They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.
Eh ? We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.
I thought we were talking about the WA, that is only document Boris will be bringing back. May have a few extra comma's or full stops but little else.
If that's really the case, which is... unlikely, then it would probably take a good few hours to make sure it really is the WA, and not something similar with a few strange clauses sneaked in.
any half decent lawyer or civil servant would issue a marked up copy with the changes and brief the relevant parties in advance.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.
Sounds like Nancy Pelosi. "We have to pass this bill to find out what's in it"
Can anyone really be so stupid?
You have to read it to know what's in it.
But you don't really. Someone has to read it, politicians are rarely the person who does.
In fact, the details are not what is important here - it is the politics which are, the broad strokes. For the rest, the politicians trust the civil servants to get the legalities right.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.
Eh ? We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.
I thought we were talking about the WA, that is only document Boris will be bringing back. May have a few extra comma's or full stops but little else.
If that's really the case, which is... unlikely, then it would probably take a good few hours to make sure it really is the WA, and not something similar with a few strange clauses sneaked in.
Given that the whole point of these negotiations is an alternative to the backstop, I think "unlikely" is the understatement of the millennium.
Does everyone know there was something called the backstop in Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement, or am I assuming too much knowledge?
There is a growing body of management science and systems science saying that the best way forward in complex adaptive systems is simply to act, and then react to what the action results in, rather than seek to analyze and plan in detail. We may well be riven as to what action should be taken, but we may also be at a point where any action is better than continued paralysis.
This sounds suspiciously like Tony Wilson's interpretation of praxis:
In the Channel Four television documentary New Order: Play At Home, Factory Records owner Tony Wilson describes praxis as “Doing something because you have the urge to do it, inventing the reasons later.” Elsewhere, Wilson has been quoted as saying “You learn why you do something by doing it. The Theory of Independence was discovered in the act of putting out your own records, doing very well, being friends with your artists and not ripping them off. And by 1981, we were all doing it.” Which perfectly sums up the Factory ethos.
Given that Factory Records went spectacularly bust after sending the Happy Mondays to Barbados to discover crack cocaine, I'm not sure this is a great precedent.
They had to go to Barbados to discover crack cocaine?
Given that Factory Records went spectacularly bust after sending the Happy Mondays to Barbados to discover crack cocaine, I'm not sure this is a great precedent.
They had to go to Barbados to discover crack cocaine?
I think the logic was "Shaun Ryder is hooked on heroin. We need a new album. Let's send him to Barbados. There's no heroin there."
There is a growing body of management science and systems science saying that the best way forward in complex adaptive systems is simply to act, and then react to what the action results in, rather than seek to analyze and plan in detail. We may well be riven as to what action should be taken, but we may also be at a point where any action is better than continued paralysis.
This sounds suspiciously like Tony Wilson's interpretation of praxis:
In the Channel Four television documentary New Order: Play At Home, Factory Records owner Tony Wilson describes praxis as “Doing something because you have the urge to do it, inventing the reasons later.” Elsewhere, Wilson has been quoted as saying “You learn why you do something by doing it. The Theory of Independence was discovered in the act of putting out your own records, doing very well, being friends with your artists and not ripping them off. And by 1981, we were all doing it.” Which perfectly sums up the Factory ethos.
Given that Factory Records went spectacularly bust after sending the Happy Mondays to Barbados to discover crack cocaine, I'm not sure this is a great precedent.
Praxis as I understand it is something completely different - it is deliberate doing in order to create a habit. It is not post hoc justification for any action.
If you seriously want to engage in this subject matter, reading up on Agile is a good start, then perhaps Managing in the Age of Uncertainty. Where I would agree somewhat with Wilson is that, in complex adaptive systems, you cannot know the whole system because of its complexity and because of the phenomenon of emergent properties, so the only way to learn about the system is doing and observing and iterating that process.
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.
? They've had "months and months" to read an agreement that hasn't been reached yet, let alone written down?
You are a follower of the late Dr J. B. Rhine, I presume?
It's a morris dancer, wrapped inside a tapestry, all swaddled in a plastic itch cone. Do you think they know they look like a bunch of tossers?
I'm sure they know it looks ridiculous. What does that matter?
Next step let's complaining about the US president pardoning Turkeys.
The issue is pardoning Turkeys is fine for Thanksgiving and Xmas. Pomp and circumstance when we're apparently on the constitutional knife edge just seems like fiddling whilst Rome burns.
They've had years and plenty of debate. An hour of ceremony doesnt affect a damn thing.
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.
Eh ? We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.
I thought we were talking about the WA, that is only document Boris will be bringing back. May have a few extra comma's or full stops but little else.
You thought we were talking about whether MPs would vote this weekend to approve Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement?
Seriously?
< /irony >
Nigel, that is all that will be on offer, so it is either all day in the bar or try to polish the turd that has been through 3 failed polishes so far.
Do we actually know for sure that the Queen's Speech will not get a majority? I don't have a feeling for how all the Tory expulsees are feeling, but perhaps some of them think the speech is fine except for the, cough, unfortunate references to Brexit and want to keep channels open to a possible return one day, so will vote for it?
The rebels seem to be in 2 camps. Those that might return are the majority, maybe 12 to 15, the rest seem to have the fire of zealots and are 'neverweres'. Hammond, Grieve, Greening, perhaps Gauke, Rudd'........
That doesn't seem like enough to pass, but are any of the TIGs / ex-Labour independents potentially amenable?
