal. Which is the problem, I think. If they said, happy with May's Deal, proud to be part of the Vassal State -- then fine. Brexit is a success from their point of view.
Speaking of 'here there be dragons', local news had a brilliant line the other night. The Government's supporting calls for more rail in the North (asked for by Dan Jarvis, mayor of the little bit of Yorkshire the Westminster nitwits think acceptable).
There's no more money available.
Luckily, Grayling's found £2bn to cock up Stonehenge with a tunnel.
I thought the tunnel was a Good Thing that removed the road from the vista surrounding the site?
It would be a good thing if they were doing it properly.
Unfortunately they have decided to cut corners and are instead making the tunnel far too short so that it will destroy parts of the World Heritage site as the entrances will be within the main part of the archaeological landscape which is supposed to have the highest levels of protection. This includes some pretty unique wetland archaeology. In all about 8% of the World Heritage site would be destroyed.
You are being a little pedantic Richard. Yes technically it derives from the crown and we are all simply the Sovereign's "subjects", but in practice the constitutional monarchy does not work that way. In practice the Executive derives its delegated power through the Legislature, that is partly elected, and ludicrously, partly not. All of this should be reformed, but we have chosen to argue about one part of our constitutional settlement that needed much less reform; namely our relationship with the EU
I don't deny it needs reform. I have argued for a long time on here that the last vestiges of Royal Prerogative need to be removed and all these decisions rest completely with Parliament.
But at present that is not the case and the only way to make it the case in time to do anything serious about Brexit (assuming Johnson is being true to his word for the first time in his life) would be to force through the legislation without proper scrutiny and debate. Something that we know from history is a very bad thing to do.
Which brings us back to the original point. If Boris really does refuse to ask for an extension or revoke, then the only means left open to Parliament is to vote him out and agree a replacement. All this talk of getting someone else to ask for an extension in his place without actually getting rid of him is simply fanciful rubbish.
Agree with your last point. Incidentally, I have often wondered whether Brexit is a constitutional distraction to prevent the masses form noticing our own system of "democracy" is crap
Our politicians are crap. Brexit is more a distraction to hide the fact nothing has been done (or will ever be done) to tackle the reasons why people voted for it.
That assumes that all those who voted for it genuinely know what they voted for and for what end, and could articulate that into a coherent call to action.
Now Parliament can of course decide to change the Constitutional arrangements but to do so would require Primary legislation passed by both Houses. I am sure that as someone who rightly opposed any idea of abusing Parliamentary process by proroguing Parliament you are not suggesting similar abuse by forcing through major constitutional change without proper consideration and debate just to achieve a particular short term political objective?
I don't think that parliament exercising its sovereignty can possibly be abuse, and this wouldn't be to achieve a short-term political aim but to keep options open for parliament to consider the matter further without an artificial deadline imposed entirely by Boris trying to curry favour with a party which has gone bonkers. Anyway, the main point is not about the merits of this approach, but that it is not the case that a VONC is the only option open to parliament.
It is abuse if it runs counter to the current constitutional arrangements. You can't say it is not abuse simply because you happen to agree with their aims. So if Parliament decided that there would be no more elections and they could all sit for life, under your terms they would be exercising their sovereignty but in my eyes and the eyes of most people it would still be abuse.
As it stands if Boris chooses not to listen to Parliament then the only legal way to work around that is to get rid of him.
The Commons did precisely that during the Second World War and the reason it wasn't generally considered abusive was because most people agreed with their aims - to retain stability while the war was won. Do you agree that example contradicts your argument?
Nope they didn't do 'precisely that'. They extended on a yearly basis with a new act on each occasion. That certainly wasn't deciding there would be no more elections. So it does not contradict at all.
Speaking of 'here there be dragons', local news had a brilliant line the other night. The Government's supporting calls for more rail in the North (asked for by Dan Jarvis, mayor of the little bit of Yorkshire the Westminster nitwits think acceptable).
There's no more money available.
Luckily, Grayling's found £2bn to cock up Stonehenge with a tunnel.
I thought the tunnel was a Good Thing that removed the road from the vista surrounding the site?
In general, yes, but the site is a lot larger than just Stonehenge and I believe that there are concerns that the design chosen risks destroying parts of the wider area that haven't been as closely investigated as Stonehenge.
Short of shutting the road down completely there doesn't seem to be an answer that doesn't involve some degree of actual/potential damage though.
