I was speaking to a former SPAD today and they said the expectation at Westminster and the EU is that it'll be like the withdrawal agreement all over again.
The PM will capitulate to the EU and lie outright (like he did to the ERG and the DUP) about his brilliant new deal.
Oh, I'm sure that's true, but it doesn't help much on this point, which is about the readiness (or rather the near-total unreadiness) of the computer and administrative systems which will be needed irrespective of whether there is a deal. This is true both in government and in the businesses which are going to have to implement all this extra red tape. The situation has of course been made much worse by the fact that Covid-19 will have disrupted the whole public and private sector for months.
The expectation is that apart from FOM it might end up being quite BINO with a long transition period, so plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Virtual certainty imo.
Purely politically, there's a mad logic to that.
Suppose you've realised that a Brexit Culture War is a good way to keep the old gang together, and that a 2024 election on "Boris's True Brexit vs Starmer's Single Market" is the way to go.
Suppose you know that True Brexit in 2021 will make you Historical Enemy Number One / stop you playing with all the cool toys you've just won. What do you do?
Sign up for a 3 year extension that isn't an extension. Basically exchange Free Movement for any say in the rules. At a bargain price of, say, £250 million per week?
Nothing too bad will happen to the economy. You've saved millions of pounds. You can carry on negotiating new trade deals, in much the same way that Winston Smith worked on the Newspeak dictionary at the end of 1984. And you get another cliff edge to hype everyone up in 2024. What's not to like?
It requires masses of chutzpah to pull it off, but that's one of the things No 10 has in excess...
It contradicts Johnson's 2019 message of the need to 'Get Brexit Done'. Much of the appeal derived from people being heartily sick of the issue and its associated paralysis.If - despite an 80 majority - he has failed to do that, I seriously doubt it will help him electorally by 2024.
That's the corner he's painted himself into, though.
His support in the Conservative Party and the country is held together by the sticky tape of "Brexit Is In Peril. Defend It With All Your Might (by following me)." And that Brexit still needs to be kept pretty abstract; he needs the globalists and the localists, and his genius so far has been to keep pretty much everyone onboard. The paranoia has helped, and Remain/Soft Brexit backers did play into his hands last autumn by making it look like Brexit was in peril.
Without the anxiety, or with a specific model that forces some people to say "That's Not My Brexit", the coalition starts to fall apart. Because voters are never grateful in retrospect; ask the ghost of Winston Churchill. So how do you keep the gang together? A temporary bodge for a few years, with the real decision after 2024, is a neat, cynical way of doing that.
He basically needs a trade deal, any deal, with the EU to keep Remain voting areas in the South and to deliver an end to free movement to keep the Red Wall.
Few voters care about regulatory alignment on widget making bar obsessives
Disagree entirely. That may be good enough for a year or two after the whole “we got a deal wank-a-thon”, but voters will care about unforeseeable side effects of such a deal. Higher unemployment, industry closing down, possible drop in food standards. Who knows.
It’s a risk.
I don't think you can include 'a drop in food standards' as a noticeable effect. Even if we go full 'chlorine chicken', it won't make good food less available, it will just result in more choice, lower prices, and yes, even crappier food at the crappy end.
Don't get me wrong, I hope we don't let in chlorine chicken, and don't anticipate the negative effects you outline, but were those things to hit, the food one wouldn't be a noticeable drawback. It'd be counted as a plus.
We don’t know that. Who knows what sort of campaigns might capture the public’s imagination? “Poor people forced eat chlorine chicken” advertising? Who knows. That’s what I’m saying - unforeseeable consequences. Thus predicting the next election based on a “deal” now is crazy-talk.
Even Americans aren't forced to eat chlorine chicken. They eat it because it's cheaper and they can get bigger portions of good tasting chicken for less. You can't sell that as a drawback to someone, because until they come down with a dose of gastroenteritis, it isn't a drawback. If it isn't popular, it won't sell, so no issue there. If it is popular, it's just more consumer choice. I say that as someone who wouldn't touch the filthy stuff with a ten foot pole.
I think many forget that chlorine is in our drinking water. We consume it every day. The chlorinated chicken thing is a media scare story.
It's not the chlorine but the bacteria which it sort of covers up which comprise the real problem, thanks to bad keeping practices.
It doesn't cover it up, it kills the bacteria. That's why its used.
Precisely. It means that lower rearing standards can be used - no need for farmers to worry about bacteria because the chickens will be chlorinated.
Personally, I'd rather have my chicken without bacteria, dead or alive.
Personally I couldn't care less. I know full well my raw food has bacteria, that's why I cook it properly.
Depends whether you care about how healthy a life the animal you are eating has had I guess. You obviously couldn't care less.
Actually I do. I wouldn't have argued if that was the argument made, it is going on about chlorine that I disagree with.
If you wish to say America has lower animal welfare standards just say that.
America has lower animal welfare standards. Chlorinating chicken is both a symptom and an enabler of that.
While the animal welfare standards in the rest of the countries around the globe we import from is absolutely perfect? There's never any animal welfare issues in Thailand for instance?
If we wish to make animal welfare an issue then make animal welfare an issue. Don't hide behind other things.
I will be OK after the US trade deal drops food standards at mainstream supermarkets to third world levels. I use local butchers and greengrocers. I also use Waitrose and a couple of German delicatessens.
It's all those poor folk that have to use Tesco, Asda and Morrisons I fear for.
I was speaking to a former SPAD today and they said the expectation at Westminster and the EU is that it'll be like the withdrawal agreement all over again.
The PM will capitulate to the EU and lie outright (like he did to the ERG and the DUP) about his brilliant new deal.
Oh, I'm sure that's true, but it doesn't help much on this point, which is about the readiness (or rather the near-total unreadiness) of the computer and administrative systems which will be needed irrespective of whether there is a deal. This is true both in government and in the businesses which are going to have to implement all this extra red tape. The situation has of course been made much worse by the fact that Covid-19 will have disrupted the whole public and private sector for months.
The expectation is that apart from FOM it might end up being quite BINO with a long transition period, so plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Virtual certainty imo.
Purely politically, there's a mad logic to that.
Suppose you've realised that a Brexit Culture War is a good way to keep the old gang together, and that a 2024 election on "Boris's True Brexit vs Starmer's Single Market" is the way to go.
Suppose you know that True Brexit in 2021 will make you Historical Enemy Number One / stop you playing with all the cool toys you've just won. What do you do?
Sign up for a 3 year extension that isn't an extension. Basically exchange Free Movement for any say in the rules. At a bargain price of, say, £250 million per week?
Nothing too bad will happen to the economy. You've saved millions of pounds. You can carry on negotiating new trade deals, in much the same way that Winston Smith worked on the Newspeak dictionary at the end of 1984. And you get another cliff edge to hype everyone up in 2024. What's not to like?
It requires masses of chutzpah to pull it off, but that's one of the things No 10 has in excess...
It contradicts Johnson's 2019 message of the need to 'Get Brexit Done'. Much of the appeal derived from people being heartily sick of the issue and its associated paralysis.If - despite an 80 majority - he has failed to do that, I seriously doubt it will help him electorally by 2024.
That's the corner he's painted himself into, though.
His support in the Conservative Party and the country is held together by the sticky tape of "Brexit Is In Peril. Defend It With All Your Might (by following me)." And that Brexit still needs to be kept pretty abstract; he needs the globalists and the localists, and his genius so far has been to keep pretty much everyone onboard. The paranoia has helped, and Remain/Soft Brexit backers did play into his hands last autumn by making it look like Brexit was in peril.
Without the anxiety, or with a specific model that forces some people to say "That's Not My Brexit", the coalition starts to fall apart. Because voters are never grateful in retrospect; ask the ghost of Winston Churchill. So how do you keep the gang together? A temporary bodge for a few years, with the real decision after 2024, is a neat, cynical way of doing that.
He basically needs a trade deal, any deal, with the EU to keep Remain voting areas in the South and to deliver an end to free movement to keep the Red Wall.
Few voters care about regulatory alignment on widget making bar obsessives
Disagree entirely. That may be good enough for a year or two after the whole “we got a deal wank-a-thon”, but voters will care about unforeseeable side effects of such a deal. Higher unemployment, industry closing down, possible drop in food standards. Who knows.
It’s a risk.
I don't think you can include 'a drop in food standards' as a noticeable effect. Even if we go full 'chlorine chicken', it won't make good food less available, it will just result in more choice, lower prices, and yes, even crappier food at the crappy end.
Don't get me wrong, I hope we don't let in chlorine chicken, and don't anticipate the negative effects you outline, but were those things to hit, the food one wouldn't be a noticeable drawback. It'd be counted as a plus.
Do you think most people know where the chicken on their pizza comes from? Where the processed chicken on their subway comes from? Where the chicken in their tikka masala comes from? Of course if you ask people whether they would eat chlorinated chicken they will say no. The effects of this story are all in the appearance of it. There isn't a 'later' effect of it actually being enacted, because it doesn't lessen the availability of nice chicken that nice people buy, it just makes shitty chicken cheaper. It has no negative impact*
*until it starts affecting people's overall health in the long term, which is untraceable.
A whole chicken is £3 in my co op. How much cheaper do you expect the lower standards to be?
I won't be touching that stuff, and anyone who tries to sell it as an advantage is going to find it as popular as a turd in a swimming pool.
You're preaching to the choir, I agree. But Gallowgate was saying that it could be that the public will turn on 'a decline in food standards' as a Brexit outcome. I am merely demonstrating that such a decline is effectively invisible, so cannot really emerge as a grievance.
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
We were always free to leave, but that doesn't make us as free as we are having left.
You may not like our extra freedoms but we have them.
I liked my former freedoms to travel, work and live throughout the EU.
I suspect we will find we have given those up and yet still end up following EU rules, rules over which we now have no power to influence.
