The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.
So - you are claiming that Mrs Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron are all still in office and kept there by the EU?
How peculiar... I thought they did things we were not happy with and we voted them out.
But apparently not
What are you talking about?
For one thing we never voted out Thatcher, Blair or Cameron, or May for that matter.
For another yes we did vote out Major and Brown and subsequent governments have reversed some of Major and Brown's laws [and some laws by earlier PMs we didn't even vote out]. That is democracy in action and that is why it is valuable and should not be thrown away by entering into a backstop where we are subject to another countries laws without any representatives to change those laws.
Oh ... the "backstop".
This is something brought about because of two things that cannot happen at the same time, being 1) a hard border in Ireland (GFA) and 2) frictionless trade. Things not thought about by Brexiters.
The other solution would have been a customs border in the Irish Sea but again, this was a red line brought about by May having an election and being beholden to the DUP to stay in office.
The Backstop is the only viable solution to meet UK red lines.
UK red lines include:
Taking back control Ending ECJ jurisdiction Leaving the Single Market Leaving the Customs Union
The Backstop violates UK red lines. It may meet the hard border one, but that is insufficient so another solution is necessary or something will have to give and for me that is compromising the border.
There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.
Not strictly true, though I doubt an uncropped raw has ever made it straight to a front page unedited in the age of digital imagery.
It is strictly true, since setting for white balance, exposure etc are choices that have to be made, even in converting a RAW (or JPEG) file into either a printing or web display format without any attempt to significantly manipulate it.
And, of course, even the recording of the image onto the camera involves choices.
As you'll see from the previous thread, I posted a link to a picture of her alongside another individual, which gives at least some reference to how she might look in the flesh. Looked to me (FWIW) as though the Sun and Times made choices in opposite directions on how to edit the file. Not that one can infer any particular intent from those choices.
The Sun picture was pretty well as she appeared on TV the other day. I don't THINK TV pics of individuals can be manipulated in the same way as photos, at least not when there are several other people in the same picture. Think in those circs. one would have to lighten/darken everything, but could be wrong.
It can [I think] be done but it isn't easy and simply wouldn't be done.
The only reason people fell for the uproar is because then Gina Miller was unknown so people didn't know better and because it was "The S*n" and they have a dreadful reputation to live down to so it seemed believable.
Think cricket in poor light on TV. Plenty of scope for whole image enhancement.
Indeed but OKC was [I think] asking about enchancing an individual not the whole image. It can be done, indeed you could change a video where an individual morphs into Christopher Walken if you so desired, but I don't think it would be done for TV news.
This is getting worrying! You are quite right!! You can do to a video what you can do to a photo, and if you're really evil perhaps, put someone into shot who wasn't there....... Corbyn at a Jewish wedding...... but we're moving into quite threatening territory here.
A bit like how given the benefits that democracy (and sovereignty) give the UK we shouldn't compromise even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.
And what exactly are those increased democratic (and sovereign) benefits? Please reference your answer to any supposed deficits now.
The EU27 recognise that memberhsip of the SM provides economic benefits that mean that the departure of a member (who will incur far greater economic damage than the EU by its departure) will not drive them to compromise its integrity.
That is completely the reverse to the UK, who is guaranteeing economic damage for some spurious notional soverignty benefit, that no-one on the leave side has outlined in any detail.
The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.
Brexit is a specific example of this. Blair and Brown got elected pledging a referendum before accepting the EU Constitution - France and Netherlands voted down the Constitution and so they renamed it the Lisbon Treaty and it got rushed through without any pesky referendums with Blair and Brown reneging on their electoral promise as they knew they would lose a vote. At the next election Brown got turfed out and subsequently electoral pressure led to the EU referendum and the referendum resulted in a Leave vote. Democracy in action, Blair and Brown forcing through a dud against their manifesto and knowing it would be voted down had they honoured their manifesto resulted in this.
At the next election if you're not happy with anything this government is doing, including Brexit even, you can seek to elect a new government with a new promise to change course yet again. That is the benefit of democracy.
As far as I know we have had elections for quite a few years in the UK.
Indeed, including elections to the European Parliament to change EU laws that we are subject to yes?
The European Parliament does not make law, it ratifies or rejects proposed laws.
The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.
So - you are claiming that Mrs Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron are all still in office and kept there by the EU?
How peculiar... I thought they did things we were not happy with and we voted them out.
But apparently not
What are you talking about?
For one thing we never voted out Thatcher, Blair or Cameron, or May for that matter.
For another yes we did vote out Major and Brown and subsequent governments have reversed some of Major and Brown's laws [and some laws by earlier PMs we didn't even vote out]. That is democracy in action and that is why it is valuable and should not be thrown away by entering into a backstop where we are subject to another countries laws without any representatives to change those laws.
Oh ... the "backstop".
This is something brought about because of two things that cannot happen at the same time, being 1) a hard border in Ireland (GFA) and 2) frictionless trade. Things not thought about by Brexiters.
The other solution would have been a customs border in the Irish Sea but again, this was a red line brought about by May having an election and being beholden to the DUP to stay in office.
The Backstop is the only viable solution to meet UK red lines.
UK red lines include:
Taking back control Ending ECJ jurisdiction Leaving the Single Market Leaving the Customs Union
The Backstop violates UK red lines. It may meet the hard border one, but that is insufficient so another solution is necessary or something will have to give and for me that is compromising the border.
How about a referendum in N Ireland where 52% vote to join the Republic?
Tory vote down just 0.1% in Shetland last night compared to Yougov having it down 8% nationally on 2017, perhaps Yougov have underestimated the Tories under Boris this time?
A bit like how given the benefits that democracy (and sovereignty) give the UK we shouldn't compromise even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.
And what exactly are those increased democratic (and sovereign) benefits? Please reference your answer to any supposed deficits now.
The EU27 recognise that memberhsip of the SM provides economic benefits that mean that the departure of a member (who will incur far greater economic damage than the EU by its departure) will not drive them to compromise its integrity.
That is completely the reverse to the UK, who is guaranteeing economic damage for some spurious notional soverignty benefit, that no-one on the leave side has outlined in any detail.
The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.
Brexit is a specific example of this. Blair and Brown got elected pledging a referendum before accepting the EU Constitution - France and Netherlands voted down the Constitution and so they renamed it the Lisbon Treaty and it got rushed through without any pesky referendums with Blair and Brown reneging on their electoral promise as they knew they would lose a vote. At the next election Brown got turfed out and subsequently electoral pressure led to the EU referendum and the referendum resulted in a Leave vote. Democracy in action, Blair and Brown forcing through a dud against their manifesto and knowing it would be voted down had they honoured their manifesto resulted in this.
At the next election if you're not happy with anything this government is doing, including Brexit even, you can seek to elect a new government with a new promise to change course yet again. That is the benefit of democracy.
As far as I know we have had elections for quite a few years in the UK.
Indeed, including elections to the European Parliament to change EU laws that we are subject to yes?
