Mr. Boy, the psychological aspect is interesting. It's somewhat akin to identity, and the Remain side, not only in the campaign but for years, utterly failed on that front.
The focus on fear of the alternative coupled with denigrating the people (not the ideas) of the other side turned what should've been a win at a canter into a shock defeat.
Looking forward, those keen on the EU would be advised to stop treating sceptics with contempt and focus on building a positive economic and psychological view of the EU.
On migration: I've said this before but politicians should've had a better grip on integration.
That has always been the problem with the Remain side - my side. There is an element of expecation managment. If you predict armageddon and what results is inconvenience (however large) then you are discredited. We all know what happened at the end of the Boy Who Cried Wolf but Project Fear hasn't worked that well so far and what if, just what if, the wolf doesn't appear? You need something more positive to hedge against that.
It doesn't help either that Celtic Nationalists and English Scocialists and Left Liberals (I'm looking at you Emily Thornberry) regard the EU as a way of taming English National Identity or Nationalism which is automatically, in their world view, regarded as a "v bad thing" whereas the cuddly Celtic variety is regarded as, at worst, acceptable.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
For most, given our woeful language skills, it was a theoretical freedom rather than a real one. The EU was also pretty bad at making a level playing field for professionals. I’m a fully qualified teacher here: which EU country would recognise my qualification and let me apply for a teaching post? What about lawyers or accountants (I genuinely don’t know about those: could they have moved seamlessly from one country to another)?
In IT, freedom of movement was real: I could have gone and worked pretty much anywhere in Europe & have friends that did exactly that. Brexit forced them to become citizens of their place of work in order to keep their livelihoods & I doubt they’ll be coming back.
Law, it seems to me, has a strong local element - you can’t reasonably expect to practise law in a given country without actually being familiar with the laws of that country, surely?
Some of the best years of my life were spent working as a software developer in Germany. I suppose it'll still be possible to do this in the future, but it will involve a lot more bureaucracy.
How fluent were you in German before you went, or was it not an issue because knowing C++ or whatever the relevant programming language you used was more important? I keep thinking that for many the biggest problem with moving to another EU state for work would be the fear that they could not cope with the language.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
They didn't bang on about it being 90%. They said it was 70% (which is what the overally study said) but might be 90%.
If the media span it differently then ...
Not quite. They said it was “on average” 70% effective, which sounded like a very strange way of putting it. Which turned out to be a weighted average of 62% for the standard dosage regime and 90% for the accidentally discovered regime. Which makes the 70% figure utterly meaningless since it is entirely dependent on the relative numbers of test subjects receiving the two regimes (if those numbers can be trusted - which apparently they possibly can’t - all the 90% results were in under 55s)
The under 55s may be in the 90% but the 70% altogether was a properly weighted sample.
So two possibilities exist. Either the vaccine is more effective at half/full ratios (in which case 70% is likely the floor to effectiveness) or the vaccine is more effective with the young than the old, causing the 62/90 ratio due to sampling.
Does anyone actually know what the age distribution was in the full/full regimen? The Brazilian trial seems to have started out with just people of working age.
The one good bit of news is that the Guardian is reporting Prof. Sir John Bell as saying the full data should be published in the Lancet this weekend, so perhaps things will become a bit clearer then.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
1 is essentially true. Most popular nations for Britons emigrate to already include nations that require visas anyway.
2 is irrelevant. Nobody requires a visa for visiting from Britons nor will they post Brexit. We won't require a visa for Europeans to visit either.
While I'm in favour of free movement and have always been a remainer, it always seems tin eared when the FBPE Twitter lot bang on about free movement so loudly. It makes it seem like the borders are about to be shut on us forever.
I agree that there's definitely going to be some added hurdles for the minority that go to study/work/live in Europe and maybe some teething problems. However, considering many Brits go to study/work/live in non-EU countries every year without incident, I just can't really see why this is such an issue for remainerland considering the small number of people this affects.
I think it's a psychological feeling of opportunities being closed off and boundaries erected. Personally, it was never likely that I would move to an EU country for work, or to retire (although my grandparents, hardworking Tory voters of reasonable means, retired to Spain). But I liked the idea that I could. My kids are all learning German, it makes me very angry that it will be much harder for them to move there to work or study, although of course it will still be possible with enough extra paperwork/money. I have friends who have a place in Greece, they used to come and go as they pleased, spend months there at a time without a thought. I don't think that will be possible now, without extra paperwork. My brother's partner is French, they met at Uni in Scotland, she got a job there and has lived there most of her adult life. That may not have been possible under the forthcoming rules. I have two schoolfriends married to Spaniards. Those relationships may well have been impossible without freedom of movement. I could go on. For many people I know, freedom of movement meant something tangible, it opened up opportunities for them, enabled them to live the life they wanted to. Freedom. It's a beautiful word. Its removal is a tragedy for many people.
Don't know about Greece but there has been very little tangible change here in Spain. The Spanish seem as keen to welcome the British as before and the British as keen to come. I'd have preferred to remain but it is possible to over-exaggerate the bad effects which is a big part of the reason that Remain lost the vote on 2016.
How big a back bench rebellion are we expecting and at what point might this snowball into 55 letters to the 1922? Or do we instead expect a quiet whisky and revolver moment in the spring?
Mr. Boy, the psychological aspect is interesting. It's somewhat akin to identity, and the Remain side, not only in the campaign but for years, utterly failed on that front.
The focus on fear of the alternative coupled with denigrating the people (not the ideas) of the other side turned what should've been a win at a canter into a shock defeat.
Looking forward, those keen on the EU would be advised to stop treating sceptics with contempt and focus on building a positive economic and psychological view of the EU.
On migration: I've said this before but politicians should've had a better grip on integration.
The Remain campaign was woeful. But the Leave campaign won, we lost (suck it up) and it is up to Leavers to demonstrate why their vision of the world is superior. I'm not going to take the blame for the shitshow that is coming, it has nothing to do with me. People can form their own judgements. I am going to be too focused on protecting my children's future to become an evangelist for rejoining, I don't think that will happen in my lifetime. Personally, I have no contempt for people who voted Leave, but I do have contempt for the charlatans who told them we would end freedom of movement but stay in the single market, that a trade deal would be easy, that we held all the cards, that there would be more money for the NHS, that we would be swamped by Turks and Syrians and that EU migrants were a drag on the economy, all of which were lies.
Mr. Boy, the psychological aspect is interesting. It's somewhat akin to identity, and the Remain side, not only in the campaign but for years, utterly failed on that front.
The focus on fear of the alternative coupled with denigrating the people (not the ideas) of the other side turned what should've been a win at a canter into a shock defeat.
Looking forward, those keen on the EU would be advised to stop treating sceptics with contempt and focus on building a positive economic and psychological view of the EU.
On migration: I've said this before but politicians should've had a better grip on integration.
The problem is that the political classes in most countries in Europe (UK included) are fans of the post-national world. And forgot to bring the people with them on this, in many cases.
Hence an aide to Cameron thinking aloud as to why he owed more of duty towards to the welfare of the people of the UK than anywhere else.
The problem is that in a democracy, the voters start thinking that the politicians owe them something. As opposed to knowing their place and doing what they are told.
But waiting until you educate/persuade the people of something is too much like hard work. Much easier to say "This is now the law".
Disappointed to log on again this morning and find various PBers positively luxuriating in trashing the Oxon vaccine. Sorry to say it, but Eagles is the ringleader.
Mr. Seal, indeed. Sturgeon (who also has other considerations, of course) being pro-EU because it could stop a UK Government doing what it wanted (I paraphrase but this came up during a debate at the time) didn't exactly make it sound good for people who like the concept of democratic self-determination.
Including costs as well as benefits and actually making a case would go a long way. Another problem, besides lack of voter choice, of a cosy political consensus is that politicians can forget other people think differently, and they get out of practice of making the case for what they believe.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
And quite unremarkable today in many ethnic communities. There is room for diversity of views on such things.
I wouldn't go so far as @justin124 myself, but It does seem that the breakdown of conventional sexual morality over recent decades has had an adverse effect on many.
The gain in terms of individual sexual freedoms has been offset by considerable problems for individuals and society. Being a single parent household means more likely to be unemployed, more benefits dependency, higher rates of educational failure etc etc
Indeed conventional attitudes to family life correlate quite strongly with educational success and upward social mobility, as well as childhood mental health. When looked at objectively it is hard to disagree.
Conventional (as was) sexual morality and conventional attitudes to family life are far from the same thing, though.
And there is zero correlation between virginity tests and the nuclear family.
I would agree that virginity tests are appalling and intrusive. Apart from being unreliable and unscientific, these things should be taken on trust.
I don't think that it is quite so easy to separate conventional sexual morality and the conventional nuclear family though. Infidelity is a major cause of disintegration of nuclear families.
The importance of sex is vastly overplayed and exaggerated by our biased third class media. It’s a pleasant addition to a stable relationship, can’t see how it is an end in itself. People are told they are bored and need excitement in their lives, try something that doesn’t break up families and produces unwanted kids.
The so-called "permissive society" came about after the advent of the contraceptive pill in 1960. When the risk of procreation was largely removed, the role of sex changed, in some ways as predicted by Aldous Huxley in 1932.
The idea that we can or should go back to the morality of the 1950s, while it may be appealing to a certain kind of conservative, completely fails to acknowledge the new reality that this technology created. Whatever the expressed opinions of leftists in the 1950s, they must be viewed in the context of their times, i.e. before reliable contraception.
While religious conservatives still maintain that sex and procreation are essentially the same thing, that has not been true for 60 years. Teen pregnancies and the social ills associated with them are associated with poor sex education, and good sex education is also opposed by these same religious conservatives. Countries with good sex education, like Sweden, have much lower rates of pregnancy and even of sexual activity, because the information is out there for kids to understand the choices that they are making.
At least the progressive case is not mired in sexual hangups and hypocrisy. The UK and the US have generally poor records because social conservatives continue to sway the debate.
The UK talks about the past so much that it is losing its future.
Disappointed to log on again this morning and find various PBers positively luxuriating in trashing the Oxon vaccine. Sorry to say it, but Eagles is the ringleader.
It really is quite sad, its like they think they are all vaccine experts
Morning all. A nice crisp one here in London. On topic - 78% on $markets is great value for a deal given those settlement rules. I’d do it if I had an account with them.
Although I don’t really do speculation on whether there will be a deal. There are 2 reasons for this. One, because it’s a certainty. Is now and always has been. There is no way on earth we will move from frictionless trade with our largest market to basic WTO terms – simultaneously vandalising the economy and the sensitive accord over the Irish border. That is simply not happening under any PM other than John Redwood. So it’s pointless to discuss it.