There really is. The tunnel needs to be a few hundred yards longer so the entrances are outside the bounds of the world heritage site. They didn't just decide on the boundaries of the site at random and as you say there is some hugely important archaeology that is already known about but has not been disturbed until now but which will be destroyed by this development.
Speaking of 'here there be dragons', local news had a brilliant line the other night. The Government's supporting calls for more rail in the North (asked for by Dan Jarvis, mayor of the little bit of Yorkshire the Westminster nitwits think acceptable).
There's no more money available.
Luckily, Grayling's found £2bn to cock up Stonehenge with a tunnel.
I thought the tunnel was a Good Thing that removed the road from the vista surrounding the site?
In general, yes, but the site is a lot larger than just Stonehenge and I believe that there are concerns that the design chosen risks destroying parts of the wider area that haven't been as closely investigated as Stonehenge.
Short of shutting the road down completely there doesn't seem to be an answer that doesn't involve some degree of actual/potential damage though.
There really is. The tunnel needs to be a few hundred yards longer so the entrances are outside the bounds of the world heritage site. They didn't just decide on the boundaries of the site at random and as you say there is some hugely important archaeology that is already known about but has not been disturbed until now but which will be destroyed by this development.
The boundaries suspiciously follow roads on most sides. Unless those roads were placed with knowledge of where there are artefacts and where there are not, I would argue the boundary is somewhat random.
Now Parliament can of course decide to change the Constitutional arrangements but to do so would require Primary legislation passed by both Houses. I am sure that as someone who rightly opposed any idea of abusing Parliamentary process by proroguing Parliament you are not suggesting similar abuse by forcing through major constitutional change without proper consideration and debate just to achieve a particular short term political objective?
I don't think that parliament exercising its sovereignty can possibly be abuse, and this wouldn't be to achieve a short-term political aim but to keep options open for parliament to consider the matter further without an artificial deadline imposed entirely by Boris trying to curry favour with a party which has gone bonkers. Anyway, the main point is not about the merits of this approach, but that it is not the case that a VONC is the only option open to parliament.
It is abuse if it runs counter to the current constitutional arrangements. You can't say it is not abuse simply because you happen to agree with their aims. So if Parliament decided that there would be no more elections and they could all sit for life, under your terms they would be exercising their sovereignty but in my eyes and the eyes of most people it would still be abuse.
As it stands if Boris chooses not to listen to Parliament then the only legal way to work around that is to get rid of him.
That's a ridiculous comparison. What we're talking about is absolutely nothing comparable to deciding 'that there would be no more elections and they could all sit for life'. It's deciding that the authority on a very specific narrow point involving only a delay of a few months, is delegated with conditions, rather than being delegated unconditionally to a PM who has specifically said that he wishes to ignore parliament's wishes on this.
Yes, it's a bit unusual, and normally parliament shouldn't do something like this, but it's a very rare situation because there's a timebomb ticking away.
Now Parliament can of course decide to change the Constitutional arrangements but to do so would require Primary legislation passed by both Houses. I am sure that as someone who rightly opposed any idea of abusing Parliamentary process by proroguing Parliament you are not suggesting similar abuse by forcing through major constitutional change without proper consideration and debate just to achieve a particular short term political objective?
I don't think that parliament exercising its sovereignty can possibly be abuse, and this wouldn't be to achieve a short-term political aim but to keep options open for parliament to consider the matter further without an artificial deadline imposed entirely by Boris trying to curry favour with a party which has gone bonkers. Anyway, the main point is not about the merits of this approach, but that it is not the case that a VONC is the only option open to parliament.
It is abuse if it runs counter to the current constitutional arrangements. You can't say it is not abuse simply because you happen to agree with their aims. So if Parliament decided that there would be no more elections and they could all sit for life, under your terms they would be exercising their sovereignty but in my eyes and the eyes of most people it would still be abuse.
As it stands if Boris chooses not to listen to Parliament then the only legal way to work around that is to get rid of him.
That's a ridiculous comparison. What we're talking about is absolutely nothing comparable to deciding 'that there would be no more elections and they could all sit for life'. It's deciding that the authority on a very specific narrow point involving only a delay of a few months, is delegated with conditions, rather than being delegated unconditionally to a PM who has specifically said that he wishes to ignore parliament's wishes on this.
Yes, it's a bit unusual, and normally parliament shouldn't do something like this, but it's a very rare situation because there's a timebomb ticking away.
Its not ridiculous at all. At least I am consistent in saying that there should be no abuse of the constitutional arrangements to benefit either side. You seem to want to pick and choose which bits of the constitution are thrown out or ignored just to suit you own personal views.