The European Parliament does not make law, it ratifies or rejects proposed laws.
Do you believe judges should be elected?
The EP is a legislature of course it makes the law which is why it is elected.
No I don't believe the judiciary should be elected, but I do believe the legislature should be elected. I also believe the way the Commission is chosen is undemocratic and should be more closely linked to elections like our executive is but that's a completely separate matter to the backstop.
There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.
Not strictly true, though I doubt an uncropped raw has ever made it straight to a front page unedited in the age of digital imagery.
It is strictly true, since setting for white balance, exposure etc are choices that have to be made, even in converting a RAW (or JPEG) file into either a printing or web display format without any attempt to significantly manipulate it.
And, of course, even the recording of the image onto the camera involves choices.
As you'll see from the previous thread, I posted a link to a picture of her alongside another individual, which gives at least some reference to how she might look in the flesh. Looked to me (FWIW) as though the Sun and Times made choices in opposite directions on how to edit the file. Not that one can infer any particular intent from those choices.
The Sun picture was pretty well as she appeared on TV the other day. I don't THINK TV pics of individuals can be manipulated in the same way as photos, at least not when there are several other people in the same picture. Think in those circs. one would have to lighten/darken everything, but could be wrong.
It can [I think] be done but it isn't easy and simply wouldn't be done.
The only reason people fell for the uproar is because then Gina Miller was unknown so people didn't know better and because it was "The S*n" and they have a dreadful reputation to live down to so it seemed believable.
Think cricket in poor light on TV. Plenty of scope for whole image enhancement.
Indeed but OKC was [I think] asking about enchancing an individual not the whole image. It can be done, indeed you could change a video where an individual morphs into Christopher Walken if you so desired, but I don't think it would be done for TV news.
This is getting worrying! You are quite right!! You can do to a video what you can do to a photo, and if you're really evil perhaps, put someone into shot who wasn't there....... Corbyn at a Jewish wedding...... but we're moving into quite threatening territory here.
See my later post.
The camera never lies is a statement that belongs to a period that is well in the past, if it was ever true.
For example, didn't Sir A Conan Doyle have pictures of fairies?
The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.
So - you are claiming that Mrs Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron are all still in office and kept there by the EU?
How peculiar... I thought they did things we were not happy with and we voted them out.
But apparently not
What are you talking about?
For one thing we never voted out Thatcher, Blair or Cameron, or May for that matter.
For another yes we did vote out Major and Brown and subsequent governments have reversed some of Major and Brown's laws [and some laws by earlier PMs we didn't even vote out]. That is democracy in action and that is why it is valuable and should not be thrown away by entering into a backstop where we are subject to another countries laws without any representatives to change those laws.
Oh ... the "backstop".
This is something brought about because of two things that cannot happen at the same time, being 1) a hard border in Ireland (GFA) and 2) frictionless trade. Things not thought about by Brexiters.
The other solution would have been a customs border in the Irish Sea but again, this was a red line brought about by May having an election and being beholden to the DUP to stay in office.
The Backstop is the only viable solution to meet UK red lines.
UK red lines include:
Taking back control Ending ECJ jurisdiction Leaving the Single Market Leaving the Customs Union
The Backstop violates UK red lines. It may meet the hard border one, but that is insufficient so another solution is necessary or something will have to give and for me that is compromising the border.
They're not UK red lines though, are they? They're red lines decided upon by Theresa May.
None of those "red lines" was on the ballot paper, and any one or all of them could have been retained whilst "leaving the EU".
The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.
So - you are claiming that Mrs Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron are all still in office and kept there by the EU?
How peculiar... I thought they did things we were not happy with and we voted them out.
But apparently not
What are you talking about?
For one thing we never voted out Thatcher, Blair or Cameron, or May for that matter.
For another yes we did vote out Major and Brown and subsequent governments have reversed some of Major and Brown's laws [and some laws by earlier PMs we didn't even vote out]. That is democracy in action and that is why it is valuable and should not be thrown away by entering into a backstop where we are subject to another countries laws without any representatives to change those laws.
Oh ... the "backstop".
This is something brought about because of two things that cannot happen at the same time, being 1) a hard border in Ireland (GFA) and 2) frictionless trade. Things not thought about by Brexiters.
The other solution would have been a customs border in the Irish Sea but again, this was a red line brought about by May having an election and being beholden to the DUP to stay in office.
The Backstop is the only viable solution to meet UK red lines.
UK red lines include:
Taking back control Ending ECJ jurisdiction Leaving the Single Market Leaving the Customs Union
The Backstop violates UK red lines. It may meet the hard border one, but that is insufficient so another solution is necessary or something will have to give and for me that is compromising the border.
How about a referendum in N Ireland where 52% vote to join the Republic?
The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.
So - you are claiming that Mrs Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron are all still in office and kept there by the EU?
How peculiar... I thought they did things we were not happy with and we voted them out.
But apparently not
What are you talking about?
For one thing we never voted out Thatcher, Blair or Cameron, or May for that matter.
For another yes we did vote out Major and Brown and subsequent governments have reversed some of Major and Brown's laws [and some laws by earlier PMs we didn't even vote out]. That is democracy in action and that is why it is valuable and should not be thrown away by entering into a backstop where we are subject to another countries laws without any representatives to change those laws.
Oh ... the "backstop".
This is something brought about because of two things that cannot happen at the same time, being 1) a hard border in Ireland (GFA) and 2) frictionless trade. Things not thought about by Brexiters.
The other solution would have been a customs border in the Irish Sea but again, this was a red line brought about by May having an election and being beholden to the DUP to stay in office.
The Backstop is the only viable solution to meet UK red lines.
UK red lines include:
Taking back control Ending ECJ jurisdiction Leaving the Single Market Leaving the Customs Union
The Backstop violates UK red lines. It may meet the hard border one, but that is insufficient so another solution is necessary or something will have to give and for me that is compromising the border.
They're not UK red lines though, are they? They're red lines decided upon by Theresa May.
None of those "red lines" was on the ballot paper, and any one or all of them could have been retained whilst "leaving the EU".
They are red lines, they were all arguments made [by both sides] during the referendum as to what leaving the EU means.
Being able to elect the people who set our laws is a red line that dates back centuries [who can vote has evolved over time, the idea of elections has not] and isn't to be thrown away by a backstop either.
The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.
So - you are claiming that Mrs Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron are all still in office and kept there by the EU?
How peculiar... I thought they did things we were not happy with and we voted them out.
But apparently not
What are you talking about?
For one thing we never voted out Thatcher, Blair or Cameron, or May for that matter.
For another yes we did vote out Major and Brown and subsequent governments have reversed some of Major and Brown's laws [and some laws by earlier PMs we didn't even vote out]. That is democracy in action and that is why it is valuable and should not be thrown away by entering into a backstop where we are subject to another countries laws without any representatives to change those laws.
Oh ... the "backstop".
