Sinn Fein standing down to help Sylvia Hermon is quite startling, and a very good move in terms of getting Northern Irish politics a little more like our normal, sober political system (well...). Seriously, it's great.
Of course, the Prime Minister never goes back on his word on such deadlines.
A few BXP should go back to tories.
This is the pre cursor to WTO exit and Farage pact
I am looking forward to our WTO exit. Listening to Leavers complaining that it is not Brexit will be compensation for the whole mess.
This is a bad move by the tories. It gives the suggestion that the deal is rubbish. Some of us realise that already but the public don't (yet). It plays majorly into Farage's hands. If you want a true Brexit stop messing with Johnson. Go Farage.
Competition is a good thing, competition makes us healthier and better.
That is all very firal statement.
But how politically acceptable do you think the measures needed to make this competition effective will be to the sorts of voters the Tories are targeting?
I hope they would be very acceptable and they would only occur post-Brexit if the population is carried to agree with the changes overall.
That is the whole point of taking back control, if the voters dislike what is proposed done they can prevent or reverse it.
I never put the choice as that and I don't agree with such a negative attitude. I don't agree that the damage will be significant and I think the point of takin back control is not to "mitigate that damage" it is to cease currently neglected opportunities outside.
It comes back to the basic point that decreasing alignment with our EU neighbours will be damaging - it makes trade with those countries less free. The benefit of that dealignment could be to allow us to trade more freely with other countries but that means, in detail, thinking about what kind of divergence we need to take to get trade deals that EU membership precludes, and then whether the electorate would knowingly choose that divergence. For example, which food or environmental standards might we lower, how might we increase labour market flexibility (to use the positive spin phrase), what additionally non-EU immigration might we permit?
Why would decreasng alignment with our EU neighbours be damaging? If you assume it will be damaging, then yes it will, but you haven't justified such an assumption.
We don't necessarily need to lower food or environmental standards, but we can lower tariffs and other non-tariff barriers.
I guess we must be at cross purposes but I thought it was common ground that regulatory divergence etc gives rise to non-tariff barriers, and lowering NTBs is generally equated with increasing alignment with the trade partner. Maybe to put the question another way with is more neutral on the subject of ‘damage’ - how do you anticipate decreasing alignment with the EU in a way that doesn’t increase NTBs, and which NTBs would you see us being able to lower in order to take advantage of neglected opportunities elsewhere, if food and environmental standards are off the table?
Of course, the Prime Minister never goes back on his word on such deadlines.
What is the bloody point of making these assurances? Does anyone listen anymore?
A political pledge means "I will do this as long as others don't stop me". If the Conservatives get a majority, he presumably won't be legally bound to extend.
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
Think bigger. Our land could be the whole of Europe.
Why Europe, why not the whole world? A whole Empire?
Nah, I'm happy with my own country thanks.
You'll be agin that whole Anglosphere gubbins then...
There are some on here who will not be happy until their country is Little Cottage on the Wold (all others being outsiders, dang-it!!!!!)
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
I hesitate to get involved in a private fight, since experience suggests that both original combatants will turn on an interloper, but one of the reasons for banding together in 'something like' the EU is because business organisations are becoming bigger than can be reasonably dealt with by nation states.
I don't share that concern but if that was the argument then presumably we should be seeking to share sovereignty with America? As the organisations that affect our lives are more American than European?
We are long way from the US, both geographically and, in many respects, socially. Health policies are a case in point.
That's not what you said though, you said about business. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Walmart (ASDA) and many other companies affecting our daily lives are not German, French etc
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
I hesitate to get involved in a private fight, since experience suggests that both original combatants will turn on an interloper, but one of the reasons for banding together in 'something like' the EU is because business organisations are becoming bigger than can be reasonably dealt with by nation states.
I don't share that concern but if that was the argument then presumably we should be seeking to share sovereignty with America? As the organisations that affect our lives are more American than European?
We are long way from the US, both geographically and, in many respects, socially. Health policies are a case in point.
That's not what you said though, you said about business. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Walmart (ASDA) and many other companies affecting our daily lives are not German, French etc
1. We can lower VAT on home energy costs to zero. 2. Droit de Suite (you can google it). 3. Er... 4. That's it.
ps. We were always sovereign
Always sovereign de jure, perhaps. In reality laws and regulations were made in Brussels.
We proved we were sovereign by voting to Leave. Oh you mean the laws and regulations that we, as part of the organisation, had a hand in devising, and thought on balance were better for the country than otherwise? Those laws and regulations?
I mean even though it doesn't seem right I do think that sometimes people should be denied the vote if they are too dim to understand how the modern world works.
Immediately with the condescending reply, thanks.
What the UK thinks is immaterial in a lot of areas now, and that list Is only growing with the desire to have everything decided under QMV. Of courses shadbush influence in those decisions, but not a right to ignore the decisions if we had wished to remain a member.
What in your mind is the primary example of where we have had a decision go against us which cemented your views that we were better off out?
I don’t think any were particularly critical in cementing my view. The obvious example of a decision is that of the VAT rules. Yes, we may have agreed with a lot of things before, but that was in the era of the veto, so we had to agree.
So you voted to leave the EU because the UK couldn't reduce VAT on home energy supplies from 5% to zero? In which party's manifesto was that commitment? Cons presumably? The Cons, of course, who put it up from zero all those years ago.
Tell me also, if you would, why our standard rate of VAT is 20% when we are able to reduce it to 15% if we wanted?
Like I said, I don’t think any were particularly critical in cementing my view. It was just an example of how sovereignty has been limited de facto (I accept, de jure, it was there, but you could argue that any region has de jure sovereignty, they just have to leave whatever polity they are a part of).
Harriet Harman: An extra deputy speaker from the minority parties.
If that happened it would increase the government's majority wouldn't it? Speaker and deputy speakers don't vote but they are balanced between government and opposition - if the minority parties got a deputy then unless that was offset by another government deputy speaker then if the deputies continue to not vote that would affect the votes. Has she thought that one through?