I think the rebel rebels will abstain. Some indies will be amenable, possibly enough. It will be very very tight. Kate Hoey is a possible yes vote, omara and mann will be effective abstentions. Hermon 'might' vote in favour or abstain. Austin, Lewis might abstain but will likely vote against. If the majority of rebels vote yes and a few abstain I think it squeezes through. If hammond and co vote against its going down.......
I wonder how much solidarity the ex-Cons have. If they can stick together it seems like a decent opportunity for them to say, sure we'll vote for you, but only if you restore the whip. If you don't want our support, you won't get it.
I expect any vote on Brexit and/or the QS will be precisely that.
Vote for it and you are reinstated and the official conservative candidate at the GE
Except Grieve and Hammond and maybe Worzel Gummidge/Letwin
I expect it to apply to them all to be honest. If they vote for brexit and the QS they should be the candidate at the next election
Hard thinking for Hammond and Grieve but Letwin is standing down anyway
I think Hammond and Grieve have burned their bridges. Having said that they wint vote for Brexit anyway so its not I guess
Hammond has voted for Brexit. Probably not again though.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.
Eh ? We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.
I thought we were talking about the WA, that is only document Boris will be bringing back. May have a few extra comma's or full stops but little else.
If that's really the case, which is... unlikely, then it would probably take a good few hours to make sure it really is the WA, and not something similar with a few strange clauses sneaked in.
any half decent lawyer or civil servant would issue a marked up copy with the changes and brief the relevant parties in advance.
Exactly , only changes will be date and Theresa May deleted / Boris Buffoon inserted
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.
Sounds like Nancy Pelosi. "We have to pass this bill to find out what's in it"
Can anyone really be so stupid?
You have to read it to know what's in it.
But you don't really. Someone has to read it, politicians are rarely the person who does.
In fact, the details are not what is important here - it is the politics which are, the broad strokes. For the rest, the politicians trust the civil servants to get the legalities right.
Most of the politicians would not understand it even if they did read it, most would struggle to tie their shoelaces.
To those seeking a second referendum, could you please tell us the answers to the following. 1. What will the question be? 2.What level of turnout will validate the result? 2016- 72pc 3.What margin of victory will validate the result? 2016-4pc 4.How long will the enabling legislation take?2016-7 months 5.How long will it be from passing the Act to the referendum itself? 2016-6 months 6.Why should the losers consent to the outcome this time? 7.Wil we all be driven insane in the meantime?
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.
Sounds like Nancy Pelosi. "We have to pass this bill to find out what's in it"
Can anyone really be so stupid?
You have to read it to know what's in it.
And yet Ken Clarke was happy to claim he never read any of the EU Treaties that he thought were so good for the UK and argued so strongly for in Parliament.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.
Eh ? We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.
I thought we were talking about the WA, that is only document Boris will be bringing back. May have a few extra comma's or full stops but little else.
If that's really the case, which is... unlikely, then it would probably take a good few hours to make sure it really is the WA, and not something similar with a few strange clauses sneaked in.
any half decent lawyer or civil servant would issue a marked up copy with the changes and brief the relevant parties in advance.
Exactly , only changes will be date and Theresa May deleted / Boris Buffoon inserted
theyll probably have some changes re NI if reports are correct, but since Parliament is stuffed with lawyers from the DUP at one end Grieve at the other theyll just have to make their mind up.
And if its really that earth shattering the can always vote to wotk the whole weekend
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
you're assuming people will read it before they decide
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.
I've been coming to the conclusion that people who are still in favour of Brexit are a strong distillation of people who don't understand why processes are important. It's a strong overlap with the traditional right-wing approach to things: criminals? Hang em! Baddies in foreign lands? Nuke em! Don't like the ECJ? Leave without a deal! Complex issues, simple answers that don't work. And if it's shown to not* be working, fuck it, go faster.
* split infinitive especially for LuckyGuy1883
I have been coming to the conclusion that Remainers are a bunch of arrogant fuckwits who would sell their own children into sex slavery for the sake of a few extra quid.
You see its easy to write provocative and unfounded attacks on websites. Easy, but not necessarily wise.
And how will these voters prove their identity to the council, and why can't this alternative proof be used at the polling station?
Speed of throughput. Do you want to be held up at the polling booth while the voter in front of you disputes whether a year old photocopy of his landlord's gas bill is evidence of identity?
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
you're assuming people will read it before they decide
quite
most of them will just do as their whips tell them
1. I think we should wait to carefully critique the proposals when they are published, rather than immediately jumping to American talking points on both sides. There’s literally a hundred other systems out there that are not what happens in the USA. See healthcare for another example of this phenomenon.
2. There have been several court cases of voter fraud, but from memory these were mostly registration and postal voting fraud rather than impersonation at polling stations. Will the proposals address these problems as well?
3. The implementation needs to be careful in that it doesn’t unduly burden people with paperwork, so for example all existing verified welfare claimants and pensioners should be automatically sent a card.
4. The concept of voter identification is already in use in other countries, including many which don’t have a Compulsory national ID card Scheme. It would be good to read and observe how things work abroad to design a best practice at home.
5. Ignore all mentions of the USA with regard to voter ID. Did I mention that one before? Twitter today is full of Americans talking about this.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.
I've been coming to the conclusion that people who are still in favour of Brexit are a strong distillation of people who don't understand why processes are important. It's a strong overlap with the traditional right-wing approach to things: criminals? Hang em! Baddies in foreign lands? Nuke em! Don't like the ECJ? Leave without a deal! Complex issues, simple answers that don't work. And if it's shown to not* be working, fuck it, go faster.
* split infinitive especially for LuckyGuy1883
I have been coming to the conclusion that Remainers are a bunch of arrogant fuckwits who would sell their own children into sex slavery for the sake of a few extra quid.
