It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, it’s like listening to someone, who got knocked back by a girl he fancied, standing outside the church, telling anyone who will listen that the bride and groom are less free than they were yesterday, as she celebrates the happiest day of her life
In amongst the plethora of also-rans, Labourites and bitter europhiles getting their digs in on here this morning David's central conclusion is a fascinating one: Boris gone by 2022 or 2023.
This is very possible. His central asset to the Tory party is as a vote winner, and the Tory party now has its solid majority.
Once he becomes an electoral liability and his governance starts to be ineffective (remembering the most controversial sting of the permanent UK-EU FTA will probably be out the way by then) then it's very tempting and easy for another Tory to depose him.
They'd get an oven-ready majority Government and 2-2.5 years to make their mark before the next General Election.
It is entirely a decision for the Northern Ireland Secretary whether to hold a border poll under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which implemented the GFA actually
No, the Act provides that in certain circs he *shall* hold a poll, whether he likes it or not.
What satisfaction do you derive from this oafish, ill-informed absolutism?
Only in the circumstances where it looks like there will be a vote to leave the UK and with more Unionist votes than Nationalist votes in NI at the general election currently that is not the case.
The NI Act is also likely to be amended to ensure the Secretary of State's decision is final whatever your distaste for your own country may say
You don't know what my own country is, nor my feelings about it.
Do you not think your proposed amendment would be an abrogation of the GFA? What do you think the consequences of that might be?
Don't tell me, let me guess: you think Boris Johnson will legislate that it has no consequences, with his greatbig majority.
Westminster is sovereign and can do what it likes once one party has a majority, the GFA is supposed to represent Unionists not just Nats anyway
Like, what, legislate for your wife to have larger breasts and for Avogadro's number to rise each year in line with CPI inflation?
It is entirely a decision for the Northern Ireland Secretary whether to hold a border poll under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which implemented the GFA actually
No, the Act provides that in certain circs he *shall* hold a poll, whether he likes it or not.
What satisfaction do you derive from this oafish, ill-informed absolutism?
Only in the circumstances where it looks like there will be a vote to leave the UK and with more Unionist votes than Nationalist votes in NI at the general election currently that is not the case.
The NI Act is also likely to be amended to ensure the Secretary of State's decision is final whatever your distaste for your own country may say
You don't know what my own country is, nor my feelings about it.
Do you not think your proposed amendment would be an abrogation of the GFA? What do you think the consequences of that might be?
Don't tell me, let me guess: you think Boris Johnson will legislate that it has no consequences, with his greatbig majority.
Westminster is sovereign and can do what it likes once one party has a majority, the GFA is supposed to represent Unionists not just Nats anyway
Like, what, legislate for your wife to have larger breasts and for Avogadro's number to rise each year in line with CPI inflation?
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
Did you have a vote on becoming a UK citizen? The vast majority of us have citizenship forced on us at birth without a vote or choice.
That's an absolutely absurd argument.
Its not an argument, its a fact.
It's not a fact. It's a dickish argument from a 6th form debater. You might as well argue you had no vote on who your parents and family are, or what your genes are.
The UK Government signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 that led to us becoming EU citizens. This was a political decision with significant ramifications.
The UK electorate had no direct vote on this (remembering all major parties supported it at the time) and nor was it a one way street: it led to obligations and responsibilities as well as rights, one of which was the principle of non-discrimination between our own citizens and those from elsewhere in the EU and it helped turbocharge a process of the ECJ (again, further boosted through the CFR) in believing it was its judiciable right to opine and rule on the rights and criminal law of those same "EU citizens".
I will cry no tears for those who wail about the "loss" of a totally synthesized and artificial construct 27 years after its abominable birth.
All that really matters are the outcomes Boris delivers. That's all the general public care about. Outside of the bubble, the public have no idea of how government or the legal system work.
All they really want is better healthcare, schools, roads, trains, less taxes and more money in their pockets. Boris delivers, he wins.
This is a good point, most people are very confused if told that secretaries are more important in govt than ministers.
PMs with big majorities very rarely get kicked out within 2/3 years. I could easily see Cummings being kicked out in 2022/2023 and Johnson re-inventing himself again as something shiny and new, but would be very surprised if he is not PM going into the next election.
Though Brown defended a majority of 66 in 2010 and lost it
Yes but Brown was a weirdo totally unsuited to being Prime Minister..
Well, thank goodness that charge could not possibly be levelled at the current encumbrance, er, incumbent of No. 10.
Just been out to do my shopping. So far, weather is not as bad as last Sunday. Still not brilliant. Very windy.
I got bounced about for saying something like that earlier today!
All that really matters are the outcomes Boris delivers. That's all the general public care about. Outside of the bubble, the public have no idea of how government or the legal system work.
All they really want is better healthcare, schools, roads, trains, less taxes and more money in their pockets. Boris delivers, he wins.
This is a good point, most people are very confused if told that secretaries are more important in govt than ministers.
PMs with big majorities very rarely get kicked out within 2/3 years. I could easily see Cummings being kicked out in 2022/2023 and Johnson re-inventing himself again as something shiny and new, but would be very surprised if he is not PM going into the next election.
Though Brown defended a majority of 66 in 2010 and lost it
Yes but Brown was a weirdo totally unsuited to being Prime Minister..
Well, thank goodness that charge could not possibly be levelled at the current encumbrance, er, incumbent of No. 10.
Just been out to do my shopping. So far, weather is not as bad as last Sunday. Still not brilliant. Very windy.
I got bounced about for saying something like that earlier today!
Why? It *is* very windy but not yet as bad as last Sunday.
Mr. T, slightly unfair comparison as Blair came in after 18 years of Conservative government, whereas Johnson's election victory followed 9 (or 4) years of his own party being in office.
You’d be hard-pressed to think it was his own party if you didn’t know. Let alone that he’d been a senior member of that government!
I don't understand why is Bernie proposing to ban people to buy private healthcare if they want it? Why?!
I agree - it seems the obvious attack point. It's a bit like proposing the abolition of BUPA so we all focus on the NHS - a bad hill to die on. Much better to make the public health provision so good that people don't bother with private insurance. It was IIRC starting to wither before 2010 in Britain for that very reason as NHS waiting lists (probably the main driver of private insurance) were getting acceptably short.
Casino Royale giving the impression of "I'll fight every man in the house" this morning!
Isn't the Bernie and Warren proposal to abolish private health plans because for Medicare for All to work it needs to be universal. Allowing opt outs by low risk groups increases the costs and viability for higher risk ones.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, it’s like listening to someone, who got knocked back by a girl he fancied, standing outside the church, telling anyone who will listen that the bride and groom are less free than they were yesterday, as she celebrates the happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They haven't considered the real villains. It's not our fault if - like modern 21st century Manchurian candidates - they successfully succumbed to the programming of those who were quite clearly looking to legally manipulate their identity to achieve their own federalist political objectives.
I don't understand why is Bernie proposing to ban people to buy private healthcare if they want it? Why?!
I agree - it seems the obvious attack point. It's a bit like proposing the abolition of BUPA so we all focus on the NHS - a bad hill to die on. Much better to make the public health provision so good that people don't bother with private insurance. It was IIRC starting to wither before 2010 in Britain for that very reason as NHS waiting lists (probably the main driver of private insurance) were getting acceptably short.
Casino Royale giving the impression of "I'll fight every man in the house" this morning!
Because I've woken up to reading this thread and a succession of posts on it have pissed me off.
All that really matters are the outcomes Boris delivers. That's all the general public care about. Outside of the bubble, the public have no idea of how government or the legal system work.
All they really want is better healthcare, schools, roads, trains, less taxes and more money in their pockets. Boris delivers, he wins.
This is a good point, most people are very confused if told that secretaries are more important in govt than ministers.
PMs with big majorities very rarely get kicked out within 2/3 years. I could easily see Cummings being kicked out in 2022/2023 and Johnson re-inventing himself again as something shiny and new, but would be very surprised if he is not PM going into the next election.
Though Brown defended a majority of 66 in 2010 and lost it
Yes but Brown was a weirdo totally unsuited to being Prime Minister..
Well, thank goodness that charge could not possibly be levelled at the current encumbrance, er, incumbent of No. 10.
Just been out to do my shopping. So far, weather is not as bad as last Sunday. Still not brilliant. Very windy.
I got bounced about for saying something like that earlier today!
Why? It *is* very windy but not yet as bad as last Sunday.
See my post at 7.35 and Mr B2’s response a few minutes later.
All that really matters are the outcomes Boris delivers. That's all the general public care about. Outside of the bubble, the public have no idea of how government or the legal system work.
All they really want is better healthcare, schools, roads, trains, less taxes and more money in their pockets. Boris delivers, he wins.
This is a good point, most people are very confused if told that secretaries are more important in govt than ministers.
PMs with big majorities very rarely get kicked out within 2/3 years. I could easily see Cummings being kicked out in 2022/2023 and Johnson re-inventing himself again as something shiny and new, but would be very surprised if he is not PM going into the next election.
Though Brown defended a majority of 66 in 2010 and lost it
Yes but Brown was a weirdo totally unsuited to being Prime Minister..
Well, thank goodness that charge could not possibly be levelled at the current encumbrance, er, incumbent of No. 10.
Just been out to do my shopping. So far, weather is not as bad as last Sunday. Still not brilliant. Very windy.
I got bounced about for saying something like that earlier today!
Why? It *is* very windy but not yet as bad as last Sunday.
See my post at 7.35 and Mr B2’s response a few minutes later.
You were disagreeing over forecasts. I’m talking about the current reality. Hopefully you will be right, but still some way to go.
All that really matters are the outcomes Boris delivers. That's all the general public care about. Outside of the bubble, the public have no idea of how government or the legal system work.
All they really want is better healthcare, schools, roads, trains, less taxes and more money in their pockets. Boris delivers, he wins.