However I’m no killjoy and pointless conversation can be fun, so this is not the reason for not playing. The main reason is that debate which allows for the serious possibility of no deal plays into the hands of the ghastly Johnson. It is great PR for him. It manufactures fear – which is real even though the source of it isn’t – and thus a flood of relief when the inevitable agreement is unveiled. Johnson can then surf on this tide of relief, selling his deal as a hard won triumph against the odds when it is anything but.
We see through this bullshit now, don’t we? Surely we do. So let’s not do that “will there be a deal?” baloney. I think all of people’s critical attention should be directed to the matter of what sort of deal it will be. The details. Specifically, how much harder will trade and commerce with the EU be, how much additional bureaucracy will be needed to police it, what EU freedoms will we lose, and are there any significant tangible benefits – any at all - coming our way in the foreseeable future which make this look anything but an act of quite considerable stupidity.
I love the way a discussion about changes in sexual mores and their possible consequences focuses on whether women should have sex and not at all on men’s responsibilities for the consequences of their actions.
Some things never change it seems.
You should have been here last night.
Actually, it’s probably better that you weren’t.
How is Miss Cyclefree Jr doing? Any chance of adopting @isam ‘s idea to give each drinker a £1 Mac and Cheese ready meal or some such?
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
For most, given our woeful language skills, it was a theoretical freedom rather than a real one. The EU was also pretty bad at making a level playing field for professionals. I’m a fully qualified teacher here: which EU country would recognise my qualification and let me apply for a teaching post? What about lawyers or accountants (I genuinely don’t know about those: could they have moved seamlessly from one country to another)?
In IT, freedom of movement was real: I could have gone and worked pretty much anywhere in Europe & have friends that did exactly that. Brexit forced them to become citizens of their place of work in order to keep their livelihoods & I doubt they’ll be coming back.
Law, it seems to me, has a strong local element - you can’t reasonably expect to practise law in a given country without actually being familiar with the laws of that country, surely?
Some of the best years of my life were spent working as a software developer in Germany. I suppose it'll still be possible to do this in the future, but it will involve a lot more bureaucracy.
How fluent were you in German before you went, or was it not an issue because knowing C++ or whatever the relevant programming language you used was more important? I keep thinking that for many the biggest problem with moving to another EU state for work would be the fear that they could not cope with the language.
My German was OK, but not what you'd call fluent. I'd done O-level German, and later spent an Erasmus year in Germany during my Physics degree course. When I moved there after my PhD, my German was just good enough to stop people from insisting on talking in English to me. Over the 10 years that I lived there, though, my German became pretty much fluent.
Since so much business in Germany is conducted in English anyway, I'd say that having the right IT skills will get you a job there, even if you don't speak German at all. But your life will become much richer if you do put the effort into learning the language.
Disappointed to log on again this morning and find various PBers positively luxuriating in trashing the Oxon vaccine. Sorry to say it, but Eagles is the ringleader.
I'm not sure if it's intentional or joking but it really is this site at its worst. Sometimes it is better to let the relevant authorities do their work instead of constantly sniping at the sidelines. I have hated the politicising of this disease almost as much as the disease itself.
Disappointed to log on again this morning and find various PBers positively luxuriating in trashing the Oxon vaccine. Sorry to say it, but Eagles is the ringleader.
A vaccine which meant not a single person in the study required hospital treatment and no serious adverse side effects at all!
Oxford and AZN have not covered themselves in glory with the presentation it is true. But this is a vaccine which clearly is safe, efficacious and easily deployable. Get on with it.
Mr. Boy, the psychological aspect is interesting. It's somewhat akin to identity, and the Remain side, not only in the campaign but for years, utterly failed on that front.
The focus on fear of the alternative coupled with denigrating the people (not the ideas) of the other side turned what should've been a win at a canter into a shock defeat.
Looking forward, those keen on the EU would be advised to stop treating sceptics with contempt and focus on building a positive economic and psychological view of the EU.
On migration: I've said this before but politicians should've had a better grip on integration.
During the campaign I kept waiting for the Remain side to put out a broadcast showcasing a positive and optimistic view of Europe. Instead it was 100% fear.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
And quite unremarkable today in many ethnic communities. There is room for diversity of views on such things.
I wouldn't go so far as @justin124 myself, but It does seem that the breakdown of conventional sexual morality over recent decades has had an adverse effect on many.
The gain in terms of individual sexual freedoms has been offset by considerable problems for individuals and society. Being a single parent household means more likely to be unemployed, more benefits dependency, higher rates of educational failure etc etc
Indeed conventional attitudes to family life correlate quite strongly with educational success and upward social mobility, as well as childhood mental health. When looked at objectively it is hard to disagree.
Conventional (as was) sexual morality and conventional attitudes to family life are far from the same thing, though.
And there is zero correlation between virginity tests and the nuclear family.
I would agree that virginity tests are appalling and intrusive. Apart from being unreliable and unscientific, these things should be taken on trust.
I don't think that it is quite so easy to separate conventional sexual morality and the conventional nuclear family though. Infidelity is a major cause of disintegration of nuclear families.
The importance of sex is vastly overplayed and exaggerated by our biased third class media. It’s a pleasant addition to a stable relationship, can’t see how it is an end in itself. People are told they are bored and need excitement in their lives, try something that doesn’t break up families and produces unwanted kids.
The so-called "permissive society" came about after the advent of the contraceptive pill in 1960. When the risk of procreation was largely removed, the role of sex changed, in some ways as predicted by Aldous Huxley in 1932.
The idea that we can or should go back to the morality of the 1950s, while it may be appealing to a certain kind of conservative, completely fails to acknowledge the new reality that this technology created. Whatever the expressed opinions of leftists in the 1950s, they must be viewed in the context of their times, i.e. before reliable contraception.
While religious conservatives still maintain that sex and procreation are essentially the same thing, that has not been true for 60 years. Teen pregnancies and the social ills associated with them are associated with poor sex education, and good sex education is also opposed by these same religious conservatives. Countries with good sex education, like Sweden, have much lower rates of pregnancy and even of sexual activity, because the information is out there for kids to understand the choices that they are making.
At least the progressive case is not mired in sexual hangups and hypocrisy. The UK and the US have generally poor records because social conservatives continue to sway the debate.
The UK talks about the past so much that it is losing its future.
I do not want to go back to the sexual morality and mores of the 1950s, just pointing out that our enhanced sexual freedom has had a significant downside in terms of family breakdown, with consequent adverse effects on society. Notable amongst these is the reduced social mobility of single parent families.
Its like globalisation, neither all upside, nor all downside.
Enhanced sexual freedom isn't the cause of single parent families.
What?
It isn't true about the storks.
Sexual freedom doesn't cause single parent families, choices people have made do.
Single parent families could also happen before the 1960s too. Just because people were ashamed and didn't speak about it as much doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The idea the past was all happy, stable, "traditional" nuclear families is a lie.
People make the choices which they think they are free to make, so there is no distinction there. It's like that "guns don't kill people" nonsense.
Have a look at this graph. I know that "outside marriage" does not imply spf, but there's a pretty major correlation.
Sorry but no people have always made choices. Personal responsibility matters.
I don't see any graph there.
If you want a graph then here is one:
Single parent families are highest in countries that have the worst sexual education thanks to people preaching about "family values". The US has more single parent families than European nations.
23% of American children live in Single Parent families versus 12% in Germany.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
Surely there are two issues. Will it cause harm and is it effective? If there is any doubt about the former, then it won't get the go-ahead - I've seen no evidence to suggest that it is dangerous. Whether or not it's effective and worth rolling out is another matter.
I know you like to be anti-Oxford, but you really ought to be careful on this subject. The Americans are clearly muck spreading at the moment - you shouldn't help them.
It's not anti Oxford, it really isn't now.
I absolutely despise antivaxxers and one of my perverse pleasures is checking out the thinking of current antivaxxers, and this is the sort of thing they live for.
There's much potential for fake news with the vaccine rollout, the government needs to really educate the public on this, right now the antivaxxers are filling the vacuum. We saw this with the MMR jab and so many needlessly died.
Social media gives every idiot a megaphone, and it has tragic consequences, see what happened in Samoa.
But the whole anti-vaxxer thing is around side effects, not effectiveness. I've not heard any of them claim that the MMR doesn't prevent those three diseases.
Trying to conflate the arguments over the Oxford/AZ vaccine's effectiveness with anti-vaxxer nonsense is not helpful.
But that's what they do, they chip at one part of the story to cast doubt on the whole project.
You only have search Twitter for comments on AZ's recent share price movements to see that.
Yes, and you are enabling them with your bizarre campaign. You are an anti-vaxxer in your own lunchtime.
I love the way a discussion about changes in sexual mores and their possible consequences focuses on whether women should have sex and not at all on men’s responsibilities for the consequences of their actions.
Some things never change it seems.
Ye, I veer off topic more than most but I can't see what discussion of this has - even tangentially - anything to do with betting or politics !
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
Surely there are two issues. Will it cause harm and is it effective? If there is any doubt about the former, then it won't get the go-ahead - I've seen no evidence to suggest that it is dangerous. Whether or not it's effective and worth rolling out is another matter.
I know you like to be anti-Oxford, but you really ought to be careful on this subject. The Americans are clearly muck spreading at the moment - you shouldn't help them.
It's not anti Oxford, it really isn't now.
I absolutely despise antivaxxers and one of my perverse pleasures is checking out the thinking of current antivaxxers, and this is the sort of thing they live for.
There's much potential for fake news with the vaccine rollout, the government needs to really educate the public on this, right now the antivaxxers are filling the vacuum. We saw this with the MMR jab and so many needlessly died.
Social media gives every idiot a megaphone, and it has tragic consequences, see what happened in Samoa.
But the whole anti-vaxxer thing is around side effects, not effectiveness. I've not heard any of them claim that the MMR doesn't prevent those three diseases.
Trying to conflate the arguments over the Oxford/AZ vaccine's effectiveness with anti-vaxxer nonsense is not helpful.
But that's what they do, they chip at one part of the story to cast doubt on the whole project.
You only have search Twitter for comments on AZ's recent share price movements to see that.
It's precisely what you're doing.
I'm not, I'm really not, I'm mapping out how things could pan out.
I mean I might predict Man City will win the PL but doesn't mean I want it to happen.
tig86 is right.
You are behaving like Nigel Farage, warning there will be disobedience if lockdown is not eased, or there will be riots if Brexit is blocked.
Of course, Nige does not want to see it happen 😉 he's just "mapping how things could pan out".
I love the way a discussion about changes in sexual mores and their possible consequences focuses on whether women should have sex and not at all on men’s responsibilities for the consequences of their actions.
Some things never change it seems.
I don't think that I have supported the idea that there should be different rules for men, indeed quite the opposite. It is undeniable though that 90% of SPFs are female led. It still is the case of being left holding the baby. Conventional morality includes men upholding their responsibilities.