I was speaking to a former SPAD today and they said the expectation at Westminster and the EU is that it'll be like the withdrawal agreement all over again.
The PM will capitulate to the EU and lie outright (like he did to the ERG and the DUP) about his brilliant new deal.
Oh, I'm sure that's true, but it doesn't help much on this point, which is about the readiness (or rather the near-total unreadiness) of the computer and administrative systems which will be needed irrespective of whether there is a deal. This is true both in government and in the businesses which are going to have to implement all this extra red tape. The situation has of course been made much worse by the fact that Covid-19 will have disrupted the whole public and private sector for months.
The expectation is that apart from FOM it might end up being quite BINO with a long transition period, so plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Virtual certainty imo.
Purely politically, there's a mad logic to that.
Suppose you've realised that a Brexit Culture War is a good way to keep the old gang together, and that a 2024 election on "Boris's True Brexit vs Starmer's Single Market" is the way to go.
Suppose you know that True Brexit in 2021 will make you Historical Enemy Number One / stop you playing with all the cool toys you've just won. What do you do?
Sign up for a 3 year extension that isn't an extension. Basically exchange Free Movement for any say in the rules. At a bargain price of, say, £250 million per week?
Nothing too bad will happen to the economy. You've saved millions of pounds. You can carry on negotiating new trade deals, in much the same way that Winston Smith worked on the Newspeak dictionary at the end of 1984. And you get another cliff edge to hype everyone up in 2024. What's not to like?
It requires masses of chutzpah to pull it off, but that's one of the things No 10 has in excess...
It contradicts Johnson's 2019 message of the need to 'Get Brexit Done'. Much of the appeal derived from people being heartily sick of the issue and its associated paralysis.If - despite an 80 majority - he has failed to do that, I seriously doubt it will help him electorally by 2024.
That's the corner he's painted himself into, though.
His support in the Conservative Party and the country is held together by the sticky tape of "Brexit Is In Peril. Defend It With All Your Might (by following me)." And that Brexit still needs to be kept pretty abstract; he needs the globalists and the localists, and his genius so far has been to keep pretty much everyone onboard. The paranoia has helped, and Remain/Soft Brexit backers did play into his hands last autumn by making it look like Brexit was in peril.
Without the anxiety, or with a specific model that forces some people to say "That's Not My Brexit", the coalition starts to fall apart. Because voters are never grateful in retrospect; ask the ghost of Winston Churchill. So how do you keep the gang together? A temporary bodge for a few years, with the real decision after 2024, is a neat, cynical way of doing that.
He basically needs a trade deal, any deal, with the EU to keep Remain voting areas in the South and to deliver an end to free movement to keep the Red Wall.
Few voters care about regulatory alignment on widget making bar obsessives
Disagree entirely. That may be good enough for a year or two after the whole “we got a deal wank-a-thon”, but voters will care about unforeseeable side effects of such a deal. Higher unemployment, industry closing down, possible drop in food standards. Who knows.
It’s a risk.
I don't think you can include 'a drop in food standards' as a noticeable effect. Even if we go full 'chlorine chicken', it won't make good food less available, it will just result in more choice, lower prices, and yes, even crappier food at the crappy end.
Don't get me wrong, I hope we don't let in chlorine chicken, and don't anticipate the negative effects you outline, but were those things to hit, the food one wouldn't be a noticeable drawback. It'd be counted as a plus.
"There was me, that is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, and my three droogs, that is Priti, Govey, and Dom, and we sat in the Kensington Milkbar trying to make up our Raab-oodocks what to do with the evening. The Kensington Milkbar sold Milk-Plus, milk plus Corn Syrup or GM Soya or Chlorinated Chicken, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old No-Deal Brexit."
I was speaking to a former SPAD today and they said the expectation at Westminster and the EU is that it'll be like the withdrawal agreement all over again.
The PM will capitulate to the EU and lie outright (like he did to the ERG and the DUP) about his brilliant new deal.
Oh, I'm sure that's true, but it doesn't help much on this point, which is about the readiness (or rather the near-total unreadiness) of the computer and administrative systems which will be needed irrespective of whether there is a deal. This is true both in government and in the businesses which are going to have to implement all this extra red tape. The situation has of course been made much worse by the fact that Covid-19 will have disrupted the whole public and private sector for months.
The expectation is that apart from FOM it might end up being quite BINO with a long transition period, so plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Virtual certainty imo.
Purely politically, there's a mad logic to that.
Suppose you've realised that a Brexit Culture War is a good way to keep the old gang together, and that a 2024 election on "Boris's True Brexit vs Starmer's Single Market" is the way to go.
Suppose you know that True Brexit in 2021 will make you Historical Enemy Number One / stop you playing with all the cool toys you've just won. What do you do?
Sign up for a 3 year extension that isn't an extension. Basically exchange Free Movement for any say in the rules. At a bargain price of, say, £250 million per week?
Nothing too bad will happen to the economy. You've saved millions of pounds. You can carry on negotiating new trade deals, in much the same way that Winston Smith worked on the Newspeak dictionary at the end of 1984. And you get another cliff edge to hype everyone up in 2024. What's not to like?
It requires masses of chutzpah to pull it off, but that's one of the things No 10 has in excess...
It contradicts Johnson's 2019 message of the need to 'Get Brexit Done'. Much of the appeal derived from people being heartily sick of the issue and its associated paralysis.If - despite an 80 majority - he has failed to do that, I seriously doubt it will help him electorally by 2024.
That's the corner he's painted himself into, though.
His support in the Conservative Party and the country is held together by the sticky tape of "Brexit Is In Peril. Defend It With All Your Might (by following me)." And that Brexit still needs to be kept pretty abstract; he needs the globalists and the localists, and his genius so far has been to keep pretty much everyone onboard. The paranoia has helped, and Remain/Soft Brexit backers did play into his hands last autumn by making it look like Brexit was in peril.
Without the anxiety, or with a specific model that forces some people to say "That's Not My Brexit", the coalition starts to fall apart. Because voters are never grateful in retrospect; ask the ghost of Winston Churchill. So how do you keep the gang together? A temporary bodge for a few years, with the real decision after 2024, is a neat, cynical way of doing that.
He basically needs a trade deal, any deal, with the EU to keep Remain voting areas in the South and to deliver an end to free movement to keep the Red Wall.
Few voters care about regulatory alignment on widget making bar obsessives
Disagree entirely. That may be good enough for a year or two after the whole “we got a deal wank-a-thon”, but voters will care about unforeseeable side effects of such a deal. Higher unemployment, industry closing down, possible drop in food standards. Who knows.
It’s a risk.
I don't think you can include 'a drop in food standards' as a noticeable effect. Even if we go full 'chlorine chicken', it won't make good food less available, it will just result in more choice, lower prices, and yes, even crappier food at the crappy end.
Don't get me wrong, I hope we don't let in chlorine chicken, and don't anticipate the negative effects you outline, but were those things to hit, the food one wouldn't be a noticeable drawback. It'd be counted as a plus.
We don’t know that. Who knows what sort of campaigns might capture the public’s imagination? “Poor people forced eat chlorine chicken” advertising? Who knows. That’s what I’m saying - unforeseeable consequences. Thus predicting the next election based on a “deal” now is crazy-talk.
Even Americans aren't forced to eat chlorine chicken. They eat it because it's cheaper and they can get bigger portions of good tasting chicken for less. You can't sell that as a drawback to someone, because until they come down with a dose of gastroenteritis, it isn't a drawback. If it isn't popular, it won't sell, so no issue there. If it is popular, it's just more consumer choice. I say that as someone who wouldn't touch the filthy stuff with a ten foot pole.
I think many forget that chlorine is in our drinking water. We consume it every day. The chlorinated chicken thing is a media scare story.
It's not the chlorine but the bacteria which it sort of covers up which comprise the real problem, thanks to bad keeping practices.
It doesn't cover it up, it kills the bacteria. That's why its used.
Precisely. It means that lower rearing standards can be used - no need for farmers to worry about bacteria because the chickens will be chlorinated.
Personally, I'd rather have my chicken without bacteria, dead or alive.
Personally I couldn't care less. I know full well my raw food has bacteria, that's why I cook it properly.
Depends whether you care about how healthy a life the animal you are eating has had I guess. You obviously couldn't care less.
Actually I do. I wouldn't have argued if that was the argument made, it is going on about chlorine that I disagree with.
If you wish to say America has lower animal welfare standards just say that.
America has lower animal welfare standards. Chlorinating chicken is both a symptom and an enabler of that.
While the animal welfare standards in the rest of the countries around the globe we import from is absolutely perfect? There's never any animal welfare issues in Thailand for instance?
If we wish to make animal welfare an issue then make animal welfare an issue. Don't hide behind other things.
I will be OK after the US trade deal drops food standards at mainstream supermarkets to third world levels. I use local butchers and greengrocers. I also use Waitrose and a couple of German delicatessens.
It's all those poor folk that have to use Tesco, Asda and Morrisons I fear for.
We already import from the third world. Animal welfare is already an issue, we just like to pretend it isn't and act all arrogant.
If you want to give a damn about animal welfare - and I do - then do something about it. I do.
Because I care about animal welfare I buy Red Tractor approved chicken. That guarantees the welfare of the animal. Simply forbidding a practice of chlorine washing does not. The animal welfare standards across the globe that we import from already today are not the same as ours and pretending they are just because we ban the Yankees from exporting to us DOES NOT improve animal welfare.
I was speaking to a former SPAD today and they said the expectation at Westminster and the EU is that it'll be like the withdrawal agreement all over again.
The PM will capitulate to the EU and lie outright (like he did to the ERG and the DUP) about his brilliant new deal.
Oh, I'm sure that's true, but it doesn't help much on this point, which is about the readiness (or rather the near-total unreadiness) of the computer and administrative systems which will be needed irrespective of whether there is a deal. This is true both in government and in the businesses which are going to have to implement all this extra red tape. The situation has of course been made much worse by the fact that Covid-19 will have disrupted the whole public and private sector for months.