This is a good point, most people are very confused if told that secretaries are more important in govt than ministers.
PMs with big majorities very rarely get kicked out within 2/3 years. I could easily see Cummings being kicked out in 2022/2023 and Johnson re-inventing himself again as something shiny and new, but would be very surprised if he is not PM going into the next election.
Though Brown defended a majority of 66 in 2010 and lost it
Yes but Brown was a weirdo totally unsuited to being Prime Minister..
Well, thank goodness that charge could not possibly be levelled at the current encumbrance, er, incumbent of No. 10.
Just been out to do my shopping. So far, weather is not as bad as last Sunday. Still not brilliant. Very windy.
I got bounced about for saying something like that earlier today!
Why? It *is* very windy but not yet as bad as last Sunday.
See my post at 7.35 and Mr B2’s response a few minutes later.
You were disagreeing over forecasts. I’m talking about the current reality. Hopefully you will be right, but still some way to go.
I was also talking about the reality. At least that part of it I could see from my window. Haven’t spoken to any of my relatives Oop North this morning. Granddaughter One’s Best Beloved has just returned from a trip away so doubtless she’ll have better things to do than phone her aged grandparents!
I don't understand why is Bernie proposing to ban people to buy private healthcare if they want it? Why?!
I agree - it seems the obvious attack point. It's a bit like proposing the abolition of BUPA so we all focus on the NHS - a bad hill to die on. Much better to make the public health provision so good that people don't bother with private insurance. It was IIRC starting to wither before 2010 in Britain for that very reason as NHS waiting lists (probably the main driver of private insurance) were getting acceptably short.
Casino Royale giving the impression of "I'll fight every man in the house" this morning!
Isn't the Bernie and Warren proposal to abolish private health plans because for Medicare for All to work it needs to be universal. Allowing opt outs by low risk groups increases the costs and viability for higher risk ones.
Ah, I see. That's a factor because the model is a publicly-funded insurance system? If it was simply tax-based like the NHS, it wouldn't matter if some people didn't need to use it - we tax them anyway, and if they choose to pay twice by buying private health insurance as well, it doesn't hurt the system (except arguably by making wealthy people less supportive of funding and focus on the public system - the same argument as for private schools, and too purist for my taste).
It's not a fact. It's a dickish argument from a 6th form debater. You might as well argue you had no vote on who your parents and family are, or what your genes are.
The UK Government signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 that led to us becoming EU citizens. This was a political decision with significant ramifications.
The UK electorate had no direct vote on this (remembering all major parties supported it at the time) and nor was it a one way street: it led to obligations and responsibilities as well as rights, one of which was the principle of non-discrimination between our own citizens and those from elsewhere in the EU and it helped turbocharge a process of the ECJ (again, further boosted through the CFR) in believing it was its judiciable right to opine and rule on the rights and criminal law of those same "EU citizens".
I will cry no tears for those who wail about the "loss" of a totally synthesized and artificial construct 27 years after its abominable birth.
That is a 4th form debater argument. The EU treaty gave you something you were under no obligation to use, but it took nothing away from you either. You were still as British as the day you were born. You did not have to identify as an EU citizen, you were free to identify as a British citizen (or subject if you prefer).
I don't understand why is Bernie proposing to ban people to buy private healthcare if they want it? Why?!
I agree - it seems the obvious attack point. It's a bit like proposing the abolition of BUPA so we all focus on the NHS - a bad hill to die on. Much better to make the public health provision so good that people don't bother with private insurance. It was IIRC starting to wither before 2010 in Britain for that very reason as NHS waiting lists (probably the main driver of private insurance) were getting acceptably short.
Casino Royale giving the impression of "I'll fight every man in the house" this morning!
Because I've woken up to reading this thread and a succession of posts on it have pissed me off.
Making the NHS so good that people will not bother with private health is an unobtainable socialist utopian dream
The culture war turning on the judiciary is a worrying development.
Do those who support this not have any appreciation of the bigger picture? They wont be in power forever, and perhaps might want to use judicial review themselves in the future.
I don't understand why is Bernie proposing to ban people to buy private healthcare if they want it? Why?!
I agree - it seems the obvious attack point. It's a bit like proposing the abolition of BUPA so we all focus on the NHS - a bad hill to die on. Much better to make the public health provision so good that people don't bother with private insurance. It was IIRC starting to wither before 2010 in Britain for that very reason as NHS waiting lists (probably the main driver of private insurance) were getting acceptably short.
Casino Royale giving the impression of "I'll fight every man in the house" this morning!
Because I've woken up to reading this thread and a succession of posts on it have pissed me off.
Making the NHS so good that people will not bother with private health is an unobtainable socialist utopian dream
Its a good enough ‘goal’ or ‘mission statement’ though.
I wish I could find these ‘three quarter empty trains’ he talks about. Last time I caught a train from London to Birmingham I had to stand until Solihull.
He fails to mention that the ‘slower speeds’ of HS2 trains is where they will run on classic lines. That’s a tiny fraction of the whole. Some trains to Stafford and Stoke, some to Liverpool, and some trains north of Manchester and Leeds. This is incidentally why when the Birmingham leg has been built pushing on to Manchester and Leeds will be relatively uncontroversial by comparison.
True, HS2 will not carry freight. Would be funny to think of freight charging along at 250 miles an hour. But the 80,000 pathways a year for freight trains on the WCML will dramatically increase in number.
It’s frustrating that opponents of HS2 feel the need to mislead to support their case. Admittedly, he’s not as bad as Joe Rukin, who once claimed there were just ten thousand freight train pathways a year across the whole UK network and that half of them had been given up (the correct figure is 220,000, although his raw figure for the number of cancelled trains is about right). But I think it’s because, as Javid pointed out, once you actually look at it, this is the only logical course to pursue. It offers far more capacity for far less disruption han any other plausible solution.
I don't understand why is Bernie proposing to ban people to buy private healthcare if they want it? Why?!
I agree - it seems the obvious attack point. It's a bit like proposing the abolition of BUPA so we all focus on the NHS - a bad hill to die on. Much better to make the public health provision so good that people don't bother with private insurance. It was IIRC starting to wither before 2010 in Britain for that very reason as NHS waiting lists (probably the main driver of private insurance) were getting acceptably short.
Casino Royale giving the impression of "I'll fight every man in the house" this morning!
Because I've woken up to reading this thread and a succession of posts on it have pissed me off.
Making the NHS so good that people will not bother with private health is an unobtainable socialist utopian dream
Its a good enough ‘goal’ or ‘mission statement’ though.
My impression is that the benefits of private healthcare are essentially:
More consultation time for minor ailments or concerns Convenience for appointment times Comfort/luxury after operations
On clinical outcomes there will obviously be examples of good and bad practice whether NHS or private but my impression is that they are of similar quality.
Of the 3 clear benefits I can see, not sure we should be spending much more to offer those as part of the NHS, social care should be a much bigger priority instead. Obviously if we can improve scheduling and appointments with more efficient logistics thats great.
Perhaps if the Chinese build HS2, we can spy on their railway building techniques and get some tips.
First get your all-powerful oligarchy able to order, commission and requisition at the stroke of a pen, bribe or repress any opposition, then locate a near inexhaustible supply of cheap labour (watch out for them viruses tho'). Easy peasy.
I don't understand why is Bernie proposing to ban people to buy private healthcare if they want it? Why?!
I agree - it seems the obvious attack point. It's a bit like proposing the abolition of BUPA so we all focus on the NHS - a bad hill to die on. Much better to make the public health provision so good that people don't bother with private insurance. It was IIRC starting to wither before 2010 in Britain for that very reason as NHS waiting lists (probably the main driver of private insurance) were getting acceptably short.
Casino Royale giving the impression of "I'll fight every man in the house" this morning!
Because I've woken up to reading this thread and a succession of posts on it have pissed me off.
Making the NHS so good that people will not bother with private health is an unobtainable socialist utopian dream
Its a good enough ‘goal’ or ‘mission statement’ though.
My impression is that the benefits of private healthcare are essentially:
More consultation time for minor ailments or concerns Convenience for appointment times Comfort/luxury after operations
On clinical outcomes there will obviously be examples of good and bad practice whether NHS or private but my impression is that they are of similar quality.
Of the 3 clear benefits I can see, not sure we should be spending much more to offer those as part of the NHS, social care should be a much bigger priority instead. Obviously if we can improve scheduling and appointments with more efficient logistics thats great.
Also free car parking and free coffee in the waiting room.
I don't understand why is Bernie proposing to ban people to buy private healthcare if they want it? Why?!
I agree - it seems the obvious attack point. It's a bit like proposing the abolition of BUPA so we all focus on the NHS - a bad hill to die on. Much better to make the public health provision so good that people don't bother with private insurance. It was IIRC starting to wither before 2010 in Britain for that very reason as NHS waiting lists (probably the main driver of private insurance) were getting acceptably short.
Casino Royale giving the impression of "I'll fight every man in the house" this morning!
Because I've woken up to reading this thread and a succession of posts on it have pissed me off.
Making the NHS so good that people will not bother with private health is an unobtainable socialist utopian dream
Its a good enough ‘goal’ or ‘mission statement’ though.
My impression is that the benefits of private healthcare are essentially:
More consultation time for minor ailments or concerns Convenience for appointment times Comfort/luxury after operations
On clinical outcomes there will obviously be examples of good and bad practice whether NHS or private but my impression is that they are of similar quality.
Of the 3 clear benefits I can see, not sure we should be spending much more to offer those as part of the NHS, social care should be a much bigger priority instead. Obviously if we can improve scheduling and appointments with more efficient logistics thats great.
The private healthcare market in the UK is overwhelmingly for short term elective care and surgery. This is an important safety valve for the middle class. Over the last 2 decades there has been substantial privatisation of this, with around 50% of private surgery being done on NHS contracts.