Indeed part of the crisis of masculinity is that the combination of reduced economic potential and lack of commitment to long term relationships means that for many women men have little to offer.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
They didn't bang on about it being 90%. They said it was 70% (which is what the overally study said) but might be 90%.
If the media span it differently then ...
Not quite. They said it was “on average” 70% effective, which sounded like a very strange way of putting it. Which turned out to be a weighted average of 62% for the standard dosage regime and 90% for the accidentally discovered regime. Which makes the 70% figure utterly meaningless since it is entirely dependent on the relative numbers of test subjects receiving the two regimes (if those numbers can be trusted - which apparently they possibly can’t - all the 90% results were in under 55s)
The under 55s may be in the 90% but the 70% altogether was a properly weighted sample.
So two possibilities exist. Either the vaccine is more effective at half/full ratios (in which case 70% is likely the floor to effectiveness) or the vaccine is more effective with the young than the old, causing the 62/90 ratio due to sampling.
No, the 70% figure is meaningless. Change the relative numbers in each dosing regime and you get a different result because if the relative weighting. An accurate way of reporting would be to say the the vaccine was a minimum of 62% effective but could be as high as 90% (subject to further testing).
With a scientifically literate press and, a decent press release, that's how it should have been reported. Despite TSE's wierd partisan bias about such weighty issues there was no outright dishonesty in the published preliminary results but the way they were presented was woeful and bound to be misinterpreted. The way the Pfizer and Moderna preliminary results were pubished was much easier to follow.
Spot on. The PR presentation was shit.
But that’s no reason to start trashing the product.
Morning all. A nice crisp one here in London. On topic - 78% on $markets is great value for a deal given those settlement rules. I’d do it if I had an account with them.
Although I don’t really do speculation on whether there will be a deal. There are 2 reasons for this. One, because it’s a certainty. Is now and always has been. There is no way on earth we will move from frictionless trade with our largest market to basic WTO terms – simultaneously vandalising the economy and the sensitive accord over the Irish border. That is simply not happening under any PM other than John Redwood. So it’s pointless to discuss it.
However I’m no killjoy and pointless conversation can be fun, so this is not the reason for not playing. The main reason is that debate which allows for the serious possibility of no deal plays into the hands of the ghastly Johnson. It is great PR for him. It manufactures fear – which is real even though the source of it isn’t – and thus a flood of relief when the inevitable agreement is unveiled. Johnson can then surf on this tide of relief, selling his deal as a hard won triumph against the odds when it is anything but.
We see through this bullshit now, don’t we? Surely we do. So let’s not do that “will there be a deal?” baloney. I think all of people’s critical attention should be directed to the matter of what sort of deal it will be. The details. Specifically, how much harder will trade and commerce with the EU be, how much additional bureaucracy will be needed to police it, what EU freedoms will we lose, and are there any significant tangible benefits – any at all - coming our way in the foreseeable future which make this look anything but an act of quite considerable stupidity.
Excellent post. You omit the fact though, that we now have blue passports. Or, in my case, will when I renew mine.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
And quite unremarkable today in many ethnic communities. There is room for diversity of views on such things.
I wouldn't go so far as @justin124 myself, but It does seem that the breakdown of conventional sexual morality over recent decades has had an adverse effect on many.
The gain in terms of individual sexual freedoms has been offset by considerable problems for individuals and society. Being a single parent household means more likely to be unemployed, more benefits dependency, higher rates of educational failure etc etc
Indeed conventional attitudes to family life correlate quite strongly with educational success and upward social mobility, as well as childhood mental health. When looked at objectively it is hard to disagree.
Conventional (as was) sexual morality and conventional attitudes to family life are far from the same thing, though.
And there is zero correlation between virginity tests and the nuclear family.
I would agree that virginity tests are appalling and intrusive. Apart from being unreliable and unscientific, these things should be taken on trust.
I don't think that it is quite so easy to separate conventional sexual morality and the conventional nuclear family though. Infidelity is a major cause of disintegration of nuclear families.
The importance of sex is vastly overplayed and exaggerated by our biased third class media. It’s a pleasant addition to a stable relationship, can’t see how it is an end in itself. People are told they are bored and need excitement in their lives, try something that doesn’t break up families and produces unwanted kids.
The so-called "permissive society" came about after the advent of the contraceptive pill in 1960. When the risk of procreation was largely removed, the role of sex changed, in some ways as predicted by Aldous Huxley in 1932.
The idea that we can or should go back to the morality of the 1950s, while it may be appealing to a certain kind of conservative, completely fails to acknowledge the new reality that this technology created. Whatever the expressed opinions of leftists in the 1950s, they must be viewed in the context of their times, i.e. before reliable contraception.
While religious conservatives still maintain that sex and procreation are essentially the same thing, that has not been true for 60 years. Teen pregnancies and the social ills associated with them are associated with poor sex education, and good sex education is also opposed by these same religious conservatives. Countries with good sex education, like Sweden, have much lower rates of pregnancy and even of sexual activity, because the information is out there for kids to understand the choices that they are making.
At least the progressive case is not mired in sexual hangups and hypocrisy. The UK and the US have generally poor records because social conservatives continue to sway the debate.
The UK talks about the past so much that it is losing its future.
I do not want to go back to the sexual morality and mores of the 1950s, just pointing out that our enhanced sexual freedom has had a significant downside in terms of family breakdown, with consequent adverse effects on society. Notable amongst these is the reduced social mobility of single parent families.
Its like globalisation, neither all upside, nor all downside.
Enhanced sexual freedom isn't the cause of single parent families.
What?
It isn't true about the storks.
Sexual freedom doesn't cause single parent families, choices people have made do.
Single parent families could also happen before the 1960s too. Just because people were ashamed and didn't speak about it as much doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The idea the past was all happy, stable, "traditional" nuclear families is a lie.
People make the choices which they think they are free to make, so there is no distinction there. It's like that "guns don't kill people" nonsense.
Have a look at this graph. I know that "outside marriage" does not imply spf, but there's a pretty major correlation.
Sorry but no people have always made choices. Personal responsibility matters.
I don't see any graph there.
If you want a graph then here is one:
Single parent families are highest in countries that have the worst sexual education thanks to people preaching about "family values". The US has more single parent families than European nations.
23% of American children live in Single Parent families versus 12% in Germany.
Though just 4% live in single parent families in very religious and pro 'family values' Nigeria and just 5% in religious India and religious Israel, I doubt much sex education in any of those 3 compared to say Denmark but they still have far fewer single parent families than the more secular Danes
Disappointed to log on again this morning and find various PBers positively luxuriating in trashing the Oxon vaccine. Sorry to say it, but Eagles is the ringleader.
I'm not sure if it's intentional or joking but it really is this site at its worst. Sometimes it is better to let the relevant authorities do their work instead of constantly sniping at the sidelines. I have hated the politicising of this disease almost as much as the disease itself.
I have the greatest respect for TSE but his jocular anti-Oxford bias is fine on this board normally, or at Twickenham most Decembers, or on the Thames in March but this is a bit more serious than that. I keep having to refrain from putting in unfunny rejoinders about how, based on its history, Cambridge is bound to prefer a Russian vaccine.
Mr. Boy, another problem, again, often remarked upon, is that the lack of requirement for a direct alternative (ie No Deal, EEA, etc etc) means there was a deliberate lack of vision. It was just 'not this'. Bizarre that Cameron didn't require a direct alternative choice.
Agree entirely, Mr. Malmesbury. Identities are tricky, and can be surprisingly brief (Normans) or persistent. I said it at the time, but Cameron's use of 'Little England' during the campaign, to the tittering of some Remainers, was bloody stupid.
Disappointed to log on again this morning and find various PBers positively luxuriating in trashing the Oxon vaccine. Sorry to say it, but Eagles is the ringleader.
They've only got themselves to blame, by making the dosing mistake and playing up the 62/90 split resulting from that without initially saying how it came about.
They should have stuck with the 70 number, but go hard on how their measure is more rigorous than the others' by looking at infections rather than just serious symptoms, and how their vaccine is much easier to deploy.
Oxford should have it's results published in the lancet this weekend I believe, with perhaps more 'events' (Hopefully in the placebo group !) let's wait what's in that. Neither Pfizer nor Moderna have been peer reviewed yet either... let's wait and see, the whole vaccine thing is a marathon not a sprint.
Disappointed to log on again this morning and find various PBers positively luxuriating in trashing the Oxon vaccine. Sorry to say it, but Eagles is the ringleader.
I'm not sure if it's intentional or joking but it really is this site at its worst. Sometimes it is better to let the relevant authorities do their work instead of constantly sniping at the sidelines. I have hated the politicising of this disease almost as much as the disease itself.
There is no politicising, at least not from me. There are clearly major defets in the way the Oxford evidence has been presented. I assume you don't dispute that in the face of commentary by a lot of serious experts (vs no one really defending it and Oxford/AZ conceding it). I sincerely hope these are glitches and the product works as advertised, but what are we supposed to do? Pretended it didn't happen, like when Auntie farts at the dinner table?
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
Surely there are two issues. Will it cause harm and is it effective? If there is any doubt about the former, then it won't get the go-ahead - I've seen no evidence to suggest that it is dangerous. Whether or not it's effective and worth rolling out is another matter.
I know you like to be anti-Oxford, but you really ought to be careful on this subject. The Americans are clearly muck spreading at the moment - you shouldn't help them.
It's not anti Oxford, it really isn't now.
I absolutely despise antivaxxers and one of my perverse pleasures is checking out the thinking of current antivaxxers, and this is the sort of thing they live for.
There's much potential for fake news with the vaccine rollout, the government needs to really educate the public on this, right now the antivaxxers are filling the vacuum. We saw this with the MMR jab and so many needlessly died.
Social media gives every idiot a megaphone, and it has tragic consequences, see what happened in Samoa.
But the whole anti-vaxxer thing is around side effects, not effectiveness. I've not heard any of them claim that the MMR doesn't prevent those three diseases.
Trying to conflate the arguments over the Oxford/AZ vaccine's effectiveness with anti-vaxxer nonsense is not helpful.
But that's what they do, they chip at one part of the story to cast doubt on the whole project.
You only have search Twitter for comments on AZ's recent share price movements to see that.
It's precisely what you're doing.
I'm not, I'm really not, I'm mapping out how things could pan out.
I mean I might predict Man City will win the PL but doesn't mean I want it to happen.
tig86 is right.
You are behaving like Nigel Farage, warning there will be disobedience if lockdown is not eased, or there will be riots if Brexit is blocked.
Of course, Nige does not want to see it happen 😉 he's just "mapping how things could pan out".
OMG, that's absolutely the worst thing anyone has ever said to me.
Comparing me to Nigel Farage, you might as well serve me a pizza with only pineapple as toppings.