This is something brought about because of two things that cannot happen at the same time, being 1) a hard border in Ireland (GFA) and 2) frictionless trade. Things not thought about by Brexiters.
The other solution would have been a customs border in the Irish Sea but again, this was a red line brought about by May having an election and being beholden to the DUP to stay in office.
The Backstop is the only viable solution to meet UK red lines.
UK red lines include:
Taking back control Ending ECJ jurisdiction Leaving the Single Market Leaving the Customs Union
The Backstop violates UK red lines. It may meet the hard border one, but that is insufficient so another solution is necessary or something will have to give and for me that is compromising the border.
So you are willing to violate the one thing that is actually embodied in an international treaty that brought to a close a violent civil war that cost thousands of lives, in order to not violate a series of things that are simply your own personal interpretation of an advisory referendum narrowly won on the basis of ignoring the border issue completely? And you wonder why people have a low opinion of Leavers?
There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.
Not strictly true, though I doubt an uncropped raw has ever made it straight to a front page unedited in the age of digital imagery.
It is strictly true, since setting for white balance, exposure etc are choices that have to be made, even in converting a RAW (or JPEG) file into either a printing or web display format without any attempt to significantly manipulate it.
And, of course, even the recording of the image onto the camera involves choices.
As you'll see from the previous thread, I posted a link to a picture of her alongside another individual, which gives at least some reference to how she might look in the flesh. Looked to me (FWIW) as though the Sun and Times made choices in opposite directions on how to edit the file. Not that one can infer any particular intent from those choices.
The photographer who took the Sun picture said he hadn’t darkened it, the Times admitted they lightened theirs. Predictably people on here who only see what they want to see mistakenly criticised the Sun, with the result that they were left pointing at an undarkened picture of Gina Miller and saying she looked like an aborigine.
Surprised the person who made the gaffe didn’t pick me up for misquoting them, usually so quick to seize on the slightest error to score a point! xx
Tory vote down just 0.1% in Shetland last night compared to Yougov having it down 8% nationally on 2017, perhaps Yougov have underestimated the Tories under Boris this time?
An 8% drop would be...................... tricky for the Tories there.
The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.
So - you are claiming that Mrs Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron are all still in office and kept there by the EU?
How peculiar... I thought they did things we were not happy with and we voted them out.
But apparently not
What are you talking about?
For one thing we never voted out Thatcher, Blair or Cameron, or May for that matter.
For another yes we did vote out Major and Brown and subsequent governments have reversed some of Major and Brown's laws [and some laws by earlier PMs we didn't even vote out]. That is democracy in action and that is why it is valuable and should not be thrown away by entering into a backstop where we are subject to another countries laws without any representatives to change those laws.
Oh ... the "backstop".
This is something brought about because of two things that cannot happen at the same time, being 1) a hard border in Ireland (GFA) and 2) frictionless trade. Things not thought about by Brexiters.
The other solution would have been a customs border in the Irish Sea but again, this was a red line brought about by May having an election and being beholden to the DUP to stay in office.
The Backstop is the only viable solution to meet UK red lines.
UK red lines include:
Taking back control Ending ECJ jurisdiction Leaving the Single Market Leaving the Customs Union
The Backstop violates UK red lines. It may meet the hard border one, but that is insufficient so another solution is necessary or something will have to give and for me that is compromising the border.
So you are willing to violate the one thing that is actually embodied in an international treaty that brought to a close a violent civil war that cost thousands of lives, in order to not violate a series of things that are simply your own personal interpretation of an advisory referendum narrowly won on the basis of ignoring the border issue completely? And you wonder why people have a low opinion of Leavers?
No I don't want to violate the GFA.
If you can quote me a single line or passage from the GFA that will be violated if we leave the EU without a backstop, but isn't if we agree to the backstop, I would be absolutely amazed as nobody has done so yet.
It is all vague bullshit about the "spirit of the GFA". The GFA doesn't mention customs at all as far as I know. We already have a very real border on multiple fronts there.
Re-read this particular chain of comments as you seem to have missed the context of this thread, I'm not talking about domestic legislation, I'm talking about the backstop post-Brexit.
No your original comment that I replied to is below in italics. MEPs were not mentioned. You were asked for a benefit of Brexit and your full reply was ....
"The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.
Brexit is a specific example of this. Blair and Brown got elected pledging a referendum before accepting the EU Constitution - France and Netherlands voted down the Constitution and so they renamed it the Lisbon Treaty and it got rushed through without any pesky referendums with Blair and Brown reneging on their electoral promise as they knew they would lose a vote. At the next election Brown got turfed out and subsequently electoral pressure led to the EU referendum and the referendum resulted in a Leave vote. Democracy in action, Blair and Brown forcing through a dud against their manifesto and knowing it would be voted down had they honoured their manifesto resulted in this.
At the next election if you're not happy with anything this government is doing, including Brexit even, you can seek to elect a new government with a new promise to change course yet again. That is the benefit of democracy."
Tory vote down just 0.1% in Shetland last night compared to Yougov having it down 8% nationally on 2017, perhaps Yougov have underestimated the Tories under Boris this time?
SCon on 3.6% wasn't it? , so not possible to drop 8%
Re-read this particular chain of comments as you seem to have missed the context of this thread, I'm not talking about domestic legislation, I'm talking about the backstop post-Brexit.
No your original comment that I replied to is below in italics. MEPs were not mentioned. You were asked for a benefit of Brexit and your full reply was ....
"The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.
Brexit is a specific example of this. Blair and Brown got elected pledging a referendum before accepting the EU Constitution - France and Netherlands voted down the Constitution and so they renamed it the Lisbon Treaty and it got rushed through without any pesky referendums with Blair and Brown reneging on their electoral promise as they knew they would lose a vote. At the next election Brown got turfed out and subsequently electoral pressure led to the EU referendum and the referendum resulted in a Leave vote. Democracy in action, Blair and Brown forcing through a dud against their manifesto and knowing it would be voted down had they honoured their manifesto resulted in this.
At the next election if you're not happy with anything this government is doing, including Brexit even, you can seek to elect a new government with a new promise to change course yet again. That is the benefit of democracy."
That wasn't the original comment, and I wasn't asked for a benefit of Brexit, I was asked for a benefit of sovereignty as to not compromising with the EU now. Here are the quotes immediately preceding my reply which you have snipped out.
It's not just a political price though, given the benefits that the SM (and its integrity) gives the EU. They're not going to compromise it even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.
A bit like how given the benefits that democracy (and sovereignty) give the UK we shouldn't compromise even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.
And what exactly are those increased democratic (and sovereign) benefits? Please reference your answer to any supposed deficits now.
The EU27 recognise that memberhsip of the SM provides economic benefits that mean that the departure of a member (who will incur far greater economic damage than the EU by its departure) will not drive them to compromise its integrity.
That is completely the reverse to the UK, who is guaranteeing economic damage for some spurious notional soverignty benefit, that no-one on the leave side has outlined in any detail.