The expectation is that apart from FOM it might end up being quite BINO with a long transition period, so plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Virtual certainty imo.
Purely politically, there's a mad logic to that.
Suppose you've realised that a Brexit Culture War is a good way to keep the old gang together, and that a 2024 election on "Boris's True Brexit vs Starmer's Single Market" is the way to go.
Suppose you know that True Brexit in 2021 will make you Historical Enemy Number One / stop you playing with all the cool toys you've just won. What do you do?
Sign up for a 3 year extension that isn't an extension. Basically exchange Free Movement for any say in the rules. At a bargain price of, say, £250 million per week?
Nothing too bad will happen to the economy. You've saved millions of pounds. You can carry on negotiating new trade deals, in much the same way that Winston Smith worked on the Newspeak dictionary at the end of 1984. And you get another cliff edge to hype everyone up in 2024. What's not to like?
It requires masses of chutzpah to pull it off, but that's one of the things No 10 has in excess...
It contradicts Johnson's 2019 message of the need to 'Get Brexit Done'. Much of the appeal derived from people being heartily sick of the issue and its associated paralysis.If - despite an 80 majority - he has failed to do that, I seriously doubt it will help him electorally by 2024.
That's the corner he's painted himself into, though.
His support in the Conservative Party and the country is held together by the sticky tape of "Brexit Is In Peril. Defend It With All Your Might (by following me)." And that Brexit still needs to be kept pretty abstract; he needs the globalists and the localists, and his genius so far has been to keep pretty much everyone onboard. The paranoia has helped, and Remain/Soft Brexit backers did play into his hands last autumn by making it look like Brexit was in peril.
Without the anxiety, or with a specific model that forces some people to say "That's Not My Brexit", the coalition starts to fall apart. Because voters are never grateful in retrospect; ask the ghost of Winston Churchill. So how do you keep the gang together? A temporary bodge for a few years, with the real decision after 2024, is a neat, cynical way of doing that.
He basically needs a trade deal, any deal, with the EU to keep Remain voting areas in the South and to deliver an end to free movement to keep the Red Wall.
Few voters care about regulatory alignment on widget making bar obsessives
Disagree entirely. That may be good enough for a year or two after the whole “we got a deal wank-a-thon”, but voters will care about unforeseeable side effects of such a deal. Higher unemployment, industry closing down, possible drop in food standards. Who knows.
It’s a risk.
I don't think you can include 'a drop in food standards' as a noticeable effect. Even if we go full 'chlorine chicken', it won't make good food less available, it will just result in more choice, lower prices, and yes, even crappier food at the crappy end.
Don't get me wrong, I hope we don't let in chlorine chicken, and don't anticipate the negative effects you outline, but were those things to hit, the food one wouldn't be a noticeable drawback. It'd be counted as a plus.
We don’t know that. Who knows what sort of campaigns might capture the public’s imagination? “Poor people forced eat chlorine chicken” advertising? Who knows. That’s what I’m saying - unforeseeable consequences. Thus predicting the next election based on a “deal” now is crazy-talk.
Even Americans aren't forced to eat chlorine chicken. They eat it because it's cheaper and they can get bigger portions of good tasting chicken for less. You can't sell that as a drawback to someone, because until they come down with a dose of gastroenteritis, it isn't a drawback. If it isn't popular, it won't sell, so no issue there. If it is popular, it's just more consumer choice. I say that as someone who wouldn't touch the filthy stuff with a ten foot pole.
I think many forget that chlorine is in our drinking water. We consume it every day. The chlorinated chicken thing is a media scare story.
It's not the chlorine but the bacteria which it sort of covers up which comprise the real problem, thanks to bad keeping practices.
It doesn't cover it up, it kills the bacteria. That's why its used.
Precisely. It means that lower rearing standards can be used - no need for farmers to worry about bacteria because the chickens will be chlorinated.
Personally, I'd rather have my chicken without bacteria, dead or alive.
Personally I couldn't care less. I know full well my raw food has bacteria, that's why I cook it properly.
Depends whether you care about how healthy a life the animal you are eating has had I guess. You obviously couldn't care less.
Actually I do. I wouldn't have argued if that was the argument made, it is going on about chlorine that I disagree with.
If you wish to say America has lower animal welfare standards just say that.
America has lower animal welfare standards. Chlorinating chicken is both a symptom and an enabler of that.
While the animal welfare standards in the rest of the countries around the globe we import from is absolutely perfect? There's never any animal welfare issues in Thailand for instance?
If we wish to make animal welfare an issue then make animal welfare an issue. Don't hide behind other things.
I will be OK after the US trade deal drops food standards at mainstream supermarkets to third world levels. I use local butchers and greengrocers. I also use Waitrose and a couple of German delicatessens.
It's all those poor folk that have to use Tesco, Asda and Morrisons I fear for.
Nah. Aldi are refusing it. They are cheap, but care about adulteration.
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
We were always free to leave, but that doesn't make us as free as we are having left.
You may not like our extra freedoms but we have them.
I liked my former freedoms to travel, work and live throughout the EU.
I suspect we will find we have given those up and yet still end up following EU rules, rules over which we now have no power to influence.
We have different freedoms now but it is a simple matter of fact (not bonkers) that we are more free (in some respects) than we were.
If we have new freedoms but choose not to exercise them we still have more freedoms.
I was speaking to a former SPAD today and they said the expectation at Westminster and the EU is that it'll be like the withdrawal agreement all over again.
The PM will capitulate to the EU and lie outright (like he did to the ERG and the DUP) about his brilliant new deal.
Oh, I'm sure that's true, but it doesn't help much on this point, which is about the readiness (or rather the near-total unreadiness) of the computer and administrative systems which will be needed irrespective of whether there is a deal. This is true both in government and in the businesses which are going to have to implement all this extra red tape. The situation has of course been made much worse by the fact that Covid-19 will have disrupted the whole public and private sector for months.
The expectation is that apart from FOM it might end up being quite BINO with a long transition period, so plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Virtual certainty imo.
Purely politically, there's a mad logic to that.
Suppose you've realised that a Brexit Culture War is a good way to keep the old gang together, and that a 2024 election on "Boris's True Brexit vs Starmer's Single Market" is the way to go.
Suppose you know that True Brexit in 2021 will make you Historical Enemy Number One / stop you playing with all the cool toys you've just won. What do you do?
Sign up for a 3 year extension that isn't an extension. Basically exchange Free Movement for any say in the rules. At a bargain price of, say, £250 million per week?
Nothing too bad will happen to the economy. You've saved millions of pounds. You can carry on negotiating new trade deals, in much the same way that Winston Smith worked on the Newspeak dictionary at the end of 1984. And you get another cliff edge to hype everyone up in 2024. What's not to like?
It requires masses of chutzpah to pull it off, but that's one of the things No 10 has in excess...
It contradicts Johnson's 2019 message of the need to 'Get Brexit Done'. Much of the appeal derived from people being heartily sick of the issue and its associated paralysis.If - despite an 80 majority - he has failed to do that, I seriously doubt it will help him electorally by 2024.
That's the corner he's painted himself into, though.
His support in the Conservative Party and the country is held together by the sticky tape of "Brexit Is In Peril. Defend It With All Your Might (by following me)." And that Brexit still needs to be kept pretty abstract; he needs the globalists and the localists, and his genius so far has been to keep pretty much everyone onboard. The paranoia has helped, and Remain/Soft Brexit backers did play into his hands last autumn by making it look like Brexit was in peril.
Without the anxiety, or with a specific model that forces some people to say "That's Not My Brexit", the coalition starts to fall apart. Because voters are never grateful in retrospect; ask the ghost of Winston Churchill. So how do you keep the gang together? A temporary bodge for a few years, with the real decision after 2024, is a neat, cynical way of doing that.
He basically needs a trade deal, any deal, with the EU to keep Remain voting areas in the South and to deliver an end to free movement to keep the Red Wall.
Few voters care about regulatory alignment on widget making bar obsessives
Disagree entirely. That may be good enough for a year or two after the whole “we got a deal wank-a-thon”, but voters will care about unforeseeable side effects of such a deal. Higher unemployment, industry closing down, possible drop in food standards. Who knows.
It’s a risk.
I don't think you can include 'a drop in food standards' as a noticeable effect. Even if we go full 'chlorine chicken', it won't make good food less available, it will just result in more choice, lower prices, and yes, even crappier food at the crappy end.
Don't get me wrong, I hope we don't let in chlorine chicken, and don't anticipate the negative effects you outline, but were those things to hit, the food one wouldn't be a noticeable drawback. It'd be counted as a plus.
We don’t know that. Who knows what sort of campaigns might capture the public’s imagination? “Poor people forced eat chlorine chicken” advertising? Who knows. That’s what I’m saying - unforeseeable consequences. Thus predicting the next election based on a “deal” now is crazy-talk.
Even Americans aren't forced to eat chlorine chicken. They eat it because it's cheaper and they can get bigger portions of good tasting chicken for less. You can't sell that as a drawback to someone, because until they come down with a dose of gastroenteritis, it isn't a drawback. If it isn't popular, it won't sell, so no issue there. If it is popular, it's just more consumer choice. I say that as someone who wouldn't touch the filthy stuff with a ten foot pole.
I think many forget that chlorine is in our drinking water. We consume it every day. The chlorinated chicken thing is a media scare story.
It's not the chlorine but the bacteria which it sort of covers up which comprise the real problem, thanks to bad keeping practices.
It doesn't cover it up, it kills the bacteria. That's why its used.
Precisely. It means that lower rearing standards can be used - no need for farmers to worry about bacteria because the chickens will be chlorinated.
Personally, I'd rather have my chicken without bacteria, dead or alive.
Personally I couldn't care less. I know full well my raw food has bacteria, that's why I cook it properly.