Mr. Boy, the psychological aspect is interesting. It's somewhat akin to identity, and the Remain side, not only in the campaign but for years, utterly failed on that front.
The focus on fear of the alternative coupled with denigrating the people (not the ideas) of the other side turned what should've been a win at a canter into a shock defeat.
Looking forward, those keen on the EU would be advised to stop treating sceptics with contempt and focus on building a positive economic and psychological view of the EU.
On migration: I've said this before but politicians should've had a better grip on integration.
The problem is that the political classes in most countries in Europe (UK included) are fans of the post-national world. And forgot to bring the people with them on this, in many cases.
Hence an aide to Cameron thinking aloud as to why he owed more of duty towards to the welfare of the people of the UK than anywhere else.
The problem is that in a democracy, the voters start thinking that the politicians owe them something. As opposed to knowing their place and doing what they are told.
But waiting until you educate/persuade the people of something is too much like hard work. Much easier to say "This is now the law".
Saying "this is now the law" goes both ways. Leavers/English nationalists are the ones making the laws now. They will have to educate/persuade people like me that their new, more restricted and poorer, world is somehow better. They're not doing a great job so far, to be honest (their strategy seems to consist mainly of saying "suck it up" and lying, badly). The reality is that we live in a globalised world economy. So much of our political debate is so parochial and meaningless, it is a total failure of political leadership. But of course that suits the people who are running the show, because it leaves governments too localised and powerless to be able to constrain them.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
For most, given our woeful language skills, it was a theoretical freedom rather than a real one. The EU was also pretty bad at making a level playing field for professionals. I’m a fully qualified teacher here: which EU country would recognise my qualification and let me apply for a teaching post? What about lawyers or accountants (I genuinely don’t know about those: could they have moved seamlessly from one country to another)?
In IT, freedom of movement was real: I could have gone and worked pretty much anywhere in Europe & have friends that did exactly that. Brexit forced them to become citizens of their place of work in order to keep their livelihoods & I doubt they’ll be coming back.
Law, it seems to me, has a strong local element - you can’t reasonably expect to practise law in a given country without actually being familiar with the laws of that country, surely?
Saying you could and saying that people did are two entirely different concepts.
Objectively moving abroad to work was not something many Britons did - and it is something they will still be able to do too.
Freedom of movement enabled far more unskilled migration than it did skilled migration, skilled workers can more easily navigate a visa system whereas being able to get a bus/plane and then migrate for a cash in hand job is easier with freedom of movement.
Yet only yesterday I saw a job advertised by an EU company that was right up my street, even encouraged applicants who wanted to work remotely, but no non-EU applicants could be accepted, including those from the UK.
The idea that Brexit doesn’t affect me because I’m “skilled” is ridiculous. It puts frictional barriers between an EU company employing me and employing someone from within the EU.
Disappointed to log on again this morning and find various PBers positively luxuriating in trashing the Oxon vaccine. Sorry to say it, but Eagles is the ringleader.
It really is quite sad, its like they think they are all vaccine experts
Would love to see a scenario where the only way TSE ever gets to see Liverpool play live again is showing his certificate that he's had the Oxford vaccine.....
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
For most, given our woeful language skills, it was a theoretical freedom rather than a real one. The EU was also pretty bad at making a level playing field for professionals. I’m a fully qualified teacher here: which EU country would recognise my qualification and let me apply for a teaching post? What about lawyers or accountants (I genuinely don’t know about those: could they have moved seamlessly from one country to another)?
In IT, freedom of movement was real: I could have gone and worked pretty much anywhere in Europe & have friends that did exactly that. Brexit forced them to become citizens of their place of work in order to keep their livelihoods & I doubt they’ll be coming back.
Law, it seems to me, has a strong local element - you can’t reasonably expect to practise law in a given country without actually being familiar with the laws of that country, surely?
Saying you could and saying that people did are two entirely different concepts.
Objectively moving abroad to work was not something many Britons did - and it is something they will still be able to do too.
Freedom of movement enabled far more unskilled migration than it did skilled migration, skilled workers can more easily navigate a visa system whereas being able to get a bus/plane and then migrate for a cash in hand job is easier with freedom of movement.
Yet only yesterday I saw a job advertised by an EU company that was right up my street, even encouraged applicants who wanted to work remotely, but no non-EU applicants could be accepted, including those from the UK.
The idea that Brexit doesn’t affect me because I’m “skilled” is ridiculous. It puts frictional barriers between an EU company employing me and employing someone from within the EU.
Yes, the idea that ending freedom of movement removes the Romanian cash in hand builder but leaves "skilled" people (whatever that means) to carry on as before is one of the most pernicious lies of Brexit. If anything, it will be the other way round.
Mr. Boy, the psychological aspect is interesting. It's somewhat akin to identity, and the Remain side, not only in the campaign but for years, utterly failed on that front.
The focus on fear of the alternative coupled with denigrating the people (not the ideas) of the other side turned what should've been a win at a canter into a shock defeat.
Looking forward, those keen on the EU would be advised to stop treating sceptics with contempt and focus on building a positive economic and psychological view of the EU.
On migration: I've said this before but politicians should've had a better grip on integration.
During the campaign I kept waiting for the Remain side to put out a broadcast showcasing a positive and optimistic view of Europe. Instead it was 100% fear.
Yes, and I was quite critical of the Remain campaign for this on PB at the time.
Indeed, the reason that Remain won in 1975 was because of positive campaigning about the many benefits of European integration.
Really? I mean the man is a total prat but jeez, surely the photographer has something better to do with his time and money.
The clue is in the article. "When I told him lawyers had contacted me" - not the other way round.
Bah, you made me read it now. The photographers lawyers should be ashamed of themselves.
Watch out, you'll be chucked out of the of PB Yoon Union if you're not careful. Living in Scotland is already a black mark.
Oh FFS change the record.
Have you been appointed a moderator, or are you one them liberal bigots?
Swinson not being PM, or indeed an MP, has obviously left its mark.
"Obviously". So "obviously" I resigned from the Lib Dems almost exactly a year ago in despair about how she was running the GE campaign. I'm not a moderator so feel free to make your inaccurate rejoinders while I will feel equally free to continue to criticise your posts that constantly and reductively define people who belong to a differing political and national outlook to you in contemptuous terms. Okay? Good.
The so-called "permissive society" came about after the advent of the contraceptive pill in 1960. When the risk of procreation was largely removed, the role of sex changed, in some ways as predicted by Aldous Huxley in 1932.
The idea that we can or should go back to the morality of the 1950s, while it may be appealing to a certain kind of conservative, completely fails to acknowledge the new reality that this technology created. Whatever the expressed opinions of leftists in the 1950s, they must be viewed in the context of their times, i.e. before reliable contraception.
While religious conservatives still maintain that sex and procreation are essentially the same thing, that has not been true for 60 years. Teen pregnancies and the social ills associated with them are associated with poor sex education, and good sex education is also opposed by these same religious conservatives. Countries with good sex education, like Sweden, have much lower rates of pregnancy and even of sexual activity, because the information is out there for kids to understand the choices that they are making.
At least the progressive case is not mired in sexual hangups and hypocrisy. The UK and the US have generally poor records because social conservatives continue to sway the debate.
The UK talks about the past so much that it is losing its future.
What an excellent post.
The replies to this post highlight another issue. People talking about sex and the nuclear family seem to forget that other freedoms have come along with the Sexual Revolution. Being gay no longer leads to prison, or finding a bottle of whisky and a revolver on your desk. Women are no longer seen as little more than cattle for producing children except by the more extreme religious nutjobs.
And if we are hankering back to a more moralistic heyday from (say) 100 years ago, then are we going to turn a blind eye once again to servants being raped by the master of household, of gay relationships taking place in secret or most men having mistresses? There was a MASSIVE amount of hypocrisy back then.
Is that what we should be aspiring to? Becoming hypocrites?
Disappointed to log on again this morning and find various PBers positively luxuriating in trashing the Oxon vaccine. Sorry to say it, but Eagles is the ringleader.
I'm not sure if it's intentional or joking but it really is this site at its worst. Sometimes it is better to let the relevant authorities do their work instead of constantly sniping at the sidelines. I have hated the politicising of this disease almost as much as the disease itself.
I have the greatest respect for TSE but his jocular anti-Oxford bias is fine on this board normally, or at Twickenham most Decembers, or on the Thames in March but this is a bit more serious than that. I keep having to refrain from putting in unfunny rejoinders about how, based on its history, Cambridge is bound to prefer a Russian vaccine.
I actually went to Cambridge -never knowingly met a spy btw- but really could not care less where it comes from and am more than dunb enough to happily leave it to the experts on this one.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
And quite unremarkable today in many ethnic communities. There is room for diversity of views on such things.
I wouldn't go so far as @justin124 myself, but It does seem that the breakdown of conventional sexual morality over recent decades has had an adverse effect on many.
The gain in terms of individual sexual freedoms has been offset by considerable problems for individuals and society. Being a single parent household means more likely to be unemployed, more benefits dependency, higher rates of educational failure etc etc
Indeed conventional attitudes to family life correlate quite strongly with educational success and upward social mobility, as well as childhood mental health. When looked at objectively it is hard to disagree.
Conventional (as was) sexual morality and conventional attitudes to family life are far from the same thing, though.
And there is zero correlation between virginity tests and the nuclear family.
I would agree that virginity tests are appalling and intrusive. Apart from being unreliable and unscientific, these things should be taken on trust.
I don't think that it is quite so easy to separate conventional sexual morality and the conventional nuclear family though. Infidelity is a major cause of disintegration of nuclear families.
The importance of sex is vastly overplayed and exaggerated by our biased third class media. It’s a pleasant addition to a stable relationship, can’t see how it is an end in itself. People are told they are bored and need excitement in their lives, try something that doesn’t break up families and produces unwanted kids.
The so-called "permissive society" came about after the advent of the contraceptive pill in 1960. When the risk of procreation was largely removed, the role of sex changed, in some ways as predicted by Aldous Huxley in 1932.
The idea that we can or should go back to the morality of the 1950s, while it may be appealing to a certain kind of conservative, completely fails to acknowledge the new reality that this technology created. Whatever the expressed opinions of leftists in the 1950s, they must be viewed in the context of their times, i.e. before reliable contraception.
While religious conservatives still maintain that sex and procreation are essentially the same thing, that has not been true for 60 years. Teen pregnancies and the social ills associated with them are associated with poor sex education, and good sex education is also opposed by these same religious conservatives. Countries with good sex education, like Sweden, have much lower rates of pregnancy and even of sexual activity, because the information is out there for kids to understand the choices that they are making.
At least the progressive case is not mired in sexual hangups and hypocrisy. The UK and the US have generally poor records because social conservatives continue to sway the debate.
The UK talks about the past so much that it is losing its future.
I'm sceptical of phrases like "the new reality".