I viewed it as an appeal to the SNP. They have an absolute majority of minority seats, I think.
Who aren't in the Commons today to vote. They're off campaigning.
Sinn Fein standing down to help Sylvia Hermon is quite startling, and a very good move in terms of getting Northern Irish politics a little more like our normal, sober political system (well...). Seriously, it's great.
Of course, the Prime Minister never goes back on his word on such deadlines.
What is the bloody point of making these assurances? Does anyone listen anymore?
A political pledge means "I will do this as long as others don't stop me". If the Conservatives get a majority, he presumably won't be legally bound to extend.
So you are the one who is listening then. Glad we cleared that up, I did wonder whether anyone could feasibly be so credulous.
1. We can lower VAT on home energy costs to zero. 2. Droit de Suite (you can google it). 3. Er... 4. That's it.
ps. We were always sovereign
Always sovereign de jure, perhaps. In reality laws and regulations were made in Brussels.
We proved we were sovereign by voting to Leave. Oh you mean the laws and regulations that we, as part of the organisation, had a hand in devising, and thought on balance were better for the country than otherwise? Those laws and regulations?
I mean even though it doesn't seem right I do think that sometimes people should be denied the vote if they are too dim to understand how the modern world works.
Immediately with the condescending reply, thanks.
What the UK thinks is immaterial in a lot of areas now, and that list Is only growing with the desire to have everything decided under QMV. Of courses shadbush influence in those decisions, but not a right to ignore the decisions if we had wished to remain a member.
What in your mind is the primary example of where we have had a decision go against us which cemented your views that we were better off out?
I don’t think any were particularly critical in cementing my view. The obvious example of a decision is that of the VAT rules. Yes, we may have agreed with a lot of things before, but that was in the era of the veto, so we had to agree.
So you voted to leave the EU because the UK couldn't reduce VAT on home energy supplies from 5% to zero? In which party's manifesto was that commitment? Cons presumably? The Cons, of course, who put it up from zero all those years ago.
Tell me also, if you would, why our standard rate of VAT is 20% when we are able to reduce it to 15% if we wanted?
Like I said, I don’t think any were particularly critical in cementing my view. It was just an example of how sovereignty has been limited de facto (I accept, de jure, it was there, but you could argue that any region has de jure sovereignty, they just have to leave whatever polity they are a part of).
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
I hesitate to get involved in a private fight, since experience suggests that both original combatants will turn on an interloper, but one of the reasons for banding together in 'something like' the EU is because business organisations are becoming bigger than can be reasonably dealt with by nation states.
I don't share that concern but if that was the argument then presumably we should be seeking to share sovereignty with America? As the organisations that affect our lives are more American than European?
We are long way from the US, both geographically and, in many respects, socially. Health policies are a case in point.
That's not what you said though, you said about business. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Walmart (ASDA) and many other companies affecting our daily lives are not German, French etc
Lib Dems commission a bunch of private polls, release those whose results say what they want them to say - because they've been released Survation under BPC rules have to release the poll themselves too thus confirming the figures for the LDs to use them on their materials.
BPC rules should be tightened up. If parties are going to poll a bunch of constituencies and release some of the figures then the pollster should release all comparable polls they've done at the same time and not just the cherrypicked ones that have the results the party wants to get out there.
I don't see why. People commission private polls all the time and only release the ones that benefit them. That doesn't seem evil (or even wrong) to me.
Suppose the Lib Dems have conducted opinion polls in 100 constituencies. Five of these, entirely randomly, will give the Lib Dems really good results. Because of the small sample size of these opinion polls, really, *really* good results.
If they then only publish those five opinion polls, and shred the other 95, they present a completely false picture of their electoral prospects. It's the sort of statistical dishonesty that BPC rules are meant to prevent.
On the other hand, if the Lib Dems conduct constituency polls in 100 constituencies and publish all of them, then you get to see the full range of random sample bias, in all its absurd glory. Also, if it turns out that the Lib Dems genuinely only conduct five constituency opinion polls, publish them all, and they *all* look good for the Lib Dems, that gives you greater confidence in their collective result.
Vast swathes, if not all, of science is skewed by publication bias*. And the Lib Dems are not scientists, but politicians seeking to manipulate data to their electoral advantage**.
* Even Cochrane reviews, which rely on papers in a skewed pool. ** As are all the other parties.
1. We can lower VAT on home energy costs to zero. 2. Droit de Suite (you can google it). 3. Er... 4. That's it.
ps. We were always sovereign
Always sovereign de jure, perhaps. In reality laws and regulations were made in Brussels.
We proved we were sovereign by voting to Leave. Oh you mean the laws and regulations that we, as part of the organisation, had a hand in devising, and thought on balance were better for the country than otherwise? Those laws and regulations?
I mean even though it doesn't seem right I do think that sometimes people should be denied the vote if they are too dim to understand how the modern world works.
Immediately with the condescending reply, thanks.
What the UK thinks is immaterial in a lot of areas now, and that list Is only growing with the desire to have everything decided under QMV. Of courses shadbush influence in those decisions, but not a right to ignore the decisions if we had wished to remain a member.
What in your mind is the primary example of where we have had a decision go against us which cemented your views that we were better off out?
I don’t think any were particularly critical in cementing my view. The obvious example of a decision is that of the VAT rules. Yes, we may have agreed with a lot of things before, but that was in the era of the veto, so we had to agree.
So you voted to leave the EU because the UK couldn't reduce VAT on home energy supplies from 5% to zero? In which party's manifesto was that commitment? Cons presumably? The Cons, of course, who put it up from zero all those years ago.
Tell me also, if you would, why our standard rate of VAT is 20% when we are able to reduce it to 15% if we wanted?