Tory vote down just 0.1% in Shetland last night compared to Yougov having it down 8% nationally on 2017, perhaps Yougov have underestimated the Tories under Boris this time?
SCon on 3.6% wasn't it? , so not possible to drop 8%
They could certainly have dropped 20% of their previous vote which national polling shows they have, they did not
They are red lines, they were all arguments made [by both sides] during the referendum as to what leaving the EU means.
Being able to elect the people who set our laws is a red line that dates back centuries [who can vote has evolved over time, the idea of elections has not] and isn't to be thrown away by a backstop either.
There are countries that are not members of the EU, that "have control" (whatever that means, are under ECJ jurisdiction, are in the customs union and/or int he single market. Which means that all the above are compatible with not being a member of the EU.
Please can you show me where on the ballot paper it said "Leave the EU (including the customs union and single market, and no longer being subject to ECJ decisions)".
They are red lines, they were all arguments made [by both sides] during the referendum as to what leaving the EU means.
Being able to elect the people who set our laws is a red line that dates back centuries [who can vote has evolved over time, the idea of elections has not] and isn't to be thrown away by a backstop either.
There are countries that are not members of the EU, that "have control" (whatever that means, are under ECJ jurisdiction, are in the customs union and/or int he single market. Which means that all the above are compatible with not being a member of the EU.
Please can you show me where on the ballot paper it said "Leave the EU (including the customs union and single market, and no longer being subject to ECJ decisions)".
Please can you name a single non-EU country that is under ECJ jurisdiction and has no unilateral right to leave ECJ jurisdiction that is recognised under international law.
John Major joining Gina Miller to fight a case to block Boris proroguing Parliament, former Labour MP for Grimsby Austin Mitchell backing Boris proroguing Parliament today, maybe a bit of a realignment going on
There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.
Not strictly true, though I doubt an uncropped raw has ever made it straight to a front page unedited in the age of digital imagery.
e to lighten/darken everything, but could be wrong.
It can [I think] be done but it isn't easy and simply wouldn't be done.
believable.
Think cricket in poor light on TV. Plenty of scope for whole image enhancement.
Indeed but OKC was [I think] asking about enchancing an individual not the whole image. It can be done, indeed you could change a video where an individual morphs into Christopher Walken if you so desired, but I don't think it would be done for TV news.
here.
See my later post.
The camera never lies is a statement that belongs to a period that is well in the past, if it was ever true.
For example, didn't Sir A Conan Doyle have pictures of fairies?
This is pretty scary on the latest camera ‘lies’...
“The criminal running the Grandparent Scam calls or emails the victim, pretending to represent a grandchild who is now in trouble with the law or who needs money for a hospital bill for an injury that can’t be discussed, say, with parents, because of the moral trouble that might ensue. They generally call late at night—say at four in the morning—because that adds to the confusion. The preferred mechanism of money movement is wire transfer—and that’s a warning: don’t transfer money by wire without knowing for certain who is receiving it, because once it’s gone, it’s not coming back.
Now what if it was possible to conduct such a scam using the actual voice of the hypothetical victim? Worse, what if was possible to do so with voice and video image, indistinguishable from the real thing? If we’re not at that point now (and we probably are) we will be within months.”
Indeed @Tabman if you could name one country that "has control" [which means it sets its own laws in its own Parliament], is under ECJ jurisdiction, is in the customs union and is in the Single Market I'm curious which mythical country it is you are referring to.
Or did you say all that [while throwing in a "/or"] but not mean it as it wasn't true?
Re-read this particular chain of comments as you seem to have missed the context of this thread, I'm not talking about domestic legislation, I'm talking about the backstop post-Brexit.
No your original comment that I replied to is below in italics. MEPs were not mentioned. You were asked for a benefit of Brexit and your full reply was ....
"The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.
Brexit is a specific example of this. Blair and Brown got elected pledging a referendum before accepting the EU Constitution - France and Netherlands voted down the Constitution and so they renamed it the Lisbon Treaty and it got rushed through without any pesky referendums with Blair and Brown reneging on their electoral promise as they knew they would lose a vote. At the next election Brown got turfed out and subsequently electoral pressure led to the EU referendum and the referendum resulted in a Leave vote. Democracy in action, Blair and Brown forcing through a dud against their manifesto and knowing it would be voted down had they honoured their manifesto resulted in this.
At the next election if you're not happy with anything this government is doing, including Brexit even, you can seek to elect a new government with a new promise to change course yet again. That is the benefit of democracy."
That wasn't the original comment, and I wasn't asked for a benefit of Brexit, I was asked for a benefit of sovereignty as to not compromising with the EU now. Here are the quotes immediately preceding my reply which you have snipped out.
It's not just a political price though, given the benefits that the SM (and its integrity) gives the EU. They're not going to compromise it even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.
A bit like how given the benefits that democracy (and sovereignty) give the UK we shouldn't compromise even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.
And what exactly are those increased democratic (and sovereign) benefits? Please reference your answer to any supposed deficits now.
Your original reply did not, as I requested, outline any additional benefits to what we have now.
John Major joining Gina Miller to fight a case to block Boris proroguing Parliament, former Labour MP for Grimsby Austin Mitchell backing Boris proroguing Parliament today, maybe a bit of a realignment going on
Hans Gruber lines up with Boris against DieHard remainers?
That wasn't the original comment, and I wasn't asked for a benefit of Brexit,
Yes you were. Tabman said "And what exactly are those increased democratic (and sovereign) benefits? Please reference your answer to any supposed deficits now."
They are red lines, they were all arguments made [by both sides] during the referendum as to what leaving the EU means.
Being able to elect the people who set our laws is a red line that dates back centuries [who can vote has evolved over time, the idea of elections has not] and isn't to be thrown away by a backstop either.
There are countries that are not members of the EU, that "have control" (whatever that means, are under ECJ jurisdiction, are in the customs union and/or int he single market. Which means that all the above are compatible with not being a member of the EU.
Please can you show me where on the ballot paper it said "Leave the EU (including the customs union and single market, and no longer being subject to ECJ decisions)".
Please can you name a single non-EU country that is under ECJ jurisdiction and has no unilateral right to leave ECJ jurisdiction that is recognised under international law.
I am not aware of even one nation.
The ECJ sets EU law that is applicable to governing the SM and the CU. So any country in the SM and/or CU by default is under the jurisdiction of the ECJ for matters pertaining to the law of those two institutions.
I suspect the thought process was "let's put this one in of the one non white person I spoke to in order to show that I am definitely not a racist" and then "let's put these other ones in because I am smiling nicely in them". In my experience a lot of soft racism in the UK is bound up in tokenistic gestures that leave structural inequalities in place. Having said that I probably wouldn't have noticed this here if it hadn't been flagged.