It was one of the most important and radical changes in human history... arguably we are still struggling to understand the implications, so while perhaps a cliche, in this case it is, I think, valid.
- the maths of a vaccine rollout mean that March is the earliest point at which vaccination could reach the overall population - without strong restrictions, R rises above 1
Expecting there to be restrictions until March seems pretty obvious....
Disappointed to log on again this morning and find various PBers positively luxuriating in trashing the Oxon vaccine. Sorry to say it, but Eagles is the ringleader.
It really is quite sad, its like they think they are all vaccine experts
Would love to see a scenario where the only way TSE ever gets to see Liverpool play live again is showing his certificate that he's had the Oxford vaccine.....
Hey, I had tickets to Liverpool v Atletico Madrid in March but I decided not to go as I saw it was going to be a super spreader event.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
1 is essentially true. Most popular nations for Britons emigrate to already include nations that require visas anyway.
2 is irrelevant. Nobody requires a visa for visiting from Britons nor will they post Brexit. We won't require a visa for Europeans to visit either.
While I'm in favour of free movement and have always been a remainer, it always seems tin eared when the FBPE Twitter lot bang on about free movement so loudly. It makes it seem like the borders are about to be shut on us forever.
I agree that there's definitely going to be some added hurdles for the minority that go to study/work/live in Europe and maybe some teething problems. However, considering many Brits go to study/work/live in non-EU countries every year without incident, I just can't really see why this is such an issue for remainerland considering the small number of people this affects.
I think it's a psychological feeling of opportunities being closed off and boundaries erected. Personally, it was never likely that I would move to an EU country for work, or to retire (although my grandparents, hardworking Tory voters of reasonable means, retired to Spain). But I liked the idea that I could. My kids are all learning German, it makes me very angry that it will be much harder for them to move there to work or study, although of course it will still be possible with enough extra paperwork/money. I have friends who have a place in Greece, they used to come and go as they pleased, spend months there at a time without a thought. I don't think that will be possible now, without extra paperwork. My brother's partner is French, they met at Uni in Scotland, she got a job there and has lived there most of her adult life. That may not have been possible under the forthcoming rules. I have two schoolfriends married to Spaniards. Those relationships may well have been impossible without freedom of movement. I could go on. For many people I know, freedom of movement meant something tangible, it opened up opportunities for them, enabled them to live the life they wanted to. Freedom. It's a beautiful word. Its removal is a tragedy for many people.
I actually agree with you. I am learning German myself, but that's also a list of personal experiences and I can throw many of those back the other way.
Looking at those for whom a holiday is often a big financial stretch, let alone travelling around Europe for months such as many of my extended family, they see people better off than them go on holiday and take advantage of free movement, and in return for that they see unfamiliar faces in their town doing jobs while their lives don't improve (rightly or wrongly).
Hardcore Europhiles banging on about cheaper holidays and study abroad while small town Britain sees demographics changing before their eyes is not a vote winner, no matter how much I agree with freedom of movement.
The idea that Brexit doesn’t affect me because I’m “skilled” is ridiculous. It puts frictional barriers between an EU company employing me and employing someone from within the EU.
I reckon I've prepared over 30 British students for the European Commission language test over the years. The ones that come after them can pick turnips in the King's Lynn - Fakenham - Thetford golden triangle I guess.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
Surely there are two issues. Will it cause harm and is it effective? If there is any doubt about the former, then it won't get the go-ahead - I've seen no evidence to suggest that it is dangerous. Whether or not it's effective and worth rolling out is another matter.
I know you like to be anti-Oxford, but you really ought to be careful on this subject. The Americans are clearly muck spreading at the moment - you shouldn't help them.
It's not anti Oxford, it really isn't now.
I absolutely despise antivaxxers and one of my perverse pleasures is checking out the thinking of current antivaxxers, and this is the sort of thing they live for.
There's much potential for fake news with the vaccine rollout, the government needs to really educate the public on this, right now the antivaxxers are filling the vacuum. We saw this with the MMR jab and so many needlessly died.
Social media gives every idiot a megaphone, and it has tragic consequences, see what happened in Samoa.
But the whole anti-vaxxer thing is around side effects, not effectiveness. I've not heard any of them claim that the MMR doesn't prevent those three diseases.
Trying to conflate the arguments over the Oxford/AZ vaccine's effectiveness with anti-vaxxer nonsense is not helpful.
But that's what they do, they chip at one part of the story to cast doubt on the whole project.
You only have search Twitter for comments on AZ's recent share price movements to see that.
It's precisely what you're doing.
I'm not, I'm really not, I'm mapping out how things could pan out.
I mean I might predict Man City will win the PL but doesn't mean I want it to happen.
tig86 is right.
You are behaving like Nigel Farage, warning there will be disobedience if lockdown is not eased, or there will be riots if Brexit is blocked.
Of course, Nige does not want to see it happen 😉 he's just "mapping how things could pan out".
OMG, that's absolutely the worst thing anyone has ever said to me.
Comparing me to Nigel Farage, you might as well serve me a pizza with only pineapple as toppings.
With a python script delivering a loop of The Worst Of Radiohead
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
Surely there are two issues. Will it cause harm and is it effective? If there is any doubt about the former, then it won't get the go-ahead - I've seen no evidence to suggest that it is dangerous. Whether or not it's effective and worth rolling out is another matter.
I know you like to be anti-Oxford, but you really ought to be careful on this subject. The Americans are clearly muck spreading at the moment - you shouldn't help them.
It's not anti Oxford, it really isn't now.
I absolutely despise antivaxxers and one of my perverse pleasures is checking out the thinking of current antivaxxers, and this is the sort of thing they live for.
There's much potential for fake news with the vaccine rollout, the government needs to really educate the public on this, right now the antivaxxers are filling the vacuum. We saw this with the MMR jab and so many needlessly died.
Social media gives every idiot a megaphone, and it has tragic consequences, see what happened in Samoa.
But the whole anti-vaxxer thing is around side effects, not effectiveness. I've not heard any of them claim that the MMR doesn't prevent those three diseases.
Trying to conflate the arguments over the Oxford/AZ vaccine's effectiveness with anti-vaxxer nonsense is not helpful.
But that's what they do, they chip at one part of the story to cast doubt on the whole project.
You only have search Twitter for comments on AZ's recent share price movements to see that.
It's precisely what you're doing.
I'm not, I'm really not, I'm mapping out how things could pan out.
I mean I might predict Man City will win the PL but doesn't mean I want it to happen.
tig86 is right.
You are behaving like Nigel Farage, warning there will be disobedience if lockdown is not eased, or there will be riots if Brexit is blocked.
Of course, Nige does not want to see it happen 😉 he's just "mapping how things could pan out".
OMG, that's absolutely the worst thing anyone has ever said to me.
Comparing me to Nigel Farage, you might as well serve me a pizza with only pineapple as toppings.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
1 is essentially true. Most popular nations for Britons emigrate to already include nations that require visas anyway.
2 is irrelevant. Nobody requires a visa for visiting from Britons nor will they post Brexit. We won't require a visa for Europeans to visit either.
While I'm in favour of free movement and have always been a remainer, it always seems tin eared when the FBPE Twitter lot bang on about free movement so loudly. It makes it seem like the borders are about to be shut on us forever.
I agree that there's definitely going to be some added hurdles for the minority that go to study/work/live in Europe and maybe some teething problems. However, considering many Brits go to study/work/live in non-EU countries every year without incident, I just can't really see why this is such an issue for remainerland considering the small number of people this affects.
I think it's a psychological feeling of opportunities being closed off and boundaries erected. Personally, it was never likely that I would move to an EU country for work, or to retire (although my grandparents, hardworking Tory voters of reasonable means, retired to Spain). But I liked the idea that I could. My kids are all learning German, it makes me very angry that it will be much harder for them to move there to work or study, although of course it will still be possible with enough extra paperwork/money. I have friends who have a place in Greece, they used to come and go as they pleased, spend months there at a time without a thought. I don't think that will be possible now, without extra paperwork. My brother's partner is French, they met at Uni in Scotland, she got a job there and has lived there most of her adult life. That may not have been possible under the forthcoming rules. I have two schoolfriends married to Spaniards. Those relationships may well have been impossible without freedom of movement. I could go on. For many people I know, freedom of movement meant something tangible, it opened up opportunities for them, enabled them to live the life they wanted to. Freedom. It's a beautiful word. Its removal is a tragedy for many people.
Don't know about Greece but there has been very little tangible change here in Spain. The Spanish seem as keen to welcome the British as before and the British as keen to come. I'd have preferred to remain but it is possible to over-exaggerate the bad effects which is a big part of the reason that Remain lost the vote on 2016.
To be honest Felix I saw a dramatic drop off of Brits coming here but that has been since 2008 with pension valuations collapsing, the recovery stalled with the referendum and now I see a reluctance to commit full time with the possibility of being stuck here or in the UK, the Scandinavians are still buying but there are very few Brits younger than us who have settled in 10 years and I’m 67. Different parts of the coast though.
Best comment I've seen (Ars) on the AZ/Oxford weird dosing results with less vaccine (possibly) giving more effect: "Somewhere a homeopath is screaming "JUST KEEP ADDING MORE WATER"."
How many seats is the next parliament btw - are we heading to 600 or sticking with 650. Are the 650 the same as now or different ?
My understanding is 650, and the seats will be redrawn.
The Tory majority will probably increase from 80 to about 100 as a result of the boundary changes.
Agreed, the effective Tory majority is ~ 100.
Just redrawing the Welsh seats will remove some safe Labour citadels. In fact, I think some Welsh MPs will jump to the Assembly in 2021. E.g., Swansea West, Gower and Llanelli have 3 Labour MPs fighting over likely two redrawn Westminster seats.
So, I predict some Welsh Parliamentary by-elections next year.
Morning all. A nice crisp one here in London. On topic - 78% on $markets is great value for a deal given those settlement rules. I’d do it if I had an account with them.
Although I don’t really do speculation on whether there will be a deal. There are 2 reasons for this. One, because it’s a certainty. Is now and always has been. There is no way on earth we will move from frictionless trade with our largest market to basic WTO terms – simultaneously vandalising the economy and the sensitive accord over the Irish border. That is simply not happening under any PM other than John Redwood. So it’s pointless to discuss it.
However I’m no killjoy and pointless conversation can be fun, so this is not the reason for not playing. The main reason is that debate which allows for the serious possibility of no deal plays into the hands of the ghastly Johnson. It is great PR for him. It manufactures fear – which is real even though the source of it isn’t – and thus a flood of relief when the inevitable agreement is unveiled. Johnson can then surf on this tide of relief, selling his deal as a hard won triumph against the odds when it is anything but.