You see its easy to write provocative and unfounded attacks on websites. Easy, but not necessarily wise.
Wrong again. We sell our own children into sex slavery for the sake of a few extra Euros.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.
I've been coming to the conclusion that people who are still in favour of Brexit are a strong distillation of people who don't understand why processes are important. It's a strong overlap with the traditional right-wing approach to things: criminals? Hang em! Baddies in foreign lands? Nuke em! Don't like the ECJ? Leave without a deal! Complex issues, simple answers that don't work. And if it's shown to not* be working, fuck it, go faster.
* split infinitive especially for LuckyGuy1883
I have been coming to the conclusion that Remainers are a bunch of arrogant fuckwits who would sell their own children into sex slavery for the sake of a few extra quid.
You see its easy to write provocative and unfounded attacks on websites. Easy, but not necessarily wise.
Wrong again. We sell our own children into sex slavery for the sake of a few extra Euros.
So you value your kids even less than I thought...
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.
I've been coming to the conclusion that people who are still in favour of Brexit are a strong distillation of people who don't understand why processes are important. It's a strong overlap with the traditional right-wing approach to things: criminals? Hang em! Baddies in foreign lands? Nuke em! Don't like the ECJ? Leave without a deal! Complex issues, simple answers that don't work. And if it's shown to not* be working, fuck it, go faster.
* split infinitive especially for LuckyGuy1883
I have been coming to the conclusion that Remainers are a bunch of arrogant fuckwits who would sell their own children into sex slavery for the sake of a few extra quid.
You see its easy to write provocative and unfounded attacks on websites. Easy, but not necessarily wise.
Wrong again. We sell our own children into sex slavery for the sake of a few extra Euros.
So you value your kids even less than I thought...
Absolutely. I'd have paid to get rid of them. I'm just amazed to get anything at all.
Some of the replies from the Unionist fraternity are a joy to behold.
Even I think the sentences handed down by Madrid are draconian and grossly disproportionate. I commented as much this morning.
Does that make me an honorary Nit?
I agree.
The sentences are extraordinary. I would comment that I have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland, but did not and do not support independence
The sentences aren't just "extraordinary" they are stupid. The one way to stoke Catalan grievance, and fire up the Catindy debate once again, is to hand down brutal punishments. Amazingly, this is exactly what Madrid has done. They are still Bourbons in Castile: forgetting nothing, but learning nothing.
There's a painful echo here of the moronic way the British punished the rebels of the 1916 Easter Rising. If they'd been treated reasonably, and cleverly, the fires of Irish nationalism might have gone out. Instead the British executed almost all of them, even the ones who were so badly wounded they had to be tied to a chair, so as to be shot.
I get the feeling Madrid would like to shoot the Calatan rebels, if only it was permitted. This will not end well.
But surely the civilising, progressive, open and democratising EU, vanguard of human rights and freedom of speech will ensure such sentences are swiftly condemned and overturned.
Remember that this is the same Kingdom of Spain which will have a veto over the conditions that an independent Scotland would have once it entered negotiations to re-enter the EU. Wonder if that has been wargamed at the NatFest?
You moron , the Spanish Government has already stated many times that it is none of their business and that they would NOT veto Scotland joining EU if it met the joining rules.
Are you seriously suggesting there will be no negotiations about access to fishing grounds etc etc. The negotiations would be long and arduous and the EU would have Scotland over a barrel. Only a moron would be incapable of seeing that.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.
Sounds like Nancy Pelosi. "We have to pass this bill to find out what's in it"
Can anyone really be so stupid?
You have to read it to know what's in it.
But you don't really. Someone has to read it, politicians are rarely the person who does.
In fact, the details are not what is important here - it is the politics which are, the broad strokes. For the rest, the politicians trust the civil servants to get the legalities right.
Most of the politicians would not understand it even if they did read it, most would struggle to tie their shoelaces.
Not sure I would understand everything in my car insurance policy, and sure as hell I don't understand everything in my health insurance policy, yet it does not stop me from buying them.
1. I think we should wait to carefully critique the proposals when they are published, rather than immediately jumping to American talking points on both sides. There’s literally a hundred other systems out there that are not what happens in the USA. See healthcare for another example of this phenomenon.
2. There have been several court cases of voter fraud, but from memory these were mostly registration and postal voting fraud rather than impersonation at polling stations. Will the proposals address these problems as well?
3. The implementation needs to be careful in that it doesn’t unduly burden people with paperwork, so for example all existing verified welfare claimants and pensioners should be automatically sent a card.
4. The concept of voter identification is already in use in other countries, including many which don’t have a Compulsory national ID card Scheme. It would be good to read and observe how things work abroad to design a best practice at home.
5. Ignore all mentions of the USA with regard to voter ID. Did I mention that one before? Twitter today is full of Americans talking about this.
It's a solution in search of a problem. It will result in far more people being prevented from voting than the cases of voter fraud that currently exist. The only sensible inference is that it is being introduced for political advantage.
If the SNP then follow suit and back the Catalans against Spain, the EU and Spanish government will then have no complaint when Boris blocks indyref2 and will show no enthusiasm for an Independent Scotland joining the EU either
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.
I've been coming to the conclusion that people who are still in favour of Brexit are a strong distillation of people who don't understand why processes are important. It's a strong overlap with the traditional right-wing approach to things: criminals? Hang em! Baddies in foreign lands? Nuke em! Don't like the ECJ? Leave without a deal! Complex issues, simple answers that don't work. And if it's shown to not* be working, fuck it, go faster.
