Mike OGH is going to be a happy bunny this morning.
Man United 0 - 2 Burnley
I'm a worried bunny. Just hoping that OGS hangs on long enough to still be failing to work his magic when Wolves return to Old Trafford in a week or so.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
And one of the leavers upthread said the best case was that we'd be a bit better off in 10 years time. 99.9% of people won't notice any difference whatsoever with our leaving; there will still be "the Man" albeit he will likely reside in the Ministry of Works, rather than Brussels.
And the dolts who are championing the UK's sovereignty should pay more attention to the Saint of Haltemprice and Howden.
You're the dolt making our point for us.
Our sovereignty is valuable by principle. If we can regain our sovereignty and 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then we should do so. The argument for Remaining was not one of principle but one of fear of what happens if we leave - if the fear is 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then that is an unfounded fear.
So we have to ascertain and enact therwilloftherpeople on an issue which we are quite happy to think is entirely invisible to 99.9% of them?
I see.
Absolutely! Of course we do. It is called democracy, get used to it.
As Mark points out, I think, the context for those votes in parliament was Remainer MPs thinking they could avoid leaving (or possibly a softer Brexit) and Leaver MPs holding out for something more Brexity. There were also partisan calculations including Johnson manoeuvring to replace May. None of those apply now. Johnson isn't interested in a modus vivendi with Remainers, who are half the country.
Johnson is. He is interested in getting it done then we move on. If there is an unpleasant binary division then putting it behind us is the best way to do so. Very few Remainers will actually be bitterly disappointed in the future.
Look at many prior divisions that have been fought - some under recent memory. Take homosexuality for instance - for decades there were arguments over should we legalise homosexuality, let gays serve in the military, allow gays to get married. Tony Blair's government tried to triangulate gay marriage by allowing it but calling it civil partnerships and we continued to argue. David Cameron's government simply legalised it and we moved on. Cameron didn't seek a compromise with those opposed to gay marriage, he legalised it and that's that.
How many people now are still arguing over it? I suspect even many of those (some on here) who got heated arguing against gay marriage might look back at that if anything with a tinge of embarrassment and wonder what all the fuss was about. Because the change didn't affect their life for the worse.
So too with Brexit. We've had so many cries of the apocalypse - we have literally been told at times that planes won't fly, there'll be no medicines, no food, there'll be no drinking water. Its absurd. We will exit, life will go on and for the vast, vast majority there will be no discernible difference. Even if we diverge it will be over time and we've never fully converged anyway so even that will be hard to tell.
In two weeks time we will be out, life will be going on, and for most people it will in time become a case of "what was all that fuss about".
You are now proving my point. There was absolutely no valid reason for leaving. All it showed was that some people were so scared and insecure that they needed a tangible event to confirm the sovereignty we had all along.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
And one of the leavers upthread said the best case was that we'd be a bit better off in 10 years time. 99.9% of people won't notice any difference whatsoever with our leaving; there will still be "the Man" albeit he will likely reside in the Ministry of Works, rather than Brussels.
And the dolts who are championing the UK's sovereignty should pay more attention to the Saint of Haltemprice and Howden.
You're the dolt making our point for us.
Our sovereignty is valuable by principle. If we can regain our sovereignty and 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then we should do so. The argument for Remaining was not one of principle but one of fear of what happens if we leave - if the fear is 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then that is an unfounded fear.
So we have to ascertain and enact therwilloftherpeople on an issue which we are quite happy to think is entirely invisible to 99.9% of them?
I see.
Absolutely! Of course we do. It is called democracy, get used to it.
Your understanding of that word is simplistic and unnuanced. Like many things populist, it is only democracy after a fashion, and a fashion that suits your viewpoint.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
And one of the leavers upthread said the best case was that we'd be a bit better off in 10 years time. 99.9% of people won't notice any difference whatsoever with our leaving; there will still be "the Man" albeit he will likely reside in the Ministry of Works, rather than Brussels.
And the dolts who are championing the UK's sovereignty should pay more attention to the Saint of Haltemprice and Howden.
You're the dolt making our point for us.
Our sovereignty is valuable by principle. If we can regain our sovereignty and 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then we should do so. The argument for Remaining was not one of principle but one of fear of what happens if we leave - if the fear is 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then that is an unfounded fear.
We were always sovereign. Dolt.
We were always sovereign in that we could exercise our sovereignty by choosing to leave, not in that we could exercise our sovereignty by making our own laws.
If the only way to exercise our sovereignty is to leave then we should leave. What part of that is hard for you to understand? Do you need it breaking down into smaller thoughts?
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
And one of the leavers upthread said the best case was that we'd be a bit better off in 10 years time. 99.9% of people won't notice any difference whatsoever with our leaving; there will still be "the Man" albeit he will likely reside in the Ministry of Works, rather than Brussels.
And the dolts who are championing the UK's sovereignty should pay more attention to the Saint of Haltemprice and Howden.
The difference is, we wil have the power to vote out "the man" in Westminster while Brussels is stil a huge undemocratic stitch up.
We always had the power to vote out the man in Brussels. We just did so.
I know? I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
And one of the leavers upthread said the best case was that we'd be a bit better off in 10 years time. 99.9% of people won't notice any difference whatsoever with our leaving; there will still be "the Man" albeit he will likely reside in the Ministry of Works, rather than Brussels.
And the dolts who are championing the UK's sovereignty should pay more attention to the Saint of Haltemprice and Howden.
You're the dolt making our point for us.
Our sovereignty is valuable by principle. If we can regain our sovereignty and 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then we should do so. The argument for Remaining was not one of principle but one of fear of what happens if we leave - if the fear is 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then that is an unfounded fear.
So we have to ascertain and enact therwilloftherpeople on an issue which we are quite happy to think is entirely invisible to 99.9% of them?
I see.
Absolutely! Of course we do. It is called democracy, get used to it.
Your understanding of that word is simplistic and unnuanced. Like many things populist, it is only democracy after a fashion, and a fashion that suits your viewpoint.
Democracy is the people vote and the government implements what people vote for. If the government does a bad thing the people should be able to eject the government and choose a new one to reverse it under the principle that "no Parliament can bind its successors".