We see through this bullshit now, don’t we? Surely we do. So let’s not do that “will there be a deal?” baloney. I think all of people’s critical attention should be directed to the matter of what sort of deal it will be. The details. Specifically, how much harder will trade and commerce with the EU be, how much additional bureaucracy will be needed to police it, what EU freedoms will we lose, and are there any significant tangible benefits – any at all - coming our way in the foreseeable future which make this look anything but an act of quite considerable stupidity.
Excellent post. You omit the fact though, that we now have blue passports. Or, in my case, will when I renew mine.
Thanks, OKC. I renewed in 2018 so sadly I won't get that particular benefit - and yes it's huge - for ages.
Mr. Boy, the psychological aspect is interesting. It's somewhat akin to identity, and the Remain side, not only in the campaign but for years, utterly failed on that front.
The focus on fear of the alternative coupled with denigrating the people (not the ideas) of the other side turned what should've been a win at a canter into a shock defeat.
Looking forward, those keen on the EU would be advised to stop treating sceptics with contempt and focus on building a positive economic and psychological view of the EU.
On migration: I've said this before but politicians should've had a better grip on integration.
During the campaign I kept waiting for the Remain side to put out a broadcast showcasing a positive and optimistic view of Europe. Instead it was 100% fear.
Yes, and I was quite critical of the Remain campaign for this on PB at the time.
Indeed, the reason that Remain won in 1975 was because of positive campaigning about the many benefits of European integration.
But also the devious genius of the "no downsides, only considerable upsides" narrative (and I know that quote was post-Referendum, but it encapsulates a common vibe of the campaign).
The link between the annoying features of EU membership (not always getting exactly what we want, sometimes silly Eurorules) and the benefits (frictionless access to a huge market of rich people) were laughed off. The reality that you can only get the benefits by paying the costs was simply denied. And is still being denied.
Once political debate gets that decadent, democracy is in trouble. It's why "the government should have made Vote Leave put up a concrete plan" wouldn't have worked. VL would have proposed a unicorn. Had the EU said "that's a unicorn", the response would have been "of course they're saying that now, but when the UK shows some bulldog spirit..."
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
1 is essentially true. Most popular nations for Britons emigrate to already include nations that require visas anyway.
2 is irrelevant. Nobody requires a visa for visiting from Britons nor will they post Brexit. We won't require a visa for Europeans to visit either.
While I'm in favour of free movement and have always been a remainer, it always seems tin eared when the FBPE Twitter lot bang on about free movement so loudly. It makes it seem like the borders are about to be shut on us forever.
I agree that there's definitely going to be some added hurdles for the minority that go to study/work/live in Europe and maybe some teething problems. However, considering many Brits go to study/work/live in non-EU countries every year without incident, I just can't really see why this is such an issue for remainerland considering the small number of people this affects.
I think it's a psychological feeling of opportunities being closed off and boundaries erected. Personally, it was never likely that I would move to an EU country for work, or to retire (although my grandparents, hardworking Tory voters of reasonable means, retired to Spain). But I liked the idea that I could. My kids are all learning German, it makes me very angry that it will be much harder for them to move there to work or study, although of course it will still be possible with enough extra paperwork/money. I have friends who have a place in Greece, they used to come and go as they pleased, spend months there at a time without a thought. I don't think that will be possible now, without extra paperwork. My brother's partner is French, they met at Uni in Scotland, she got a job there and has lived there most of her adult life. That may not have been possible under the forthcoming rules. I have two schoolfriends married to Spaniards. Those relationships may well have been impossible without freedom of movement. I could go on. For many people I know, freedom of movement meant something tangible, it opened up opportunities for them, enabled them to live the life they wanted to. Freedom. It's a beautiful word. Its removal is a tragedy for many people.
I actually agree with you. I am learning German myself, but that's also a list of personal experiences and I can throw many of those back the other way.
Looking at those for whom a holiday is often a big financial stretch, let alone travelling around Europe for months such as many of my extended family, they see people better off than them go on holiday and take advantage of free movement, and in return for that they see unfamiliar faces in their town doing jobs while their lives don't improve (rightly or wrongly).
Hardcore Europhiles banging on about cheaper holidays and study abroad while small town Britain sees demographics changing before their eyes is not a vote winner, no matter how much I agree with freedom of movement.
The worst one I had was a discussion in the pub after work in about 2014 when we were discussing the Rochester by-election and the upward march of UKIP and a colleague in the banking team said "don't these people know what will happen to our passporting rights!". I am sure that banging on about the inconveience to the City to the residents of Mansfield and Thanet would have swung it right our way.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
1 is essentially true. Most popular nations for Britons emigrate to already include nations that require visas anyway.
2 is irrelevant. Nobody requires a visa for visiting from Britons nor will they post Brexit. We won't require a visa for Europeans to visit either.
While I'm in favour of free movement and have always been a remainer, it always seems tin eared when the FBPE Twitter lot bang on about free movement so loudly. It makes it seem like the borders are about to be shut on us forever.
I agree that there's definitely going to be some added hurdles for the minority that go to study/work/live in Europe and maybe some teething problems. However, considering many Brits go to study/work/live in non-EU countries every year without incident, I just can't really see why this is such an issue for remainerland considering the small number of people this affects.
I think it's a psychological feeling of opportunities being closed off and boundaries erected. Personally, it was never likely that I would move to an EU country for work, or to retire (although my grandparents, hardworking Tory voters of reasonable means, retired to Spain). But I liked the idea that I could. My kids are all learning German, it makes me very angry that it will be much harder for them to move there to work or study, although of course it will still be possible with enough extra paperwork/money. I have friends who have a place in Greece, they used to come and go as they pleased, spend months there at a time without a thought. I don't think that will be possible now, without extra paperwork. My brother's partner is French, they met at Uni in Scotland, she got a job there and has lived there most of her adult life. That may not have been possible under the forthcoming rules. I have two schoolfriends married to Spaniards. Those relationships may well have been impossible without freedom of movement. I could go on. For many people I know, freedom of movement meant something tangible, it opened up opportunities for them, enabled them to live the life they wanted to. Freedom. It's a beautiful word. Its removal is a tragedy for many people.
I actually agree with you. I am learning German myself, but that's also a list of personal experiences and I can throw many of those back the other way.
Looking at those for whom a holiday is often a big financial stretch, let alone travelling around Europe for months such as many of my extended family, they see people better off than them go on holiday and take advantage of free movement, and in return for that they see unfamiliar faces in their town doing jobs while their lives don't improve (rightly or wrongly).
Hardcore Europhiles banging on about cheaper holidays and study abroad while small town Britain sees demographics changing before their eyes is not a vote winner, no matter how much I agree with freedom of movement.
Yes I'm not trying to win a vote (that ship has sailed), just trying to explain why loss of freedom of movement is a big deal for many people. Of course I know that many other people thought otherwise, obviously. Personally I don't think it's good to run the country on the basis of the politics of envy. Making cosmopolitan people poorer doesn't enrich the lives of small town people - more likely the opposite. No doubt they will find some other group to vent their frustrations on.
Mr. Romford, respectfully disagree. As with the case for Scottish independence having the Achilles' heel of currency, so too any serious weaknesses in the alternative to the EU would've been subject to scrutiny. Instead, the scrutiny was only on the EU (not aided by the Remain campaign being less than magnificent).
Best comment I've seen (Ars) on the AZ/Oxford weird dosing results with less vaccine (possibly) giving more effect: "Somewhere a homeopath is screaming "JUST KEEP ADDING MORE WATER"."
A medical friend suggested that the dose thing may precipitate a bunch of trials for other vaccines - ones already in use. As in an other look at what the optimum dose really is.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
1 is essentially true. Most popular nations for Britons emigrate to already include nations that require visas anyway.
2 is irrelevant. Nobody requires a visa for visiting from Britons nor will they post Brexit. We won't require a visa for Europeans to visit either.
While I'm in favour of free movement and have always been a remainer, it always seems tin eared when the FBPE Twitter lot bang on about free movement so loudly. It makes it seem like the borders are about to be shut on us forever.
I agree that there's definitely going to be some added hurdles for the minority that go to study/work/live in Europe and maybe some teething problems. However, considering many Brits go to study/work/live in non-EU countries every year without incident, I just can't really see why this is such an issue for remainerland considering the small number of people this affects.
I think it's a psychological feeling of opportunities being closed off and boundaries erected. Personally, it was never likely that I would move to an EU country for work, or to retire (although my grandparents, hardworking Tory voters of reasonable means, retired to Spain). But I liked the idea that I could. My kids are all learning German, it makes me very angry that it will be much harder for them to move there to work or study, although of course it will still be possible with enough extra paperwork/money. I have friends who have a place in Greece, they used to come and go as they pleased, spend months there at a time without a thought. I don't think that will be possible now, without extra paperwork. My brother's partner is French, they met at Uni in Scotland, she got a job there and has lived there most of her adult life. That may not have been possible under the forthcoming rules. I have two schoolfriends married to Spaniards. Those relationships may well have been impossible without freedom of movement. I could go on. For many people I know, freedom of movement meant something tangible, it opened up opportunities for them, enabled them to live the life they wanted to. Freedom. It's a beautiful word. Its removal is a tragedy for many people.
I actually agree with you. I am learning German myself, but that's also a list of personal experiences and I can throw many of those back the other way.
Looking at those for whom a holiday is often a big financial stretch, let alone travelling around Europe for months such as many of my extended family, they see people better off than them go on holiday and take advantage of free movement, and in return for that they see unfamiliar faces in their town doing jobs while their lives don't improve (rightly or wrongly).
Hardcore Europhiles banging on about cheaper holidays and study abroad while small town Britain sees demographics changing before their eyes is not a vote winner, no matter how much I agree with freedom of movement.
I think the penny will drop when those folk find that retiring to the Costas is no longer possible for them, but still viable for the wealthier set.
I expect our next Euro referendum to be much more positive about the social, cultural and economic opportunities of membership.
Best comment I've seen (Ars) on the AZ/Oxford weird dosing results with less vaccine (possibly) giving more effect: "Somewhere a homeopath is screaming "JUST KEEP ADDING MORE WATER"."
A medical friend suggested that the dose thing may precipitate a bunch of trials for other vaccines - ones already in use. As in an other look at what the optimum dose really is.
Yes, it's very possible they have stumbled across something really important for general medicine.
But, you know, let's just keep trashing them instead.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
1 is essentially true. Most popular nations for Britons emigrate to already include nations that require visas anyway.
2 is irrelevant. Nobody requires a visa for visiting from Britons nor will they post Brexit. We won't require a visa for Europeans to visit either.
While I'm in favour of free movement and have always been a remainer, it always seems tin eared when the FBPE Twitter lot bang on about free movement so loudly. It makes it seem like the borders are about to be shut on us forever.