Depends whether you care about how healthy a life the animal you are eating has had I guess. You obviously couldn't care less.
Actually I do. I wouldn't have argued if that was the argument made, it is going on about chlorine that I disagree with.
If you wish to say America has lower animal welfare standards just say that.
America has lower animal welfare standards. Chlorinating chicken is both a symptom and an enabler of that.
While the animal welfare standards in the rest of the countries around the globe we import from is absolutely perfect? There's never any animal welfare issues in Thailand for instance?
If we wish to make animal welfare an issue then make animal welfare an issue. Don't hide behind other things.
I will be OK after the US trade deal drops food standards at mainstream supermarkets to third world levels. I use local butchers and greengrocers. I also use Waitrose and a couple of German delicatessens.
It's all those poor folk that have to use Tesco, Asda and Morrisons I fear for.
Nah. Aldi are refusing it. They are cheap, but care about adulteration.
Aldi was one of the German delicatessens referred to.
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
We were always free to leave, but that doesn't make us as free as we are having left.
You may not like our extra freedoms but we have them.
I liked my former freedoms to travel, work and live throughout the EU.
I suspect we will find we have given those up and yet still end up following EU rules, rules over which we now have no power to influence.
We have different freedoms now but it is a simple matter of fact (not bonkers) that we are more free (in some respects) than we were.
If we have new freedoms but choose not to exercise them we still have more freedoms.
Are we going to have the freedom to refuse adulterated American foods as a nation?
Pushing that crap is not going to go down well with either British farmers or consumers. Just with the US agribusiness and their shills amongst the Brexiteers. It should shift a few votes in key demographics into the opposition.
I was speaking to a former SPAD today and they said the expectation at Westminster and the EU is that it'll be like the withdrawal agreement all over again.
The PM will capitulate to the EU and lie outright (like he did to the ERG and the DUP) about his brilliant new deal.
Oh, I'm sure that's true, but it doesn't help much on this point, which is about the readiness (or rather the near-total unreadiness) of the computer and administrative systems which will be needed irrespective of whether there is a deal. This is true both in government and in the businesses which are going to have to implement all this extra red tape. The situation has of course been made much worse by the fact that Covid-19 will have disrupted the whole public and private sector for months.
The expectation is that apart from FOM it might end up being quite BINO with a long transition period, so plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Virtual certainty imo.
Purely politically, there's a mad logic to that.
Suppose you've realised that a Brexit Culture War is a good way to keep the old gang together, and that a 2024 election on "Boris's True Brexit vs Starmer's Single Market" is the way to go.
Suppose you know that True Brexit in 2021 will make you Historical Enemy Number One / stop you playing with all the cool toys you've just won. What do you do?
Sign up for a 3 year extension that isn't an extension. Basically exchange Free Movement for any say in the rules. At a bargain price of, say, £250 million per week?
Nothing too bad will happen to the economy. You've saved millions of pounds. You can carry on negotiating new trade deals, in much the same way that Winston Smith worked on the Newspeak dictionary at the end of 1984. And you get another cliff edge to hype everyone up in 2024. What's not to like?
It requires masses of chutzpah to pull it off, but that's one of the things No 10 has in excess...
It contradicts Johnson's 2019 message of the need to 'Get Brexit Done'. Much of the appeal derived from people being heartily sick of the issue and its associated paralysis.If - despite an 80 majority - he has failed to do that, I seriously doubt it will help him electorally by 2024.
That's the corner he's painted himself into, though.
His support in the Conservative Party and the country is held together by the sticky tape of "Brexit Is In Peril. Defend It With All Your Might (by following me)." And that Brexit still needs to be kept pretty abstract; he needs the globalists and the localists, and his genius so far has been to keep pretty much everyone onboard. The paranoia has helped, and Remain/Soft Brexit backers did play into his hands last autumn by making it look like Brexit was in peril.
Without the anxiety, or with a specific model that forces some people to say "That's Not My Brexit", the coalition starts to fall apart. Because voters are never grateful in retrospect; ask the ghost of Winston Churchill. So how do you keep the gang together? A temporary bodge for a few years, with the real decision after 2024, is a neat, cynical way of doing that.
He basically needs a trade deal, any deal, with the EU to keep Remain voting areas in the South and to deliver an end to free movement to keep the Red Wall.
Few voters care about regulatory alignment on widget making bar obsessives
Disagree entirely. That may be good enough for a year or two after the whole “we got a deal wank-a-thon”, but voters will care about unforeseeable side effects of such a deal. Higher unemployment, industry closing down, possible drop in food standards. Who knows.
It’s a risk.
I don't think you can include 'a drop in food standards' as a noticeable effect. Even if we go full 'chlorine chicken', it won't make good food less available, it will just result in more choice, lower prices, and yes, even crappier food at the crappy end.
Don't get me wrong, I hope we don't let in chlorine chicken, and don't anticipate the negative effects you outline, but were those things to hit, the food one wouldn't be a noticeable drawback. It'd be counted as a plus.
We don’t know that. Who knows what sort of campaigns might capture the public’s imagination? “Poor people forced eat chlorine chicken” advertising? Who knows. That’s what I’m saying - unforeseeable consequences. Thus predicting the next election based on a “deal” now is crazy-talk.
Even Americans aren't forced to eat chlorine chicken. They eat it because it's cheaper and they can get bigger portions of good tasting chicken for less. You can't sell that as a drawback to someone, because until they come down with a dose of gastroenteritis, it isn't a drawback. If it isn't popular, it won't sell, so no issue there. If it is popular, it's just more consumer choice. I say that as someone who wouldn't touch the filthy stuff with a ten foot pole.
I think many forget that chlorine is in our drinking water. We consume it every day. The chlorinated chicken thing is a media scare story.
It's not the chlorine but the bacteria which it sort of covers up which comprise the real problem, thanks to bad keeping practices.
It doesn't cover it up, it kills the bacteria. That's why its used.
Precisely. It means that lower rearing standards can be used - no need for farmers to worry about bacteria because the chickens will be chlorinated.
Personally, I'd rather have my chicken without bacteria, dead or alive.
Personally I couldn't care less. I know full well my raw food has bacteria, that's why I cook it properly.
Depends whether you care about how healthy a life the animal you are eating has had I guess. You obviously couldn't care less.
Actually I do. I wouldn't have argued if that was the argument made, it is going on about chlorine that I disagree with.
If you wish to say America has lower animal welfare standards just say that.
America has lower animal welfare standards. Chlorinating chicken is both a symptom and an enabler of that.
While the animal welfare standards in the rest of the countries around the globe we import from is absolutely perfect? There's never any animal welfare issues in Thailand for instance?
If we wish to make animal welfare an issue then make animal welfare an issue. Don't hide behind other things.
I will be OK after the US trade deal drops food standards at mainstream supermarkets to third world levels. I use local butchers and greengrocers. I also use Waitrose and a couple of German delicatessens.
It's all those poor folk that have to use Tesco, Asda and Morrisons I fear for.
We already import from the third world. Animal welfare is already an issue, we just like to pretend it isn't and act all arrogant.
If you want to give a damn about animal welfare - and I do - then do something about it. I do.
Because I care about animal welfare I buy Red Tractor approved chicken. That guarantees the welfare of the animal. Simply forbidding a practice of chlorine washing does not. The animal welfare standards across the globe that we import from already today are not the same as ours and pretending they are just because we ban the Yankees from exporting to us DOES NOT improve animal welfare.
Feel free to enjoy your chlorinated chicken. It is not the chlorine or the chicken that I am repelled by, it it the fact that the chlorine is there to disinfect s***! I am not planning on eating s***!
Surely any trade deal with the USA is virtually impossible in the next couple of years? It requires agreement between the President, Senate and House which makes any discussions with the current government pointless. Its just about possible if Biden wins and they win the Senate, but why on earth is it a priority for them?
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
We were always free to leave, but that doesn't make us as free as we are having left.
You may not like our extra freedoms but we have them.
Absolutely. I joined the best tennis club because I love tennis but I then decided that I wanted to wear jeans to play. Jeans are against club rules so I left.
Now I can wear jeans to play tennis in the local park.
I have won a huge victory against the oppressive non-jeans allowing tennis club.
The economy won't revive until people feel confident enough to go out to shop, eat and drink. Currently, people are reasonable confident they won't catch the virus outside - hence packed beaches, parks and scenes of street drinking. But many people are fearful of doing inside activities - shops, restaurants, inside pubs - because they are not confident that they won't catch the virus there. The exception may be the young (e.g. under 40s), but there's not enough of them, and they don't have enough money, to revive the economy or on their own.
So to return to normal economic activity, people need to be confident that the disease is under control. They are not yet. Our figures for deaths and infections are still too high, and people know that the track, trace isolate system is not working fully yet.
When Anneliese Dodds was criticised for talking about the virus in response to Sunak, this is what she was getting at. Confidence that the virus is under control is a prerequisite to a return to normal activity, and this government can't yet give us that confidence because they have not been very good at managing the pandemic.
So despite Sunak's exhortations and bribes, we'll only revive the economy when people are reasonably confident that the virus is not omnipresent. Looks like they're almost there in France, for example, but not here.
"Our figures for deaths and infections are still too high" - how low do they need to be for goodness sake? Currently we are at fewer than 30 per day in whole of NHS England! Well under 1000 new infections per day in a population of 67 million.
I take your point, but it's perception that counts, not reality. People perceive the virus to be still fairly rampant. Government and its agencies are to blame for this - too many different data sources, too slow to collect and record data, and ineffective track and trace. If the numbers are really that low, effective government communications should be able to tell us exactly where is safe and where isn't. I know the data is there, and some of it appears on here - but the great British public is unaware of what's going on in their towns/cities, I'm sure.
Agreed. Public perception of the stats is awful. Woefully ignorant and mathmatically inept. I`ve criticised the government before for not effectively communicating the steady reductions in cases and deaths. I don`t understand why they have been so poor at this.