In part this explains the paradox of increased NHS spending while acute medical services, chronic care and high risk surgery all suffer from austerity and cuts. If the pandemic hits big time we will see how rickety the whole structure is.
It is entirely a decision for the Northern Ireland Secretary whether to hold a border poll under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which implemented the GFA actually
Not entirely, I believe involved parties can ask for a judicial review if they think the NI secretary isn't playing a straight bat. Of course judicial review is now under review itself...
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, it’s like listening to someone, who got knocked back by a girl he fancied, standing outside the church, telling anyone who will listen that the bride and groom are less free than they were yesterday, as she celebrates the happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They haven't considered the real villains. It's not our fault if - like modern 21st century Manchurian candidates - they successfully succumbed to the programming of those who were quite clearly looking to legally manipulate their identity to achieve their own federalist political objectives.
CR - I may or may not be one of the 'they', but I am definitely losing some very useful rights. Let's assume I am not one of the 'they', what is your argument then?
Question about posting. Yesterday in reply to HYUFD I duplicated the post I was replying to. Naturally I put this down to my own incompetence (I have a track record!). However today when replying to Casino I noticed before making the post the same was going to happen. WHY?
The only way of stopping it was to delete one of the 2 threads showing up before making my post.
It's not a fact. It's a dickish argument from a 6th form debater. You might as well argue you had no vote on who your parents and family are, or what your genes are.
The UK Government signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 that led to us becoming EU citizens. This was a political decision with significant ramifications.
The UK electorate had no direct vote on this (remembering all major parties supported it at the time) and nor was it a one way street: it led to obligations and responsibilities as well as rights, one of which was the principle of non-discrimination between our own citizens and those from elsewhere in the EU and it helped turbocharge a process of the ECJ (again, further boosted through the CFR) in believing it was its judiciable right to opine and rule on the rights and criminal law of those same "EU citizens".
I will cry no tears for those who wail about the "loss" of a totally synthesized and artificial construct 27 years after its abominable birth.
That is a 4th form debater argument. The EU treaty gave you something you were under no obligation to use, but it took nothing away from you either. You were still as British as the day you were born. You did not have to identify as an EU citizen, you were free to identify as a British citizen (or subject if you prefer).
It certainly took something away from me, and us, as if you were intelligent enough to both read and understand my post you would have appreciated.
Unfortunately you're one of the most stupid regular posters on the site, so this passed you by.
I don't understand why is Bernie proposing to ban people to buy private healthcare if they want it? Why?!
I agree - it seems the obvious attack point. It's a bit like proposing the abolition of BUPA so we all focus on the NHS - a bad hill to die on. Much better to make the public health provision so good that people don't bother with private insurance. It was IIRC starting to wither before 2010 in Britain for that very reason as NHS waiting lists (probably the main driver of private insurance) were getting acceptably short.
Casino Royale giving the impression of "I'll fight every man in the house" this morning!
Because I've woken up to reading this thread and a succession of posts on it have pissed me off.
Making the NHS so good that people will not bother with private health is an unobtainable socialist utopian dream
Its a good enough ‘goal’ or ‘mission statement’ though.
My impression is that the benefits of private healthcare are essentially:
More consultation time for minor ailments or concerns Convenience for appointment times Comfort/luxury after operations
On clinical outcomes there will obviously be examples of good and bad practice whether NHS or private but my impression is that they are of similar quality.
Of the 3 clear benefits I can see, not sure we should be spending much more to offer those as part of the NHS, social care should be a much bigger priority instead. Obviously if we can improve scheduling and appointments with more efficient logistics thats great.
You missed out the biggest single benefit of no rationing by way of waiting list. Changing that would involve spending a great deal of money.
It's not a fact. It's a dickish argument from a 6th form debater. You might as well argue you had no vote on who your parents and family are, or what your genes are.
The UK Government signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 that led to us becoming EU citizens. This was a political decision with significant ramifications.
The UK electorate had no direct vote on this (remembering all major parties supported it at the time) and nor was it a one way street: it led to obligations and responsibilities as well as rights, one of which was the principle of non-discrimination between our own citizens and those from elsewhere in the EU and it helped turbocharge a process of the ECJ (again, further boosted through the CFR) in believing it was its judiciable right to opine and rule on the rights and criminal law of those same "EU citizens".
I will cry no tears for those who wail about the "loss" of a totally synthesized and artificial construct 27 years after its abominable birth.
That is a 4th form debater argument. The EU treaty gave you something you were under no obligation to use, but it took nothing away from you either. You were still as British as the day you were born. You did not have to identify as an EU citizen, you were free to identify as a British citizen (or subject if you prefer).
Complete rubbish, ECJ jurisdiction isn't optional. But then again, you think it's absolutely fine for the police to go around questioning people over their opinions so your views on anything else are completely worthless.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, it’s like listening to someone, who got knocked back by a girl he fancied, standing outside the church, telling anyone who will listen that the bride and groom are less free than they were yesterday, as she celebrates the happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They haven't considered the real villains. It's not our fault if - like modern 21st century Manchurian candidates - they successfully succumbed to the programming of those who were quite clearly looking to legally manipulate their identity to achieve their own federalist political objectives.
CR - I may or may not be one of the 'they', but I am definitely losing some very useful rights. Let's assume I am not one of the 'they', what is your argument then?
It's reciprocal: to regain rights over who lives here, and why, and how the rights of our own citizens are interpreted by our own courts here we have to leave the EU. The quid pro quo is that same judgement it applied on the EU side. The EU is bigger, yes, so it could seem lopsided in scale but it's actually completely balanced.
Now, if you're predominantly based in the UK and only travel to the EU for holidays or for short business trips then this doesn't matter. You have a net gain of rights. Because you now have more domestic control.
If you're someone who totally depended on the EU rights and wasn't bothered about domestic control (these are a far far smaller number) then yes you might take a different view.
It's not a fact. It's a dickish argument from a 6th form debater. You might as well argue you had no vote on who your parents and family are, or what your genes are.
The UK Government signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 that led to us becoming EU citizens. This was a political decision with significant ramifications.
The UK electorate had no direct vote on this (remembering all major parties supported it at the time) and nor was it a one way street: it led to obligations and responsibilities as well as rights, one of which was the principle of non-discrimination between our own citizens and those from elsewhere in the EU and it helped turbocharge a process of the ECJ (again, further boosted through the CFR) in believing it was its judiciable right to opine and rule on the rights and criminal law of those same "EU citizens".
I will cry no tears for those who wail about the "loss" of a totally synthesized and artificial construct 27 years after its abominable birth.
That is a 4th form debater argument. The EU treaty gave you something you were under no obligation to use, but it took nothing away from you either. You were still as British as the day you were born. You did not have to identify as an EU citizen, you were free to identify as a British citizen (or subject if you prefer).
Oh dear, now the toddlers have joined in the debate....
How about my obligation to pay £350m a week for this thing I'm under no obligation to use?
That is a 4th form debater argument. The EU treaty gave you something you were under no obligation to use, but it took nothing away from you either.
CR's passport had the words 'European Union' on it which made it harder for him to have a wank over the Royal Arms on it unless he covered the offending words with his thumb,
It's not a fact. It's a dickish argument from a 6th form debater. You might as well argue you had no vote on who your parents and family are, or what your genes are.
The UK Government signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 that led to us becoming EU citizens. This was a political decision with significant ramifications.
The UK electorate had no direct vote on this (remembering all major parties supported it at the time) and nor was it a one way street: it led to obligations and responsibilities as well as rights, one of which was the principle of non-discrimination between our own citizens and those from elsewhere in the EU and it helped turbocharge a process of the ECJ (again, further boosted through the CFR) in believing it was its judiciable right to opine and rule on the rights and criminal law of those same "EU citizens".
I will cry no tears for those who wail about the "loss" of a totally synthesized and artificial construct 27 years after its abominable birth.
That is a 4th form debater argument. The EU treaty gave you something you were under no obligation to use, but it took nothing away from you either. You were still as British as the day you were born. You did not have to identify as an EU citizen, you were free to identify as a British citizen (or subject if you prefer).
Complete rubbish, ECJ jurisdiction isn't optional. But then again, you think it's absolutely fine for the police to go around questioning people over their opinions so your views on anything else are completely worthless.
I've updated the EMA with the 12 Dec actual as the base. There are seven data points so far including the latest YouGov poll.
This is academic at this point but I'm going to track the polls to see where the high water mark of Johnson's administration is. I don't think we have reached it yet.
That is a 4th form debater argument. The EU treaty gave you something you were under no obligation to use, but it took nothing away from you either.
CR's passport had the words 'European Union' on it which made it harder for him to have a wank over the Royal Arms on it unless he covered the offending words with his thumb,
Most of your posts seems to be profuse with aggressive sexual profanity, as I'm sure your 180mph driving is too.
Could it be as simple as you're just not getting any?
That is a 4th form debater argument. The EU treaty gave you something you were under no obligation to use, but it took nothing away from you either.
CR's passport had the words 'European Union' on it which made it harder for him to have a wank over the Royal Arms on it unless he covered the offending words with his thumb,
Being in the EU never prevented anyone from wearing Union Jack underpants or standing to the National Anthem before breakfast....
It's not a fact. It's a dickish argument from a 6th form debater. You might as well argue you had no vote on who your parents and family are, or what your genes are.
The UK Government signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 that led to us becoming EU citizens. This was a political decision with significant ramifications.
The UK electorate had no direct vote on this (remembering all major parties supported it at the time) and nor was it a one way street: it led to obligations and responsibilities as well as rights, one of which was the principle of non-discrimination between our own citizens and those from elsewhere in the EU and it helped turbocharge a process of the ECJ (again, further boosted through the CFR) in believing it was its judiciable right to opine and rule on the rights and criminal law of those same "EU citizens".
I will cry no tears for those who wail about the "loss" of a totally synthesized and artificial construct 27 years after its abominable birth.