Like I said, I don’t think any were particularly critical in cementing my view. It was just an example of how sovereignty has been limited de facto (I accept, de jure, it was there, but you could argue that any region has de jure sovereignty, they just have to leave whatever polity they are a part of).
Right. So no good reason.
No specific example was reason enough, but cumulatively, and the prospect of more, they were.
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
Think bigger. Our land could be the whole of Europe.
Why Europe, why not the whole world? A whole Empire?
Nah, I'm happy with my own country thanks.
You'll be agin that whole Anglosphere gubbins then...
There are some on here who will not be happy until their country is Little Cottage on the Wold (all others being outsiders, dang-it!!!!!)
Or as I put it, for some (not all, not even most) Leavers, the problem was not that the UK was being ruled by a foreign country, the problem was that it was being ruled by the wrong one.
Sinn Fein standing down to help Sylvia Hermon is quite startling, and a very good move in terms of getting Northern Irish politics a little more like our normal, sober political system (well...). Seriously, it's great.
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
I hesitate to get involved in a private fight, since experience suggests that both original combatants will turn on an interloper, but one of the reasons for banding together in 'something like' the EU is because business organisations are becoming bigger than can be reasonably dealt with by nation states.
I don't share that concern but if that was the argument then presumably we should be seeking to share sovereignty with America? As the organisations that affect our lives are more American than European?
We are long way from the US, both geographically and, in many respects, socially. Health policies are a case in point.
That's not what you said though, you said about business. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Walmart (ASDA) and many other companies affecting our daily lives are not German, French etc
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
I hesitate to get involved in a private fight, since experience suggests that both original combatants will turn on an interloper, but one of the reasons for banding together in 'something like' the EU is because business organisations are becoming bigger than can be reasonably dealt with by nation states.
I don't share that concern but if that was the argument then presumably we should be seeking to share sovereignty with America? As the organisations that affect our lives are more American than European?
We are long way from the US, both geographically and, in many respects, socially. Health policies are a case in point.
That's not what you said though, you said about business. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Walmart (ASDA) and many other companies affecting our daily lives are not German, French etc
Sharing sovereignty with the USA isn't on offer.
Would you support it if it was? I think I would.
Not if it was a choice against sharing sovereignty with our European neighbours. If it's a larger 'Western Union' between North America and the EU, then that would be a good idea.
1. We can lower VAT on home energy costs to zero. 2. Droit de Suite (you can google it). 3. Er... 4. That's it.
ps. We were always sovereign
Always sovereign de jure, perhaps. In reality laws and regulations were made in Brussels.
We proved we were sovereign by voting to Leave. Oh you mean the laws and regulations that we, as part of the organisation, had a hand in devising, and thought on balance were better for the country than otherwise? Those laws and regulations?
I mean even though it doesn't seem right I do think that sometimes people should be denied the vote if they are too dim to understand how the modern world works.
Immediately with the condescending reply, thanks.
What the UK thinks is immaterial in a lot of areas now, and that list Is only growing with the desire to have everything decided under QMV. Of courses shadbush influence in those decisions, but not a right to ignore the decisions if we had wished to remain a member.
What in your mind is the primary example of where we have had a decision go against us which cemented your views that we were better off out?
I don’t think any were particularly critical in cementing my view. The obvious example of a decision is that of the VAT rules. Yes, we may have agreed with a lot of things before, but that was in the era of the veto, so we had to agree.
So you voted to leave the EU because the UK couldn't reduce VAT on home energy supplies from 5% to zero? In which party's manifesto was that commitment? Cons presumably? The Cons, of course, who put it up from zero all those years ago.
Tell me also, if you would, why our standard rate of VAT is 20% when we are able to reduce it to 15% if we wanted?
Like I said, I don’t think any were particularly critical in cementing my view. It was just an example of how sovereignty has been limited de facto (I accept, de jure, it was there, but you could argue that any region has de jure sovereignty, they just have to leave whatever polity they are a part of).
Right. So no good reason.
No specific example was reason enough, but cumulatively, and the prospect of more, they were.
No good reason.
Edit: and you're going to absolutely love the terms of the trade deals we are about to try to negotiate.
Farages issue isn’t just with no deal at the end of the transition period but the WA. And if Bozo made an explicit mention of no deal in their manifesto this will be a gift to the opposition .
Sinn Fein standing down to help Sylvia Hermon is quite startling, and a very good move in terms of getting Northern Irish politics a little more like our normal, sober political system (well...). Seriously, it's great.
Johnson is thoroughly untrustworthy, of course. The other way round that is for him to be replaced as prime minister. Thar seems like a good plan to me.
Who cares? None of them could hold a candle to the incumbent. Bercow’s departure will be a huge loss to British public life, I’m sure you and all PBers will agree.
Sinn Fein standing down to help Sylvia Hermon is quite startling, and a very good move in terms of getting Northern Irish politics a little more like our normal, sober political system (well...). Seriously, it's great.
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
I hesitate to get involved in a private fight, since experience suggests that both original combatants will turn on an interloper, but one of the reasons for banding together in 'something like' the EU is because business organisations are becoming bigger than can be reasonably dealt with by nation states.
I don't share that concern but if that was the argument then presumably we should be seeking to share sovereignty with America? As the organisations that affect our lives are more American than European?
We are long way from the US, both geographically and, in many respects, socially. Health policies are a case in point.
That's not what you said though, you said about business. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Walmart (ASDA) and many other companies affecting our daily lives are not German, French etc
Sharing sovereignty with the USA isn't on offer.
Would you support it if it was? I think I would.
Not if it was a choice against sharing sovereignty with our European neighbours. If it's a larger 'Western Union' between North America and the EU, then that would be a good idea.
Quite. As it is loosely based around the North Atlantic, we could call it NATO.
Who cares? None of them could hold a candle to the incumbent. Bercow’s departure will be a huge loss to British public life, I’m sure you and all PBers will agree.