I agree that there's definitely going to be some added hurdles for the minority that go to study/work/live in Europe and maybe some teething problems. However, considering many Brits go to study/work/live in non-EU countries every year without incident, I just can't really see why this is such an issue for remainerland considering the small number of people this affects.
I think it's a psychological feeling of opportunities being closed off and boundaries erected. Personally, it was never likely that I would move to an EU country for work, or to retire (although my grandparents, hardworking Tory voters of reasonable means, retired to Spain). But I liked the idea that I could. My kids are all learning German, it makes me very angry that it will be much harder for them to move there to work or study, although of course it will still be possible with enough extra paperwork/money. I have friends who have a place in Greece, they used to come and go as they pleased, spend months there at a time without a thought. I don't think that will be possible now, without extra paperwork. My brother's partner is French, they met at Uni in Scotland, she got a job there and has lived there most of her adult life. That may not have been possible under the forthcoming rules. I have two schoolfriends married to Spaniards. Those relationships may well have been impossible without freedom of movement. I could go on. For many people I know, freedom of movement meant something tangible, it opened up opportunities for them, enabled them to live the life they wanted to. Freedom. It's a beautiful word. Its removal is a tragedy for many people.
I actually agree with you. I am learning German myself, but that's also a list of personal experiences and I can throw many of those back the other way.
Looking at those for whom a holiday is often a big financial stretch, let alone travelling around Europe for months such as many of my extended family, they see people better off than them go on holiday and take advantage of free movement, and in return for that they see unfamiliar faces in their town doing jobs while their lives don't improve (rightly or wrongly).
Hardcore Europhiles banging on about cheaper holidays and study abroad while small town Britain sees demographics changing before their eyes is not a vote winner, no matter how much I agree with freedom of movement.
The worst one I had was a discussion in the pub after work in about 2014 when we were discussing the Rochester by-election and the upward march of UKIP and a colleague in the banking team said "don't these people know what will happen to our passporting rights!". I am sure that banging on about the inconveience to the City to the residents of Mansfield and Thanet would have swung it right our way.
The one that made me groan was a factory owner on Radio 4 (I think it was) declaring "A labour shortage would mean wages would rise!"
The way it was said, the accent and the tone. The VictorianMineOwner vibe was very strong.
Best comment I've seen (Ars) on the AZ/Oxford weird dosing results with less vaccine (possibly) giving more effect: "Somewhere a homeopath is screaming "JUST KEEP ADDING MORE WATER"."
In addition to homeopathic dilution to the extent that the substance is nothing but water, the solution must be struck repeatedly with a leather strap* (or on a horsehair surface) during the dilution process.
* They call this "succussion". Hahnemann used a leather-bound bible.
I love the way a discussion about changes in sexual mores and their possible consequences focuses on whether women should have sex and not at all on men’s responsibilities for the consequences of their actions.
Some things never change it seems.
You should have been here last night.
Actually, it’s probably better that you weren’t.
How is Miss Cyclefree Jr doing? Any chance of adopting @isam ‘s idea to give each drinker a £1 Mac and Cheese ready meal or some such?
Hope she works something out anyway.
Thanks for your good wishes (and those of others).
She is going down the “nice sandwich” or a “lovely pizza slice” route on the 2 days when she does not do a full menu - a free dor drinkers on other days. Important to keep the place open for drinkers no matter what because if closed people will forget you and it takes effort to build the business back up again. Some customers who had booked for a table with their friends are now asking for two adjoining tables. I suspect a lot of customers/places will do that. Whether that will provide enough trade when the PM is explicitly telling people not to go out and then turning his back on those businesses faced with no customers is another matter.
I’ve advised her - when taking bookings - to ask whether the booking is coming from a household, support bubble or a work meeting and marking that down so she has a record in case of any challenge.
It will be a miracle if she or any of the other nice places around here survive this. There is a very good “wet” pub in the next town, with a great reputation and awards for its beers, which will be in deep trouble the longer this goes on. I don’t think the government has any idea of the harm it is causing by this stop/start, too little, too late, cheese-paring approach to everything.
Best comment I've seen (Ars) on the AZ/Oxford weird dosing results with less vaccine (possibly) giving more effect: "Somewhere a homeopath is screaming "JUST KEEP ADDING MORE WATER"."
In addition to homeopathic dilution to the extent that the substance is nothing but water, the solution must be struck repeatedly with a leather strap (or on a horsehair surface) during the dilution process.
Then they sell it in sugar pill form. How do they get the "memory" of the water, instilled by the "succussion", to pass into dry pill form?
After watching Trump on CNN am convinced he is the total narsistic person, highly dangerous and whatever the Electoral College says, he ain't leaving. Tanks on the lawn of the White House, just a question in which direction they will be facing.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
For most, given our woeful language skills, it was a theoretical freedom rather than a real one. The EU was also pretty bad at making a level playing field for professionals. I’m a fully qualified teacher here: which EU country would recognise my qualification and let me apply for a teaching post? What about lawyers or accountants (I genuinely don’t know about those: could they have moved seamlessly from one country to another)?
In IT, freedom of movement was real: I could have gone and worked pretty much anywhere in Europe & have friends that did exactly that. Brexit forced them to become citizens of their place of work in order to keep their livelihoods & I doubt they’ll be coming back.
Law, it seems to me, has a strong local element - you can’t reasonably expect to practise law in a given country without actually being familiar with the laws of that country, surely?
Some of the best years of my life were spent working as a software developer in Germany. I suppose it'll still be possible to do this in the future, but it will involve a lot more bureaucracy.
How fluent were you in German before you went, or was it not an issue because knowing C++ or whatever the relevant programming language you used was more important? I keep thinking that for many the biggest problem with moving to another EU state for work would be the fear that they could not cope with the language.
My German was OK, but not what you'd call fluent. I'd done O-level German, and later spent an Erasmus year in Germany during my Physics degree course. When I moved there after my PhD, my German was just good enough to stop people from insisting on talking in English to me. Over the 10 years that I lived there, though, my German became pretty much fluent.
Since so much business in Germany is conducted in English anyway, I'd say that having the right IT skills will get you a job there, even if you don't speak German at all. But your life will become much richer if you do put the effort into learning the language.
Two of my close friends from university ended up working in other EU countries. One went to France, but as she had studied French for her degree the language was not really a problem. The other is a scientist who moved to Sweden to take up a university post: she was able to get away with just English to start with, though she is now fluent.
Edit: I should have said that in both cases they have made their permanent homes there.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
For most, given our woeful language skills, it was a theoretical freedom rather than a real one. The EU was also pretty bad at making a level playing field for professionals. I’m a fully qualified teacher here: which EU country would recognise my qualification and let me apply for a teaching post? What about lawyers or accountants (I genuinely don’t know about those: could they have moved seamlessly from one country to another)?
In IT, freedom of movement was real: I could have gone and worked pretty much anywhere in Europe & have friends that did exactly that. Brexit forced them to become citizens of their place of work in order to keep their livelihoods & I doubt they’ll be coming back.
Law, it seems to me, has a strong local element - you can’t reasonably expect to practise law in a given country without actually being familiar with the laws of that country, surely?
Some of the best years of my life (including learning German and marrying a German girl) were spent working as a software developer in Germany. I suppose it'll still be possible to do this in the future, but it will involve a lot more bureaucracy.
Yes, the point was that you could plan to move based on the clear assumption that the paperwork would be granted, and now you can´t. Of course you had to comply with local regulation, but you took the exams where relevant and it was fine.
I am a permanent resident outwith the UK now and from here I just don´t see why my business would be better off in a country with a chaotic business environment and an increasingly crappy attitude.
Best comment I've seen (Ars) on the AZ/Oxford weird dosing results with less vaccine (possibly) giving more effect: "Somewhere a homeopath is screaming "JUST KEEP ADDING MORE WATER"."
In addition to homeopathic dilution to the extent that the substance is nothing but water, the solution must be struck repeatedly with a leather strap (or on a horsehair surface) during the dilution process.
Then they sell it in sugar pill form. How do they get the "memory" of the water, instilled by the "succussion", to pass into dry pill form?
The dry pill remembers the water, silly.
I am an accidental homeopath, I spent my childrens' entire childhood diligently applying arnica cream to bumps and bruises cos my wife bought it and I had no idea it was homeopathic.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
1 is essentially true. Most popular nations for Britons emigrate to already include nations that require visas anyway.
2 is irrelevant. Nobody requires a visa for visiting from Britons nor will they post Brexit. We won't require a visa for Europeans to visit either.
While I'm in favour of free movement and have always been a remainer, it always seems tin eared when the FBPE Twitter lot bang on about free movement so loudly. It makes it seem like the borders are about to be shut on us forever.
I agree that there's definitely going to be some added hurdles for the minority that go to study/work/live in Europe and maybe some teething problems. However, considering many Brits go to study/work/live in non-EU countries every year without incident, I just can't really see why this is such an issue for remainerland considering the small number of people this affects.
I think it's a psychological feeling of opportunities being closed off and boundaries erected. Personally, it was never likely that I would move to an EU country for work, or to retire (although my grandparents, hardworking Tory voters of reasonable means, retired to Spain). But I liked the idea that I could. My kids are all learning German, it makes me very angry that it will be much harder for them to move there to work or study, although of course it will still be possible with enough extra paperwork/money. I have friends who have a place in Greece, they used to come and go as they pleased, spend months there at a time without a thought. I don't think that will be possible now, without extra paperwork. My brother's partner is French, they met at Uni in Scotland, she got a job there and has lived there most of her adult life. That may not have been possible under the forthcoming rules. I have two schoolfriends married to Spaniards. Those relationships may well have been impossible without freedom of movement. I could go on. For many people I know, freedom of movement meant something tangible, it opened up opportunities for them, enabled them to live the life they wanted to. Freedom. It's a beautiful word. Its removal is a tragedy for many people.
I actually agree with you. I am learning German myself, but that's also a list of personal experiences and I can throw many of those back the other way.
Looking at those for whom a holiday is often a big financial stretch, let alone travelling around Europe for months such as many of my extended family, they see people better off than them go on holiday and take advantage of free movement, and in return for that they see unfamiliar faces in their town doing jobs while their lives don't improve (rightly or wrongly).
Hardcore Europhiles banging on about cheaper holidays and study abroad while small town Britain sees demographics changing before their eyes is not a vote winner, no matter how much I agree with freedom of movement.
I think the penny will drop when those folk find that retiring to the Costas is no longer possible for them, but still viable for the wealthier set.
I expect our next Euro referendum to be much more positive about the social, cultural and economic opportunities of membership.
Not for a decade or so though.
And not just holidays. Children of working class parents, like me, will have fewer opportunities to experience life in other countries through subsidised schemes like the Erasmus program. Overseas working experience will become the preserve of those with rich families.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
1 is essentially true. Most popular nations for Britons emigrate to already include nations that require visas anyway.