Totally agree.
Your chances of catching the Rona now are really very low, unless you're in a hotspot like Leicester, and even there it's hardly rampant
The government should now be stressing this every day. Yes be alert, but don't be cowed. We need to get the economy shifting, ASAFP
Perhaps Sunak should give us incentives to get things going. Buy a pint and get a free packet of pork scratchings. That sort of thing.
I was joking when I wrote the above, but I`ve just seen this:
Just what the EU wants two land borders within the British Isles.....
If Scotland leaves the UK, the case for Irish reunification becomes unanswerable. (Hint: it's not the English the NI Protestants want to be in a union with...)
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
We were always free to leave, but that doesn't make us as free as we are having left.
You may not like our extra freedoms but we have them.
I liked my former freedoms to travel, work and live throughout the EU.
I suspect we will find we have given those up and yet still end up following EU rules, rules over which we now have no power to influence.
My grandparents retired to Mallorca. I won't be able to. At least, not nearly as easily as they did. It's not often that we have fewer rights and fewer opportunities than our grandparents. Brexiteers can go to hell.
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
We were always free to leave, but that doesn't make us as free as we are having left.
You may not like our extra freedoms but we have them.
Absolutely. I joined the best tennis club because I love tennis but I then decided that I wanted to wear jeans to play. Jeans are against club rules so I left.
Now I can wear jeans to play tennis in the local park.
I have won a huge victory against the oppressive non-jeans allowing tennis club.
The most middle class explanation for Remain I have heard
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
We were always free to leave, but that doesn't make us as free as we are having left.
You may not like our extra freedoms but we have them.
Absolutely. I joined the best tennis club because I love tennis but I then decided that I wanted to wear jeans to play. Jeans are against club rules so I left.
Now I can wear jeans to play tennis in the local park.
I have won a huge victory against the oppressive non-jeans allowing tennis club.
I would say the club introduced a policy of "anyone can wander in off the street and use the clubs facilities (grass court/all weather court/indoor court with access to your racquet and tennis shoes, and you have reciprocal rights to go to their house and bat a ball up against the wall with a saucepan"
Not sure if this has been covered - the "Eat Out to Help Out" phrase has been the source of a lot of snickering among the women-folk in my life. Sunak, err, scoring well for it! Definitely a winner among the women I know.
Not sure if this has been covered - the "Eat Out to Help Out" phrase has been the source of a lot of snickering among the women-folk in my life. Sunak, err, scoring well for it! Definitely a winner among the women I know.
Just what the EU wants two land borders within the British Isles.....
If Scotland leaves the UK, the case for Irish reunification becomes unanswerable. (Hint: it's not the English the NI Protestants want to be in a union with...)
No it doesn't, Protestant county Antrim for instance (the largest in NI) has little connection culturally with the Catholic Republic of Ireland, indeed the Ulster Scotch Protestants if they returned to Scotland would likely tip the majority in Scotland back towards the Union anyway
Just what the EU wants two land borders within the British Isles.....
If Scotland leaves the UK, the case for Irish reunification becomes unanswerable. (Hint: it's not the English the NI Protestants want to be in a union with...)
No it doesn't, Protestant county Antrim for instance (the largest in NI) has little connection culturally with the Catholic Republic of Ireland, indeed the Ulster Scotch Protestants if they returned to Scotland would likely tip the majority in Scotland back towards the Union anyway
Most English would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland
Just what the EU wants two land borders within the British Isles.....
If Scotland leaves the UK, the case for Irish reunification becomes unanswerable. (Hint: it's not the English the NI Protestants want to be in a union with...)
No it doesn't, Protestant county Antrim for instance (the largest in NI) has little connection culturally with the Catholic Republic of Ireland, indeed the Ulster Scotch Protestants if they returned to Scotland would likely tip the majority in Scotland back towards the Union anyway
Too late. Indy Scotland will be the cause of Irish reunification, so too late for the Unionists.
I suspect Northern Ireland would just shift from being a devolved bit of the UK to being a devolved bit of the Republic.
Just what the EU wants two land borders within the British Isles.....
If Scotland leaves the UK, the case for Irish reunification becomes unanswerable. (Hint: it's not the English the NI Protestants want to be in a union with...)
No it doesn't, Protestant county Antrim for instance (the largest in NI) has little connection culturally with the Catholic Republic of Ireland, indeed the Ulster Scotch Protestants if they returned to Scotland would likely tip the majority in Scotland back towards the Union anyway
Most English would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland
Just what the EU wants two land borders within the British Isles.....
If Scotland leaves the UK, the case for Irish reunification becomes unanswerable. (Hint: it's not the English the NI Protestants want to be in a union with...)
No it doesn't, Protestant county Antrim for instance (the largest in NI) has little connection culturally with the Catholic Republic of Ireland, indeed the Ulster Scotch Protestants if they returned to Scotland would likely tip the majority in Scotland back towards the Union anyway
Too late. Indy Scotland will be the cause of Irish reunification, so too late for the Unionists.
I suspect Northern Ireland would just shift from being a devolved bit of the UK to being a devolved bit of the Republic.
No it will not, the Tory majority at Westminster will of course ban indyref2 for as long as it remains in power anyway.
County Antrim would of course declare UDI before joining the Republic, though its preference would be to stay in the UK even if the predominantly Catholic counties like Fermanagah, Tyrone and Armagh were reunited with the Republic
Just what the EU wants two land borders within the British Isles.....
If Scotland leaves the UK, the case for Irish reunification becomes unanswerable. (Hint: it's not the English the NI Protestants want to be in a union with...)
No it doesn't, Protestant county Antrim for instance (the largest in NI) has little connection culturally with the Catholic Republic of Ireland, indeed the Ulster Scotch Protestants if they returned to Scotland would likely tip the majority in Scotland back towards the Union anyway
Most English would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland
I most certainly would not
Why are you bothered?
Don't you think it is for the folks who live there to decide?
Just what the EU wants two land borders within the British Isles.....
If Scotland leaves the UK, the case for Irish reunification becomes unanswerable. (Hint: it's not the English the NI Protestants want to be in a union with...)
No it doesn't, Protestant county Antrim for instance (the largest in NI) has little connection culturally with the Catholic Republic of Ireland, indeed the Ulster Scotch Protestants if they returned to Scotland would likely tip the majority in Scotland back towards the Union anyway
Most English would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland
I most certainly would not
Why are you bothered?
Don't you think it is for the folks who live there to decide?
Touch of the Winstons ?
...”I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.”
Just what the EU wants two land borders within the British Isles.....
If Scotland leaves the UK, the case for Irish reunification becomes unanswerable. (Hint: it's not the English the NI Protestants want to be in a union with...)
No it doesn't, Protestant county Antrim for instance (the largest in NI) has little connection culturally with the Catholic Republic of Ireland, indeed the Ulster Scotch Protestants if they returned to Scotland would likely tip the majority in Scotland back towards the Union anyway
Most English would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland
I most certainly would not
Why are you bothered?
Don't you think it is for the folks who live there to decide?
Touch of the Winstons ?
...”I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.”
And he didn't, it was Attlee who gave up India and Macmillan who gave up most of Africa.
However the Union is a much stronger bond than the Empire
Just what the EU wants two land borders within the British Isles.....
If Scotland leaves the UK, the case for Irish reunification becomes unanswerable. (Hint: it's not the English the NI Protestants want to be in a union with...)
No it doesn't, Protestant county Antrim for instance (the largest in NI) has little connection culturally with the Catholic Republic of Ireland, indeed the Ulster Scotch Protestants if they returned to Scotland would likely tip the majority in Scotland back towards the Union anyway
Most English would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland
I most certainly would not
Why not? We send more money each year to NI than we did to the EU (net).
Not sure if this has been covered - the "Eat Out to Help Out" phrase has been the source of a lot of snickering among the women-folk in my life. Sunak, err, scoring well for it! Definitely a winner among the women I know.
No snickering at the back at the size of his stimulus package, please!
Not sure wearing a mask is advisable in a pub or restaurant anyway - You would have to keep touching it to remove it to eat etc - and also people generally go to those places for a bit of fun .
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
We were always free to leave, but that doesn't make us as free as we are having left.
You may not like our extra freedoms but we have them.
Absolutely. I joined the best tennis club because I love tennis but I then decided that I wanted to wear jeans to play. Jeans are against club rules so I left.
Now I can wear jeans to play tennis in the local park.
I have won a huge victory against the oppressive non-jeans allowing tennis club.
Good for you if jeans wearing is important to you.
Just what the EU wants two land borders within the British Isles.....
If Scotland leaves the UK, the case for Irish reunification becomes unanswerable. (Hint: it's not the English the NI Protestants want to be in a union with...)
No it doesn't, Protestant county Antrim for instance (the largest in NI) has little connection culturally with the Catholic Republic of Ireland, indeed the Ulster Scotch Protestants if they returned to Scotland would likely tip the majority in Scotland back towards the Union anyway
Most English would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland
I most certainly would not
Why are you bothered?
Don't you think it is for the folks who live there to decide?
It certainly is, but that's not the same as not caring.
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
We were always free to leave, but that doesn't make us as free as we are having left.
You may not like our extra freedoms but we have them.
I liked my former freedoms to travel, work and live throughout the EU.
I suspect we will find we have given those up and yet still end up following EU rules, rules over which we now have no power to influence.
We have different freedoms now but it is a simple matter of fact (not bonkers) that we are more free (in some respects) than we were.
If we have new freedoms but choose not to exercise them we still have more freedoms.
Are we going to have the freedom to refuse adulterated American foods as a nation?
Pushing that crap is not going to go down well with either British farmers or consumers. Just with the US agribusiness and their shills amongst the Brexiteers. It should shift a few votes in key demographics into the opposition.
Every little helps.
If we want to refuse American foods then yes we 100% have that freedom.