You don’t like polls, you don’t like obscure elections no one else has ever heard of. What exactly are you doing on PB?
Edit: and you're going to absolutely love the terms of the trade deals we are about to try to negotiate.
No specific example is what I said, or are you simply expressing your view that the dilution of sovereignty, and risk of further dilution, was not a good reason?
...Vast swathes, if not all, of science is skewed by publication bias*...
Sometimes not even that. I reviewed a paper before publication once that had been thru three other reviewers, when I spotted they'd defined the null hypothesis exactly wrong...
I keep banging on about "numbers, percentages/variances, thresholds" so much because people just don't get it. They think if they find that A exhibits X more than B, then A exhibits X and B does not exhibit X, and they look at me blank when I point out the fallacy. Humans, arrgh, illogical species...
Sinn Fein standing down to help Sylvia Hermon is quite startling, and a very good move in terms of getting Northern Irish politics a little more like our normal, sober political system (well...). Seriously, it's great.
If only the mainland parties saw that things are so critical.
The irony for Sinn Fein is that Bozo’s Brexit deal signifies a first small step toward a United Ireland.
This move feels like the opening salvo in trying to win a border poll by reaching out across the divide.
True. Strategically clever, then (esp as Brexit will be decided in mainland seats). A blow to the DUP if it loses its majority or even largest party seat status.
Edit: and you're going to absolutely love the terms of the trade deals we are about to try to negotiate.
No specific example is what I said, or are you simply expressing your view that the dilution of sovereignty, and risk of further dilution, was not a good reason?
The modern world involves interaction with other nations for mutual gain.
Or "the dilution of sovereignty" in your quaint terms.
Who cares? None of them could hold a candle to the incumbent. Bercow’s departure will be a huge loss to British public life, I’m sure you and all PBers will agree.
Lets see. I don't think the house has time for a feckless seat-warmer in the Martin mould, and I'd hope the new Speaker has been emboldened by Bercow's tenure, having seen how effective and important a Speaker unwilling to kowtow to the government can be.
Edit: and you're going to absolutely love the terms of the trade deals we are about to try to negotiate.
No specific example is what I said, or are you simply expressing your view that the dilution of sovereignty, and risk of further dilution, was not a good reason?
The modern world involves interaction with other nations for mutual gain.
Or "the dilution of sovereignty" in your quaint terms.
But there is a spectrum from isolationist states to federations. The EU is slowly moving along that spectrum, too far for a lot of people apparently.
Pengelly almost certainly a goner in South Belfast with that announcement.
SDLP GAIN
I wonder how pleased Sylvia Hermon is at having Sinn Fein explicitly endorse her. Sinn Fein only got 500 votes in North Down last time, whereas I'd expect the DUP to absolutely hammer her for it.
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
I hesitate to get involved in a private fight, since experience suggests that both original combatants will turn on an interloper, but one of the reasons for banding together in 'something like' the EU is because business organisations are becoming bigger than can be reasonably dealt with by nation states.
I don't share that concern but if that was the argument then presumably we should be seeking to share sovereignty with America? As the organisations that affect our lives are more American than European?
We are long way from the US, both geographically and, in many respects, socially. Health policies are a case in point.
That's not what you said though, you said about business. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Walmart (ASDA) and many other companies affecting our daily lives are not German, French etc
Sharing sovereignty with the USA isn't on offer.
Would you support it if it was? I think I would.
The mask slips
viewcode: 3:28PM, ...Or as I put it, for some (not all, not even most) Leavers, the problem was not that the UK was being ruled by a foreign country, the problem was that it was being ruled by the wrong one...
Gabs2: 3:29PM, ...Would you support it if it [sharing sovereignty with the USA] was [on offer]? I think I would...
Lib Dems commission a bunch of private polls, release those whose results say what they want them to say - because they've been released Survation under BPC rules have to release the poll themselves too thus confirming the figures for the LDs to use them on their materials.
BPC rules should be tightened up. If parties are going to poll a bunch of constituencies and release some of the figures then the pollster should release all comparable polls they've done at the same time and not just the cherrypicked ones that have the results the party wants to get out there.
I don't see why. People commission private polls all the time and only release the ones that benefit them. That doesn't seem evil (or even wrong) to me.
Vast swathes, if not all, of science is skewed by publication bias*. And the Lib Dems are not scientists, but politicians seeking to manipulate data to their electoral advantage**.
* Even Cochrane reviews, which rely on papers in a skewed pool. ** As are all the other parties.
Yes, it's a big problem. I've spent months working on something, only to find that it doesn't work, and then not published it. There are always more important things to work on, and no-one doles out grant money for negative results.
Something has to be done to modify the economy of scientific research, and to make publishing negative/null results less painful and time-consuming than publishing positive results, so that they can be put into the public domain.
I should emphasise that I wasn't trying to hide anything. Had the topic come up in conversation at a conference or seminar I would have volunteered my experience, it's just that no journal was going to publish an article that said "I tried this, it didn't work" and if they did, no-one was going to be impressed by my diligence. The best that you can do is to include it as part of an article about what did work, but that's not always easy to do.
Sinn Fein standing down to help Sylvia Hermon is quite startling, and a very good move in terms of getting Northern Irish politics a little more like our normal, sober political system (well...). Seriously, it's great.
If only the mainland parties saw that things are so critical.
The irony for Sinn Fein is that Bozo’s Brexit deal signifies a first small step toward a United Ireland.
The 2% SF got in E Belfast and 1% in North Down is unlikely to make a huge difference. In South Belfast it is a bigger deal but the anti-DUP vote could be split between Alliance and SDLP
Sinn Fein standing down to help Sylvia Hermon is quite startling, and a very good move in terms of getting Northern Irish politics a little more like our normal, sober political system (well...). Seriously, it's great.
If only the mainland parties saw that things are so critical.
The irony for Sinn Fein is that Bozo’s Brexit deal signifies a first small step toward a United Ireland.