John Major joining Gina Miller to fight a case to block Boris proroguing Parliament, former Labour MP for Grimsby Austin Mitchell backing Boris proroguing Parliament today, maybe a bit of a realignment going on
Hans Gruber lines up with Boris against DieHard remainers?
Your original reply did not, as I requested, outline any additional benefits to what we have now.
You didn't ask for additional as to now.
However moving on the additional benefits post-Brexit is that if we as the UK change our minds on a law that has been passed in the past we can in our UK elections change that law, without requiring either unanimity from the EU or QMV from the rest of the EU to change that law.
Using the very specific example I gave of Blair and Brown dodgily passing the Lisbon Treaty, against their own manifesto and in full knowledge the country did not want that law passing . . . as members of the EU even evicting Brown wasn't sufficient to reverse that because it would require unanimity from every single other country to reverse it too. Which is why the only way to reverse his disgraceful actions now is to leave the EU, returning to the prior legal structure we had before he passed that law is impossible now. Same as any other law the EU passes we can not unilaterally reverse.
In the future if our government passes a law we object to we can reverse it by ourselves as the next election without waiting on every other nation to agree it was a mistake too. Democracy is enhanced.
There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.
Not strictly true, though I doubt an uncropped raw has ever made it straight to a front page unedited in the age of digital imagery.
e to lighten/darken everything, but could be wrong.
It can [I think] be done but it isn't easy and simply wouldn't be done.
believable.
Think cricket in poor light on TV. Plenty of scope for whole image enhancement.
Indeed but OKC was [I think] asking about enchancing an individual not the whole image. It can be done, indeed you could change a video where an individual morphs into Christopher Walken if you so desired, but I don't think it would be done for TV news.
here.
See my later post.
The camera never lies is a statement that belongs to a period that is well in the past, if it was ever true.
For example, didn't Sir A Conan Doyle have pictures of fairies?
This is pretty scary on the latest camera ‘lies’...
“The criminal running the Grandparent Scam calls or emails the victim, pretending to represent a grandchild who is now in trouble with the law or who needs money for a hospital bill for an injury that can’t be discussed, say, with parents, because of the moral trouble that might ensue. They generally call late at night—say at four in the morning—because that adds to the confusion. The preferred mechanism of money movement is wire transfer—and that’s a warning: don’t transfer money by wire without knowing for certain who is receiving it, because once it’s gone, it’s not coming back.
Now what if it was possible to conduct such a scam using the actual voice of the hypothetical victim? Worse, what if was possible to do so with voice and video image, indistinguishable from the real thing? If we’re not at that point now (and we probably are) we will be within months.”
Wtf is Peterson talking about? These are cold calls, made en masse, designed to get a lot of money from a very small proportion of callers. They're not spending time researching their victims and developing a whole spoof identity around the supposed relative
Your original reply did not, as I requested, outline any additional benefits to what we have now.
You didn't ask for additional as to now.
In the future if our government passes a law we object to we can reverse it by ourselves as the next election without waiting on every other nation to agree it was a mistake too. Democracy is enhanced.
Unless the government prorogues Parliament whilst the law is being changed...
There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.
Not strictly true, though I doubt an uncropped raw has ever made it straight to a front page unedited in the age of digital imagery.
e to lighten/darken everything, but could be wrong.
It can [I think] be done but it isn't easy and simply wouldn't be done.
believable.
Think cricket in poor light on TV. Plenty of scope for whole image enhancement.
Indeed but OKC was [I think] asking about enchancing an individual not the whole image. It can be done, indeed you could change a video where an individual morphs into Christopher Walken if you so desired, but I don't think it would be done for TV news.
here.
See my later post.
The camera never lies is a statement that belongs to a period that is well in the past, if it was ever true.
For example, didn't Sir A Conan Doyle have pictures of fairies?
This is pretty scary on the latest camera ‘lies’...
“The criminal running the Grandparent Scam calls or emails the victim, pretending to represent a grandchild who is now in trouble with the law or who needs money for a hospital bill for an injury that can’t be discussed, say, with parents, because of the moral trouble that might ensue. They generally call late at night—say at four in the morning—because that adds to the confusion. The preferred mechanism of money movement is wire transfer—and that’s a warning: don’t transfer money by wire without knowing for certain who is receiving it, because once it’s gone, it’s not coming back.
Now what if it was possible to conduct such a scam using the actual voice of the hypothetical victim? Worse, what if was possible to do so with voice and video image, indistinguishable from the real thing? If we’re not at that point now (and we probably are) we will be within months.”
I am regularly getting calls at work from withheld numbers that immediately hang up. I've come to the conclusion that they are trying to get a recording of my voice.
They are red lines, they were all arguments made [by both sides] during the referendum as to what leaving the EU means.
Being able to elect the people who set our laws is a red line that dates back centuries [who can vote has evolved over time, the idea of elections has not] and isn't to be thrown away by a backstop either.
There are countries that are not members of the EU, that "have control" (whatever that means, are under ECJ jurisdiction, are in the customs union and/or int he single market. Which means that all the above are compatible with not being a member of the EU.
Please can you show me where on the ballot paper it said "Leave the EU (including the customs union and single market, and no longer being subject to ECJ decisions)".
Please can you name a single non-EU country that is under ECJ jurisdiction and has no unilateral right to leave ECJ jurisdiction that is recognised under international law.
I am not aware of even one nation.
The ECJ sets EU law that is applicable to governing the SM and the CU. So any country in the SM and/or CU by default is under the jurisdiction of the ECJ for matters pertaining to the law of those two institutions.
That didn't answer my question.
Please name one country that is under ECJ jurisdiction that under international law can not unilaterally exit ECJ jurisdiction.
I am regularly getting calls at work from withheld numbers that immediately hang up. I've come to the conclusion that they are trying to get a recording of my voice.
I do not give my name when answering such calls.
I regularly get them too, my understanding is that it is that call centres [typically Indian it seems] which we regularly get calls from are calling lots of numbers then if there's nobody available in the centre to answer the call when it gets connected they disconnect it.
They do that rather than have their operatives sat waiting for a connection to be made.
Has anyone picked up that in Shetland last night BOTH Labour and the Tories lost their deposits? Indeed they got such a hammering that they wouldn't have saved one adding their votes together.
That must be pretty rare.
But it does feel that the people of Shetland may be speaking for the country on how they view the Westminster performance of the 'big two'
I am regularly getting calls at work from withheld numbers that immediately hang up. I've come to the conclusion that they are trying to get a recording of my voice.
I do not give my name when answering such calls.
I regularly get them too, my understanding is that it is that call centres [typically Indian it seems] which we regularly get calls from are calling lots of numbers then if there's nobody available in the centre to answer the call when it gets connected they disconnect it.
They do that rather than have their operatives sat waiting for a connection to be made.
I never give my name until the caller has identified him/herself first. Even then I sometimes invent a name, or organisation.
Your original reply did not, as I requested, outline any additional benefits to what we have now.
You didn't ask for additional as to now.