That's a point of principle and no after a fashion. I've supported that through thick and thin even when it meant governments I despise win power because I know that we have an option to get rid of them in the future.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
That wasn't particularly surprising. The truly weird bit was telling industry they'd had three years to prepare for changes which he was unwilling to outline....
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
And one of the leavers upthread said the best case was that we'd be a bit better off in 10 years time. 99.9% of people won't notice any difference whatsoever with our leaving; there will still be "the Man" albeit he will likely reside in the Ministry of Works, rather than Brussels.
And the dolts who are championing the UK's sovereignty should pay more attention to the Saint of Haltemprice and Howden.
You're the dolt making our point for us.
Our sovereignty is valuable by principle. If we can regain our sovereignty and 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then we should do so. The argument for Remaining was not one of principle but one of fear of what happens if we leave - if the fear is 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then that is an unfounded fear.
So we have to ascertain and enact therwilloftherpeople on an issue which we are quite happy to think is entirely invisible to 99.9% of them?
I see.
Absolutely! Of course we do. It is called democracy, get used to it.
But you aren't used to it, none of us are: we have had 3 national referendums in the whole of history, ever. And, notably, you can't be arsed to fake a belief in principle in it (unless I have missed your program for directly ascertaining therwilloftherpeople on other matters). If brexit, and blue passports, had been decreed by a Bull from the Vatican no doubt you would be asserting the supremacy of therwilloftherpope.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
As a manufacturer said to the Guardian the other day: divergence for what purpose? CE is inbuilt into their production and quality systems. We are heading towards creating a whole separate CE-style quality system, meaning twin tracks for his business and a load of extra costs.
I think the quote was also about a load of desk-bound ideologues who hadn't a clue about business.
It's really not about product standards, it's much more about not having to submit to the the next round of EU social standards which make the bloc internationally uncompetative - things like their massive "fines" on car manufacturers (straight onto the EU central pot), or a compulsory 30 hour working week.
British car manufacturers are still going be bound by the EU emissions regs (if they want to sell into the EU). The only difference is that the British government is going to have no influence on those or any future regulations. It's the only reason JLR persist with the i-Pace despite it being a massively unprofitable venture.
As Mark points out, I think, the context for those votes in parliament was Remainer MPs thinking they could avoid leaving (or possibly a softer Brexit) and Leaver MPs holding out for something more Brexity. There were also partisan calculations including Johnson manoeuvring to replace May. None of those apply now. Johnson isn't interested in a modus vivendi with Remainers, who are half the country.
Johnson is. He is interested in getting it done then we move on. If there is an unpleasant binary division then putting it behind us is the best way to do so. Very few Remainers will actually be bitterly disappointed in the future.
Look at many prior divisions that have been fought - some under recent memory. Take homosexuality for instance - for decades there were arguments over should we legalise homosexuality, let gays serve in the military, allow gays to get married. Tony Blair's government tried to triangulate gay marriage by allowing it but calling it civil partnerships and we continued to argue. David Cameron's government simply legalised it and we moved on. Cameron didn't seek a compromise with those opposed to gay marriage, he legalised it and that's that.
How many people now are still arguing over it? I suspect even many of those (some on here) who got heated arguing against gay marriage might look back at that if anything with a tinge of embarrassment and wonder what all the fuss was about. Because the change didn't affect their life for the worse.
So too with Brexit. We've had so many cries of the apocalypse - we have literally been told at times that planes won't fly, there'll be no medicines, no food, there'll be no drinking water. Its absurd. We will exit, life will go on and for the vast, vast majority there will be no discernible difference. Even if we diverge it will be over time and we've never fully converged anyway so even that will be hard to tell.
In two weeks time we will be out, life will be going on, and for most people it will in time become a case of "what was all that fuss about".
You are now proving my point. There was absolutely no valid reason for leaving. All it showed was that some people were so scared and insecure that they needed a tangible event to confirm the sovereignty we had all along.
You're talking nonsense.
I want to exercise sovereignty, not to be nominally sovereign. We had constitutional sovereignty in the past, like we have a constitutional monarchy - in theory its there but its not really exercised.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
And one of the leavers upthread said the best case was that we'd be a bit better off in 10 years time. 99.9% of people won't notice any difference whatsoever with our leaving; there will still be "the Man" albeit he will likely reside in the Ministry of Works, rather than Brussels.
And the dolts who are championing the UK's sovereignty should pay more attention to the Saint of Haltemprice and Howden.
You're the dolt making our point for us.
Our sovereignty is valuable by principle. If we can regain our sovereignty and 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then we should do so. The argument for Remaining was not one of principle but one of fear of what happens if we leave - if the fear is 99.9% of people won't notice any difference then that is an unfounded fear.
We were always sovereign. Dolt.
We were always sovereign in that we could exercise our sovereignty by choosing to leave, not in that we could exercise our sovereignty by making our own laws.
If the only way to exercise our sovereignty is to leave then we should leave. What part of that is hard for you to understand? Do you need it breaking down into smaller thoughts?
What a dolt. As a sovereign nation we decided to join a club and as a sovereign nation we decided to leave it. While in the club there were rules; there always are in a club.
But as you have agreed, as 99.9% of people won't notice the difference it was not the rules that we objected to. It was the concept of the club itself.
A more moronic reason for doing something I can't think of.
As Mark points out, I think, the context for those votes in parliament was Remainer MPs thinking they could avoid leaving (or possibly a softer Brexit) and Leaver MPs holding out for something more Brexity. There were also partisan calculations including Johnson manoeuvring to replace May. None of those apply now. Johnson isn't interested in a modus vivendi with Remainers, who are half the country.
Johnson is. He is interested in getting it done then we move on. If there is an unpleasant binary division then putting it behind us is the best way to do so. Very few Remainers will actually be bitterly disappointed in the future.
Look at many prior divisions that have been fought - some under recent memory. Take homosexuality for instance - for decades there were arguments over should we legalise homosexuality, let gays serve in the military, allow gays to get married. Tony Blair's government tried to triangulate gay marriage by allowing it but calling it civil partnerships and we continued to argue. David Cameron's government simply legalised it and we moved on. Cameron didn't seek a compromise with those opposed to gay marriage, he legalised it and that's that.
How many people now are still arguing over it? I suspect even many of those (some on here) who got heated arguing against gay marriage might look back at that if anything with a tinge of embarrassment and wonder what all the fuss was about. Because the change didn't affect their life for the worse.