This move feels like the opening salvo in trying to win a border poll by reaching out across the divide.
True. Strategically clever, then (esp as Brexit will be decided in mainland seats). A blow to the DUP if it loses its majority or even largest party seat status.
Will the Alliance / SDLP respond in Belfast North, East Londonderry and Upper Bann?
...Vast swathes, if not all, of science is skewed by publication bias*...
Sometimes not even that. I reviewed a paper before publication once that had been thru three other reviewers, when I spotted they'd defined the null hypothesis exactly wrong...
I keep banging on about "numbers, percentages/variances, thresholds" so much because people just don't get it. They think if they find that A exhibits X more than B, then A exhibits X and B does not exhibit X, and they look at me blank when I point out the fallacy. Humans, arrgh, illogical species...
Edit: and you're going to absolutely love the terms of the trade deals we are about to try to negotiate.
No specific example is what I said, or are you simply expressing your view that the dilution of sovereignty, and risk of further dilution, was not a good reason?
The modern world involves interaction with other nations for mutual gain.
Or "the dilution of sovereignty" in your quaint terms.
But there is a spectrum from isolationist states to federations. The EU is slowly moving along that spectrum, too far for a lot of people apparently.
Yeah what a shame we didn't get an opt out on that process of federalisation.
...Vast swathes, if not all, of science is skewed by publication bias*...
Sometimes not even that. I reviewed a paper before publication once that had been thru three other reviewers, when I spotted they'd defined the null hypothesis exactly wrong...
I keep banging on about "numbers, percentages/variances, thresholds" so much because people just don't get it. They think if they find that A exhibits X more than B, then A exhibits X and B does not exhibit X, and they look at me blank when I point out the fallacy. Humans, arrgh, illogical species...
Lib Dems commission a bunch of private polls, release those whose results say what they want them to say - because they've been released Survation under BPC rules have to release the poll themselves too thus confirming the figures for the LDs to use them on their materials.
BPC rules should be tightened up. If parties are going to poll a bunch of constituencies and release some of the figures then the pollster should release all comparable polls they've done at the same time and not just the cherrypicked ones that have the results the party wants to get out there.
I don't see why. People commission private polls all the time and only release the ones that benefit them. That doesn't seem evil (or even wrong) to me.
Vast swathes, if not all, of science is skewed by publication bias*. And the Lib Dems are not scientists, but politicians seeking to manipulate data to their electoral advantage**.
* Even Cochrane reviews, which rely on papers in a skewed pool. ** As are all the other parties.
Yes, it's a big problem. I've spent months working on something, only to find that it doesn't work, and then not published it. There are always more important things to work on, and no-one doles out grant money for negative results.
Something has to be done to modify the economy of scientific research, and to make publishing negative/null results less painful and time-consuming than publishing positive results, so that they can be put into the public domain.
I should emphasise that I wasn't trying to hide anything. Had the topic come up in conversation at a conference or seminar I would have volunteered my experience, it's just that no journal was going to publish an article that said "I tried this, it didn't work" and if they did, no-one was going to be impressed by my diligence. The best that you can do is to include it as part of an article about what did work, but that's not always easy to do.
Human nature to want to 'move on' when it doesn't pan out. Maybe not a big deal in materials research (for example) but potentially a huge deal for medicine.
Shame Goldacre didn't get his "all trials to be registered beforehand" thing as mandatory to allow future publication.
Pengelly almost certainly a goner in South Belfast with that announcement.
SDLP GAIN
I wonder how pleased Sylvia Hermon is at having Sinn Fein explicitly endorse her. Sinn Fein only got 500 votes in North Down last time, whereas I'd expect the DUP to absolutely hammer her for it.
Yeah, I doubt she'll be best pleased. I wonder if SF's actions will persuade the other parties to also stand aside in North Down? Certainly if the Alliance didn't stand, that'd make a difference.
Sinn Fein standing down to help Sylvia Hermon is quite startling, and a very good move in terms of getting Northern Irish politics a little more like our normal, sober political system (well...). Seriously, it's great.
If only the mainland parties saw that things are so critical.
The irony for Sinn Fein is that Bozo’s Brexit deal signifies a first small step toward a United Ireland.
This move feels like the opening salvo in trying to win a border poll by reaching out across the divide.
True. Strategically clever, then (esp as Brexit will be decided in mainland seats). A blow to the DUP if it loses its majority or even largest party seat status.
Will the Alliance / SDLP respond in Belfast North, East Londonderry and Upper Bann?
SDLP have already said they are not contesting North Belfast, East Belfast and North Down - I'm sure the Alliance will later tonight.
...Vast swathes, if not all, of science is skewed by publication bias*...
Sometimes not even that. I reviewed a paper before publication once that had been thru three other reviewers, when I spotted they'd defined the null hypothesis exactly wrong...
I keep banging on about "numbers, percentages/variances, thresholds" so much because people just don't get it. They think if they find that A exhibits X more than B, then A exhibits X and B does not exhibit X, and they look at me blank when I point out the fallacy. Humans, arrgh, illogical species...
There's a 9% chance you're talking gibberish.
Just 9%??!!
There's a 94% chance I couldn't be arsed to read your post in detail
I guessed who the author was before I clicked on the link. Perhaps an analysis of shitting in the woods from somebody other than the Bear Toilet Paper manufacturers would be more convincing.
Edit: and you're going to absolutely love the terms of the trade deals we are about to try to negotiate.
No specific example is what I said, or are you simply expressing your view that the dilution of sovereignty, and risk of further dilution, was not a good reason?
The modern world involves interaction with other nations for mutual gain.
Or "the dilution of sovereignty" in your quaint terms.
But there is a spectrum from isolationist states to federations. The EU is slowly moving along that spectrum, too far for a lot of people apparently.
Yeah what a shame we didn't get an opt out on that process of federalisation.