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
We were always free to leave, but that doesn't make us as free as we are having left.
You may not like our extra freedoms but we have them.
I liked my former freedoms to travel, work and live throughout the EU.
I suspect we will find we have given those up and yet still end up following EU rules, rules over which we now have no power to influence.
We have different freedoms now but it is a simple matter of fact (not bonkers) that we are more free (in some respects) than we were.
If we have new freedoms but choose not to exercise them we still have more freedoms.
Are we going to have the freedom to refuse adulterated American foods as a nation?
Pushing that crap is not going to go down well with either British farmers or consumers. Just with the US agribusiness and their shills amongst the Brexiteers. It should shift a few votes in key demographics into the opposition.
Every little helps.
If we want to refuse American foods then yes we 100% have that freedom.
Just what the EU wants two land borders within the British Isles.....
If Scotland leaves the UK, the case for Irish reunification becomes unanswerable. (Hint: it's not the English the NI Protestants want to be in a union with...)
No it doesn't, Protestant county Antrim for instance (the largest in NI) has little connection culturally with the Catholic Republic of Ireland, indeed the Ulster Scotch Protestants if they returned to Scotland would likely tip the majority in Scotland back towards the Union anyway
Most English would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland
I most certainly would not
Why not? We send more money each year to NI than we did to the EU (net).
I believe in the Union and am a Tory, I am not a free market liberal
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
We were always free to leave, but that doesn't make us as free as we are having left.
You may not like our extra freedoms but we have them.
I liked my former freedoms to travel, work and live throughout the EU.
I suspect we will find we have given those up and yet still end up following EU rules, rules over which we now have no power to influence.
We have different freedoms now but it is a simple matter of fact (not bonkers) that we are more free (in some respects) than we were.
If we have new freedoms but choose not to exercise them we still have more freedoms.
Are we going to have the freedom to refuse adulterated American foods as a nation?
Pushing that crap is not going to go down well with either British farmers or consumers. Just with the US agribusiness and their shills amongst the Brexiteers. It should shift a few votes in key demographics into the opposition.
Every little helps.
If we want to refuse American foods then yes we 100% have that freedom.
So the 80% who oppose them will get their way?
There's no trade deal with the US which will pass Hoc and Congress. Not now anyways. So yes.
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
We were always free to leave, but that doesn't make us as free as we are having left.
You may not like our extra freedoms but we have them.
I liked my former freedoms to travel, work and live throughout the EU.
I suspect we will find we have given those up and yet still end up following EU rules, rules over which we now have no power to influence.
My grandparents retired to Mallorca. I won't be able to. At least, not nearly as easily as they did. It's not often that we have fewer rights and fewer opportunities than our grandparents. Brexiteers can go to hell.
Just what the EU wants two land borders within the British Isles.....
If Scotland leaves the UK, the case for Irish reunification becomes unanswerable. (Hint: it's not the English the NI Protestants want to be in a union with...)
No it doesn't, Protestant county Antrim for instance (the largest in NI) has little connection culturally with the Catholic Republic of Ireland, indeed the Ulster Scotch Protestants if they returned to Scotland would likely tip the majority in Scotland back towards the Union anyway
Most English would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland
I most certainly would not
Why not? We send more money each year to NI than we did to the EU (net).
I believe in the Union and am a Tory, I am not a free market liberal
The Union cannot be sustained as an abusive marriage by force. Scotland and Ireland have the right to self determination. It is not for us in England to infringe those rights.
Just what the EU wants two land borders within the British Isles.....
If Scotland leaves the UK, the case for Irish reunification becomes unanswerable. (Hint: it's not the English the NI Protestants want to be in a union with...)
No it doesn't, Protestant county Antrim for instance (the largest in NI) has little connection culturally with the Catholic Republic of Ireland, indeed the Ulster Scotch Protestants if they returned to Scotland would likely tip the majority in Scotland back towards the Union anyway
Most English would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland
I most certainly would not
Why not? We send more money each year to NI than we did to the EU (net).
I believe in the Union and am a Tory, I am not a free market liberal
The Union cannot be sustained as an abusive marriage by force. Scotland and Ireland have the right to self determination. It is not for us in England to infringe those rights.
The Union can and will be maintained by this Tory government at all costs.
In 2014 Scots voted no to independence in a once in a generation referendum and this government will ensure it is precisely that and ban indyref2 for the rest of its term.
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
AIUI EU Law had no such provision until 2008 (?), and then the arrangements - according to the person who created them, were designed "not to be used".
Since I have now had a chance to watch it and see I didn't make a complete fool of myself, the second episode of 'Walking Britain's Roman Roads' with Dan Jones is repeated on Friday on 5 Select at 9pm. I turn up in the second half of the programme talking about Romano British religions.
Rewatched Cinema Paradiso in memory of Ennio Morricone.
I’d forgotten just how much the movie depends on his score. A masterpiece.
Studied it for my MA.
Listening to his obit on the BBC as they played his music I kept going "I remember that one! And that one! And that one!" - even his Lloyd George TV theme which was featured on Top of the Pops!
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
AIUI EU Law had no such provision until 2008 (?), and then the arrangements - according to the person who created them, were designed "not to be used".
I think that says it all.
Whilst it is true there was no specific legal clause allowing a country to leave until the Lisbon Treaty, all that really means is there was no formal mechanism. I think we can all be pretty sure that if a country really had wanted to leave the EU were not going to send in the army to prevent them. Unlike Spain of course.
Rewatched Cinema Paradiso in memory of Ennio Morricone.
I’d forgotten just how much the movie depends on his score. A masterpiece.
Studied it for my MA.
Listening to his obit on the BBC as they played his music I kept going "I remember that one! And that one! And that one!" - even his Lloyd George TV theme which was featured on Top of the Pops!
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
We were always free to leave, but that doesn't make us as free as we are having left.
You may not like our extra freedoms but we have them.
I liked my former freedoms to travel, work and live throughout the EU.
I suspect we will find we have given those up and yet still end up following EU rules, rules over which we now have no power to influence.
We have different freedoms now but it is a simple matter of fact (not bonkers) that we are more free (in some respects) than we were.
If we have new freedoms but choose not to exercise them we still have more freedoms.
Are we going to have the freedom to refuse adulterated American foods as a nation?
Pushing that crap is not going to go down well with either British farmers or consumers. Just with the US agribusiness and their shills amongst the Brexiteers. It should shift a few votes in key demographics into the opposition.
Every little helps.
If we want to refuse American foods then yes we 100% have that freedom.
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
AIUI EU Law had no such provision until 2008 (?), and then the arrangements - according to the person who created them, were designed "not to be used".
I think that says it all.
Whilst it is true there was no specific legal clause allowing a country to leave until the Lisbon Treaty, all that really means is there was no formal mechanism. I think we can all be pretty sure that if a country really had wanted to leave the EU were not going to send in the army to prevent them. Unlike Spain of course.
Didn't Greenland leave the EU (or EEC as it was back then)?
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
AIUI EU Law had no such provision until 2008 (?), and then the arrangements - according to the person who created them, were designed "not to be used".
I think that says it all.
Whilst it is true there was no specific legal clause allowing a country to leave until the Lisbon Treaty, all that really means is there was no formal mechanism. I think we can all be pretty sure that if a country really had wanted to leave the EU were not going to send in the army to prevent them. Unlike Spain of course.
Didn't Greenland leave the EU (or EEC as it was back then)?
Indeed. That was a strange one of course as they remain legally ruled by Denmark, but outside the EU.
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
AIUI EU Law had no such provision until 2008 (?), and then the arrangements - according to the person who created them, were designed "not to be used".
I think that says it all.
Whilst it is true there was no specific legal clause allowing a country to leave until the Lisbon Treaty, all that really means is there was no formal mechanism. I think we can all be pretty sure that if a country really had wanted to leave the EU were not going to send in the army to prevent them. Unlike Spain of course.
Didn't Greenland leave the EU (or EEC as it was back then)?
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
AIUI EU Law had no such provision until 2008 (?), and then the arrangements - according to the person who created them, were designed "not to be used".
I think that says it all.
Whilst it is true there was no specific legal clause allowing a country to leave until the Lisbon Treaty, all that really means is there was no formal mechanism. I think we can all be pretty sure that if a country really had wanted to leave the EU were not going to send in the army to prevent them. Unlike Spain of course.
Didn't Greenland leave the EU (or EEC as it was back then)?
What did they do with their £350 million?
Spent a lot of it on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest they just squandered.
What @HYUFD and others fail to realise that once (if) a deal is made, the Brexit issue is then over for voters. They will then care about whether they feel that things are improving, and that’s entirely subjective. For example despite objectively unemployment being almost nothing, people still blamed EU free-movement for their employment woes.
The Government must improve Brexit voters lives. If they do not, then who knows what will happen.
They already have improved Brexit voters lives. By leaving the EU - that is the gain in utility. It`s emotional not tangible. I was in Parliament Square on 31 Jan with the crazies. Some were weeping, saying "We`re free". Bonkers.
In 1997 when people were weeping and singing along to D:ream after Blair entered Downing Street - was that "Bonkers" ?
No. I wouldn`t have sang along (though it was the only time I`ve ever voted Labour) but I wouldn`t say it was bonkers.
What's the difference between people celebrating one and getting emotional for it - and the other?
Besides the fact you voted for one and not the other?
Because being pleased that Blair won in 1997 was a legitimate point of view.
Weeping about being a free country after 31/1 when we were free before then is bonkers.
We weren't free before then, we were a subordinate part of the EU which was something some people spent years or decades campaigning against.
You may have supported that situation but it is real not bonkers.
Total nonsense of course but hey, look, you won... get over it!
Its not nonsense. We were not free to set laws that broke EU law, EU law was supreme.
Dear God... I am not free to set my own laws but I have a (vanishingly small) influence over them via my vote. The UK had a much more significant ability to influence EU laws (which it generally squandered).