So too with Brexit. We've had so many cries of the apocalypse - we have literally been told at times that planes won't fly, there'll be no medicines, no food, there'll be no drinking water. Its absurd. We will exit, life will go on and for the vast, vast majority there will be no discernible difference. Even if we diverge it will be over time and we've never fully converged anyway so even that will be hard to tell.
In two weeks time we will be out, life will be going on, and for most people it will in time become a case of "what was all that fuss about".
You are now proving my point. There was absolutely no valid reason for leaving. All it showed was that some people were so scared and insecure that they needed a tangible event to confirm the sovereignty we had all along.
You're talking nonsense.
I want to exercise sovereignty, not to be nominally sovereign. We had constitutional sovereignty in the past, like we have a constitutional monarchy - in theory its there but its not really exercised.
If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?
What a dolt. As a sovereign nation we decided to join a club and as a sovereign nation we decided to leave it. While in the club there were rules; there always are in a club.
But as you have agreed, as 99.9% of people won't notice the difference it was not the rules that we objected to. It was the concept of the club itself.
A more moronic reason for doing something I can't think of.
The club was flawed yes. If there is a flawed club that is wrong in principle, brings no discernible difference, has high membership fees and your reason for being in is simply that we're already in and you can't be arsed to leave it then a more moronic reason for not doing something I can't think of.
You need a better reason to be in the club than "it makes no difference whether we're in or out".
Where is Carlotta when someone is needed to rubbish the SNP health record.
Infant mortality rates in England and Wales *rose* for the third year in a row. In the most deprived communities it's as high as 5.2 deaths per 1,000
Scotland has the largest *decrease*, down from 7.7 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 3.3 in 2017.
Good news - in Scotland - if true, but perhaps you could cite a source?
It appears the author is "mix and matching" statistics - swapping the English general data base to "most deprived" without quoting comparable figures for Scotland. So from "Apples to Oranges" to "Apples to Apples":
Between 1990 and 2017, the infant mortality rate decreased considerably in all UK countries. Scotland showed the largest decrease, from 7.7 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 3.3 in 2017. However, the rate of decline of infant mortality has slowed in recent years. In England, the infant mortality rate remained at 3.9 deaths per 1,000 live births between 2013 and 2016, before increasing to 4.0 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2017; this was the highest of the four countries.
I want to exercise sovereignty, not to be nominally sovereign. We had constitutional sovereignty in the past, like we have a constitutional monarchy - in theory its there but its not really exercised.
If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?
I said it was there in theory didn't I? What part aren't you grasping? We want it there in practice not just theory.
By leaving we become sovereign in practice and not theory. The only way to exercise sovereignty was to leave, we do so, thus we are sovereign. We always could have left, now we will.
Prior to choosing to leave, besides the fact we could in theory choose to leave, how were we sovereign? If the only way to be sovereign is that you can leave if you want to then the only way to exercise sovereignty is to leave.
As Mark points out, I think, the context for those votes in parliament was Remainer MPs thinking they could avoid leaving (or possibly a softer Brexit) and Leaver MPs holding out for something more Brexity. There were also partisan calculations including Johnson manoeuvring to replace May. None of those apply now. Johnson isn't interested in a modus vivendi with Remainers, who are half the country.
Johnson is. He is interested in getting it done then we move on. If there is an unpleasant binary division then putting it behind us is the best way to do so. Very few Remainers will actually be bitterly disappointed in the future.
Look at many prior divisions that have been fought - some under recent memory. Take homosexuality for instance - for decades there were arguments over should we legalise homosexuality, let gays serve in the military, allow gays to get married. Tony Blair's government tried to triangulate gay marriage by allowing it but calling it civil partnerships and we continued to argue. David Cameron's government simply legalised it and we moved on. Cameron didn't seek a compromise with those opposed to gay marriage, he legalised it and that's that.
How many people now are still arguing over it? I suspect even many of those (some on here) who got heated arguing against gay marriage might look back at that if anything with a tinge of embarrassment and wonder what all the fuss was about. Because the change didn't affect their life for the worse.
So too with Brexit. We've had so many cries of the apocalypse - we have literally been told at times that planes won't fly, there'll be no medicines, no food, there'll be no drinking water. Its absurd. We will exit, life will go on and for the vast, vast majority there will be no discernible difference. Even if we diverge it will be over time and we've never fully converged anyway so even that will be hard to tell.
In two weeks time we will be out, life will be going on, and for most people it will in time become a case of "what was all that fuss about".
You are now proving my point. There was absolutely no valid reason for leaving. All it showed was that some people were so scared and insecure that they needed a tangible event to confirm the sovereignty we had all along.
You're talking nonsense.
I want to exercise sovereignty, not to be nominally sovereign. We had constitutional sovereignty in the past, like we have a constitutional monarchy - in theory its there but its not really exercised.
If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?
Because the last three and a half years has shown it was a piece of piss to Leave.....
If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?
Mate, you're dancing in the head of a pin here. It's a completely stupid argument. One the one hand, yes we had ultimate sovereignty and chose to leave. On the other had we not, there was no ability to change any rules laid down by Brussels, our government in Westminster was just a glorified local branch of the EU which was also making moves to take over foreign and tax policy.
Ultimately in the EU Labour voters had no way of removing the economically liberal commissioners in Brussels and Tory voters had no way of removing the pro-immigration commissioners. There was no sovereignty within the EU (because as you point out it's a rules based organisation), only by leaving can we make those decisions ourselves and voters can vote to put in governments and politicians that will change those rules to suit what they want.
What a dolt. As a sovereign nation we decided to join a club and as a sovereign nation we decided to leave it. While in the club there were rules; there always are in a club.
But as you have agreed, as 99.9% of people won't notice the difference it was not the rules that we objected to. It was the concept of the club itself.
A more moronic reason for doing something I can't think of.
The club was flawed yes. If there is a flawed club that is wrong in principle, brings no discernible difference, has high membership fees and your reason for being in is simply that we're already in and you can't be arsed to leave it then a more moronic reason for not doing something I can't think of.
You need a better reason to be in the club than "it makes no difference whether we're in or out".
Ah but it will make a difference. A diminution of our wealth and power and influence. Not catastrophically so but a diminution nevertheless.