Who cares? None of them could hold a candle to the incumbent. Bercow’s departure will be a huge loss to British public life, I’m sure you and all PBers will agree.
You don’t like polls, you don’t like obscure elections no one else has ever heard of. What exactly are you doing on PB?
Sinn Fein standing down to help Sylvia Hermon is quite startling, and a very good move in terms of getting Northern Irish politics a little more like our normal, sober political system (well...). Seriously, it's great.
If only the mainland parties saw that things are so critical.
The irony for Sinn Fein is that Bozo’s Brexit deal signifies a first small step toward a United Ireland.
This move feels like the opening salvo in trying to win a border poll by reaching out across the divide.
True. Strategically clever, then (esp as Brexit will be decided in mainland seats). A blow to the DUP if it loses its majority or even largest party seat status.
Will the Alliance / SDLP respond in Belfast North, East Londonderry and Upper Bann?
The Unionists are doing a deal in Fermanagh I think.
Forget bollocks to billionaires, it f##k off all wealth producers.
I was going to say what about premier league clubs, espeically with european games..but they will be nationalized so they wont be able to afford them anyway.
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
I hesitate to get involved in a private fight, since experience suggests that both original combatants will turn on an interloper, but one of the reasons for banding together in 'something like' the EU is because business organisations are becoming bigger than can be reasonably dealt with by nation states.
I don't share that concern but if that was the argument then presumably we should be seeking to share sovereignty with America? As the organisations that affect our lives are more American than European?
We are long way from the US, both geographically and, in many respects, socially. Health policies are a case in point.
That's not what you said though, you said about business. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Walmart (ASDA) and many other companies affecting our daily lives are not German, French etc
Sharing sovereignty with the USA isn't on offer.
Would you support it if it was? I think I would.
The mask slips
viewcode: 3:28PM, ...Or as I put it, for some (not all, not even most) Leavers, the problem was not that the UK was being ruled by a foreign country, the problem was that it was being ruled by the wrong one...
Gabs2: 3:29PM, ...Would you support it if it [sharing sovereignty with the USA] was [on offer]? I think I would...
Sinn Fein standing down to help Sylvia Hermon is quite startling, and a very good move in terms of getting Northern Irish politics a little more like our normal, sober political system (well...). Seriously, it's great.
If only the mainland parties saw that things are so critical.
The irony for Sinn Fein is that Bozo’s Brexit deal signifies a first small step toward a United Ireland.
This move feels like the opening salvo in trying to win a border poll by reaching out across the divide.
True. Strategically clever, then (esp as Brexit will be decided in mainland seats). A blow to the DUP if it loses its majority or even largest party seat status.
Will the Alliance / SDLP respond in Belfast North, East Londonderry and Upper Bann?
SDLP have already said they are not contesting North Belfast, East Belfast and North Down - I'm sure the Alliance will later tonight.
I'm not sure one could rely on all SDLP and Alliance voters to support a Sinn Fein candidate.
Sinn Fein standing down to help Sylvia Hermon is quite startling, and a very good move in terms of getting Northern Irish politics a little more like our normal, sober political system (well...). Seriously, it's great.
If only the mainland parties saw that things are so critical.
The irony for Sinn Fein is that Bozo’s Brexit deal signifies a first small step toward a United Ireland.
This move feels like the opening salvo in trying to win a border poll by reaching out across the divide.
True. Strategically clever, then (esp as Brexit will be decided in mainland seats). A blow to the DUP if it loses its majority or even largest party seat status.
Will the Alliance / SDLP respond in Belfast North, East Londonderry and Upper Bann?
The Unionists are doing a deal in Fermanagh I think.
As they did last time. The DUP have only stood in Fermanagh once, in 2005 when Arlene Foster lost to SF
Sinn Fein standing down to help Sylvia Hermon is quite startling, and a very good move in terms of getting Northern Irish politics a little more like our normal, sober political system (well...). Seriously, it's great.
If only the mainland parties saw that things are so critical.
The irony for Sinn Fein is that Bozo’s Brexit deal signifies a first small step toward a United Ireland.
This move feels like the opening salvo in trying to win a border poll by reaching out across the divide.
True. Strategically clever, then (esp as Brexit will be decided in mainland seats). A blow to the DUP if it loses its majority or even largest party seat status.
Will the Alliance / SDLP respond in Belfast North, East Londonderry and Upper Bann?
SDLP have already said they are not contesting North Belfast, East Belfast and North Down - I'm sure the Alliance will later tonight.
I'm not sure one could rely on all SDLP and Alliance voters to support a Sinn Fein candidate.
You can rely on Sinn Fein to switch to SDLP if the leadership has given the nod in that direction I reckon though.
Sinn Fein standing down to help Sylvia Hermon is quite startling, and a very good move in terms of getting Northern Irish politics a little more like our normal, sober political system (well...). Seriously, it's great.
If only the mainland parties saw that things are so critical.
The irony for Sinn Fein is that Bozo’s Brexit deal signifies a first small step toward a United Ireland.
This move feels like the opening salvo in trying to win a border poll by reaching out across the divide.
True. Strategically clever, then (esp as Brexit will be decided in mainland seats). A blow to the DUP if it loses its majority or even largest party seat status.
Will the Alliance / SDLP respond in Belfast North, East Londonderry and Upper Bann?
SDLP have already said they are not contesting North Belfast, East Belfast and North Down - I'm sure the Alliance will later tonight.
I'm not sure one could rely on all SDLP and Alliance voters to support a Sinn Fein candidate.
They don't need to as it's Nigel Dodds seat and that should encourage a fair few to hold their nose as they vote.
But remember I believe most people vote not for their favourite candidate but for what they see as the least worst candidate.
Forget bollocks to billionaires, it f##k off all wealth producers.
I was going to say what about premier league clubs, espeically with european games..but they will be nationalized so they wont be able to afford them anyway.