That is a 4th form debater argument. The EU treaty gave you something you were under no obligation to use, but it took nothing away from you either. You were still as British as the day you were born. You did not have to identify as an EU citizen, you were free to identify as a British citizen (or subject if you prefer).
Oh dear, now the toddlers have joined in the debate....
How about my obligation to pay £350m a week for this thing I'm under no obligation to use?
You were paying the whole £350m? Feck me, no wonder you've a feather up the arse about it.
Complete rubbish, ECJ jurisdiction isn't optional. But then again, you think it's absolutely fine for the police to go around questioning people over their opinions so your views on anything else are completely worthless.
Except, of course, I did not say that. Go back and read the posts.
Please point out where I said "it's absolutely fine for the police to go around questioning people over their opinions".
I don't understand why is Bernie proposing to ban people to buy private healthcare if they want it? Why?!
I agree - it seems the obvious attack point. It's a bit like proposing the abolition of BUPA so we all focus on the NHS - a bad hill to die on. Much better to make the public health provision so good that people don't bother with private insurance. It was IIRC starting to wither before 2010 in Britain for that very reason as NHS waiting lists (probably the main driver of private insurance) were getting acceptably short.
Casino Royale giving the impression of "I'll fight every man in the house" this morning!
Because I've woken up to reading this thread and a succession of posts on it have pissed me off.
Making the NHS so good that people will not bother with private health is an unobtainable socialist utopian dream
Its a good enough ‘goal’ or ‘mission statement’ though.
My impression is that the benefits of private healthcare are essentially:
More consultation time for minor ailments or concerns Convenience for appointment times Comfort/luxury after operations
On clinical outcomes there will obviously be examples of good and bad practice whether NHS or private but my impression is that they are of similar quality.
Of the 3 clear benefits I can see, not sure we should be spending much more to offer those as part of the NHS, social care should be a much bigger priority instead. Obviously if we can improve scheduling and appointments with more efficient logistics thats great.
You missed out the biggest single benefit of no rationing by way of waiting list. Changing that would involve spending a great deal of money.
If essential operations are being rationed on a significant scale I would certainly be happy to pay more for those. From the outside I wasnt aware that is the case despite austerity.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, it’s like listening to someone, who got knocked back by a girl he fancied, standing outside the church, telling anyone who will listen that the bride and groom are less free than they were yesterday, as she celebrates the happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They haven't considered the real villains. It's not our fault if - like modern 21st century Manchurian candidates - they successfully succumbed to the programming of those who were quite clearly looking to legally manipulate their identity to achieve their own federalist political objectives.
CR - I may or may not be one of the 'they', but I am definitely losing some very useful rights. Let's assume I am not one of the 'they', what is your argument then?
It's reciprocal: to regain rights over who lives here, and why, and how the rights of our own citizens are interpreted by our own courts here we have to leave the EU. The quid pro quo is that same judgement it applied on the EU side. The EU is bigger, yes, so it could seem lopsided in scale but it's actually completely balanced.
Now, if you're predominantly based in the UK and only travel to the EU for holidays or for short business trips then this doesn't matter. You have a net gain of rights. Because you now have more domestic control.
If you're someone who totally depended on the EU rights and wasn't bothered about domestic control (these are a far far smaller number) then yes you might take a different view.
Good answer. As you can guess I value the rights we have lost over the rights we have gained.
Come on, everyone, let's not argue about 'oo's more stupid than oo. This is meant to be a happy website.
Mr. Gate, it is concerning (as is underfunding of judicial process), although 'Spiderwoman' didn't do herself or her profession any favours by revelling in her takedown of 'the Hulk'.
Out in the world of pavement politics, Labour out in force in East Ham High Street this morning banging the drum for Sadiq Khan ahead of the London Mayoral contest in May.
It did occur to me the 2024 contest might be on the same day as the next GE which hasn't happened before to my knowledge - the 2010 GE took place on the same day as local elections but not a Mayoral contest.
Khan still looks in a commanding position - the last poll from November 2019 is ancient history - with around 45% of the vote. I expect the next poll to show Bailey a more definite second with 25% and Stewart, Benita, Berry all clustering around 10%.
Second preferences will carry Khan home with a huge win so what might change that? It's hard currently to see Bailey not finishing second given residual Conservative strength in the outer suburbs - Stewart is an engaging candidate but struggles to get much media attention as do Benita and Berry but even if Stewart were, by some miracle, to knock Bailey out of second place, he just doesn't have the numbers to worry Khan who can pull in the votes from the inner London strongholds.
The lingering question for me is who Labour might select to follow Khan in 2024 assuming the latter seeks a Westminster MP and perhaps a Cabinet post in a future Labour Government - he is only 49 so has time on his side to be a future senior Labour figure.
It might be symptomatic of whether Labour figures see a possible 2024 GE victory (or at least ousting the Conservatives) or whether they see an inevitable defeat and seek an alternative route. Both Johnson and Khan won London at a time when their parties were in Opposition at Westminster.
I wonder if David Lammy might be tempted to have another go at the Labour nomination in 2024.
Out in the world of pavement politics, Labour out in force in East Ham High Street this morning banging the drum for Sadiq Khan ahead of the London Mayoral contest in May.
It did occur to me the 2024 contest might be on the same day as the next GE which hasn't happened before to my knowledge - the 2010 GE took place on the same day as local elections but not a Mayoral contest.
Khan still looks in a commanding position - the last poll from November 2019 is ancient history - with around 45% of the vote. I expect the next poll to show Bailey a more definite second with 25% and Stewart, Benita, Berry all clustering around 10%.
Second preferences will carry Khan home with a huge win so what might change that? It's hard currently to see Bailey not finishing second given residual Conservative strength in the outer suburbs - Stewart is an engaging candidate but struggles to get much media attention as do Benita and Berry but even if Stewart were, by some miracle, to knock Bailey out of second place, he just doesn't have the numbers to worry Khan who can pull in the votes from the inner London strongholds.
The lingering question for me is who Labour might select to follow Khan in 2024 assuming the latter seeks a Westminster MP and perhaps a Cabinet post in a future Labour Government - he is only 49 so has time on his side to be a future senior Labour figure.
It might be symptomatic of whether Labour figures see a possible 2024 GE victory (or at least ousting the Conservatives) or whether they see an inevitable defeat and seek an alternative route. Both Johnson and Khan won London at a time when their parties were in Opposition at Westminster.
I wonder if David Lammy might be tempted to have another go at the Labour nomination in 2024.
If they were all standing as independents on their own merits, would Bailey even be in double figures? Why is party voting so ingrained that people will vote for a worse candidate just because they have the right badge?
I don't understand why is Bernie proposing to ban people to buy private healthcare if they want it? Why?!
I agree - it seems the obvious attack point. It's a bit like proposing the abolition of BUPA so we all focus on the NHS - a bad hill to die on. Much better to make the public health provision so good that people don't bother with private insurance. It was IIRC starting to wither before 2010 in Britain for that very reason as NHS waiting lists (probably the main driver of private insurance) were getting acceptably short.
Casino Royale giving the impression of "I'll fight every man in the house" this morning!
Because I've woken up to reading this thread and a succession of posts on it have pissed me off.
It’s the same people writing the same old whiney shit while apparently being privy to the precise thinking of the government.
The more I read about Beaufort's Dyke the more I think what a total shitshow. I hadn't realised that they were still dumping stuff in the 70s.
'British ships sailed out from Cairnryan in western Scotland to dump weapons in Beaufort’s Dyke from the 1920s to the 1970s, including Allied and German munitions after the second world war. Sometimes the vessels did not reach the dyke, the bombs dumped overboard into shallower waters instead. Detailed records were often destroyed at the time. In 1997 it was acknowledged that radioactive waste had also been dumped in steel drums there in the 1950s after what the then Scotland secretary, Donald Dewar, said was “a discovery of old papers in the Public Records Office”.'
You were paying the whole £350m? Feck me, no wonder you've a feather up the arse about it.
Snap!
It's actually an indication of how personal it is for brexiteers: 'I' pay £350m a week for this thing I'm under no obligation to use, 'I' have had my identity and sovereignty taken from me, 'I' no longer have access to toasters that get my toast soldiers just the way I like 'em.
I wish I could find these ‘three quarter empty trains’ he talks about. Last time I caught a train from London to Birmingham I had to stand until Solihull.
He fails to mention that the ‘slower speeds’ of HS2 trains is where they will run on classic lines. That’s a tiny fraction of the whole. Some trains to Stafford and Stoke, some to Liverpool, and some trains north of Manchester and Leeds. This is incidentally why when the Birmingham leg has been built pushing on to Manchester and Leeds will be relatively uncontroversial by comparison.
True, HS2 will not carry freight. Would be funny to think of freight charging along at 250 miles an hour. But the 80,000 pathways a year for freight trains on the WCML will dramatically increase in number.
It’s frustrating that opponents of HS2 feel the need to mislead to support their case. Admittedly, he’s not as bad as Joe Rukin, who once claimed there were just ten thousand freight train pathways a year across the whole UK network and that half of them had been given up (the correct figure is 220,000, although his raw figure for the number of cancelled trains is about right). But I think it’s because, as Javid pointed out, once you actually look at it, this is the only logical course to pursue. It offers far more capacity for far less disruption han any other plausible solution.
I agree that Jenkins is sometimes wrong, but the people in the current UK cabinet seem to be nearly always wrong. Who to choose?! Walking down Euston Road with your luggage to get a train to Paris does seem rather stupid, given that we were promised through trains Manchester-Paris 30 years ago.
The Marylebone-B'ham line seems to operate at far below capacity, assuming that it could be upgraded almost to WCML service levels. Other than that, I don't know the answer(s).
I don't understand why is Bernie proposing to ban people to buy private healthcare if they want it? Why?!