* split infinitive especially for LuckyGuy1883
I have been coming to the conclusion that Remainers are a bunch of arrogant fuckwits who would sell their own children into sex slavery for the sake of a few extra quid.
You see its easy to write provocative and unfounded attacks on websites. Easy, but not necessarily wise.
Wrong again. We sell our own children into sex slavery for the sake of a few extra Euros.
So you value your kids even less than I thought...
Not really Richard, I think thanks to Brexit one Euro will soon be worth more than £1 !!
Some of the replies from the Unionist fraternity are a joy to behold.
Even I think the sentences handed down by Madrid are draconian and grossly disproportionate. I commented as much this morning.
Does that make me an honorary Nit?
I agree.
The sentences are extraordinary. I would comment that I have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland, but did not and do not support independence
The sentences aren't just "extraordinary" they are stupid. The one way to stoke Catalan grievance, and fire up the Catindy debate once again, is to hand down brutal punishments. Amazingly, this is exactly what Madrid has done. They are still Bourbons in Castile: forgetting nothing, but learning nothing.
There's a painful echo here of the moronic way the British punished the rebels of the 1916 Easter Rising. If they'd been treated reasonably, and cleverly, the fires of Irish nationalism might have gone out. Instead the British executed almost all of them, even the ones who were so badly wounded they had to be tied to a chair, so as to be shot.
I get the feeling Madrid would like to shoot the Calatan rebels, if only it was permitted. This will not end well.
But surely the civilising, progressive, open and democratising EU, vanguard of human rights and freedom of speech will ensure such sentences are swiftly condemned and overturned.
Remember that this is the same Kingdom of Spain which will have a veto over the conditions that an independent Scotland would have once it entered negotiations to re-enter the EU. Wonder if that has been wargamed at the NatFest?
You moron , the Spanish Government has already stated many times that it is none of their business and that they would NOT veto Scotland joining EU if it met the joining rules.
Are you seriously suggesting there will be no negotiations about access to fishing grounds etc etc. The negotiations would be long and arduous and the EU would have Scotland over a barrel. Only a moron would be incapable of seeing that.
Oh god. Fish. Again. Does everyone on here really give a flying fuck about national fishing grounds? If you told me Spanish trawlers can fish off the coast of Aberdeenshire, and Scottish ones can fish in Galician waters, am I meant to care about this? Serious question, I've no idea why everyone gets so animated about this issue.
If the SNP then follow suit and back the Catalans against Spain, the EU and Spanish government will then have no complaint when Boris blocks indyref2 and will show no enthusiasm for an Independent Scotland joining the EU either
The SNP, by backing the Catalans, have already poisoned their relationship with the Spanish - who will royally screw them if an independent Scotland ever came knocking at the EU's door seeking entry. Fishing rights would only be the start.
1. I think we should wait to carefully critique the proposals when they are published, rather than immediately jumping to American talking points on both sides. There’s literally a hundred other systems out there that are not what happens in the USA. See healthcare for another example of this phenomenon.
2. There have been several court cases of voter fraud, but from memory these were mostly registration and postal voting fraud rather than impersonation at polling stations. Will the proposals address these problems as well?
3. The implementation needs to be careful in that it doesn’t unduly burden people with paperwork, so for example all existing verified welfare claimants and pensioners should be automatically sent a card.
4. The concept of voter identification is already in use in other countries, including many which don’t have a Compulsory national ID card Scheme. It would be good to read and observe how things work abroad to design a best practice at home.
5. Ignore all mentions of the USA with regard to voter ID. Did I mention that one before? Twitter today is full of Americans talking about this.
It's a solution in search of a problem. It will result in far more people being prevented from voting than the cases of voter fraud that currently exist. The only sensible inference is that it is being introduced for political advantage.
I cannot think of any rational argument against having voters ID properly checked. People use ID for everything else. If they wish to participate then they should provide proper ID. I would also like to see scrapping of postal votes except in very exceptional circumstances. And any more referenda on complex issues should require an IQ certificate (only kidding on the last one...well, maybe!)
Not really. It's been policy for years and is standard practice in much of the world.
Boris is trying to rig the next election but I think CCHQ might have taken aim at its own foot with this scheme imported from the USA GOP. Driving licences might skew Tory but I'd want to see evidence for that, and more so for passports which might be held by youngish holidaymakers and muslim Hajj pilgrims, which groups tilt towards Labour. Has someone got the numbers?
Many elderly people don't have either.
Apparently 25% don’t have driving license or passport
I was looking for this stat earlier. Do you have a source (apologies if it was cut off your quote)
"There is publicly available data on coverage of individual data sources. For example, we know there are 38 million driving licences issued in Great Britain, which is 78% of the mid year 2013 estimate of the population of Great Britain over the age of 18. We know from Her Majesty’s Passport Office that 80% of England and Wales residents have a UK passport. What we don’t know from this data is how many people have either a UK passport or a GB driving licence."
Some of the replies from the Unionist fraternity are a joy to behold.
Even I think the sentences handed down by Madrid are draconian and grossly disproportionate. I commented as much this morning.
Does that make me an honorary Nit?
I agree.
The sentences are extraordinary. I would comment that I have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland, but did not and do not support independence
The sentences aren't just "extraordinary" they are stupid. The one way to stoke Catalan grievance, and fire up the Catindy debate once again, is to hand down brutal punishments. Amazingly, this is exactly what Madrid has done. They are still Bourbons in Castile: forgetting nothing, but learning nothing.