This sort of policy thinking (from all parties) frustrates me. How do we define a “private jet”? You can’t easily do that. You can ban a class of jet, you can’t ban an ethereal concept of a type of jet.
Forget bollocks to billionaires, it f##k off all wealth producers.
I was going to say what about premier league clubs, espeically with european games..but they will be nationalized so they wont be able to afford them anyway.
This sort of policy thinking (from all parties) frustrates me. How do we define a “private jet”? You can’t easily do that. You can ban a class of jet, you can’t ban an ethereal concept of a type of jet.
Dont complicate the issue...this is the party that also wants to ban all driverless trains....erhhh like the DLR...
Edit: and you're going to absolutely love the terms of the trade deals we are about to try to negotiate.
No specific example is what I said, or are you simply expressing your view that the dilution of sovereignty, and risk of further dilution, was not a good reason?
The modern world involves interaction with other nations for mutual gain.
Or "the dilution of sovereignty" in your quaint terms.
But there is a spectrum from isolationist states to federations. The EU is slowly moving along that spectrum, too far for a lot of people apparently.
Too far for a narrow majority of voters on one day in June 2016, I think you meant.
I guessed who the author was before I clicked on the link. Perhaps an analysis of shitting in the woods from somebody other than the Bear Toilet Paper manufacturers would be more convincing.
Why is the author important? It's their argument that matters.
Edit: and you're going to absolutely love the terms of the trade deals we are about to try to negotiate.
No specific example is what I said, or are you simply expressing your view that the dilution of sovereignty, and risk of further dilution, was not a good reason?
The modern world involves interaction with other nations for mutual gain.
Or "the dilution of sovereignty" in your quaint terms.
But there is a spectrum from isolationist states to federations. The EU is slowly moving along that spectrum, too far for a lot of people apparently.
Too far for a narrow majority of voters on one day in June 2016, I think you meant.
Correct, I shouldn't have used the vague term "a lot".
Sinn Fein standing down to help Sylvia Hermon is quite startling, and a very good move in terms of getting Northern Irish politics a little more like our normal, sober political system (well...). Seriously, it's great.
If only the mainland parties saw that things are so critical.
The irony for Sinn Fein is that Bozo’s Brexit deal signifies a first small step toward a United Ireland.
This move feels like the opening salvo in trying to win a border poll by reaching out across the divide.
True. Strategically clever, then (esp as Brexit will be decided in mainland seats). A blow to the DUP if it loses its majority or even largest party seat status.
Will the Alliance / SDLP respond in Belfast North, East Londonderry and Upper Bann?
SDLP have already said they are not contesting North Belfast, East Belfast and North Down - I'm sure the Alliance will later tonight.
I'm not sure one could rely on all SDLP and Alliance voters to support a Sinn Fein candidate.
It is easier done when the candidate isn't an ex IRA prisoner. Someone like John Finucane can probably get votes Gerry Kelly never could.
I guessed who the author was before I clicked on the link. Perhaps an analysis of shitting in the woods from somebody other than the Bear Toilet Paper manufacturers would be more convincing.
Why is the author important? It's their argument that matters.
Good point. Which of these approaches did the author take:
1) Did the author define some kind of metric by which class hatred can be measured, did he lay down a threshold at which class hatred can be said to occur/not occur, then did he compare that group to other groups in their level of class hatred?
Or
2) Did he produce some examples and drew a wide-ranging conclusion from that?
Forget bollocks to billionaires, it f##k off all wealth producers.
I was going to say what about premier league clubs, espeically with european games..but they will be nationalized so they wont be able to afford them anyway.
This sort of policy thinking (from all parties) frustrates me. How do we define a “private jet”? You can’t easily do that. You can ban a class of jet, you can’t ban an ethereal concept of a type of jet.
Pity Thomas Cook is no longer there to be renationalised.
Not really. If the seats Con lose in nice middle-class neighbourhoods in the South-East are outweighed by those they gain in rufty-tufty working-class neighbourhoods in the North/Midlands, then it's to Cons benefit
Yes. The Conservative Party led by a colossal lump of born-to-rule privilege by the name of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, with a supporting cast of more right wing reactionaries than you can shake a stick at, are hoping to - likely will - surf to power on the back of working class votes.
Not really. If the seats Con lose in nice middle-class neighbourhoods in the South-East are outweighed by those they gain in rufty-tufty working-class neighbourhoods in the North/Midlands, then it's to Cons benefit
Yes. The Conservative Party led by a colossal lump of born-to-rule privilege by the name of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, with a supporting cast of more right wing reactionaries than you can shake a stick at, are hoping to - likely will - surf to power on the back off working class votes.
You couldn't make it up.
Reality frequently ignores my attempts to make fun of it. Ludicrous as it sounds, if that Wokingham poll is correct, this actually seems to be happening.
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
I hesitate to get involved in a private fight, since experience suggests that both original combatants will turn on an interloper, but one of the reasons for banding together in 'something like' the EU is because business organisations are becoming bigger than can be reasonably dealt with by nation states.
I don't share that concern but if that was the argument then presumably we should be seeking to share sovereignty with America? As the organisations that affect our lives are more American than European?
We are long way from the US, both geographically and, in many respects, socially. Health policies are a case in point.
That's not what you said though, you said about business. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Walmart (ASDA) and many other companies affecting our daily lives are not German, French etc
Sharing sovereignty with the USA isn't on offer.
Would you support it if it was? I think I would.
The mask slips
viewcode: 3:28PM, ...Or as I put it, for some (not all, not even most) Leavers, the problem was not that the UK was being ruled by a foreign country, the problem was that it was being ruled by the wrong one...
Gabs2: 3:29PM, ...Would you support it if it [sharing sovereignty with the USA] was [on offer]? I think I would...
Ha! QED
Except I also support sharing sovereignty with our European neighbors and Canada. That isn't being ruled by foreign countries, it is having a union with them.