I agree - it seems the obvious attack point. It's a bit like proposing the abolition of BUPA so we all focus on the NHS - a bad hill to die on. Much better to make the public health provision so good that people don't bother with private insurance. It was IIRC starting to wither before 2010 in Britain for that very reason as NHS waiting lists (probably the main driver of private insurance) were getting acceptably short.
Casino Royale giving the impression of "I'll fight every man in the house" this morning!
Because I've woken up to reading this thread and a succession of posts on it have pissed me off.
It’s the same people writing the same old whiney shit while apparently being privy to the precise thinking of the government.
Thank you for your positive and well informed contribution, typical of your high intellect and analysis
The more I read about Beaufort's Dyke the more I think what a total shitshow. I hadn't realised that they were still dumping stuff in the 70s.
'British ships sailed out from Cairnryan in western Scotland to dump weapons in Beaufort’s Dyke from the 1920s to the 1970s, including Allied and German munitions after the second world war. Sometimes the vessels did not reach the dyke, the bombs dumped overboard into shallower waters instead. Detailed records were often destroyed at the time. In 1997 it was acknowledged that radioactive waste had also been dumped in steel drums there in the 1950s after what the then Scotland secretary, Donald Dewar, said was “a discovery of old papers in the Public Records Office”.'
IIRC, the Boris Island airport was either on or very close to another wartime ammunition disaster. Some supply ship with so much ammo aboard that they still worry about nearby towns if it ever goes off...
Perhaps Boris has a new technique for used ammo clean up?
The more I read about Beaufort's Dyke the more I think what a total shitshow. I hadn't realised that they were still dumping stuff in the 70s.
'British ships sailed out from Cairnryan in western Scotland to dump weapons in Beaufort’s Dyke from the 1920s to the 1970s, including Allied and German munitions after the second world war. Sometimes the vessels did not reach the dyke, the bombs dumped overboard into shallower waters instead. Detailed records were often destroyed at the time. In 1997 it was acknowledged that radioactive waste had also been dumped in steel drums there in the 1950s after what the then Scotland secretary, Donald Dewar, said was “a discovery of old papers in the Public Records Office”.'
"The main expressed goal for oceanographers during International Geophysical Year, 1957/8, was to study “the use of ocean depths for the dumping of radioactive wastes.” This wasn’t a secret assignment, you understand, but a proud public boast."
Any of our rail experts know how long an HS2 train will be? Or length of the carriages will do.
T’wiki quotes a 2010 DfT report calling for 200m units capable of being worked as double sets, so 400m maximum. That’s the same total length as the latest Eurostar sets. The loading gauge will be UIC GC so double/deckers would be possible.
It is entirely a decision for the Northern Ireland Secretary whether to hold a border poll under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which implemented the GFA actually
Not entirely, I believe involved parties can ask for a judicial review if they think the NI secretary isn't playing a straight bat. Of course judicial review is now under review itself...
I won’t paste it all as I believe in IP rights but this captures a flavour:
“When the government loses on judicial review, it is because the courts hold that it has done something that is illegal, or done something it had no power to do. It cannot be an answer to say that it was done for high political reasons or has large political implications.
The problem is not that the courts have too much power. In any civilised system they must have power to quash decisions that are illegal or unauthorised by law. The problem is that the courts have been too ready to treat acts of the executive as illegal or unauthorised because they take a different view of the merits of the underlying policy.
This problem is particularly acute in cases decided under the European Convention on Human Rights. The case law on the convention requires the courts to weigh up competing policy considerations and arrive at their own view of the public interest. It is not unfair to say that this is politics by other means.“
If they were all standing as independents on their own merits, would Bailey even be in double figures? Why is party voting so ingrained that people will vote for a worse candidate just because they have the right badge?
Livingstone won as an Independent back in the day but you make a fair point. Bailey and Khan have the not inconsiderable financial and human resources of their parties to see and be seen.
Stewart, Benita and Berry lack those resources so are back to online and social media which work well with younger voters but not so with older voters who tend to stick to Party allegiances for reasons I struggle to comprehend (no I don't, older people tend to me more conservative and Conservative, we know this yet threaten to take away their free TV licences and they'll be after you with the pitchforks).
It's impossible to canvass London - there's quite a lot of it - so making an impact has to be done in other ways which again limits reach.
The more I read about Beaufort's Dyke the more I think what a total shitshow. I hadn't realised that they were still dumping stuff in the 70s.
'British ships sailed out from Cairnryan in western Scotland to dump weapons in Beaufort’s Dyke from the 1920s to the 1970s, including Allied and German munitions after the second world war. Sometimes the vessels did not reach the dyke, the bombs dumped overboard into shallower waters instead. Detailed records were often destroyed at the time. In 1997 it was acknowledged that radioactive waste had also been dumped in steel drums there in the 1950s after what the then Scotland secretary, Donald Dewar, said was “a discovery of old papers in the Public Records Office”.'
IIRC, the Boris Island airport was either on or very close to another wartime ammunition disaster. Some supply ship with so much ammo aboard that they still worry about nearby towns if it ever goes off...
Perhaps Boris has a new technique for used ammo clean up?
The more I read about Beaufort's Dyke the more I think what a total shitshow. I hadn't realised that they were still dumping stuff in the 70s.
'British ships sailed out from Cairnryan in western Scotland to dump weapons in Beaufort’s Dyke from the 1920s to the 1970s, including Allied and German munitions after the second world war. Sometimes the vessels did not reach the dyke, the bombs dumped overboard into shallower waters instead. Detailed records were often destroyed at the time. In 1997 it was acknowledged that radioactive waste had also been dumped in steel drums there in the 1950s after what the then Scotland secretary, Donald Dewar, said was “a discovery of old papers in the Public Records Office”.'
IIRC, the Boris Island airport was either on or very close to another wartime ammunition disaster. Some supply ship with so much ammo aboard that they still worry about nearby towns if it ever goes off...
Perhaps Boris has a new technique for used ammo clean up?
Boom boom! (As Basil Brush would say)
Yes, the SS Richard Montgomery sunk just off Sheerness and still containing about 1,500t of high explosives. If she goes up she’ll cause millions of pounds of improvements to the Isle of Sheppey.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
I don't understand why is Bernie proposing to ban people to buy private healthcare if they want it? Why?!
Unless I am missing something, Sanders isn't banning people from buying private healthcare if they want it. He wants to force everyone to be covered by a Government specified Single Payer system. The Culinary Union and others think that this will result in the substitution of a hard won high quality healthcare plan by a public system with worse coverage.
They are possibly incorrect about that. Workplace plans are poor value for money as they are mostly available for those in work, youngish, healthy and reasonably wealthy. The existing Cinderella public systems do the heavy lifting in terms of health outcomes and covering the old, the unwell and the relative poor that the culinary workers may well become at some stage in their lives. A lot of the other effective healthcare expenditure in the US comes out-of-pocket.
Personally I think Single Payer is a bridge too far for America. You have to work within the system as it is, and I would go for beefing up Obamacare so that workplace plans become standardised and insured whole life - as in Switzerland for example.
You were paying the whole £350m? Feck me, no wonder you've a feather up the arse about it.
Snap!
It's actually an indication of how personal it is for brexiteers: 'I' pay £350m a week for this thing I'm under no obligation to use, 'I' have had my identity and sovereignty taken from me, 'I' no longer have access to toasters that get my toast soldiers just the way I like 'em.
#Solipsistsrus
It is a touch ironic that many of the Brexit supporting types have, in the past, moaned about "Identity politics" and yet post stuff now about how important Brexit is because it is part of their identity.
Because I've woken up to reading this thread and a succession of posts on it have pissed me off.
It’s the same people writing the same old whiny shit while apparently being privy to the precise thinking of the government.
The last I heard it was perfectly reasonable to criticise the Government and hold it to account. If you want to stand up and praise Boris Johnson to the skies, be my guest, you have that right.
Perhaps some of us have yet to appreciate the sheer brilliance of the Johnson-Cummings alliance and have yet to sign up to the transformation of Britain from a failing outpost shackled to a dying centrist elite political bloc to...to... whatever it's going to be with the sunlit uplands, the free trade deals, the streets paved with gold and no one ever having the wobbles.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, it’s like listening to someone, who got knocked back by a girl he fancied, standing outside the church, telling anyone who will listen that the bride and groom are less free than they were yesterday, as she celebrates the happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They haven't considered the real villains. It's not our fault if - like modern 21st century Manchurian candidates - they successfully succumbed to the programming of those who were quite clearly looking to legally manipulate their identity to achieve their own federalist political objectives.
CR - I may or may not be one of the 'they', but I am definitely losing some very useful rights. Let's assume I am not one of the 'they', what is your argument then?
It's reciprocal: to regain rights over who lives here, and why, and how the rights of our own citizens are interpreted by our own courts here we have to leave the EU. The quid pro quo is that same judgement it applied on the EU side. The EU is bigger, yes, so it could seem lopsided in scale but it's actually completely balanced.
Now, if you're predominantly based in the UK and only travel to the EU for holidays or for short business trips then this doesn't matter. You have a net gain of rights. Because you now have more domestic control.
If you're someone who totally depended on the EU rights and wasn't bothered about domestic control (these are a far far smaller number) then yes you might take a different view.
Good answer. As you can guess I value the rights we have lost over the rights we have gained.
What have your previously done with those rights in the EU that you now think you'll no longer be able to do?
You were paying the whole £350m? Feck me, no wonder you've a feather up the arse about it.
Snap!
It's actually an indication of how personal it is for brexiteers: 'I' pay £350m a week for this thing I'm under no obligation to use, 'I' have had my identity and sovereignty taken from me, 'I' no longer have access to toasters that get my toast soldiers just the way I like 'em.
#Solipsistsrus
I'd say it was more like "I would rather not have to compete with the rest of the EU for my job, and am prepared to forgo the opportunity to leave my family and friends behind and ply my trade in Eastern Europe to secure that"
It will not happen in Blairs lifetime.. the memory of Blair's illegal wars lingers long.