Does anyone dispute we were always free to leave? Pretending we were like some subjugated colony is a load of bollocks and frankly insulting to those parts of the world that genuinely are subjugated.
AIUI EU Law had no such provision until 2008 (?), and then the arrangements - according to the person who created them, were designed "not to be used".
Just what the EU wants two land borders within the British Isles.....
If Scotland leaves the UK, the case for Irish reunification becomes unanswerable. (Hint: it's not the English the NI Protestants want to be in a union with...)
No it doesn't, Protestant county Antrim for instance (the largest in NI) has little connection culturally with the Catholic Republic of Ireland, indeed the Ulster Scotch Protestants if they returned to Scotland would likely tip the majority in Scotland back towards the Union anyway
Most English would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland
I most certainly would not
Why not? We send more money each year to NI than we did to the EU (net).
I believe in the Union and am a Tory, I am not a free market liberal
The Union cannot be sustained as an abusive marriage by force. Scotland and Ireland have the right to self determination. It is not for us in England to infringe those rights.
The Union can and will be maintained by this Tory government at all costs.
In 2014 Scots voted no to independence in a once in a generation referendum and this government will ensure it is precisely that and ban indyref2 for the rest of its term.
Since I have now had a chance to watch it and see I didn't make a complete fool of myself, the second episode of 'Walking Britain's Roman Roads' with Dan Jones is repeated on Friday on 5 Select at 9pm. I turn up in the second half of the programme talking about Romano British religions.
Whilst it is true there was no specific legal clause allowing a country to leave until the Lisbon Treaty, all that really means is there was no formal mechanism. I think we can all be pretty sure that if a country really had wanted to leave the EU were not going to send in the army to prevent them. Unlike Spain of course.
Didn't Greenland leave the EU (or EEC as it was back then)?
Algeria left the EEC when it seceded from France, too, I think.
Other than that, the EU always prided itself on being like the Hotel California.
Since I have now had a chance to watch it and see I didn't make a complete fool of myself, the second episode of 'Walking Britain's Roman Roads' with Dan Jones is repeated on Friday on 5 Select at 9pm. I turn up in the second half of the programme talking about Romano British religions.
SO did you talk a lot of (sacred) bull?
My wife's comment is that the less I know the more confidently I can talk about it
One thing to keep in mind, is that in US public education Kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) is VERY decentralized, managed by plethora of school districts administratively & politically separate from state and most local governments.
Feds & states have some sway due to federal & state school spending. But Trumpsky is does NOT have authority to simply issue orders to over 13k school districts from sea to shining sea,
You may imagine how eager the Seattle School District is to bow to Trumpsky diktats.
Since I have now had a chance to watch it and see I didn't make a complete fool of myself, the second episode of 'Walking Britain's Roman Roads' with Dan Jones is repeated on Friday on 5 Select at 9pm. I turn up in the second half of the programme talking about Romano British religions.
SO did you talk a lot of (sacred) bull?
My wife's comment is that the less I know the more confidently I can talk about it
She is a wise woman, and you are a lucky guy to have her in your tent!
One thing to keep in mind, is that in US public education Kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) is VERY decentralized, managed by plethora of school districts administratively & politically separate from state and most local governments.
Feds & states have some sway due to federal & state school spending. But Trumpsky is does NOT have authority to simply issue orders to over 13k school districts from sea to shining sea,
You may imagine how eager the Seattle School District is to bow to Trumpsky diktats.
You have it exactly right. Other than politics the wild card is parental pressure for reopening.
Just what the EU wants two land borders within the British Isles.....
If Scotland leaves the UK, the case for Irish reunification becomes unanswerable. (Hint: it's not the English the NI Protestants want to be in a union with...)
No it doesn't, Protestant county Antrim for instance (the largest in NI) has little connection culturally with the Catholic Republic of Ireland, indeed the Ulster Scotch Protestants if they returned to Scotland would likely tip the majority in Scotland back towards the Union anyway
Most English would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland
I most certainly would not
Why not? We send more money each year to NI than we did to the EU (net).
I believe in the Union and am a Tory, I am not a free market liberal
The Union cannot be sustained as an abusive marriage by force. Scotland and Ireland have the right to self determination. It is not for us in England to infringe those rights.
The Union can and will be maintained by this Tory government at all costs.
In 2014 Scots voted no to independence in a once in a generation referendum and this government will ensure it is precisely that and ban indyref2 for the rest of its term.
A whole chicken is £3 in my co op. How much cheaper do you expect the lower standards to be?
I won't be touching that stuff, and anyone who tries to sell it as an advantage is going to find it as popular as a turd in a swimming pool.
But four million Brits a year visit the US. And presumably most of them (including me) ate American chicken and survived somehow. I don't remember hearing of a refusal to eat American chicken en masse. I'm not sure it's the massive issue people think it is.
A whole chicken is £3 in my co op. How much cheaper do you expect the lower standards to be?
I won't be touching that stuff, and anyone who tries to sell it as an advantage is going to find it as popular as a turd in a swimming pool.
But four million Brits a year visit the US. And presumably most of them (including me) ate American chicken and survived somehow. I don't remember hearing of a refusal to eat American chicken en masse. I'm not sure it's the massive issue people think it is.
I've lived in the US for over 40 years and eat chicken regularly, prepared in all manners. It's fine.
One thing to keep in mind, is that in US public education Kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) is VERY decentralized, managed by plethora of school districts administratively & politically separate from state and most local governments.
Feds & states have some sway due to federal & state school spending. But Trumpsky is does NOT have authority to simply issue orders to over 13k school districts from sea to shining sea,
You may imagine how eager the Seattle School District is to bow to Trumpsky diktats.
You have it exactly right. Other than politics the wild card is parental pressure for reopening.
And you've sure got THAT right. Puts lots of pressure on local governments to both reopen schools AND protect students.
Also makes anti-mask agitators and politicos less popular with each passing day, and NOT just in Democratic areas.
One thing to keep in mind, is that in US public education Kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) is VERY decentralized, managed by plethora of school districts administratively & politically separate from state and most local governments.
Feds & states have some sway due to federal & state school spending. But Trumpsky is does NOT have authority to simply issue orders to over 13k school districts from sea to shining sea,
You may imagine how eager the Seattle School District is to bow to Trumpsky diktats.
You have it exactly right. Other than politics the wild card is parental pressure for reopening.
And you've sure got THAT right. Puts lots of pressure on local governments to both reopen schools AND protect students.
Also makes anti-mask agitators and politicos less popular with each passing day, and NOT just in Democratic areas.
True - Gov Kemp 'just' recommends wearing masks, but Atlanta mayor Bottoms has mandated it in the ATL.
Just what the EU wants two land borders within the British Isles.....
If Scotland leaves the UK, the case for Irish reunification becomes unanswerable. (Hint: it's not the English the NI Protestants want to be in a union with...)
No it doesn't, Protestant county Antrim for instance (the largest in NI) has little connection culturally with the Catholic Republic of Ireland, indeed the Ulster Scotch Protestants if they returned to Scotland would likely tip the majority in Scotland back towards the Union anyway
Would that be before or after the Borders and Orkney & Shetland had Unilaterally Declared Dependence on the UK?
Peston polll Boris leads Starmer by a larger margin overall than Sunak does but Sunak does better with young people than Boris and with Labour voters, though Boris does best with older voters and Tories
Just what the EU wants two land borders within the British Isles.....
If Scotland leaves the UK, the case for Irish reunification becomes unanswerable. (Hint: it's not the English the NI Protestants want to be in a union with...)
No it doesn't, Protestant county Antrim for instance (the largest in NI) has little connection culturally with the Catholic Republic of Ireland, indeed the Ulster Scotch Protestants if they returned to Scotland would likely tip the majority in Scotland back towards the Union anyway
Most English would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland
I most certainly would not
Why not? We send more money each year to NI than we did to the EU (net).
I believe in the Union and am a Tory, I am not a free market liberal
The Union cannot be sustained as an abusive marriage by force. Scotland and Ireland have the right to self determination. It is not for us in England to infringe those rights.
The Union can and will be maintained by this Tory government at all costs.
In 2014 Scots voted no to independence in a once in a generation referendum and this government will ensure it is precisely that and ban indyref2 for the rest of its term.
Only 8 Unionist out of 18 Northern Irish MPs elected in 2019, though. The lowest ratio since Partition.
There were only 8 DUP MPs and 0 UUP MPs elected in 2010 too, the only difference in 2019 was North Down elected an Alliance MP not Lady Hermon.
IIRC the NI Alliance Party is offically unionist for purposes of power sharing under Good Friday agreement. Though electoral it is the only "unionist" party that wins many Nationalist/Catholic votes in Westminster or Stormont elections.
Just what the EU wants two land borders within the British Isles.....
If Scotland leaves the UK, the case for Irish reunification becomes unanswerable. (Hint: it's not the English the NI Protestants want to be in a union with...)
No it doesn't, Protestant county Antrim for instance (the largest in NI) has little connection culturally with the Catholic Republic of Ireland, indeed the Ulster Scotch Protestants if they returned to Scotland would likely tip the majority in Scotland back towards the Union anyway
Would that be before or after the Borders and Orkney & Shetland had Unilaterally Declared Dependence on the UK?
Sizable section of northeast Antrim coast - Glens of Antrim - has local Catholic majority. It also has strong linguistic & cultural links with Scotland just a few sea miles away.
One thing to keep in mind, is that in US public education Kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) is VERY decentralized, managed by plethora of school districts administratively & politically separate from state and most local governments.
Feds & states have some sway due to federal & state school spending. But Trumpsky is does NOT have authority to simply issue orders to over 13k school districts from sea to shining sea,
You may imagine how eager the Seattle School District is to bow to Trumpsky diktats.
You have it exactly right. Other than politics the wild card is parental pressure for reopening.
And you've sure got THAT right. Puts lots of pressure on local governments to both reopen schools AND protect students.