In the future if our government passes a law we object to we can reverse it by ourselves as the next election without waiting on every other nation to agree it was a mistake too. Democracy is enhanced.
Unless the government prorogues Parliament whilst the law is being changed...
In which case Parliament would retain its ability to reverse it post-proroguation.
Has anyone picked up that in Shetland last night BOTH Labour and the Tories lost their deposits? Indeed they got such a hammering that they wouldn't have saved one adding their votes together.
That must be pretty rare.
But it does feel that the people of Shetland may be speaking for the country on how they view the Westminster performance of the 'big two'
I am regularly getting calls at work from withheld numbers that immediately hang up. I've come to the conclusion that they are trying to get a recording of my voice.
I do not give my name when answering such calls.
Would you have time to give them your name? Immediate hang-up tends to be rather quick
Joking aside, it is surprising how many people will disclose personal information to an anonymous "phone survey". I just hang up on them.
John Major joining Gina Miller to fight a case to block Boris proroguing Parliament, former Labour MP for Grimsby Austin Mitchell backing Boris proroguing Parliament today, maybe a bit of a realignment going on
They are picking the wrong target, Gina Miller is doing so for the second time. The aim of those against this government should be to use next week to establish, without going to law and by clear parliamentary procedures, the government and leader they do want instead of the one they don't. If they have the numbers and the affirmative policy it can be done. If they don't have the numbers or don't have a positive policy, tough, that's politics.
Alternatively they could encourage Labour to revisit TMs deal, with which they have no serious dispute.
They play hardball and object when others do the same. It is we poor moderates who have no-one speaking for them.
Final Friday of August is probably a very good day for chains to complete. Oddly enough I know someone who's chain has completed today but I never thought about that as out of the ordinary until just now.
Final Friday of August is probably a very good day for chains to complete. Oddly enough I know someone who's chain has completed today but I never thought about that as out of the ordinary until just now.
Think cricket in poor light on TV. Plenty of scope for whole image enhancement.
Indeed but OKC was [I think] asking about enchancing an individual not the whole image. It can be done, indeed you could change a video where an individual morphs into Christopher Walken if you so desired, but I don't think it would be done for TV news.
here.
See my later post.
The camera never lies is a statement that belongs to a period that is well in the past, if it was ever true.
For example, didn't Sir A Conan Doyle have pictures of fairies?
This is pretty scary on the latest camera ‘lies’...
“The criminal running the Grandparent Scam calls or emails the victim, pretending to represent a grandchild who is now in trouble with the law or who needs money for a hospital bill for an injury that can’t be discussed, say, with parents, because of the moral trouble that might ensue. They generally call late at night—say at four in the morning—because that adds to the confusion. The preferred mechanism of money movement is wire transfer—and that’s a warning: don’t transfer money by wire without knowing for certain who is receiving it, because once it’s gone, it’s not coming back.
Now what if it was possible to conduct such a scam using the actual voice of the hypothetical victim? Worse, what if was possible to do so with voice and video image, indistinguishable from the real thing? If we’re not at that point now (and we probably are) we will be within months.”
Wtf is Peterson talking about? These are cold calls, made en masse, designed to get a lot of money from a very small proportion of callers. They're not spending time researching their victims and developing a whole spoof identity around the supposed relative
Have you never heard of identity theft? There's a market for people who spend hours trawling people's social media profiles looking for likely answers to common security questions (eg mother's maiden name, school, place of birth etc). They then either use the profiles they build themselves, or sell them on to others. What he's describing is just another step removed from that.
Just a little reminder of the NYT map of No Deal Brexit impact:
So - to answer my own question - and one which noone seems to ask any No Dealer on any interview I've ever heard - No Deal is far worse for us than for anyone else.
So how is threatening No Deal some sort of marvelous negotiating ploy for Britain?
The idea is even though it may be worse for us surely they will want to avoid what is still a negative outcome for them. Which rather ignores that this is a political calculation and as the same ploy proves of us, people are willing to choose an option which may cause some harm, rather than pay the political price to avoid it.
It's not just a political price though, given the benefits that the SM (and its integrity) gives the EU. They're not going to compromise it even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.
A bit like how given the benefits that democracy (and sovereignty) give the UK we shouldn't compromise even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.
And what exactly are those increased democratic (and sovereign) benefits? Please reference your answer to any supposed deficits now.
The EU27 recognise that memberhsip of the SM provides economic benefits that mean that the departure of a member (who will incur far greater economic damage than the EU by its departure) will not drive them to compromise its integrity.
That is completely the reverse to the UK, who is guaranteeing economic damage for some spurious notional soverignty benefit, that no-one on the leave side has outlined in any detail.
Has anyone picked up that in Shetland last night BOTH Labour and the Tories lost their deposits? Indeed they got such a hammering that they wouldn't have saved one adding their votes together.
That must be pretty rare.
But it does feel that the people of Shetland may be speaking for the country on how they view the Westminster performance of the 'big two'
SNP still below the 37% they got in Orkney and Shetland in 2015
John Major joining Gina Miller to fight a case to block Boris proroguing Parliament, former Labour MP for Grimsby Austin Mitchell backing Boris proroguing Parliament today, maybe a bit of a realignment going on
They are picking the wrong target, Gina Miller is doing so for the second time. The aim of those against this government should be to use next week to establish, without going to law and by clear parliamentary procedures, the government and leader they do want instead of the one they don't. If they have the numbers and the affirmative policy it can be done. If they don't have the numbers or don't have a positive policy, tough, that's politics.
Alternatively they could encourage Labour to revisit TMs deal, with which they have no serious dispute.
They play hardball and object when others do the same. It is we poor moderates who have no-one speaking for them.
Boris is trying for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop with a technical solution instead
Just a little reminder of the NYT map of No Deal Brexit impact:
So - to answer my own question - and one which noone seems to ask any No Dealer on any interview I've ever heard - No Deal is far worse for us than for anyone else.
So how is threatening No Deal some sort of marvelous negotiating ploy for Britain?
The idea is even though it may be worse for us surely they will want to avoid what is still a negative outcome for them. Which rather ignores that this is a political calculation and as the same ploy proves of us, people are willing to choose an option which may cause some harm, rather than pay the political price to avoid it.
It's not just a political price though, given the benefits that the SM (and its integrity) gives the EU. They're not going to compromise it even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.
A bit like how given the benefits that democracy (and sovereignty) give the UK we shouldn't compromise even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.
And what exactly are those increased democratic (and sovereign) benefits? Please reference your answer to any supposed deficits now.
The EU27 recognise that memberhsip of the SM provides economic benefits that mean that the departure of a member (who will incur far greater economic damage than the EU by its departure) will not drive them to compromise its integrity.
That is completely the reverse to the UK, who is guaranteeing economic damage for some spurious notional soverignty benefit, that no-one on the leave side has outlined in any detail.
Not being subject to QMV is the big one
QMV or unanimity.