We are engaged (I hope) in trade talks to worsen the terms of trade with our largest trading partner. Moronic?
Keir Starmer = David Miliband Lisa Nandy = Ed Miliband
Yes? No?
Insofar as GE winner/GE loser or unexpected leadership loser/unexpected leadership winner ?
Definitely the latter. Could be the former, but I'm prepared to take the risk on Nandy as I believe she is the one who gets it, and knows what makes people tick out in the provinces. The London Remainer tag hangs like a cloud over Starmer, and he'll need to shake it off in short order should he get the leadership.
If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?
Mate, you're dancing in the head of a pin here. It's a completely stupid argument. One the one hand, yes we had ultimate sovereignty and chose to leave. On the other had we not, there was no ability to change any rules laid down by Brussels, our government in Westminster was just a glorified local branch of the EU which was also making moves to take over foreign and tax policy.
Ultimately in the EU Labour voters had no way of removing the economically liberal commissioners in Brussels and Tory voters had no way of removing the pro-immigration commissioners. There was no sovereignty within the EU (because as you point out it's a rules based organisation), only by leaving can we make those decisions ourselves and voters can vote to put in governments and politicians that will change those rules to suit what they want.
It was a club, with rules, that we decided to join. And then leave.
And all we've agreed on this morning is that leaving will make at best no difference to people's lives. So it wasn't even the rules that people didn't like. It was the concept of the EU.
So we have to ascertain and enact therwilloftherpeople on an issue which we are quite happy to think is entirely invisible to 99.9% of them?
I see.
Absolutely! Of course we do. It is called democracy, get used to it.
But you aren't used to it, none of us are: we have had 3 national referendums in the whole of history, ever. And, notably, you can't be arsed to fake a belief in principle in it (unless I have missed your program for directly ascertaining therwilloftherpeople on other matters). If brexit, and blue passports, had been decreed by a Bull from the Vatican no doubt you would be asserting the supremacy of therwilloftherpope.
I'm an atheist not a Catholic, where on earth did the Vatican come from?
I believe in Parliamentary democracy. This didn't start with the referendum you need to look further back, the only reason there was a national referendum in the first place is because Parliament voted for it. The only reason Parliament voted for it was because the people voted for a majority government with that in its manifesto.
Do I believe majority governments should implement their manifesto? Yes I do. All this traces back not to a referendum as a starting point but to a general election. Since then there has been a referendum and two further general elections and at all 4 of those national votes the victor was those saying respectively that we should: hold the referendum/leave/honour the referendum/honour the referendum with a specific deal that has been agreed.
As Mark points out, I think, the context for those votes in parliament was Remainer MPs thinking they could avoid leaving (or possibly a softer Brexit) and Leaver MPs holding out for something more Brexity. There were also partisan calculations including Johnson manoeuvring to replace May. None of those apply now. Johnson isn't interested in a modus vivendi with Remainers, who are half the country.
Johnson is. He is interested in getting it done then we move on. If there is an unpleasant binary division then putting it behind us is the best way to do so. Very few Remainers will actually be bitterly disappointed in the futu
How many people now are still arguing over it? I suspect even many of those (some on here) who got heated arguing against gay marriage might look back at that if anything with a tinge of embarrassment and wonder what all the fuss was about. Because the change didn't affect their life for the worse.
So too with Brexit. We've had so many cries of the apocalypse - we have literally been told at times that planes won't fly, there'll be no medicines, no food, there'll be no drinking water. Its absurd. We will exit, life will go on and for the vast, vast majority there will be no discernible difference. Even if we diverge it will be over time and we've never fully converged anyway so even that will be hard to tell.
In two weeks time we will be out, life will be going on, and for most people it will in time become a case of "what was all that fuss about".
You are now proving my point. There was absolutely no valid reason for leaving. All it showed was that some people were so scared and insecure that they needed a tangible event to confirm the sovereignty we had all along.
You're talking nonsense.
I want to exercise sovereignty, not to be nominally sovereign. We had constitutional sovereignty in the past, like we have a constitutional monarchy - in theory its there but its not really exercised.
If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?
Because the last three and a half years has shown it was a piece of piss to Leave.....
It's called democracy. And we left. The people of our sovereign nation wanted it and we did it.
How much of the last three years delay was down to the EU?
If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?
Mate, you're dancing in the head of a pin here. It's a completely stupid argument. One the one hand, yes we had ultimate sovereignty and chose to leave. On the other had we not, there was no ability to change any rules laid down by Brussels, our government in Westminster was just a glorified local branch of the EU which was also making moves to take over foreign and tax policy.
Ultimately in the EU Labour voters had no way of removing the economically liberal commissioners in Brussels and Tory voters had no way of removing the pro-immigration commissioners. There was no sovereignty within the EU (because as you point out it's a rules based organisation), only by leaving can we make those decisions ourselves and voters can vote to put in governments and politicians that will change those rules to suit what they want.
It was a club, with rules, that we decided to join. And then leave.
And all we've agreed on this morning is that leaving will make at best no difference to people's lives. So it wasn't even the rules that people didn't like. It was the concept of the EU.
If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?
Mate, you're dancing in the head of a pin here. It's a completely stupid argument. One the one hand, yes we had ultimate sovereignty and chose to leave. On the other had we not, there was no ability to change any rules laid down by Brussels, our government in Westminster was just a glorified local branch of the EU which was also making moves to take over foreign and tax policy.
Ultimately in the EU Labour voters had no way of removing the economically liberal commissioners in Brussels and Tory voters had no way of removing the pro-immigration commissioners. There was no sovereignty within the EU (because as you point out it's a rules based organisation), only by leaving can we make those decisions ourselves and voters can vote to put in governments and politicians that will change those rules to suit what they want.
It was a club, with rules, that we decided to join. And then leave.
And all we've agreed on this morning is that leaving will make at best no difference to people's lives. So it wasn't even the rules that people didn't like. It was the concept of the EU.
Honestly, I don't know how you can say that we know it will make no difference. I don't have a crystal ball any more than you do. I legitimately have no idea how leaving will change the face of the nation, if at all. It may cause a bigger re-engagement with Westminster politics as now Westminster has real power, it may mean we one day get a more protectionist Labour government who decide to put up trade barriers like Trump etc...