There's a painful echo here of the moronic way the British punished the rebels of the 1916 Easter Rising. If they'd been treated reasonably, and cleverly, the fires of Irish nationalism might have gone out. Instead the British executed almost all of them, even the ones who were so badly wounded they had to be tied to a chair, so as to be shot.
I get the feeling Madrid would like to shoot the Calatan rebels, if only it was permitted. This will not end well.
But surely the civilising, progressive, open and democratising EU, vanguard of human rights and freedom of speech will ensure such sentences are swiftly condemned and overturned.
Remember that this is the same Kingdom of Spain which will have a veto over the conditions that an independent Scotland would have once it entered negotiations to re-enter the EU. Wonder if that has been wargamed at the NatFest?
You moron , the Spanish Government has already stated many times that it is none of their business and that they would NOT veto Scotland joining EU if it met the joining rules.
Are you seriously suggesting there will be no negotiations about access to fishing grounds etc etc. The negotiations would be long and arduous and the EU would have Scotland over a barrel. Only a moron would be incapable of seeing that.
England gave away all our fishing grounds previously so that will make beggar all difference, the few that are left have mainly been sold to EU boats in any case. Fishing is a minor part of the discussion apart from a few Tory millionaire boat owners.
Re management, rapid iteration is absolutely the right way to run a business. You are more likely to find the right solution by focusing on key metrics and then using a/b testing to move in the right direction by a process of trial and error.
Some of the replies from the Unionist fraternity are a joy to behold.
Even I think the sentences handed down by Madrid are draconian and grossly disproportionate. I commented as much this morning.
Does that make me an honorary Nit?
I agree.
The sentences are extraordinary. I would comment that I have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland, but did not and do not support independence
The sentences aren't just "extraordinary" they are stupid. The one way to stoke Catalan grievance, and fire up the Catindy debate once again, is to hand down brutal punishments. Amazingly, this is exactly what Madrid has done. They are still Bourbons in Castile: forgetting nothing, but learning nothing.
There's a painful echo here of the moronic way the British punished the rebels of the 1916 Easter Rising. If they'd been treated reasonably, and cleverly, the fires of Irish nationalism might have gone out. Instead the British executed almost all of them, even the ones who were so badly wounded they had to be tied to a chair, so as to be shot.
I get the feeling Madrid would like to shoot the Calatan rebels, if only it was permitted. This will not end well.
But surely the civilising, progressive, open and democratising EU, vanguard of human rights and freedom of speech will ensure such sentences are swiftly condemned and overturned.
Remember that this is the same Kingdom of Spain which will have a veto over the conditions that an independent Scotland would have once it entered negotiations to re-enter the EU. Wonder if that has been wargamed at the NatFest?
You moron , the Spanish Government has already stated many times that it is none of their business and that they would NOT veto Scotland joining EU if it met the joining rules.
Are you seriously suggesting there will be no negotiations about access to fishing grounds etc etc. The negotiations would be long and arduous and the EU would have Scotland over a barrel. Only a moron would be incapable of seeing that.
You mean Scotland might sell out its fishermen for a better deal from the EU? There's no precedent for any government doing that sort of thing is there?
If you have no photo ID, then the staff at the polling station take a photo of you.
Not many criminals are Keen to have photos of themselves committing crimes. And those who do not have photo id are not disenfranchised.
Problem solved.
Nice idea but if the whole point is to disenfranchise those not voting for Boris it doesn't work.
You could argue that young people in cities are more likely to have photo ID than elderly people in rural areas. So it might hurt the Tories and help Labour.
Not exactly on the slide but well down on the 50% vote share in 2015, so little danger of another whitewash. Unionist voters now more savvy when it comes to tactical voting as well so you will see differing trends from seat to seat.
If the SNP then follow suit and back the Catalans against Spain, the EU and Spanish government will then have no complaint when Boris blocks indyref2 and will show no enthusiasm for an Independent Scotland joining the EU either
The EU and the Spanish government would already be silent about it, if that's what a British PM decides to do.
1. I think we should wait to carefully critique the proposals when they are published, rather than immediately jumping to American talking points on both sides. There’s literally a hundred other systems out there that are not what happens in the USA. See healthcare for another example of this phenomenon.
2. There have been several court cases of voter fraud, but from memory these were mostly registration and postal voting fraud rather than impersonation at polling stations. Will the proposals address these problems as well?
3. The implementation needs to be careful in that it doesn’t unduly burden people with paperwork, so for example all existing verified welfare claimants and pensioners should be automatically sent a card.
4. The concept of voter identification is already in use in other countries, including many which don’t have a Compulsory national ID card Scheme. It would be good to read and observe how things work abroad to design a best practice at home.
5. Ignore all mentions of the USA with regard to voter ID. Did I mention that one before? Twitter today is full of Americans talking about this.
It's a solution in search of a problem. It will result in far more people being prevented from voting than the cases of voter fraud that currently exist. The only sensible inference is that it is being introduced for political advantage.
I cannot think of any rational argument against having voters ID properly checked. People use ID for everything else. If they wish to participate then they should provide proper ID. I would also like to see scrapping of postal votes except in very exceptional circumstances. And any more referenda on complex issues should require an IQ certificate (only kidding on the last one...well, maybe!)
The rational argument against is simple. If we want to encourage people to vote, we should be making it as easy as possible.
There is no evidence of any substantial voter fraud. Introducing new methods of voter identification will reduce the numbers of voters. This will affect some groups disproportionately.
If there was evidence of substantial voter fraud, the answer would be different. But there isn't.
1. I think we should wait to carefully critique the proposals when they are published, rather than immediately jumping to American talking points on both sides. There’s literally a hundred other systems out there that are not what happens in the USA. See healthcare for another example of this phenomenon.