People think unanimity protects us, but it doesn't in the future. If a bad government passes a bad domestic law we can at the next election evict them and reverse the law. Similarly if the law was passed for the right reasons but circumstances have changed.
If the law is an EU law subject to unanimity too then even if our election results change we are left trapped with the bad law unless every single other country unanimously agrees to change it. The veto works against us then.
The only democratic solution if you want to control your own laws with your own electorate is to do just that.
John Major joining Gina Miller to fight a case to block Boris proroguing Parliament, former Labour MP for Grimsby Austin Mitchell backing Boris proroguing Parliament today, maybe a bit of a realignment going on
They are picking the wrong target, Gina Miller is doing so for the second time. The aim of those against this government should be to use next week to establish, without going to law and by clear parliamentary procedures, the government and leader they do want instead of the one they don't. If they have the numbers and the affirmative policy it can be done. If they don't have the numbers or don't have a positive policy, tough, that's politics.
Alternatively they could encourage Labour to revisit TMs deal, with which they have no serious dispute.
They play hardball and object when others do the same. It is we poor moderates who have no-one speaking for them.
Boris is trying for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop with a technical solution instead
OMG this changes everything! How could we have been so blind as to lead to a one day pause in production! I'm sorry everyone, oh so sorry. I was wrong, very wrong, I never realised we would lose an ENTIRE DAY of production. What can we do to prevent this!?
I am regularly getting calls at work from withheld numbers that immediately hang up. I've come to the conclusion that they are trying to get a recording of my voice.
I do not give my name when answering such calls.
I regularly get them too, my understanding is that it is that call centres [typically Indian it seems] which we regularly get calls from are calling lots of numbers then if there's nobody available in the centre to answer the call when it gets connected they disconnect it.
They do that rather than have their operatives sat waiting for a connection to be made.
I never give my name until the caller has identified him/herself first. Even then I sometimes invent a name, or organisation.
'Russian Embassy' works quite well.
I rather like that. Might try again. I once though said Regional Office, Sinn Fein to a number I didn't recognise and a puzzled voice asked "Isn't that you OKC?" (Names changed to protect the innocent) I regularly get automated calls telling me that my BT line/broadband is compromised. I keep blocking the 'last call', so now the message says that I've missed a call from BT telling me, etc.
I am regularly getting calls at work from withheld numbers that immediately hang up. I've come to the conclusion that they are trying to get a recording of my voice.
I do not give my name when answering such calls.
Unless you have reason to think otherwise it's probably nothing more sinister than the scammers optimising their use of labour. i.e. They make a huge numbers of calls, and when you pick up the call immediately drops because the scammer doesn't have a scam operator ready to speak to you.
*edit*
I see that Philip_Thompson made the same point before me.
Never mind that. Look at the story on the right for another example of our broken criminal justice system. The Met wants new laws to protect coppers from being assaulted (and it begs the question of whether harsher punishment does constitute protection). Last week it was social workers.
The reason we end up with more and more protected classes like police, emergency workers, various ethnic groups, is that the basic system that should protect all of us has broken down following cuts to the police, the courts, forensic services, prison, parole and so on. And it was never very good in the first place.
John Major joining Gina Miller to fight a case to block Boris proroguing Parliament, former Labour MP for Grimsby Austin Mitchell backing Boris proroguing Parliament today, maybe a bit of a realignment going on
They are picking the wrong target, Gina Miller is doing so for the second time. The aim of those against this government should be to use next week to establish, without going to law and by clear parliamentary procedures, the government and leader they do want instead of the one they don't. If they have the numbers and the affirmative policy it can be done. If they don't have the numbers or don't have a positive policy, tough, that's politics.
Alternatively they could encourage Labour to revisit TMs deal, with which they have no serious dispute.
They play hardball and object when others do the same. It is we poor moderates who have no-one speaking for them.
Boris is trying for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop with a technical solution instead
@HYUFD constantly tells us that Boris is representing the ‘silent majority’ and then just ignores any evidence to the contrary. If Boris was delivering the Brexit the majority wanted then that would clearly show in the polls.
Once again he and his fellow Tory cultists have shown that democracy does not matter and the only thing that does matter is beating Jeremy Corbyn.
John Major joining Gina Miller to fight a case to block Boris proroguing Parliament, former Labour MP for Grimsby Austin Mitchell backing Boris proroguing Parliament today, maybe a bit of a realignment going on
Hans Gruber lines up with Boris against DieHard remainers?
We all know what happened to Hans Gruber...
The same as any baddy with Ode to Joy as their signature tune.....
John Major joining Gina Miller to fight a case to block Boris proroguing Parliament, former Labour MP for Grimsby Austin Mitchell backing Boris proroguing Parliament today, maybe a bit of a realignment going on
They are picking the wrong target, Gina Miller is doing so for the second time. The aim of those against this government should be to use next week to establish, without going to law and by clear parliamentary procedures, the government and leader they do want instead of the one they don't. If they have the numbers and the affirmative policy it can be done. If they don't have the numbers or don't have a positive policy, tough, that's politics.
Alternatively they could encourage Labour to revisit TMs deal, with which they have no serious dispute.
They play hardball and object when others do the same. It is we poor moderates who have no-one speaking for them.
Boris is trying for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop with a technical solution instead
Has anyone picked up that in Shetland last night BOTH Labour and the Tories lost their deposits? Indeed they got such a hammering that they wouldn't have saved one adding their votes together.
That must be pretty rare.
But it does feel that the people of Shetland may be speaking for the country on how they view the Westminster performance of the 'big two'
SNP still below the 37% they got in Orkney and Shetland in 2015
It's a tedious game, but how did the SCon candidate's performance in Shetland last night compare to O&S in 2015, or indeed 2017?
@HYUFD constantly tells us that Boris is representing the ‘silent majority’ and then just ignores any evidence to the contrary. If Boris was delivering the Brexit the majority wanted then that would clearly show in the polls.
Once again he and his fellow Tory cultists have shown that democracy does not matter and the only thing that does matter is beating Jeremy Corbyn.
If they are silent, there will be no evidence to the contrary or otherwise.
@HYUFD constantly tells us that Boris is representing the ‘silent majority’ and then just ignores any evidence to the contrary. If Boris was delivering the Brexit the majority wanted then that would clearly show in the polls.
Once again he and his fellow Tory cultists have shown that democracy does not matter and the only thing that does matter is beating Jeremy Corbyn.
There is no majority in any poll for Remain or any Brexit Option.
Most Remainers back Revoke, most Leavers now back No Deal and the only compromise on the table, the Withdrawal Agreement, was rejected by MPs 3 times.
Boris could easily win the next GE on 30% of the vote with a split opposition. Democracy that does not make.
Hypocrites the lot of them. It is shameful.
Of course it makes.
If there's a more popular alternative they will win the election.
After the next election every single MP in Parliament will be able to stand up and say they were the most popular candidate in their constituency. Anyone who gets less votes than a rival by default loses. It is the best form of democracy.