Blair, Iraq. Thatcher, poll tax. Common factor, hubris. No debates, no checks and balances. Boris has gone straight to late Thatcher/Blair in the elected dictator stakes. Great when flying high; sub-optimal when walking towards an elephant trap, urged on by yes-men as all dissenters were purged.
If they were all standing as independents on their own merits, would Bailey even be in double figures? Why is party voting so ingrained that people will vote for a worse candidate just because they have the right badge?
Livingstone won as an Independent back in the day but you make a fair point. Bailey and Khan have the not inconsiderable financial and human resources of their parties to see and be seen.
Stewart, Benita and Berry lack those resources so are back to online and social media which work well with younger voters but not so with older voters who tend to stick to Party allegiances for reasons I struggle to comprehend (no I don't, older people tend to me more conservative and Conservative, we know this yet threaten to take away their free TV licences and they'll be after you with the pitchforks).
It's impossible to canvass London - there's quite a lot of it - so making an impact has to be done in other ways which again limits reach.
Objectively, Stewart is probably the best candidate. Khan is no great shakes, Bailey is worse. The others are pointless. Khan will win by a landslide, though.
The more I read about Beaufort's Dyke the more I think what a total shitshow. I hadn't realised that they were still dumping stuff in the 70s.
'British ships sailed out from Cairnryan in western Scotland to dump weapons in Beaufort’s Dyke from the 1920s to the 1970s, including Allied and German munitions after the second world war. Sometimes the vessels did not reach the dyke, the bombs dumped overboard into shallower waters instead. Detailed records were often destroyed at the time. In 1997 it was acknowledged that radioactive waste had also been dumped in steel drums there in the 1950s after what the then Scotland secretary, Donald Dewar, said was “a discovery of old papers in the Public Records Office”.'
I don't understand why is Bernie proposing to ban people to buy private healthcare if they want it? Why?!
I agree - it seems the obvious attack point. It's a bit like proposing the abolition of BUPA so we all focus on the NHS - a bad hill to die on. Much better to make the public health provision so good that people don't bother with private insurance. It was IIRC starting to wither before 2010 in Britain for that very reason as NHS waiting lists (probably the main driver of private insurance) were getting acceptably short.
Casino Royale giving the impression of "I'll fight every man in the house" this morning!
Because I've woken up to reading this thread and a succession of posts on it have pissed me off.
It’s the same people writing the same old whiney shit while apparently being privy to the precise thinking of the government.
It will not happen in Blairs lifetime.. the memory of Blair's illegal wars lingers long.
Blair, Iraq. Thatcher, poll tax. Common factor, hubris. No debates, no checks and balances. Boris has gone straight to late Thatcher/Blair in the elected dictator stakes. Great when flying high; sub-optimal when walking towards an elephant trap, urged on by yes-men as all dissenters were purged.
The more I read about Beaufort's Dyke the more I think what a total shitshow. I hadn't realised that they were still dumping stuff in the 70s.
'British ships sailed out from Cairnryan in western Scotland to dump weapons in Beaufort’s Dyke from the 1920s to the 1970s, including Allied and German munitions after the second world war. Sometimes the vessels did not reach the dyke, the bombs dumped overboard into shallower waters instead. Detailed records were often destroyed at the time. In 1997 it was acknowledged that radioactive waste had also been dumped in steel drums there in the 1950s after what the then Scotland secretary, Donald Dewar, said was “a discovery of old papers in the Public Records Office”.'
IIRC, the Boris Island airport was either on or very close to another wartime ammunition disaster. Some supply ship with so much ammo aboard that they still worry about nearby towns if it ever goes off...
Perhaps Boris has a new technique for used ammo clean up?
Boom boom! (As Basil Brush would say)
Yes, the SS Richard Montgomery sunk just off Sheerness and still containing about 1,500t of high explosives. If she goes up she’ll cause millions of pounds of improvements to the Isle of Sheppey.
3-minute video explanation by pb-favourite Tom Scott.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, ihe happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They objectives.
CR - I may or may not be one of the 'they', but I am definitely losing some very useful rights. Let's assume I am not one of the 'they', what is your argument then?
It's reciprocal: to regain rights over who lives here, and why, and how the rights of our own citizens are interpreted by our own courts here we have to leave the EU. The quid pro quo is that same judgement it applied on the EU side. The EU is bigger, yes, so it could seem lopsided in scale but it's actually completely balanced.
Now, if you're predominantly based in the UK and only travel to the EU for holidays or for short business trips then this doesn't matter. You have a net gain of rights. Because you now have more domestic control.
If you're someone who totally depended on the EU rights and wasn't bothered about domestic control (these are a far far smaller number) then yes you might take a different view.
Good answer. As you can guess I value the rights we have lost over the rights we have gained.
What have your previously done with those rights in the EU that you now think you'll no longer be able to do?
I have never had to rely on my right to habeas corpus. That doesn't mean I am not glad it exists.
You were paying the whole £350m? Feck me, no wonder you've a feather up the arse about it.
Snap!
It's actually an indication of how personal it is for brexiteers: 'I' pay £350m a week for this thing I'm under no obligation to use, 'I' have had my identity and sovereignty taken from me, 'I' no longer have access to toasters that get my toast soldiers just the way I like 'em.
#Solipsistsrus
I'd say it was more like "I would rather not have to compete with the rest of the EU for my job, and am prepared to forgo the opportunity to leave my family and friends behind and ply my trade in Eastern Europe to secure that"
It would be more accurate to say "(most of) Europe" rather than "Eastern Europe" but yes, that's a fair summary of at least some Leavers. The somewhat poignant thing for at least some Remainers is that they were OK with the first part and quite looking forward to the second...
It is entirely a decision for the Northern Ireland Secretary whether to hold a border poll under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which implemented the GFA actually
Not entirely, I believe involved parties can ask for a judicial review if they think the NI secretary isn't playing a straight bat. Of course judicial review is now under review itself...
I won’t paste it all as I believe in IP rights but this captures a flavour:
“When the government loses on judicial review, it is because the courts hold that it has done something that is illegal, or done something it had no power to do. It cannot be an answer to say that it was done for high political reasons or has large political implications.
The problem is not that the courts have too much power. In any civilised system they must have power to quash decisions that are illegal or unauthorised by law. The problem is that the courts have been too ready to treat acts of the executive as illegal or unauthorised because they take a different view of the merits of the underlying policy.
This problem is particularly acute in cases decided under the European Convention on Human Rights. The case law on the convention requires the courts to weigh up competing policy considerations and arrive at their own view of the public interest. It is not unfair to say that this is politics by other means.“
I heard him give a shorter version of this view on R4 (I also listened to at least one of his Reith lectures). As a mere civilian I thought he came across as extremely thoughtful and definitely his own man.
I suppose my (again civilian) view is that if the courts don't arbitrate on these issues, who will? Also will this not be a licence for future governments to cry 'this is political' every time they reach a bump in the road with legal and/or constitutional implications? The right of the NI secretary to call for or withhold a border poll might be a case in point.
You were paying the whole £350m? Feck me, no wonder you've a feather up the arse about it.
Snap!
It's actually an indication of how personal it is for brexiteers: 'I' pay £350m a week for this thing I'm under no obligation to use, 'I' have had my identity and sovereignty taken from me, 'I' no longer have access to toasters that get my toast soldiers just the way I like 'em.
#Solipsistsrus
I'd say it was more like "I would rather not have to compete with the rest of the EU for my job, and am prepared to forgo the opportunity to leave my family and friends behind and ply my trade in Eastern Europe to secure that"
It would be more accurate to say "(most of) Europe" rather than "Eastern Europe" but yes, that's a fair summary of at least some Leavers. The somewhat poignant thing for at least some Remainers is that they were OK with the first part and quite looking forward to the second...
It probably doesn't explain why support for Brexit was highest among those who do not work, though.
You were paying the whole £350m? Feck me, no wonder you've a feather up the arse about it.
Snap!
It's actually an indication of how personal it is for brexiteers: 'I' pay £350m a week for this thing I'm under no obligation to use, 'I' have had my identity and sovereignty taken from me, 'I' no longer have access to toasters that get my toast soldiers just the way I like 'em.
#Solipsistsrus
I'd say it was more like "I would rather not have to compete with the rest of the EU for my job, and am prepared to forgo the opportunity to leave my family and friends behind and ply my trade in Eastern Europe to secure that"
It would be more accurate to say "(most of) Europe" rather than "Eastern Europe" but yes, that's a fair summary of at least some Leavers. The somewhat poignant thing for at least some Remainers is that they were OK with the first part and quite looking forward to the second...
I actually quite like the idea of Freedom of Movement within a bloc of countries, but they have to be of similar economies, and roughly the same amount of people from each country would have to be happy to live in the others. The problem with EU FoM for the UK was that, when Blair allowed the A8 accession, the ratio of ins and outs from and to the new countries was wrong
When you are driving a Roller, you dont join a car swap club where the others all have Allegros!
I think Cummings may be setting himself as a human shield for Boris. If things go wrong then the MPs will go after him first (see what happened with May who had to sacrifice Hill and Timothy). Cummings recently said on his job advert he was looking to make himself redundant in a year anyway
With the leader ratings I think you have to be careful. The divisiveness of Brexit has meant that it is heard for any politician to get the sort of rating Blair did.
The election showed that there is a group of remainers who don't like Boris but may be prepared to at least tolerate him if the alternative is worse.
You were paying the whole £350m? Feck me, no wonder you've a feather up the arse about it.
Snap!
It's actually an indication of how personal it is for brexiteers: 'I' pay £350m a week for this thing I'm under no obligation to use, 'I' have had my identity and sovereignty taken from me, 'I' no longer have access to toasters that get my toast soldiers just the way I like 'em.
#Solipsistsrus
It is a touch ironic that many of the Brexit supporting types have, in the past, moaned about "Identity politics" and yet post stuff now about how important Brexit is because it is part of their identity.