How anyone can confidently predict leaving will make no difference is something I'll never understand.
As Mark points out, I think, the context for those votes in parliament was Remainer MPs thinking they could avoid leaving (or possibly a softer Brexit) and Leaver MPs holding out for something more Brexity. There were also partisan calculations including Johnson manoeuvring to replace May. None of those apply now. Johnson isn't interested in a modus vivendi with Remainers, who are half the country.
Johnson is. He is interested in getting it done then we move on. If there is an unpleasant binary division then putting it behind us is the best way to do so. Very few Remainers will actually be bitterly disappointed in the futu
How many people now are still arguing over it? I suspect even many of those (some on here) who got heated arguing against gay marriage might look back at that if anything with a tinge of embarrassment and wonder what all the fuss was about. Because the change didn't affect their life for the worse.
So too with Brexit. We've had so many cries of the apocalypse - we have literally been told at times that planes won't fly, there'll be no medicines, no food, there'll be no drinking water. Its absurd. We will exit, life will go on and for the vast, vast majority there will be no discernible difference. Even if we diverge it will be over time and we've never fully converged anyway so even that will be hard to tell.
In two weeks time we will be out, life will be going on, and for most people it will in time become a case of "what was all that fuss about".
You are now proving my point. There was absolutely no valid reason for leaving. All it showed was that some people were so scared and insecure that they needed a tangible event to confirm the sovereignty we had all along.
You're talking nonsense.
I want to exercise sovereignty, not to be nominally sovereign. We had constitutional sovereignty in the past, like we have a constitutional monarchy - in theory its there but its not really exercised.
If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?
Because the last three and a half years has shown it was a piece of piss to Leave.....
It's called democracy. And we left. The people of our sovereign nation wanted it and we did it.
How much of the last three years delay was down to the EU?
Also agreed. It was down to the Remainers in Parliament trying to obstruct Brexit, they're gone so now we can leave.
I want to exercise sovereignty, not to be nominally sovereign. We had constitutional sovereignty in the past, like we have a constitutional monarchy - in theory its there but its not really exercised.
If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?
I said it was there in theory didn't I? What part aren't you grasping? We want it there in practice not just theory.
By leaving we become sovereign in practice and not theory. The only way to exercise sovereignty was to leave, we do so, thus we are sovereign. We always could have left, now we will.
Prior to choosing to leave, besides the fact we could in theory choose to leave, how were we sovereign? If the only way to be sovereign is that you can leave if you want to then the only way to exercise sovereignty is to leave.
That's moronic. In theory you are free to jump off Beachy Head. But we here on PB need proof.
If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?
Mate, you're dancing in the head of a pin here. It's a completely stupid argument. One the one hand, yes we had ultimate sovereignty and chose to leave. On the other had we not, there was no ability to change any rules laid down by Brussels, our government in Westminster was just a glorified local branch of the EU which was also making moves to take over foreign and tax policy.
Ultimately in the EU Labour voters had no way of removing the economically liberal commissioners in Brussels and Tory voters had no way of removing the pro-immigration commissioners. There was no sovereignty within the EU (because as you point out it's a rules based organisation), only by leaving can we make those decisions ourselves and voters can vote to put in governments and politicians that will change those rules to suit what they want.
It was a club, with rules, that we decided to join. And then leave.
And all we've agreed on this morning is that leaving will make at best no difference to people's lives. So it wasn't even the rules that people didn't like. It was the concept of the EU.
Honestly, I don't know how you can say that we know it will make no difference. I don't have a crystal ball any more than you do. I legitimately have no idea how leaving will change the face of the nation, if at all. It may cause a bigger re-engagement with Westminster politics as now Westminster has real power, it may mean we one day get a more protectionist Labour government who decide to put up trade barriers like Trump etc...
How anyone can confidently predict leaving will make no difference is something I'll never understand.
I predict that because I have lived both inside and outside the EU and honestly there is no real way to tell the difference in the first place. Apart from going on holiday or moving overseas on a daily basis there's no real difference. Which is why it should hold no fear.
If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?
Mate, you're dancing in the head of a pin here. It's a completely stupid argument. One the one hand, yes we had ultimate sovereignty and chose to leave. On the other had we not, there was no ability to change any rules laid down by Brussels, our government in Westminster was just a glorified local branch of the EU which was also making moves to take over foreign and tax policy.
Ultimately in the EU Labour voters had no way of removing the economically liberal commissioners in Brussels and Tory voters had no way of removing the pro-immigration commissioners. There was no sovereignty within the EU (because as you point out it's a rules based organisation), only by leaving can we make those decisions ourselves and voters can vote to put in governments and politicians that will change those rules to suit what they want.
It was a club, with rules, that we decided to join. And then leave.
And all we've agreed on this morning is that leaving will make at best no difference to people's lives. So it wasn't even the rules that people didn't like. It was the concept of the EU.
Honestly, I don't know how you can say that we know it will make no difference. I don't have a crystal ball any more than you do. I legitimately have no idea how leaving will change the face of the nation, if at all. It may cause a bigger re-engagement with Westminster politics as now Westminster has real power, it may mean we one day get a more protectionist Labour government who decide to put up trade barriers like Trump etc...
How anyone can confidently predict leaving will make no difference is something I'll never understand.
At best. It will make no difference. What do you suppose the cost of Brexit is to date?
If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?
Mate, you're dancing in the head of a pin here. It's a completely stupid argument. One the one hand, yes we had ultimate sovereignty and chose to leave. On the other had we not, there was no ability to change any rules laid down by Brussels, our government in Westminster was just a glorified local branch of the EU which was also making moves to take over foreign and tax policy.
Ultimately in the EU Labour voters had no way of removing the economically liberal commissioners in Brussels and Tory voters had no way of removing the pro-immigration commissioners. There was no sovereignty within the EU (because as you point out it's a rules based organisation), only by leaving can we make those decisions ourselves and voters can vote to put in governments and politicians that will change those rules to suit what they want.
It was a club, with rules, that we decided to join. And then leave.
And all we've agreed on this morning is that leaving will make at best no difference to people's lives. So it wasn't even the rules that people didn't like. It was the concept of the EU.