Also makes anti-mask agitators and politicos less popular with each passing day, and NOT just in Democratic areas.
True - Gov Kemp 'just' recommends wearing masks, but Atlanta mayor Bottoms has mandated it in the ATL.
I see Bottoms had to wait 8 days for her test results.
One thing to keep in mind, is that in US public education Kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) is VERY decentralized, managed by plethora of school districts administratively & politically separate from state and most local governments.
Feds & states have some sway due to federal & state school spending. But Trumpsky is does NOT have authority to simply issue orders to over 13k school districts from sea to shining sea,
You may imagine how eager the Seattle School District is to bow to Trumpsky diktats.
You have it exactly right. Other than politics the wild card is parental pressure for reopening.
And you've sure got THAT right. Puts lots of pressure on local governments to both reopen schools AND protect students.
Also makes anti-mask agitators and politicos less popular with each passing day, and NOT just in Democratic areas.
True - Gov Kemp 'just' recommends wearing masks, but Atlanta mayor Bottoms has mandated it in the ATL.
I see Bottoms had to wait 8 days for her test results.
Various groups I belong to have all started talking about second waves recently.
On what sort of timeline do PBers expect this to happen, if at all?
A serious second wave will imo be over winter - due to usual extra weakness amongst usual more vulnerable groups and normal trends such as flu. This from a conversation with a PHE person when it started.
Possible also extra waves or ripples due to changing social mixing such as school return etc.
This is very similar to what I've been hearing on the grapevine.
A vaccine really is the key, isn't it, to avoiding the second wave that could really be the disaster for our economy as well as our health....
One thing to keep in mind, is that in US public education Kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) is VERY decentralized, managed by plethora of school districts administratively & politically separate from state and most local governments.
Feds & states have some sway due to federal & state school spending. But Trumpsky is does NOT have authority to simply issue orders to over 13k school districts from sea to shining sea,
You may imagine how eager the Seattle School District is to bow to Trumpsky diktats.
You have it exactly right. Other than politics the wild card is parental pressure for reopening.
And you've sure got THAT right. Puts lots of pressure on local governments to both reopen schools AND protect students.
Also makes anti-mask agitators and politicos less popular with each passing day, and NOT just in Democratic areas.
True - Gov Kemp 'just' recommends wearing masks, but Atlanta mayor Bottoms has mandated it in the ATL.
Much of talk on sports radio this AM was about your Sen, Kelly Loeffler re: her public opposition to BLM and significant pushback from members of Atlanta Womens National Basketball Association team, which is part-owned by the recently-appointed senator now seeking election against strong Democratic opponent, Jon Ossoff.
Re; wagering on Duda versus Trzaskowski, could one reason for differential be inability of most non-Poles to correctly spell the name of the challenger? At least at first try on a betting slip?
One thing to keep in mind, is that in US public education Kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) is VERY decentralized, managed by plethora of school districts administratively & politically separate from state and most local governments.
Feds & states have some sway due to federal & state school spending. But Trumpsky is does NOT have authority to simply issue orders to over 13k school districts from sea to shining sea,
You may imagine how eager the Seattle School District is to bow to Trumpsky diktats.
You have it exactly right. Other than politics the wild card is parental pressure for reopening.
And you've sure got THAT right. Puts lots of pressure on local governments to both reopen schools AND protect students.
Also makes anti-mask agitators and politicos less popular with each passing day, and NOT just in Democratic areas.
True - Gov Kemp 'just' recommends wearing masks, but Atlanta mayor Bottoms has mandated it in the ATL.
I see Bottoms had to wait 8 days for her test results.
We're clearly scraping the bottoms of the barrel
Methinks she could have gotten results quicker IF she'd been willing to jump the line.
One thing to keep in mind, is that in US public education Kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) is VERY decentralized, managed by plethora of school districts administratively & politically separate from state and most local governments.
Feds & states have some sway due to federal & state school spending. But Trumpsky is does NOT have authority to simply issue orders to over 13k school districts from sea to shining sea,
You may imagine how eager the Seattle School District is to bow to Trumpsky diktats.
You have it exactly right. Other than politics the wild card is parental pressure for reopening.
And you've sure got THAT right. Puts lots of pressure on local governments to both reopen schools AND protect students.
Also makes anti-mask agitators and politicos less popular with each passing day, and NOT just in Democratic areas.
True - Gov Kemp 'just' recommends wearing masks, but Atlanta mayor Bottoms has mandated it in the ATL.
Much of talk on sports radio this AM was about your Sen, Kelly Loeffler re: her public opposition to BLM and significant pushback from members of Atlanta Womens National Basketball Association team, which is part-owned by the recently-appointed senator now seeking election against strong Democratic opponent, Jon Ossoff.
Yes, Loeffler, the richest woman in Congress. Her comments have not gone down well, with a Dream spokesman commenting she has no influence on the day to day running of the team. She is also on the buy side of the largest non-commercial real estate transaction in Georgia history. She grew up on her family farm and is a conservative and Trump supporter. That last sentence is what most Georgians know about her from her blanket TV campaign. - a farm girl who made it to the top of the business world.
Ossof is a serious contender who has name recognition from his serious campaign for Congress. He is raising huge amounts of out of state money and is a major opponent.
One thing to keep in mind, is that in US public education Kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) is VERY decentralized, managed by plethora of school districts administratively & politically separate from state and most local governments.
Feds & states have some sway due to federal & state school spending. But Trumpsky is does NOT have authority to simply issue orders to over 13k school districts from sea to shining sea,
You may imagine how eager the Seattle School District is to bow to Trumpsky diktats.
You have it exactly right. Other than politics the wild card is parental pressure for reopening.
And you've sure got THAT right. Puts lots of pressure on local governments to both reopen schools AND protect students.
Also makes anti-mask agitators and politicos less popular with each passing day, and NOT just in Democratic areas.
True - Gov Kemp 'just' recommends wearing masks, but Atlanta mayor Bottoms has mandated it in the ATL.
I see Bottoms had to wait 8 days for her test results.
We're clearly scraping the bottoms of the barrel
Methinks she could have gotten results quicker IF she'd been willing to jump the line.
Her entire family were also tested and this may account for the delay. Several were positive.
Comments
It's all those poor folk that have to use Tesco, Asda and Morrisons I fear for.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/former-labour-mp-laura-pidcock-ordered-to-pay-back-thousands-by-commons-standards-watchdog-over-partypolitical-mailshot
I suspect we will find we have given those up and yet still end up following EU rules, rules over which we now have no power to influence.
If you want to give a damn about animal welfare - and I do - then do something about it. I do.
Because I care about animal welfare I buy Red Tractor approved chicken. That guarantees the welfare of the animal. Simply forbidding a practice of chlorine washing does not. The animal welfare standards across the globe that we import from already today are not the same as ours and pretending they are just because we ban the Yankees from exporting to us DOES NOT improve animal welfare.
If we have new freedoms but choose not to exercise them we still have more freedoms.
Pushing that crap is not going to go down well with either British farmers or consumers. Just with the US agribusiness and their shills amongst the Brexiteers. It should shift a few votes in key demographics into the opposition.
Every little helps.
Now I can wear jeans to play tennis in the local park.
I have won a huge victory against the oppressive non-jeans allowing tennis club.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53337170
https://order-order.com/2020/07/08/gibraltars-got-a-working-covid-app/
Polish election probity should be more than a minor concern to us too.
I suspect Northern Ireland would just shift from being a devolved bit of the UK to being a devolved bit of the Republic.
County Antrim would of course declare UDI before joining the Republic, though its preference would be to stay in the UK even if the predominantly Catholic counties like Fermanagah, Tyrone and Armagh were reunited with the Republic
Don't you think it is for the folks who live there to decide?
...”I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.”
https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-has-91-percent-chance-of-winning-reelection-political-science-professor/
However the Union is a much stronger bond than the Empire
I’d forgotten just how much the movie depends on his score. A masterpiece.
So yes.
In 2014 Scots voted no to independence in a once in a generation referendum and this government will ensure it is precisely that and ban indyref2 for the rest of its term.
52% of Northern Irish voters still want to stay in the UK
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-nireland-poll/poll-shows-northern-ireland-majority-against-united-ireland-idUSKBN20C0WI
I think that says it all.
Since I have now had a chance to watch it and see I didn't make a complete fool of myself, the second episode of 'Walking Britain's Roman Roads' with Dan Jones is repeated on Friday on 5 Select at 9pm. I turn up in the second half of the programme talking about Romano British religions.
Listening to his obit on the BBC as they played his music I kept going "I remember that one! And that one! And that one!" - even his Lloyd George TV theme which was featured on Top of the Pops!
A Spike in People Dying at Home Suggests Coronavirus Deaths in Houston May Be Higher Than Reported
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/a-spike-in-people-dying-at-home-suggests-coronavirus-deaths-in-houston-may-be-higher-than-reported
https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1280947625819168768
Other than that, the EU always prided itself on being like the Hotel California.
.....no.
Feds & states have some sway due to federal & state school spending. But Trumpsky is does NOT have authority to simply issue orders to over 13k school districts from sea to shining sea,
You may imagine how eager the Seattle School District is to bow to Trumpsky diktats.
She is a wise woman, and you are a lucky guy to have her in your tent!
https://twitter.com/ddoniolvalcroze/status/1280142080585560064?s=20
Also makes anti-mask agitators and politicos less popular with each passing day, and NOT just in Democratic areas.
Imagine if they'd had 19,000 (much more closely packed) than 6,000!
https://twitter.com/BBCJonSopel/status/1280990410467401729?s=20
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1280971140517769224?s=20
A vaccine really is the key, isn't it, to avoiding the second wave that could really be the disaster for our economy as well as our health....
Come on you dark blues!
Ossof is a serious contender who has name recognition from his serious campaign for Congress. He is raising huge amounts of out of state money and is a major opponent.