People are very protective of identity politics when it is their identity, and very dismissive when it's somebody else's.
I agree that Jenkins is sometimes wrong, but the people in the current UK cabinet seem to be nearly always wrong. Who to choose?! Walking down Euston Road with your luggage to get a train to Paris does seem rather stupid, given that we were promised through trains Manchester-Paris 30 years ago.
The Marylebone-B'ham line seems to operate at far below capacity, assuming that it could be upgraded almost to WCML service levels. Other than that, I don't know the answer(s).
They built the Manchester-Paris trains![1] And there was a train storage shed erected just outside Piccadilly which proudly bore the sign “L’Eurostar habite ici” for years. But the rise of LCC airlines meant the service couldn’t be made economical. Perhaps in these days of flygskam things might be different but it’s gonna need at least the completion of HS2 with the link to HS1 actually built to make economic sense.
[1] The “North of London” stock worked domestic non-high speed services on the East Coast Mainline for a while and then ended up with SNCF operating TGV services. The sleeper stock was sold to VIA Rail, the Canadian Amtrak.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, ihe happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They objectives.
CR - I may or may not be one of the 'they', but I am definitely losing some very useful rights. Let's assume I am not one of the 'they', what is your argument then?
It's reciprocal: to regain rights over who lives here, and why, and how the rights of our own citizens are interpreted by our own courts here we have to leave the EU. The quid pro quo is that same judgement it applied on the EU side. The EU is bigger, yes, so it could seem lopsided in scale but it's actually completely balanced.
Now, if you're predominantly based in the UK and only travel to the EU for holidays or for short business trips then this doesn't matter. You have a net gain of rights. Because you now have more domestic control.
If you're someone who totally depended on the EU rights and wasn't bothered about domestic control (these are a far far smaller number) then yes you might take a different view.
Good answer. As you can guess I value the rights we have lost over the rights we have gained.
What have your previously done with those rights in the EU that you now think you'll no longer be able to do?
I have never had to rely on my right to habeas corpus. That doesn't mean I am not glad it exists.
You should be glad we're out of the EU then, since habeas corpus doesn't exist in most of their legal systems and indeed would have started to have been chipped away by the ECJ here.
You were paying the whole £350m? Feck me, no wonder you've a feather up the arse about it.
Snap!
It's actually an indication of how personal it is for brexiteers: 'I' pay £350m a week for this thing I'm under no obligation to use, 'I' have had my identity and sovereignty taken from me, 'I' no longer have access to toasters that get my toast soldiers just the way I like 'em.
#Solipsistsrus
I'd say it was more like "I would rather not have to compete with the rest of the EU for my job, and am prepared to forgo the opportunity to leave my family and friends behind and ply my trade in Eastern Europe to secure that"
It would be more accurate to say "(most of) Europe" rather than "Eastern Europe" but yes, that's a fair summary of at least some Leavers. The somewhat poignant thing for at least some Remainers is that they were OK with the first part and quite looking forward to the second...
I actually quite like the idea of Freedom of Movement within a bloc of countries, but they have to be of similar economies, and roughly the same amount of people from each country would have to be happy to live in the others. The problem with EU FoM for the UK was that, when Blair allowed the A8 accession, the ratio of ins and outs from and to the new countries was wrong
When you are driving a Roller, you dont join a car swap club where the others all have Allegros!
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, ihe happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They objectives.
CR - I may or may not be one of the 'they', but I am definitely losing some very useful rights. Let's assume I am not one of the 'they', what is your argument then?
It's reciprocal: to regain rights over who lives here, and why, and how the rights of our own citizens are interpreted by our own courts here we have to leave the EU. The quid pro quo is that same judgement it applied on the EU side. The EU is bigger, yes, so it could seem lopsided in scale but it's actually completely balanced.
Now, if you're predominantly based in the UK and only travel to the EU for holidays or for short business trips then this doesn't matter. You have a net gain of rights. Because you now have more domestic control.
If you're someone who totally depended on the EU rights and wasn't bothered about domestic control (these are a far far smaller number) then yes you might take a different view.
Good answer. As you can guess I value the rights we have lost over the rights we have gained.
What have your previously done with those rights in the EU that you now think you'll no longer be able to do?
I have never had to rely on my right to habeas corpus. That doesn't mean I am not glad it exists.
You should be glad we're out of the EU then, since habeas corpus doesn't exist in most of their legal systems and indeed would have started to have been chipped away by the ECJ here.
You're welcome.
The ECJ has no jurisdiction over criminal law. That's the ECHR, which is not an EU body.
Because I've woken up to reading this thread and a succession of posts on it have pissed me off.
It’s the same people writing the same old whiny shit while apparently being privy to the precise thinking of the government.
The last I heard it was perfectly reasonable to criticise the Government and hold it to account. If you want to stand up and praise Boris Johnson to the skies, be my guest, you have that right.
Perhaps some of us have yet to appreciate the sheer brilliance of the Johnson-Cummings alliance and have yet to sign up to the transformation of Britain from a failing outpost shackled to a dying centrist elite political bloc to...to... whatever it's going to be with the sunlit uplands, the free trade deals, the streets paved with gold and no one ever having the wobbles.
A number of posters seem to believe that it is self-evident that Cummings/ Johnson/ Brexit are going to transform Britain into some wondrous global super -state and anyone who doesn't "believe" in the project is a whinging arse only interested in running down our glorious nation.
It's been the same since the referendum when anyone who dared to suggest there may be downsides to Brexit was howled down with cries of "Project Fear".
Fortunately we are rapidly approaching the time when the talking ends and something has to be delivered.
It is entirely a decision for the Northern Ireland Secretary whether to hold a border poll under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which implemented the GFA actually
Not entirely, I believe involved parties can ask for a judicial review if they think the NI secretary isn't playing a straight bat. Of course judicial review is now under review itself...
:
The problem is not that the courts have too much power. In any civilised system they must have power to quash decisions that are illegal or unauthorised by law. The problem is that the courts have been too ready to treat acts of the executive as illegal or unauthorised because they take a different view of the merits of the underlying policy.
This problem is particularly acute in cases decided under the European Convention on Human Rights. The case law on the convention requires the courts to weigh up competing policy considerations and arrive at their own view of the public interest. It is not unfair to say that this is politics by other means.“
I heard him give a shorter version of this view on R4 (I also listened to at least one of his Reith lectures). As a mere civilian I thought he came across as extremely thoughtful and definitely his own man.
I suppose my (again civilian) view is that if the courts don't arbitrate on these issues, who will? Also will this not be a licence for future governments to cry 'this is political' every time they reach a bump in the road with legal and/or constitutional implications? The right of the NI secretary to call for or withhold a border poll might be a case in point.
Part of the problem is the inability of some people to see that their views are not Truth! & Justice! but a point of view. Rational perhaps. Good possibly. But not the sole repository of Right.
For example, there is a group of progressive lawyers I sometimes drink with.
They (to a man and woman) want to de-criminalise completely minor crime - not even a court appearance for shop lifting etc. When I mentioned the rights of shop keepers, the invective that was cast upon their heads was... interesting. I then suggested that if society withdrew legal protection for property, then property owners might well resort to the law of Hot Trod*. To which they replied that anyone doing so was evil scum and should be harshly dealt with.
Their vision of government is not by/with/or/from the people. The people are cattle to be organised.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
How old were you in 1993, out of interest?
I would have been too young to vote then and I wasn't alive in 1975. One day I'll be dead and ineligible for future votes too.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
You mean it is a matter of (your) conjecture ...
No, it’s fact. This time next year UK citizens will no longer have the rights we have enjoyed as EU citizens. Beyond that, we’ll see what other rights we lose over the next few years.
Non sequitur.
Those rights are ones I never asked for and never wanted.
I was forced to become an EU citizen in 1993 and never had a vote on it.
My word, ihe happiest day of her life
They want to play the victim, so they can rail against the villians and feel sanctimonious about it.
They objectives.
CR - I may or may not be one of the 'they', but I am definitely losing some very useful rights. Let's assume I am not one of the 'they', what is your argument then?
It's reciprocal
If you're someone who totally depended on the EU rights and wasn't bothered about domestic control (these are a far far smaller number) then yes you might take a different view.
Good answer. As you can guess I value the rights we have lost over the rights we have gained.
What have your previously done with those rights in the EU that you now think you'll no longer be able to do?
I have never had to rely on my right to habeas corpus. That doesn't mean I am not glad it exists.
You should be glad we're out of the EU then, since habeas corpus doesn't exist in most of their legal systems and indeed would have started to have been chipped away by the ECJ here.
You're welcome.
The ECJ has no jurisdiction over criminal law. That's the ECHR, which is not an EU body.
Wrong. You don't understand the Lisbon Treaty, and makes the ECHR rulings justiciable by the ECJ through the CFR of the EU.
Don't try and talk down to me like a 'dumb Brexiter' when I already know more about this subject than you.
It is a matter of fact that the Cummings/Johnson government will preside over the biggest loss of individual freedoms for British citizens there has ever been. The only issue is the extent.
Rubbish.
Nope, this time next year both you and I will have fewer rights and freedoms than we have now. You won't care, I will. But we will still both be affected. Beyond that, we will have to see what happens to our individual liberties once the right to judicial review has been reined in and if the UK has pulled out of the ECHR.
Nope. Next year you will have fewer obligations and justiciable rulings on your rights as a British citizen in this country by foreign courts that don't share our legal principles or values. I consider that greater protection and sovereignty. You will also be granted these rights.
You're welcome.
Speak for yourself. The CJEU shares my values more so than the current Government.
Comments
I thought for a moment that we'd declared UDI and HYUFD had sent the troops in.
The UK Government signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 that led to us becoming EU citizens. This was a political decision with significant ramifications.