Honestly, I don't know how you can say that we know it will make no difference. I don't have a crystal ball any more than you do. I legitimately have no idea how leaving will change the face of the nation, if at all. It may cause a bigger re-engagement with Westminster politics as now Westminster has real power, it may mean we one day get a more protectionist Labour government who decide to put up trade barriers like Trump etc...
How anyone can confidently predict leaving will make no difference is something I'll never understand.
At best. It will make no difference. What do you suppose the cost of Brexit is to date?
I honestly don't know, comparing today to the road not taken isn't easy.
As Mark points out, I think, the context for those votes in parliament was Remainer MPs thinking they could avoid leaving (or possibly a softer Brexit) and Leaver MPs holding out for something more Brexity. There were also partisan calculations including Johnson manoeuvring to replace May. None of those apply now. Johnson isn't interested in a modus vivendi with Remainers, who are half the country.
Johnson is. He is interested in getting it done then we move on. If there is an unpleasant binary division then putting it behind us is the best way to do so. Very few Remainers will actually be bitterly disappointed in the futu
How many people now are still arguing over it? I suspect even many of those (some on here) who got heated arguing against gay marriage might look back at that if anything with a tinge of embarrassment and wonder what all the fuss was about. Because the change didn't affect their life for the worse.
So too with Brexit. We've had so many cries of the apocalypse - we have literally been told at times that planes won't fly, there'll be no medicines, no food, there'll be no drinking water. Its absurd. We will exit, life will go on and for the vast, vast majority there will be no discernible difference. Even if we diverge it will be over time and we've never fully converged anyway so even that will be hard to tell.
In two weeks time we will be out, life will be going on, and for most people it will in time become a case of "what was all that fuss about".
You are now proving my point. There was absolutely no valid reason for leaving. All it showed was that some people were so scared and insecure that they needed a tangible event to confirm the sovereignty we had all along.
You're talking nonsense.
I want to exercise sovereignty, not to be nominally sovereign. We had constitutional sovereignty in the past, like we have a constitutional monarchy - in theory its there but its not really exercised.
If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?
Because the last three and a half years has shown it was a piece of piss to Leave.....
It's called democracy. And we left. The people of our sovereign nation wanted it and we did it.
How much of the last three years delay was down to the EU?
Also agreed. It was down to the Remainers in Parliament trying to obstruct Brexit, they're gone so now we can leave.
It was all in the democratic game. Such is the characteristic of a sovereign nation.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
That wasn't particularly surprising. The truly weird bit was telling industry they'd had three years to prepare for changes which he was unwilling to outline....
That was a truly stupid remark which doesn't give me any confidence that he has thought any of it through at all. I hope for all our sakes that there is some sort of strategic plan behind all this but I an increasingly coming to the conclusion that other than the symbolism of "leaving" and "taking back control" the Brexiteers don't really have a clue what to do next let alone a cohesive strategy.
In 2018 the IMF predicted a 1.5% growth for UK in 2019. The result is 0.8% with only December figures to come. So what other good news do we have?
Unemployment is at the lowest levels for 5 years at 3.9%.
What about the bad news?
UK government debt is now at 86% of GDP and heading upwards. Our current account deficit is running at £100bn a year and growing. Business investment has been largely negative for the last 2 years.
My biggest concern is that people will see leaving the EU as doing something about the long term economic situation. The impact will only be positive if it is undertaken with a strategic aim. There seems to be no evidence of this so far.
As some of you may remember I run a mid sized company in the med tech sector and it will be decisions made by people like myself that will ultimately be key. So far our industry sees increased costs and no upside from leaving the EU. As Javid says there will be winners and losers. I am wondering if sectors such as ours are to be thrown under the bus then what sectors are going to be the winners.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
It seems to me that a stackable Chancellor is vastly preferable to an unsackable one, but somehow your post implies the opposite.
Although, Hammond was incredibly sackable, but (correctly) interred that his boss was too weak to do so. Which might be the worst of both worlds.
Edit: have spotted the typo but am leaving it because I quite like it.
Further edit: both typos.
I now have the image of Phil Hammond in his Dracula coffin, correctly interred until darkness, when he will be free to, er....remind me, what's he doing again?
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
That wasn't particularly surprising. The truly weird bit was telling industry they'd had three years to prepare for changes which he was unwilling to outline....
That was a truly stupid remark which doesn't give me any confidence that he has thought any of it through at all. I hope for all our sakes that there is some sort of strategic plan behind all this but I an increasingly coming to the conclusion that other than the symbolism of "leaving" and "taking back control" the Brexiteers don't really have a clue what to do next let alone a cohesive strategy.
There is no plan or even a goal. There never was. This takes us back to David Cameron's failure to establish what Brexit should look like before he called the referendum.
I saw RLB being interviewed on BBC news last night, where she mentioned she likes Netflix and Chinese takeaway on a Friday night. She also tried a joke that people seem to expect her to do something like paragliding instead.
I can only assume her team have worked out that she can develop a USP there as Nandy isn't cracking too many jokes and Keir is somewhat lacking in the charisma stakes.
No reason to doubt what she does on a Friday night - and it did make her mildly more normal/ human/likeable - but it wouldn't have made me any more inclined to vote for her.
But why specifically say she watches Netflix ?
Why not just say 'watch TV' ?
If she specifies a channel but not particular programs it makes her sound a bit odd.
In 2018 the IMF predicted a 1.5% growth for UK in 2019. The result is 0.8% with only December figures to come. So what other good news do we have?
Unemployment is at the lowest levels for 5 years at 3.9%.
What about the bad news?
UK government debt is now at 86% of GDP and heading upwards. Our current account deficit is running at £100bn a year and growing. Business investment has been largely negative for the last 2 years.
My biggest concern is that people will see leaving the EU as doing something about the long term economic situation. The impact will only be positive if it is undertaken with a strategic aim. There seems to be no evidence of this so far.
As some of you may remember I run a mid sized company in the med tech sector and it will be decisions made by people like myself that will ultimately be key. So far our industry sees increased costs and no upside from leaving the EU. As Javid says there will be winners and losers. I am wondering if sectors such as ours are to be thrown under the bus then what sectors are going to be the winners.
I saw RLB being interviewed on BBC news last night, where she mentioned she likes Netflix and Chinese takeaway on a Friday night. She also tried a joke that people seem to expect her to do something like paragliding instead.