If the opposition wishes to unite and present only one alternative then they are more than free to choose to do that. If they haven't then adding their votes together is nonsense.
@HYUFD constantly tells us that Boris is representing the ‘silent majority’ and then just ignores any evidence to the contrary. If Boris was delivering the Brexit the majority wanted then that would clearly show in the polls.
Once again he and his fellow Tory cultists have shown that democracy does not matter and the only thing that does matter is beating Jeremy Corbyn.
There is no majority in any poll for Remain or any Brexit Option.
Most Remainers back Revoke, most Leavers now back No Deal and the only compromise on the table, the Withdrawal Agreement, was rejected by MPs 3 times.
So tough
Tough what? You can have your view, but don’t pretend its the will of the people because it just isn’t.
Comments
Taking back control
Ending ECJ jurisdiction
Leaving the Single Market
Leaving the Customs Union
The Backstop violates UK red lines. It may meet the hard border one, but that is insufficient so another solution is necessary or something will have to give and for me that is compromising the border.
See my later post.
Do you believe judges should be elected?
No I don't believe the judiciary should be elected, but I do believe the legislature should be elected. I also believe the way the Commission is chosen is undemocratic and should be more closely linked to elections like our executive is but that's a completely separate matter to the backstop.
For example, didn't Sir A Conan Doyle have pictures of fairies?
None of those "red lines" was on the ballot paper, and any one or all of them could have been retained whilst "leaving the EU".
Being able to elect the people who set our laws is a red line that dates back centuries [who can vote has evolved over time, the idea of elections has not] and isn't to be thrown away by a backstop either.
If you can quote me a single line or passage from the GFA that will be violated if we leave the EU without a backstop, but isn't if we agree to the backstop, I would be absolutely amazed as nobody has done so yet.
It is all vague bullshit about the "spirit of the GFA". The GFA doesn't mention customs at all as far as I know. We already have a very real border on multiple fronts there.
"The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.
Brexit is a specific example of this. Blair and Brown got elected pledging a referendum before accepting the EU Constitution - France and Netherlands voted down the Constitution and so they renamed it the Lisbon Treaty and it got rushed through without any pesky referendums with Blair and Brown reneging on their electoral promise as they knew they would lose a vote. At the next election Brown got turfed out and subsequently electoral pressure led to the EU referendum and the referendum resulted in a Leave vote. Democracy in action, Blair and Brown forcing through a dud against their manifesto and knowing it would be voted down had they honoured their manifesto resulted in this.
At the next election if you're not happy with anything this government is doing, including Brexit even, you can seek to elect a new government with a new promise to change course yet again. That is the benefit of democracy."
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2019/08/30/britons-make-worst-tourists-say-britons-and-spania
Please can you show me where on the ballot paper it said "Leave the EU (including the customs union and single market, and no longer being subject to ECJ decisions)".
I am not aware of even one nation.
“The criminal running the Grandparent Scam calls or emails the victim, pretending to represent a grandchild who is now in trouble with the law or who needs money for a hospital bill for an injury that can’t be discussed, say, with parents, because of the moral trouble that might ensue. They generally call late at night—say at four in the morning—because that adds to the confusion. The preferred mechanism of money movement is wire transfer—and that’s a warning: don’t transfer money by wire without knowing for certain who is receiving it, because once it’s gone, it’s not coming back.
Now what if it was possible to conduct such a scam using the actual voice of the hypothetical victim? Worse, what if was possible to do so with voice and video image, indistinguishable from the real thing? If we’re not at that point now (and we probably are) we will be within months.”
https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/blog-posts/i-didnt-say-that/
Or did you say all that [while throwing in a "/or"] but not mean it as it wasn't true?
However moving on the additional benefits post-Brexit is that if we as the UK change our minds on a law that has been passed in the past we can in our UK elections change that law, without requiring either unanimity from the EU or QMV from the rest of the EU to change that law.
Using the very specific example I gave of Blair and Brown dodgily passing the Lisbon Treaty, against their own manifesto and in full knowledge the country did not want that law passing . . . as members of the EU even evicting Brown wasn't sufficient to reverse that because it would require unanimity from every single other country to reverse it too. Which is why the only way to reverse his disgraceful actions now is to leave the EU, returning to the prior legal structure we had before he passed that law is impossible now. Same as any other law the EU passes we can not unilaterally reverse.
In the future if our government passes a law we object to we can reverse it by ourselves as the next election without waiting on every other nation to agree it was a mistake too. Democracy is enhanced.
I do not give my name when answering such calls.
Please name one country that is under ECJ jurisdiction that under international law can not unilaterally exit ECJ jurisdiction.
They do that rather than have their operatives sat waiting for a connection to be made.
That must be pretty rare.
But it does feel that the people of Shetland may be speaking for the country on how they view the Westminster performance of the 'big two'
'Russian Embassy' works quite well.
Joking aside, it is surprising how many people will disclose personal information to an anonymous "phone survey". I just hang up on them.
Alternatively they could encourage Labour to revisit TMs deal, with which they have no serious dispute.
They play hardball and object when others do the same. It is we poor moderates who have no-one speaking for them.
Final Friday of August is probably a very good day for chains to complete. Oddly enough I know someone who's chain has completed today but I never thought about that as out of the ordinary until just now.
https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1167385045134401537?s=21
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/08/17/48-35-britons-would-rather-have-no-deal-and-no-cor
That is damning.
People think unanimity protects us, but it doesn't in the future. If a bad government passes a bad domestic law we can at the next election evict them and reverse the law. Similarly if the law was passed for the right reasons but circumstances have changed.
If the law is an EU law subject to unanimity too then even if our election results change we are left trapped with the bad law unless every single other country unanimously agrees to change it. The veto works against us then.
The only democratic solution if you want to control your own laws with your own electorate is to do just that.
I regularly get automated calls telling me that my BT line/broadband is compromised. I keep blocking the 'last call', so now the message says that I've missed a call from BT telling me, etc.
*edit*
I see that Philip_Thompson made the same point before me.
The reason we end up with more and more protected classes like police, emergency workers, various ethnic groups, is that the basic system that should protect all of us has broken down following cuts to the police, the courts, forensic services, prison, parole and so on. And it was never very good in the first place.
Once again he and his fellow Tory cultists have shown that democracy does not matter and the only thing that does matter is beating Jeremy Corbyn.
Hypocrites the lot of them. It is shameful.
Most Remainers back Revoke, most Leavers now back No Deal and the only compromise on the table, the Withdrawal Agreement, was rejected by MPs 3 times.
So tough
If there's a more popular alternative they will win the election.
After the next election every single MP in Parliament will be able to stand up and say they were the most popular candidate in their constituency. Anyone who gets less votes than a rival by default loses. It is the best form of democracy.
If the opposition wishes to unite and present only one alternative then they are more than free to choose to do that. If they haven't then adding their votes together is nonsense.