The UK electorate had no direct vote on this (remembering all major parties supported it at the time) and nor was it a one way street: it led to obligations and responsibilities as well as rights, one of which was the principle of non-discrimination between our own citizens and those from elsewhere in the EU and it helped turbocharge a process of the ECJ (again, further boosted through the CFR) in believing it was its judiciable right to opine and rule on the rights and criminal law of those same "EU citizens".
I will cry no tears for those who wail about the "loss" of a totally synthesized and artificial construct 27 years after its abominable birth.
You can put the coat back on its peg, I ain’t going out in this.
They haven't considered the real villains. It's not our fault if - like modern 21st century Manchurian candidates - they successfully succumbed to the programming of those who were quite clearly looking to legally manipulate their identity to achieve their own federalist political objectives.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/15/hs2-boris-johnson-london-birmingham-north
Do those who support this not have any appreciation of the bigger picture? They wont be in power forever, and perhaps might want to use judicial review themselves in the future.
Their short-termism knows no bounds.
He fails to mention that the ‘slower speeds’ of HS2 trains is where they will run on classic lines. That’s a tiny fraction of the whole. Some trains to Stafford and Stoke, some to Liverpool, and some trains north of Manchester and Leeds. This is incidentally why when the Birmingham leg has been built pushing on to Manchester and Leeds will be relatively uncontroversial by comparison.
True, HS2 will not carry freight. Would be funny to think of freight charging along at 250 miles an hour. But the 80,000 pathways a year for freight trains on the WCML will dramatically increase in number.
It’s frustrating that opponents of HS2 feel the need to mislead to support their case. Admittedly, he’s not as bad as Joe Rukin, who once claimed there were just ten thousand freight train pathways a year across the whole UK network and that half of them had been given up (the correct figure is 220,000, although his raw figure for the number of cancelled trains is about right). But I think it’s because, as Javid pointed out, once you actually look at it, this is the only logical course to pursue. It offers far more capacity for far less disruption han any other plausible solution.
More consultation time for minor ailments or concerns
Convenience for appointment times
Comfort/luxury after operations
On clinical outcomes there will obviously be examples of good and bad practice whether NHS or private but my impression is that they are of similar quality.
Of the 3 clear benefits I can see, not sure we should be spending much more to offer those as part of the NHS, social care should be a much bigger priority instead. Obviously if we can improve scheduling and appointments with more efficient logistics thats great.
In part this explains the paradox of increased NHS spending while acute medical services, chronic care and high risk surgery all suffer from austerity and cuts. If the pandemic hits big time we will see how rickety the whole structure is.
The only way of stopping it was to delete one of the 2 threads showing up before making my post.
Unfortunately you're one of the most stupid regular posters on the site, so this passed you by.
Discuss.
Now, if you're predominantly based in the UK and only travel to the EU for holidays or for short business trips then this doesn't matter. You have a net gain of rights. Because you now have more domestic control.
If you're someone who totally depended on the EU rights and wasn't bothered about domestic control (these are a far far smaller number) then yes you might take a different view.
How about my obligation to pay £350m a week for this thing I'm under no obligation to use?
This is academic at this point but I'm going to track the polls to see where the high water mark of Johnson's administration is. I don't think we have reached it yet.
Con 45.8 (+1.4)
Lab 31.3 (-1.7)
LD 10.8 (-1.0)
BXP 2.2 (+0.1)
Grn 3.9 ( +1.1)
Seats
Con +13
Lab -13
Con majority 106
Seats changing hands (including Yvette Cooper's)
Could it be as simple as you're just not getting any?
Please point out where I said "it's absolutely fine for the police to go around questioning people over their opinions".
You will never find it because I never said it.
Mr. Gate, it is concerning (as is underfunding of judicial process), although 'Spiderwoman' didn't do herself or her profession any favours by revelling in her takedown of 'the Hulk'.
Out in the world of pavement politics, Labour out in force in East Ham High Street this morning banging the drum for Sadiq Khan ahead of the London Mayoral contest in May.
It did occur to me the 2024 contest might be on the same day as the next GE which hasn't happened before to my knowledge - the 2010 GE took place on the same day as local elections but not a Mayoral contest.
Khan still looks in a commanding position - the last poll from November 2019 is ancient history - with around 45% of the vote. I expect the next poll to show Bailey a more definite second with 25% and Stewart, Benita, Berry all clustering around 10%.
Second preferences will carry Khan home with a huge win so what might change that? It's hard currently to see Bailey not finishing second given residual Conservative strength in the outer suburbs - Stewart is an engaging candidate but struggles to get much media attention as do Benita and Berry but even if Stewart were, by some miracle, to knock Bailey out of second place, he just doesn't have the numbers to worry Khan who can pull in the votes from the inner London strongholds.
The lingering question for me is who Labour might select to follow Khan in 2024 assuming the latter seeks a Westminster MP and perhaps a Cabinet post in a future Labour Government - he is only 49 so has time on his side to be a future senior Labour figure.
It might be symptomatic of whether Labour figures see a possible 2024 GE victory (or at least ousting the Conservatives) or whether they see an inevitable defeat and seek an alternative route. Both Johnson and Khan won London at a time when their parties were in Opposition at Westminster.
I wonder if David Lammy might be tempted to have another go at the Labour nomination in 2024.
'British ships sailed out from Cairnryan in western Scotland to dump weapons in Beaufort’s Dyke from the 1920s to the 1970s, including Allied and German munitions after the second world war. Sometimes the vessels did not reach the dyke, the bombs dumped overboard into shallower waters instead. Detailed records were often destroyed at the time. In 1997 it was acknowledged that radioactive waste had also been dumped in steel drums there in the 1950s after what the then Scotland secretary, Donald Dewar, said was “a discovery of old papers in the Public Records Office”.'
https://tinyurl.com/qmnqz7k
#Solipsistsrus
The Marylebone-B'ham line seems to operate at far below capacity, assuming that it could be upgraded almost to WCML service levels. Other than that, I don't know the answer(s).
Perhaps Boris has a new technique for used ammo clean up?
Boom boom! (As Basil Brush would say)
Bill Bryson, Short History
I won’t paste it all as I believe in IP rights but this captures a flavour:
“When the government loses on judicial review, it is because the courts hold that it has done something that is illegal, or done something it had no power to do. It cannot be an answer to say that it was done for high political reasons or has large political implications.
The problem is not that the courts have too much power. In any civilised system they must have power to quash decisions that are illegal or unauthorised by law. The problem is that the courts have been too ready to treat acts of the executive as illegal or unauthorised because they take a different view of the merits of the underlying policy.
This problem is particularly acute in cases decided under the European Convention on Human Rights. The case law on the convention requires the courts to weigh up competing policy considerations and arrive at their own view of the public interest. It is not unfair to say that this is politics by other means.“
Stewart, Benita and Berry lack those resources so are back to online and social media which work well with younger voters but not so with older voters who tend to stick to Party allegiances for reasons I struggle to comprehend (no I don't, older people tend to me more conservative and Conservative, we know this yet threaten to take away their free TV licences and they'll be after you with the pitchforks).
It's impossible to canvass London - there's quite a lot of it - so making an impact has to be done in other ways which again limits reach.
They are possibly incorrect about that. Workplace plans are poor value for money as they are mostly available for those in work, youngish, healthy and reasonably wealthy. The existing Cinderella public systems do the heavy lifting in terms of health outcomes and covering the old, the unwell and the relative poor that the culinary workers may well become at some stage in their lives. A lot of the other effective healthcare expenditure in the US comes out-of-pocket.
Personally I think Single Payer is a bridge too far for America. You have to work within the system as it is, and I would go for beefing up Obamacare so that workplace plans become standardised and insured whole life - as in Switzerland for example.
Perhaps some of us have yet to appreciate the sheer brilliance of the Johnson-Cummings alliance and have yet to sign up to the transformation of Britain from a failing outpost shackled to a dying centrist elite political bloc to...to... whatever it's going to be with the sunlit uplands, the free trade deals, the streets paved with gold and no one ever having the wobbles.
Would look it up but I'm cooking lunch now!
Lolololololololol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9u41aeItss
I suppose my (again civilian) view is that if the courts don't arbitrate on these issues, who will? Also will this not be a licence for future governments to cry 'this is political' every time they reach a bump in the road with legal and/or constitutional implications? The right of the NI secretary to call for or withhold a border poll might be a case in point.
When you are driving a Roller, you dont join a car swap club where the others all have Allegros!
I think Cummings may be setting himself as a human shield for Boris. If things go wrong then the MPs will go after him first (see what happened with May who had to sacrifice Hill and Timothy). Cummings recently said on his job advert he was looking to make himself redundant in a year anyway
With the leader ratings I think you have to be careful. The divisiveness of Brexit has meant that it is heard for any politician to get the sort of rating Blair did.
The election showed that there is a group of remainers who don't like Boris but may be prepared to at least tolerate him if the alternative is worse.
[1] The “North of London” stock worked domestic non-high speed services on the East Coast Mainline for a while and then ended up with SNCF operating TGV services. The sleeper stock was sold to VIA Rail, the Canadian Amtrak.
You're welcome.
It's been the same since the referendum when anyone who dared to suggest there may be downsides to Brexit was howled down with cries of "Project Fear".
Fortunately we are rapidly approaching the time when the talking ends and something has to be delivered.
For example, there is a group of progressive lawyers I sometimes drink with.
They (to a man and woman) want to de-criminalise completely minor crime - not even a court appearance for shop lifting etc. When I mentioned the rights of shop keepers, the invective that was cast upon their heads was... interesting. I then suggested that if society withdrew legal protection for property, then property owners might well resort to the law of Hot Trod*. To which they replied that anyone doing so was evil scum and should be harshly dealt with.
Their vision of government is not by/with/or/from the people. The people are cattle to be organised.
That doesn't detract from my point.
You're welcome.
Don't try and talk down to me like a 'dumb Brexiter' when I already know more about this subject than you.