I can only assume her team have worked out that she can develop a USP there as Nandy isn't cracking too many jokes and Keir is somewhat lacking in the charisma stakes.
No reason to doubt what she does on a Friday night - and it did make her mildly more normal/ human/likeable - but it wouldn't have made me any more inclined to vote for her.
But why specifically say she watches Netflix ?
Why not just say 'watch TV' ?
If she specifies a channel but not particular programs it makes her sound a bit odd.
Yeah, it really doesn’t. People say that all the time.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
As a manufacturer said to the Guardian the other day: divergence for what purpose? CE is inbuilt into their production and quality systems. We are heading towards creating a whole separate CE-style quality system, meaning twin tracks for his business and a load of extra costs.
I think the quote was also about a load of desk-bound ideologues who hadn't a clue about business.
It's really not about product standards, it's much more about not having to submit to the the next round of EU social standards which make the bloc internationally uncompetative - things like their massive "fines" on car manufacturers (straight onto the EU central pot), or a compulsory 30 hour working week.
British car manufacturers are still going be bound by the EU emissions regs (if they want to sell into the EU). The only difference is that the British government is going to have no influence on those or any future regulations. It's the only reason JLR persist with the i-Pace despite it being a massively unprofitable venture.
They will only be bound by the EU emissions regs and fines on cars that they sell into the EU - big difference, of several thousand pounds on each car sold in the UK.
I saw RLB being interviewed on BBC news last night, where she mentioned she likes Netflix and Chinese takeaway on a Friday night. She also tried a joke that people seem to expect her to do something like paragliding instead.
I can only assume her team have worked out that she can develop a USP there as Nandy isn't cracking too many jokes and Keir is somewhat lacking in the charisma stakes.
No reason to doubt what she does on a Friday night - and it did make her mildly more normal/ human/likeable - but it wouldn't have made me any more inclined to vote for her.
But why specifically say she watches Netflix ?
Why not just say 'watch TV' ?
If she specifies a channel but not particular programs it makes her sound a bit odd.
Maybe she is a licence fee dodger so couldn't admit to watching the BBC?
I saw RLB being interviewed on BBC news last night, where she mentioned she likes Netflix and Chinese takeaway on a Friday night. She also tried a joke that people seem to expect her to do something like paragliding instead.
I can only assume her team have worked out that she can develop a USP there as Nandy isn't cracking too many jokes and Keir is somewhat lacking in the charisma stakes.
No reason to doubt what she does on a Friday night - and it did make her mildly more normal/ human/likeable - but it wouldn't have made me any more inclined to vote for her.
But why specifically say she watches Netflix ?
Why not just say 'watch TV' ?
If she specifies a channel but not particular programs it makes her sound a bit odd.
Maybe she is a licence fee dodger so couldn't admit to watching the BBC?
Or saying Netflix makes her 'down with the kids'?
The woman next to me is wearing a face mask. I am tempted to begin a coughing fit.
I want to exercise sovereignty, not to be nominally sovereign. We had constitutional sovereignty in the past, like we have a constitutional monarchy - in theory its there but its not really exercised.
If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?
I said it was there in theory didn't I? What part aren't you grasping? We want it there in practice not just theory.
By leaving we become sovereign in practice and not theory. The only way to exercise sovereignty was to leave, we do so, thus we are sovereign. We always could have left, now we will.
Prior to choosing to leave, besides the fact we could in theory choose to leave, how were we sovereign? If the only way to be sovereign is that you can leave if you want to then the only way to exercise sovereignty is to leave.
That's moronic. In theory you are free to jump off Beachy Head. But we here on PB need proof.
I have to admit that The Saj stating categorically how it was the UK's intention to diverge further from its most important trading partner was a gobsmackingly extraordinary statement for a CotE to make.
There was commentary on that last night. Essentially, Javid is under mind control from No 10 on the threat of losing his job.
We're used to unsackable Chancellors: Hammond, Osborne and Brown. Javid is eminently sackable
It seems to me that a stackable Chancellor is vastly preferable to an unsackable one, but somehow your post implies the opposite.
Although, Hammond was incredibly sackable, but (correctly) interred that his boss was too weak to do so. Which might be the worst of both worlds.
Edit: have spotted the typo but am leaving it because I quite like it.
Further edit: both typos.
I was responding to Topping's surprise that Javid isn't doing what Chancellors ought to be doing: acting the sensible party-pooper who stops others drinking too much and doing things they might later regret (my words).
In this case the party-pooper is being held hostage by the party-goers. It's not a comment on sackability per se. The prison who ought to be sacked on grounds of fitness for office is Johnson himself, but he won't be obviously. I'm not massively keen on Javid either, but he isn't as dishonest.
In 2018 the IMF predicted a 1.5% growth for UK in 2019. The result is 0.8% with only December figures to come. So what other good news do we have?
Unemployment is at the lowest levels for 5 years at 3.9%.
What about the bad news?
UK government debt is now at 86% of GDP and heading upwards. Our current account deficit is running at £100bn a year and growing. Business investment has been largely negative for the last 2 years.
My biggest concern is that people will see leaving the EU as doing something about the long term economic situation. The impact will only be positive if it is undertaken with a strategic aim. There seems to be no evidence of this so far.
As some of you may remember I run a mid sized company in the med tech sector and it will be decisions made by people like myself that will ultimately be key. So far our industry sees increased costs and no upside from leaving the EU. As Javid says there will be winners and losers. I am wondering if sectors such as ours are to be thrown under the bus then what sectors are going to be the winners.
The remarkable thing about Brexit is how few winners there are. Especially given this is something we consciously voted for, and not something that is happening to us and we have to deal with.
Workers could in aggregate be temporary winners if immigration and therefore job applicants reduce faster than the economy and job opportunities. It's a temporary win because the Lump of Labour Fallacy is in fact a fallacy.
Other winners are Johnson, obviously; anyone who deals with bureaucracy and red tape - those Brexit costs have to go somewhere. Putin is a winner I think, as are American alr-rights and nationalists in England, Scotland and Ireland.
Losers are the United Kingdom, the European Union, anyone who works, lives or trades internationally; young people; anyone dependent on state welfare and services (less revenue); the left behind who will be even less equipped to deal with a world, which is still globalist (I feel most strongly about this one)
It’s pretty obvious tariff free trade and no quotas need the UK to adhere to a level playing field otherwise the EU could see it’s businesses put at a disadvantage.