2. There have been several court cases of voter fraud, but from memory these were mostly registration and postal voting fraud rather than impersonation at polling stations. Will the proposals address these problems as well?
3. The implementation needs to be careful in that it doesn’t unduly burden people with paperwork, so for example all existing verified welfare claimants and pensioners should be automatically sent a card.
4. The concept of voter identification is already in use in other countries, including many which don’t have a Compulsory national ID card Scheme. It would be good to read and observe how things work abroad to design a best practice at home.
5. Ignore all mentions of the USA with regard to voter ID. Did I mention that one before? Twitter today is full of Americans talking about this.
It's a solution in search of a problem. It will result in far more people being prevented from voting than the cases of voter fraud that currently exist. The only sensible inference is that it is being introduced for political advantage.
I cannot think of any rational argument against having voters ID properly checked. People use ID for everything else. If they wish to participate then they should provide proper ID. I would also like to see scrapping of postal votes except in very exceptional circumstances. And any more referenda on complex issues should require an IQ certificate (only kidding on the last one...well, maybe!)
Given that it is currently harder to get a bus pass or library card than it is to vote, then the system needs a bit of work. Adopting what is, from all we can tell, essentially the one that has been operating successfully in NI for decades is a perfectly legitimate way to operate a voter registration system.
As long as the legislation also does all it can to eliminate postal vote fraud, we will have a better system at the end of the process than we do now.
If the SNP then follow suit and back the Catalans against Spain, the EU and Spanish government will then have no complaint when Boris blocks indyref2 and will show no enthusiasm for an Independent Scotland joining the EU either
The SNP, by backing the Catalans, have already poisoned their relationship with the Spanish - who will royally screw them if an independent Scotland ever came knocking at the EU's door seeking entry. Fishing rights would only be the start.
Yes, in that sense Boris can happily play Spain off against the SNP and ignore Sturgeon
I knew Kinnock had lost in '92 on GE day, when I was told by two mate's wives separately that they had voted Tory. Both absolute swing voters. Both worried about mortgage and tax.
Which struck me as odd, since Major had managed to get interest rates to something like 15% at one point. But there you go.
1. I think we should wait to carefully critique the proposals when they are published, rather than immediately jumping to American talking points on both sides. There’s literally a hundred other systems out there that are not what happens in the USA. See healthcare for another example of this phenomenon.
2. There have been several court cases of voter fraud, but from memory these were mostly registration and postal voting fraud rather than impersonation at polling stations. Will the proposals address these problems as well?
3. The implementation needs to be careful in that it doesn’t unduly burden people with paperwork, so for example all existing verified welfare claimants and pensioners should be automatically sent a card.
4. The concept of voter identification is already in use in other countries, including many which don’t have a Compulsory national ID card Scheme. It would be good to read and observe how things work abroad to design a best practice at home.
5. Ignore all mentions of the USA with regard to voter ID. Did I mention that one before? Twitter today is full of Americans talking about this.
It's a solution in search of a problem. It will result in far more people being prevented from voting than the cases of voter fraud that currently exist. The only sensible inference is that it is being introduced for political advantage.
I cannot think of any rational argument against having voters ID properly checked. People use ID for everything else. If they wish to participate then they should provide proper ID. I would also like to see scrapping of postal votes except in very exceptional circumstances. And any more referenda on complex issues should require an IQ certificate (only kidding on the last one...well, maybe!)
The rational argument against is simple. If we want to encourage people to vote, we should be making it as easy as possible.
There is no evidence of any substantial voter fraud. Introducing new methods of voter identification will reduce the numbers of voters. This will affect some groups disproportionately.
If there was evidence of substantial voter fraud, the answer would be different. But there isn't.
Thank goodness for a sensible comment (and others of its ilk).
"People born in Northern Ireland are legally British, unless they register a change in citizenship, even if they identify as Irish under rights granted in the Good Friday agreement, a UK court has ruled."
If the SNP then follow suit and back the Catalans against Spain, the EU and Spanish government will then have no complaint when Boris blocks indyref2 and will show no enthusiasm for an Independent Scotland joining the EU either
The SNP, by backing the Catalans, have already poisoned their relationship with the Spanish - who will royally screw them if an independent Scotland ever came knocking at the EU's door seeking entry. Fishing rights would only be the start.
Yes, in that sense Boris can happily play Spain off against the SNP and ignore Sturgeon
But the question is, why? Why would he want to do that? The Scottish Parliament clearly voted for a referendum. Why wouldn't we grant one?
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
The more I research the issue of dealing with risk in complex adaptive systems, them more I appreciate the damage of analysis paralysis. Surely, we've been past that point in the UK where inaction and uncertainty is what is causing the bulk of the damage for at least a year, perhaps more like two.
There is a growing body of management science and systems science saying that the best way forward in complex adaptive systems is simply to act, and then react to what the action results in, rather than seek to analyze and plan in detail. We may well be riven as to what action should be taken, but we may also be at a point where any action is better than continued paralysis.
Well I respect you too. But with the greatest respect that sounds like the stupidest way possible to decide something complex with far-reaching implications for us all.
The alternative is not paralysis. It is to take time to read and understand properly the implications of whatever new deal is arrived to and then explain it to the voters and then take a decision and explain that to the voters.
It is precisely because the country is divided that this effort, however hard and time-consuming it may be, is essential.
That is what politics is - an attempt to find the ground on which a decision can be made. It is precisely the opposite of what May’s government did and doubling down on what she did - trying to bully something through on the basis of exhaustion and exasperation is catastrophically stupid. All that means is that at the first whiff of a problem any consent for it will vanish.