Now Parliament can of course decide to change the Constitutional arrangements but to do so would require Primary legislation passed by both Houses. I am sure that as someone who rightly opposed any idea of abusing Parliamentary process by proroguing Parliament you are not suggesting similar abuse by forcing through major constitutional change without proper consideration and debate just to achieve a particular short term political objective?
I don't think that parliament exercising its sovereignty can possibly be abuse, and this wouldn't be to achieve a short-term political aim but to keep options open for parliament to consider the matter further without an artificial deadline imposed entirely by Boris trying to curry favour with a party which has gone bonkers. Anyway, the main point is not about the merits of this approach, but that it is not the case that a VONC is the only option open to parliament.
It is abuse if it runs counter to the current constitutional arrangements. You can't say it is not abuse simply because you happen to agree with their aims. So if Parliament decided that there would be no more elections and they could all sit for life, under your terms they would be exercising their sovereignty but in my eyes and the eyes of most people it would still be abuse.
As it stands if Boris chooses not to listen to Parliament then the only legal way to work around that is to get rid of him.
That's a ridiculous comparison. What we're talking about is absolutely nothing comparable to deciding 'that there would be no more elections and they could all sit for life'. It's deciding that the authority on a very specific narrow point involving only a delay of a few months, is delegated with conditions, rather than being delegated unconditionally to a PM who has specifically said that he wishes to ignore parliament's wishes on this.
Yes, it's a bit unusual, and normally parliament shouldn't do something like this, but it's a very rare situation because there's a timebomb ticking away.
Its not ridiculous at all. At least I am consistent in saying that there should be no abuse of the constitutional arrangements to benefit either side. You seem to want to pick and choose which bits of the constitution are thrown out or ignored just to suit you own personal views.
Nonsense. It's those suggesting the the PM should ignore the clearly-expressed will of parliament who are supporting abuse of the constitution.
Why would loyalists move to iScot? Out of the frying pan into the fryer.
Don't worry - there will be plenty of real problems to deal with - and I seriously doubt it will be "better"
Arlene has said she'd move if there were a united Ireland, where better than the West of Scotland where there are even more Loyalist marches that there are in NI every year. And of course we've already been blessed with the presence of Mad Dog Johnny Adair and his brood over several periods, though they don't really seem to have settled.
'On 10 September 2016, Johnny and Gina Adair's son, Jonathan Jr, was found dead in Troon, aged 32.[71][72] Adair Jr died from an accidental overdose while celebrating the day after his release from prison for motoring offences.'
On topic, wrecking the hard work of your opponents activists cannot be within the spirit of the game. It’s wrong to do it.
But even in a constituency like that, I would question if here in 21st century posters and poster boards really make much difference? Surely carefully targeted social media messages telling that particular voter exactly what they want to hear will have much greater impact and is far better use of time and money these days?
What both sides need is a catchy chant like “send him back, send him back” or “send him down, send him down.”
Surely real Vandalism is brexit?
The difficulty I have is it it "activists" doing the vandalism, or randos.
I kinda have more sympathy with random voters wanting to express this sort of view.
I do not like the idea of people who are active within their own parties doing this, and I actually expect it is unlikely to be an activist. If it is, I would also expect local parties to be against such things.
I'd imagine activists have a sort of camaraderie across party lines. After all, they don't have to try and convince one another to vote for them, and they face the same pleasures and pains on the campaign trail (albeit probably not at the same time) and have a lot of common interests. So my guess is that the people most upset by the vandalism are the local party members from all the parties.
Comments
To me the real flaw in the FTPA is too rigidly constraining what constitutes a VONC. It should at least included Loss of Supply as triggering the 14-day deadline and allowed PMs to designate a substantive vote as being a matter of confidence.
Thursday : https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/18/donald-trump-claims-feels-bad-racist-send-back-chant-screamed-rally-10423395/
The president continued: ‘I disagree with it by the way. ‘It was quite a chant and I feel a little bit badly about it. ‘But I will say this. It started up rather fast, as you probably noticed.’
Friday : https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1152190439325339648 "Foul mouthed Omar"
https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/Pilot-licences/UK-national-licences/NPPL--national-private-pilot-licence/
One for @justin124 and @TheJezziah
“Everything is fine”
PS - nobodies mentioned short run/medium run/long run yet.
But Brexit might make approx 17m people FEEL genuinely better. Feel more content, more empowered - more sovereign basically - as they go about their daily business.
How to put a price on that?
Jesters have a role at court, but that isn't wearing the crown.