Of course the UK government will just moan and scream the EU are being nasty and aided by the right wing garbage press many will just believe it .
The EU will continue to be scapegoated by the Tories as it’s easier than admitting there are trade offs .
Still don't get why pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal. It kept us locked up with transitional arrangement until and unless the EU approved our departure from it *and* Bercow would certainly have agreed to tack on a referendum amendment.
Because they didn't, in practice, want to vote for anything that meant we might actually leave.
Now when Brexit fails, at least there will be one less hiding place for Leavers.
Genuine question: What is your criteria for Brexit 'failing'?
Comments
If the only way to exercise our sovereignty is to leave then we should leave. What part of that is hard for you to understand? Do you need it breaking down into smaller thoughts?
That's a point of principle and no after a fashion. I've supported that through thick and thin even when it meant governments I despise win power because I know that we have an option to get rid of them in the future.
The truly weird bit was telling industry they'd had three years to prepare for changes which he was unwilling to outline....
I want to exercise sovereignty, not to be nominally sovereign. We had constitutional sovereignty in the past, like we have a constitutional monarchy - in theory its there but its not really exercised.
But as you have agreed, as 99.9% of people won't notice the difference it was not the rules that we objected to. It was the concept of the club itself.
A more moronic reason for doing something I can't think of.
You need a better reason to be in the club than "it makes no difference whether we're in or out".
It appears the author is "mix and matching" statistics - swapping the English general data base to "most deprived" without quoting comparable figures for Scotland. So from "Apples to Oranges" to "Apples to Apples":
Between 1990 and 2017, the infant mortality rate decreased considerably in all UK countries. Scotland showed the largest decrease, from 7.7 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 3.3 in 2017. However, the rate of decline of infant mortality has slowed in recent years. In England, the infant mortality rate remained at 3.9 deaths per 1,000 live births between 2013 and 2016, before increasing to 4.0 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2017; this was the highest of the four countries.
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/infant-and-neonatal-mortality
Still great progress in Scotland - but why cherry pick to exaggerate the difference?
Meanwhile:
https://twitter.com/ScotTories/status/1220021145895874561?s=20
By leaving we become sovereign in practice and not theory. The only way to exercise sovereignty was to leave, we do so, thus we are sovereign. We always could have left, now we will.
Prior to choosing to leave, besides the fact we could in theory choose to leave, how were we sovereign? If the only way to be sovereign is that you can leave if you want to then the only way to exercise sovereignty is to leave.
Ultimately in the EU Labour voters had no way of removing the economically liberal commissioners in Brussels and Tory voters had no way of removing the pro-immigration commissioners. There was no sovereignty within the EU (because as you point out it's a rules based organisation), only by leaving can we make those decisions ourselves and voters can vote to put in governments and politicians that will change those rules to suit what they want.
We are engaged (I hope) in trade talks to worsen the terms of trade with our largest trading partner. Moronic?
And I'm glad you accept the sovereignty argument.
And all we've agreed on this morning is that leaving will make at best no difference to people's lives. So it wasn't even the rules that people didn't like. It was the concept of the EU.
I believe in Parliamentary democracy. This didn't start with the referendum you need to look further back, the only reason there was a national referendum in the first place is because Parliament voted for it. The only reason Parliament voted for it was because the people voted for a majority government with that in its manifesto.
Do I believe majority governments should implement their manifesto? Yes I do. All this traces back not to a referendum as a starting point but to a general election. Since then there has been a referendum and two further general elections and at all 4 of those national votes the victor was those saying respectively that we should: hold the referendum/leave/honour the referendum/honour the referendum with a specific deal that has been agreed.
What more do you want? A fifth national vote?
How much of the last three years delay was down to the EU?
How anyone can confidently predict leaving will make no difference is something I'll never understand.
Unemployment is at the lowest levels for 5 years at 3.9%.
What about the bad news?
UK government debt is now at 86% of GDP and heading upwards.
Our current account deficit is running at £100bn a year and growing.
Business investment has been largely negative for the last 2 years.
My biggest concern is that people will see leaving the EU as doing something about the long term economic situation. The impact will only be positive if it is undertaken with a strategic aim. There seems to be no evidence of this so far.
As some of you may remember I run a mid sized company in the med tech sector and it will be decisions made by people like myself that will ultimately be key. So far our industry sees increased costs and no upside from leaving the EU. As Javid says there will be winners and losers. I am wondering if sectors such as ours are to be thrown under the bus then what sectors are going to be the winners.
Why not just say 'watch TV' ?
If she specifies a channel but not particular programs it makes her sound a bit odd.
https://twitter.com/SteveBarclay/status/1219336445917384704?s=20
Pre-Devolution: 1998 : 5.6
Lab/LibD - start: 1999: 5.0
Lab/LibD - end: 2007:
SNP: start: 2008:
SNP: Latest: 2018: They did shell out for a nice #PretendyRef STOP BREXIT bus:
https://twitter.com/LBCNews/status/1202638926198038535?s=20
But it was all about Independence and #PretendyRef apparently....
Or saying Netflix makes her 'down with the kids'?
In this case the party-pooper is being held hostage by the party-goers. It's not a comment on sackability per se. The prison who ought to be sacked on grounds of fitness for office is Johnson himself, but he won't be obviously. I'm not massively keen on Javid either, but he isn't as dishonest.
Edit I got my typo too.
Workers could in aggregate be temporary winners if immigration and therefore job applicants reduce faster than the economy and job opportunities. It's a temporary win because the Lump of Labour Fallacy is in fact a fallacy.
Other winners are Johnson, obviously; anyone who deals with bureaucracy and red tape - those Brexit costs have to go somewhere. Putin is a winner I think, as are American alr-rights and nationalists in England, Scotland and Ireland.
Losers are the United Kingdom, the European Union, anyone who works, lives or trades internationally; young people; anyone dependent on state welfare and services (less revenue); the left behind who will be even less equipped to deal with a world, which is still globalist (I feel most strongly about this one)
There will be many people unaffected, of course.
Of course the UK government will just moan and scream the EU are being nasty and aided by the right wing garbage press many will just believe it .
The EU will continue to be scapegoated by the Tories as it’s easier than admitting there are trade offs .