If the SNP then follow suit and back the Catalans against Spain, the EU and Spanish government will then have no complaint when Boris blocks indyref2 and will show no enthusiasm for an Independent Scotland joining the EU either
The SNP, by backing the Catalans, have already poisoned their relationship with the Spanish - who will royally screw them if an independent Scotland ever came knocking at the EU's door seeking entry. Fishing rights would only be the start.
Yes, in that sense Boris can happily play Spain off against the SNP and ignore Sturgeon
If the SNP then follow suit and back the Catalans against Spain, the EU and Spanish government will then have no complaint when Boris blocks indyref2 and will show no enthusiasm for an Independent Scotland joining the EU either
The SNP, by backing the Catalans, have already poisoned their relationship with the Spanish - who will royally screw them if an independent Scotland ever came knocking at the EU's door seeking entry. Fishing rights would only be the start.
Yes, in that sense Boris can happily play Spain off against the SNP and ignore Sturgeon
Dear God, we can only hope these loons don't breed with each other
"People born in Northern Ireland are legally British, unless they register a change in citizenship, even if they identify as Irish under rights granted in the Good Friday agreement, a UK court has ruled."
UK OK
Good Friday Agreement pretty much defunked now. Time for the shinners to pick up their rifles again and we can get back to business as usual.
If the SNP then follow suit and back the Catalans against Spain, the EU and Spanish government will then have no complaint when Boris blocks indyref2 and will show no enthusiasm for an Independent Scotland joining the EU either
The SNP, by backing the Catalans, have already poisoned their relationship with the Spanish - who will royally screw them if an independent Scotland ever came knocking at the EU's door seeking entry. Fishing rights would only be the start.
Yes, in that sense Boris can happily play Spain off against the SNP and ignore Sturgeon
Dear God, we can only hope these loons don't breed with each other
Afternoon, Malky. What I don't understand is the notion that the Tories post-Brexit and the Spanish Gmt will be on tdhe same side, like Mr Cameron and Sr Rajoy were. Has anything been agreed with/about Gibraltar, for instance? Or fishing?
"People born in Northern Ireland are legally British, unless they register a change in citizenship, even if they identify as Irish under rights granted in the Good Friday agreement, a UK court has ruled."
UK OK
Good Friday Agreement pretty much defunked now. Time for the shinners to pick up their rifles again and we can get back to business as usual.
If the SNP then follow suit and back the Catalans against Spain, the EU and Spanish government will then have no complaint when Boris blocks indyref2 and will show no enthusiasm for an Independent Scotland joining the EU either
The SNP, by backing the Catalans, have already poisoned their relationship with the Spanish - who will royally screw them if an independent Scotland ever came knocking at the EU's door seeking entry. Fishing rights would only be the start.
Yes, in that sense Boris can happily play Spain off against the SNP and ignore Sturgeon
But the question is, why? Why would he want to do that? The Scottish Parliament clearly voted for a referendum. Why wouldn't we grant one?
You are wasting your time asking that Tory fruitcake an intelligent question
"People born in Northern Ireland are legally British, unless they register a change in citizenship, even if they identify as Irish under rights granted in the Good Friday agreement, a UK court has ruled."
UK OK
Good Friday Agreement pretty much defunked now. Time for the shinners to pick up their rifles again and we can get back to business as usual.
If the SNP then follow suit and back the Catalans against Spain, the EU and Spanish government will then have no complaint when Boris blocks indyref2 and will show no enthusiasm for an Independent Scotland joining the EU either
The SNP, by backing the Catalans, have already poisoned their relationship with the Spanish - who will royally screw them if an independent Scotland ever came knocking at the EU's door seeking entry. Fishing rights would only be the start.
Yes, in that sense Boris can happily play Spain off against the SNP and ignore Sturgeon
But the question is, why? Why would he want to do that? The Scottish Parliament clearly voted for a referendum. Why wouldn't we grant one?
You are wasting your time asking that Tory fruitcake an intelligent question
"People born in Northern Ireland are legally British, unless they register a change in citizenship, even if they identify as Irish under rights granted in the Good Friday agreement, a UK court has ruled."
UK OK
Good Friday Agreement pretty much defunked now. Time for the shinners to pick up their rifles again and we can get back to business as usual.
Perhaps your ridiculous comments might have more credibility if your spelling didn't suggest you are not too smart.
If the SNP then follow suit and back the Catalans against Spain, the EU and Spanish government will then have no complaint when Boris blocks indyref2 and will show no enthusiasm for an Independent Scotland joining the EU either
The SNP, by backing the Catalans, have already poisoned their relationship with the Spanish - who will royally screw them if an independent Scotland ever came knocking at the EU's door seeking entry. Fishing rights would only be the start.
Yes, in that sense Boris can happily play Spain off against the SNP and ignore Sturgeon
Dear God, we can only hope these loons don't breed with each other
Afternoon, Malky. What I don't understand is the notion that the Tories post-Brexit and the Spanish Gmt will be on tdhe same side, like Mr Cameron and Sr Rajoy were. Has anything been agreed with/about Gibraltar, for instance? Or fishing?
Afternoon Carnyx, I just laugh nowadays, the unionist fruitcakes on here are doolally and have no grasp of reality.
If the SNP then follow suit and back the Catalans against Spain, the EU and Spanish government will then have no complaint when Boris blocks indyref2 and will show no enthusiasm for an Independent Scotland joining the EU either
The SNP, by backing the Catalans, have already poisoned their relationship with the Spanish - who will royally screw them if an independent Scotland ever came knocking at the EU's door seeking entry. Fishing rights would only be the start.