I guessed who the author was before I clicked on the link. Perhaps an analysis of shitting in the woods from somebody other than the Bear Toilet Paper manufacturers would be more convincing.
Why is the author important? It's their argument that matters.
Because he consistently makes fucking awful arguments?
I guess we must be at cross purposes but I thought it was common ground that regulatory divergence etc gives rise to non-tariff barriers, and lowering NTBs is generally equated with increasing alignment with the trade partner. Maybe to put the question another way with is more neutral on the subject of ‘damage’ - how do you anticipate decreasing alignment with the EU in a way that doesn’t increase NTBs, and which NTBs would you see us being able to lower in order to take advantage of neglected opportunities elsewhere, if food and environmental standards are off the table?
No it is not common ground. Regulatory alignment is not required in order to avoid Non Tariff Barriers.
Alignment is just one option available to avoid NTBs actually and the principle of mutual recognition instead is a valuable one to work with.
I guess we must be at cross purposes but I thought it was common ground that regulatory divergence etc gives rise to non-tariff barriers, and lowering NTBs is generally equated with increasing alignment with the trade partner. Maybe to put the question another way with is more neutral on the subject of ‘damage’ - how do you anticipate decreasing alignment with the EU in a way that doesn’t increase NTBs, and which NTBs would you see us being able to lower in order to take advantage of neglected opportunities elsewhere, if food and environmental standards are off the table?
No it is not common ground. Regulatory alignment is not required in order to avoid Non Tariff Barriers.
Alignment is just one option available to avoid NTBs actually and the principle of mutual recognition instead is a valuable one to work with.
I think you guys are both right.
Mutual recognition of standards requires core agreement. If one country allows a certain degree of electrical radiation, and another has a different one, then mutual recognition of standards doesn't work.
Realistically, there will likely be little to no deviation in product standards, not least because many of these are now set globally. (And we would do well to recognize this, because otherwise we'll pay a price for a freedom we'll never use.)
Where there may be deviation is in environmental and labour regulation.
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
I hesitate to get involved in a private fight, since experience suggests that both original combatants will turn on an interloper, but one of the reasons for banding together in 'something like' the EU is because business organisations are becoming bigger than can be reasonably dealt with by nation states.
I don't share that concern but if that was the argument then presumably we should be seeking to share sovereignty with America? As the organisations that affect our lives are more American than European?
We are long way from the US, both geographically and, in many respects, socially. Health policies are a case in point.
That's not what you said though, you said about business. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Walmart (ASDA) and many other companies affecting our daily lives are not German, French etc
Sharing sovereignty with the USA isn't on offer.
Would you support it if it was? I think I would.
The mask slips
I am an internationalist and would like the US to be brought into a more progressive direction. Unlike others, I maintain consistent principles across situations. I am not a pick and choose internationalist.
Comments
- and while this is outside my usual oeuvre, my verdict is that it's rather good.
Oops!
SDLP GAIN
* Even Cochrane reviews, which rely on papers in a skewed pool.
** As are all the other parties.
The irony for Sinn Fein is that Bozo’s Brexit deal signifies a first small step toward a United Ireland.
First ballot around 4.20
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7647679/Strictlys-Saffron-Barker-explains-didnt-wear-poppy-Salsa-routine.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490
Edit: and you're going to absolutely love the terms of the trade deals we are about to try to negotiate.
They did in 2010 in South Belfast and the SDLP won.
I keep banging on about "numbers, percentages/variances, thresholds" so much because people just don't get it. They think if they find that A exhibits X more than B, then A exhibits X and B does not exhibit X, and they look at me blank when I point out the fallacy. Humans, arrgh, illogical species...
Or "the dilution of sovereignty" in your quaint terms.
Gabs2: 3:29PM, ...Would you support it if it [sharing sovereignty with the USA] was [on offer]? I think I would...
Remainers are more and more open about how much they loathe ‘the mob’."
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/11/04/the-return-of-class-hatred/
Something has to be done to modify the economy of scientific research, and to make publishing negative/null results less painful and time-consuming than publishing positive results, so that they can be put into the public domain.
I should emphasise that I wasn't trying to hide anything. Had the topic come up in conversation at a conference or seminar I would have volunteered my experience, it's just that no journal was going to publish an article that said "I tried this, it didn't work" and if they did, no-one was going to be impressed by my diligence. The best that you can do is to include it as part of an article about what did work, but that's not always easy to do.
Shame Goldacre didn't get his "all trials to be registered beforehand" thing as mandatory to allow future publication.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/04/call-for-ban-on-uk-private-jets-by-2025-as-flight-traffic-soars
Labour just get more bonkers by the day.
Forget bollocks to billionaires, it f##k off all wealth producers.
I was going to say what about premier league clubs, espeically with european games..but they will be nationalized so they wont be able to afford them anyway.
Rather selective choice of polling by the one-dimensional Goodwin. I hope you weren't taken in?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/national_general_election/
Jo - this is not about women.
But remember I believe most people vote not for their favourite candidate but for what they see as the least worst candidate.
American polls be alll over the place
1) Did the author define some kind of metric by which class hatred can be measured, did he lay down a threshold at which class hatred can be said to occur/not occur, then did he compare that group to other groups in their level of class hatred?
Or
2) Did he produce some examples and drew a wide-ranging conclusion from that?
Or
3) Did he just bang on for a bit?
You couldn't make it up.
HILLARY !
Alignment is just one option available to avoid NTBs actually and the principle of mutual recognition instead is a valuable one to work with.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1191355319353520128
Mutual recognition of standards requires core agreement. If one country allows a certain degree of electrical radiation, and another has a different one, then mutual recognition of standards doesn't work.
Realistically, there will likely be little to no deviation in product standards, not least because many of these are now set globally. (And we would do well to recognize this, because otherwise we'll pay a price for a freedom we'll never use.)
Where there may be deviation is in environmental and labour regulation.