When I started reading this article, I thought it likely most relevant to looking at opinion polls:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/perverse-incentives
…In one study, nineteen per cent of high-school students who claimed to be adopted turned out to be kidding. In another, ninety-nine per cent of students who said they used an artificial limb really didn’t.
Adults aren’t immune to the temptations of mischief. The blogger Scott Alexander points out that four per cent of Americans tell pollsters that they think reptilian aliens rule the Earth. (Another seven per cent say that they are “not sure.”)…
But lower down, this:
“On a societal level, the desire to exercise choice may create collective perversity…”
https://twitter.com/gerardbattenuk/status/1152091688002826240?s=21
"Every year the European Commission (EC) reports retrospective adjustments to the EU budget contributions of EU member states based on the latest Value Added Tax (VAT) and gross national income (GNI) data.
In June 2019, the UK paid £1,033 million to the EU budget through GNI- and VAT-based contributions, which are made net of the UK rebate. This payment consisted of our standard monthly VAT- and GNI-based contributions of £1,060 million, along with a £27 million credit covering adjustments for earlier years. By comparison, in June 2018, the UK received a £237 million credit from the EU. This reduction in credit accounts for around half of the observed £405 million year-on-year June increase in EU contributions."
Just over £1bn. Remaining in the EU is a seriously expensive hobby and the fringe benefits like the EU Medicines regulator left in January.
There still isn't the numbers for a VoNC to pass (it failed) and May wasn't going to try for a second election...
We’re not citizens we’re subjects
Yes - interesting. I was being semi sarcastic but semi serious too. Brexit is most certainly in the main about things other than pounds and pence. Deeper things to do with identity.
Same applies to the most passionate ANTI Brexiters for that matter. Although perhaps not quite to the same extent.
Governments lose votes all the time - occasional a VoNC follows and its that VoNC that results in the government falling see Labour 1979 and the Tories from 1995 through to 97..
Granted the last 9 months have been absurd but that is as much because no-one wants their name against the final decision and outcome..
The choice thing is of particular importance, and explains the Brexiteer obsession with EU regulation (whether invented or not), which represents a closing down of choices, imposed from 'outside', whether or not that particular regulation might affect your own life.
(As we've seen time and again, many of these so called EU impositions are of course choices made by our own government.)
I liked the end of the article, Morgenbesser being something of a hero of mine.
An example that I admire is simpler, more modest, and more absurd. It concerns the Columbia University philosopher Sidney Morgenbesser, who was famous for quips and one-liners. It’s said that a waitress once asked Morgenbesser what he wanted for dessert—apple pie or blueberry pie. He chose the apple pie. Then she returned with news: there was also cherry pie. “In that case,” Morgenbesser said, “I’ll have the blueberry.”
There's no more money available.
Luckily, Grayling's found £2bn to cock up Stonehenge with a tunnel.
But at present that is not the case and the only way to make it the case in time to do anything serious about Brexit (assuming Johnson is being true to his word for the first time in his life) would be to force through the legislation without proper scrutiny and debate. Something that we know from history is a very bad thing to do.
Which brings us back to the original point. If Boris really does refuse to ask for an extension or revoke, then the only means left open to Parliament is to vote him out and agree a replacement. All this talk of getting someone else to ask for an extension in his place without actually getting rid of him is simply fanciful rubbish.
(edited, Friday afternoon innit)
In a discussion, he was asked what he'd do if he broke down on the running lane of a motorway.
"I'd get out"
"You'd be dead now, Minister"
I felt the urge to bash my head against something hard.
As it stands if Boris chooses not to listen to Parliament then the only legal way to work around that is to get rid of him.
Short of shutting the road down completely there doesn't seem to be an answer that doesn't involve some degree of actual/potential damage though.
Unfortunately they have decided to cut corners and are instead making the tunnel far too short so that it will destroy parts of the World Heritage site as the entrances will be within the main part of the archaeological landscape which is supposed to have the highest levels of protection. This includes some pretty unique wetland archaeology. In all about 8% of the World Heritage site would be destroyed.
Head straight to the comments..
NEW THREAD
Yes, it's a bit unusual, and normally parliament shouldn't do something like this, but it's a very rare situation because there's a timebomb ticking away.
'On 10 September 2016, Johnny and Gina Adair's son, Jonathan Jr, was found dead in Troon, aged 32.[71][72] Adair Jr died from an accidental overdose while celebrating the day after his release from prison for motoring offences.'
https://twitter.com/Jonathon_Shafi/status/1151937597784170496?s=20