Yes, in that sense Boris can happily play Spain off against the SNP and ignore Sturgeon
But the question is, why? Why would he want to do that? The Scottish Parliament clearly voted for a referendum. Why wouldn't we grant one?
It's a mystery, the likes of HYUFD are insistent that indy would lose again and surely such a second loss (à la Quebec) would kill the issue stone dead.
Comments
In fact, the details are not what is important here - it is the politics which are, the broad strokes. For the rest, the politicians trust the civil servants to get the legalities right.
Does everyone know there was something called the backstop in Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement, or am I assuming too much knowledge?
They had to go to Barbados to discover crack cocaine?
Whoops.
https://twitter.com/Journotopia/status/1183430912748466178
Praxis as I understand it is something completely different - it is deliberate doing in order to create a habit. It is not post hoc justification for any action.
If you seriously want to engage in this subject matter, reading up on Agile is a good start, then perhaps Managing in the Age of Uncertainty. Where I would agree somewhat with Wilson is that, in complex adaptive systems, you cannot know the whole system because of its complexity and because of the phenomenon of emergent properties, so the only way to learn about the system is doing and observing and iterating that process.
People need to look at the reality of how things work before jumping on the outrage bus.
1. What will the question be?
2.What level of turnout will validate the result? 2016- 72pc
3.What margin of victory will validate the result? 2016-4pc
4.How long will the enabling legislation take?2016-7 months
5.How long will it be from passing the Act to the referendum itself? 2016-6 months
6.Why should the losers consent to the outcome this time?
7.Wil we all be driven insane in the meantime?
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1183681837811589120?s=20
But in the Uk it’s wacist.
And if its really that earth shattering the can always vote to wotk the whole weekend
Fat chance.
https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1183756554933170178?s=21
I thought you wanted Brexit so we didn't have to do that...
Oh.
You see its easy to write provocative and unfounded attacks on websites. Easy, but not necessarily wise.
most of them will just do as their whips tell them
1. I think we should wait to carefully critique the proposals when they are published, rather than immediately jumping to American talking points on both sides. There’s literally a hundred other systems out there that are not what happens in the USA. See healthcare for another example of this phenomenon.
2. There have been several court cases of voter fraud, but from memory these were mostly registration and postal voting fraud rather than impersonation at polling stations. Will the proposals address these problems as well?
3. The implementation needs to be careful in that it doesn’t unduly burden people with paperwork, so for example all existing verified welfare claimants and pensioners should be automatically sent a card.
4. The concept of voter identification is already in use in other countries, including many which don’t have a Compulsory national ID card Scheme. It would be good to read and observe how things work abroad to design a best practice at home.
5. Ignore all mentions of the USA with regard to voter ID. Did I mention that one before? Twitter today is full of Americans talking about this.
We sell our own children into sex slavery for the sake of a few extra Euros.
PS And no, I have not read either of them.
If you have no photo ID, then the staff at the polling station take a photo of you.
Not many criminals are Keen to have photos of themselves committing crimes. And those who do not have photo id are not disenfranchised.
Problem solved.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/faith-is-always-blind/
If the SNP then follow suit and back the Catalans against Spain, the EU and Spanish government will then have no complaint when Boris blocks indyref2 and will show no enthusiasm for an Independent Scotland joining the EU either
Does everyone on here really give a flying fuck about national fishing grounds? If you told me Spanish trawlers can fish off the coast of Aberdeenshire, and Scottish ones can fish in Galician waters, am I meant to care about this? Serious question, I've no idea why everyone gets so animated about this issue.
https://identityassurance.blog.gov.uk/2016/01/25/estimating-what-proportion-of-the-public-will-be-able-to-use-gov-uk-verify/
Re management, rapid iteration is absolutely the right way to run a business. You are more likely to find the right solution by focusing on key metrics and then using a/b testing to move in the right direction by a process of trial and error.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1183745166265458691
And will the latter fade over time or start to become a permanent rival to parties when it comes to determining voter behaviour?
There is no evidence of any substantial voter fraud. Introducing new methods of voter identification will reduce the numbers of voters. This will affect some groups disproportionately.
If there was evidence of substantial voter fraud, the answer would be different. But there isn't.
As long as the legislation also does all it can to eliminate postal vote fraud, we will have a better system at the end of the process than we do now.
I knew Kinnock had lost in '92 on GE day, when I was told by two mate's wives separately that they had voted Tory. Both absolute swing voters. Both worried about mortgage and tax.
Which struck me as odd, since Major had managed to get interest rates to something like 15% at one point. But there you go.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/14/uk-court-rules-against-derry-woman-in-irish-identity-case
"People born in Northern Ireland are legally British, unless they register a change in citizenship, even if they identify as Irish under rights granted in the Good Friday agreement, a UK court has ruled."
The alternative is not paralysis. It is to take time to read and understand properly the implications of whatever new deal is arrived to and then explain it to the voters and then take a decision and explain that to the voters.
It is precisely because the country is divided that this effort, however hard and time-consuming it may be, is essential.
That is what politics is - an attempt to find the ground on which a decision can be made. It is precisely the opposite of what May’s government did and doubling down on what she did - trying to bully something through on the basis of exhaustion and exasperation is catastrophically stupid. All that means is that at the first whiff of a problem any consent for it will vanish.
Good Friday Agreement pretty much defunked now. Time for the shinners to pick up their rifles again and we can get back to business as usual.
Which is available at longer odds I think.