2 is irrelevant. Nobody requires a visa for visiting from Britons nor will they post Brexit. We won't require a visa for Europeans to visit either.
While I'm in favour of free movement and have always been a remainer, it always seems tin eared when the FBPE Twitter lot bang on about free movement so loudly. It makes it seem like the borders are about to be shut on us forever.
I agree that there's definitely going to be some added hurdles for the minority that go to study/work/live in Europe and maybe some teething problems. However, considering many Brits go to study/work/live in non-EU countries every year without incident, I just can't really see why this is such an issue for remainerland considering the small number of people this affects.
I think it's a psychological feeling of opportunities being closed off and boundaries erected. Personally, it was never likely that I would move to an EU country for work, or to retire (although my grandparents, hardworking Tory voters of reasonable means, retired to Spain). But I liked the idea that I could. My kids are all learning German, it makes me very angry that it will be much harder for them to move there to work or study, although of course it will still be possible with enough extra paperwork/money. I have friends who have a place in Greece, they used to come and go as they pleased, spend months there at a time without a thought. I don't think that will be possible now, without extra paperwork. My brother's partner is French, they met at Uni in Scotland, she got a job there and has lived there most of her adult life. That may not have been possible under the forthcoming rules. I have two schoolfriends married to Spaniards. Those relationships may well have been impossible without freedom of movement. I could go on. For many people I know, freedom of movement meant something tangible, it opened up opportunities for them, enabled them to live the life they wanted to. Freedom. It's a beautiful word. Its removal is a tragedy for many people.
I actually agree with you. I am learning German myself, but that's also a list of personal experiences and I can throw many of those back the other way.
Looking at those for whom a holiday is often a big financial stretch, let alone travelling around Europe for months such as many of my extended family, they see people better off than them go on holiday and take advantage of free movement, and in return for that they see unfamiliar faces in their town doing jobs while their lives don't improve (rightly or wrongly).
Hardcore Europhiles banging on about cheaper holidays and study abroad while small town Britain sees demographics changing before their eyes is not a vote winner, no matter how much I agree with freedom of movement.
Yes I'm not trying to win a vote (that ship has sailed), just trying to explain why loss of freedom of movement is a big deal for many people. Of course I know that many other people thought otherwise, obviously. Personally I don't think it's good to run the country on the basis of the politics of envy. Making cosmopolitan people poorer doesn't enrich the lives of small town people - more likely the opposite. No doubt they will find some other group to vent their frustrations on.
Yeah I agree, I'm definitely not trying to say ending FOM would affect no one, it obviously will stop the plans of many thousands of people and they obviously have the right to be heard and taken into account. I just have a big issue with the methodology of my fellow remainers in how they approach the "left behinds" of this country. They're damaging their own cause in my view.
As for the future, I'm confident that eventually upon a change of government, hopefully some slightly closer relations with Europe will make these opportunities easier to obtain again.
Mr. Boy, the psychological aspect is interesting. It's somewhat akin to identity, and the Remain side, not only in the campaign but for years, utterly failed on that front.
The focus on fear of the alternative coupled with denigrating the people (not the ideas) of the other side turned what should've been a win at a canter into a shock defeat.
Looking forward, those keen on the EU would be advised to stop treating sceptics with contempt and focus on building a positive economic and psychological view of the EU.
On migration: I've said this before but politicians should've had a better grip on integration.
During the campaign I kept waiting for the Remain side to put out a broadcast showcasing a positive and optimistic view of Europe. Instead it was 100% fear.
Yes, and I was quite critical of the Remain campaign for this on PB at the time.
Indeed, the reason that Remain won in 1975 was because of positive campaigning about the many benefits of European integration.
As one who was a 'foot soldier' in the 1975 campaign, I was appalled at the apparent assumption by Remain that the public would see. through the dishonesty of the Leavers.
I love the way a discussion about changes in sexual mores and their possible consequences focuses on whether women should have sex and not at all on men’s responsibilities for the consequences of their actions.
Some things never change it seems.
You should have been here last night.
Actually, it’s probably better that you weren’t.
How is Miss Cyclefree Jr doing? Any chance of adopting @isam ‘s idea to give each drinker a £1 Mac and Cheese ready meal or some such?
Hope she works something out anyway.
Thanks for your good wishes (and those of others).
She is going down the “nice sandwich” or a “lovely pizza slice” route on the 2 days when she does not do a full menu - a free dor drinkers on other days. Important to keep the place open for drinkers no matter what because if closed people will forget you and it takes effort to build the business back up again. Some customers who had booked for a table with their friends are now asking for two adjoining tables. I suspect a lot of customers/places will do that. Whether that will provide enough trade when the PM is explicitly telling people not to go out and then turning his back on those businesses faced with no customers is another matter.
I’ve advised her - when taking bookings - to ask whether the booking is coming from a household, support bubble or a work meeting and marking that down so she has a record in case of any challenge.
It will be a miracle if she or any of the other nice places around here survive this. There is a very good “wet” pub in the next town, with a great reputation and awards for its beers, which will be in deep trouble the longer this goes on. I don’t think the government has any idea of the harm it is causing by this stop/start, too little, too late, cheese-paring approach to everything.
On the only occasion that I have been in a pub for drinks alone, we declared to the landlady that we were having a business meeting. Not possible on current rules though.
Setting up bookings for tables of 2 in clusters might work.
Is there any enforcement of the one household rule though? Surely you can only take people at their word?
After watching Trump on CNN am convinced he is the total narsistic person, highly dangerous and whatever the Electoral College says, he ain't leaving. Tanks on the lawn of the White House, just a question in which direction they will be facing.
I love the way a discussion about changes in sexual mores and their possible consequences focuses on whether women should have sex and not at all on men’s responsibilities for the consequences of their actions.
Some things never change it seems.
It does indeed take two to tango. Men are just as responsible as women for broken homes and casual pregnancies.
How many seats is the next parliament btw - are we heading to 600 or sticking with 650. Are the 650 the same as now or different ?
My understanding is 650, and the seats will be redrawn.
The Tory majority will probably increase from 80 to about 100 as a result of the boundary changes.
Agreed, the effective Tory majority is ~ 100.
Just redrawing the Welsh seats will remove some safe Labour citadels. In fact, I think some Welsh MPs will jump to the Assembly in 2021. E.g., Swansea West, Gower and Llanelli have 3 Labour MPs fighting over likely two redrawn Westminster seats.
So, I predict some Welsh Parliamentary by-elections next year.
The new boundaries will be based on 650 seats. The main change is that Wales will lose its overrepresentation and so go down to around 32 seats, while the South East will be the main winner.
While the Tories will make gains, it isn't quite as much as perhaps it would have been before the 2019 election as quite a few of the Red Wall seats such as in the Potteries are undersized (also the Tories did well in Wales). There are also a few Lab areas where they will gain seats like East London.
The LDs are likely to be the biggest losers:
Caithness and Fife NE are both undersized. Edinburgh W could also see some change as the council ward boundaries have all changed. Westmorland is likely to be split up with some of it going in a cross-county seat with Morecambe. Oxfordshire is likely to gain a seat so the LDs may have to fight to keep the Oxford and Abingdon pairing.
Really? I mean the man is a total prat but jeez, surely the photographer has something better to do with his time and money.
The clue is in the article. "When I told him lawyers had contacted me" - not the other way round.
Bah, you made me read it now. The photographers lawyers should be ashamed of themselves.
Watch out, you'll be chucked out of the of PB Yoon Union if you're not careful. Living in Scotland is already a black mark.
Oh FFS change the record.
Have you been appointed a moderator, or are you one them liberal bigots?
Swinson not being PM, or indeed an MP, has obviously left its mark.
"Obviously". So "obviously" I resigned from the Lib Dems almost exactly a year ago in despair about how she was running the GE campaign. I'm not a moderator so feel free to make your inaccurate rejoinders while I will feel equally free to continue to criticise your posts that constantly and reductively define people who belong to a differing political and national outlook to you in contemptuous terms. Okay? Good.
Resigned from the LDs? Ooh, I could crush a grape.
Perhaps raise the bar from go away and shut up in your 'criticisms', eh?
I love the way a discussion about changes in sexual mores and their possible consequences focuses on whether women should have sex and not at all on men’s responsibilities for the consequences of their actions.
Some things never change it seems.
You should have been here last night.
Actually, it’s probably better that you weren’t.
How is Miss Cyclefree Jr doing? Any chance of adopting @isam ‘s idea to give each drinker a £1 Mac and Cheese ready meal or some such?
Hope she works something out anyway.
Thanks for your good wishes (and those of others).
She is going down the “nice sandwich” or a “lovely pizza slice” route on the 2 days when she does not do a full menu - a free dor drinkers on other days. Important to keep the place open for drinkers no matter what because if closed people will forget you and it takes effort to build the business back up again. Some customers who had booked for a table with their friends are now asking for two adjoining tables. I suspect a lot of customers/places will do that. Whether that will provide enough trade when the PM is explicitly telling people not to go out and then turning his back on those businesses faced with no customers is another matter.
I’ve advised her - when taking bookings - to ask whether the booking is coming from a household, support bubble or a work meeting and marking that down so she has a record in case of any challenge.
It will be a miracle if she or any of the other nice places around here survive this. There is a very good “wet” pub in the next town, with a great reputation and awards for its beers, which will be in deep trouble the longer this goes on. I don’t think the government has any idea of the harm it is causing by this stop/start, too little, too late, cheese-paring approach to everything.
On the only occasion that I have been in a pub for drinks alone, we declared to the landlady that we were having a business meeting. Not possible on current rules though.
Setting up bookings for tables of 2 in clusters might work.
Is there any enforcement of the one household rule though? Surely you can only take people at their word?
As all Leics is in Tier3, not applicable here.
I`ve got Market Harborough one side of me (Tier 3) and Northampton the other (Tier 2). I know which one I`d feel safer in.
Best comment I've seen (Ars) on the AZ/Oxford weird dosing results with less vaccine (possibly) giving more effect: "Somewhere a homeopath is screaming "JUST KEEP ADDING MORE WATER"."
A medical friend suggested that the dose thing may precipitate a bunch of trials for other vaccines - ones already in use. As in an other look at what the optimum dose really is.
Judging by the way so many courses of pill last an exact number of weeks, I strongly suspect that little research is done on the optimum dose of most medicine (there are some obvious exceptions, like anaesthesia).
Mr. Boy, the psychological aspect is interesting. It's somewhat akin to identity, and the Remain side, not only in the campaign but for years, utterly failed on that front.
The focus on fear of the alternative coupled with denigrating the people (not the ideas) of the other side turned what should've been a win at a canter into a shock defeat.
Looking forward, those keen on the EU would be advised to stop treating sceptics with contempt and focus on building a positive economic and psychological view of the EU.
On migration: I've said this before but politicians should've had a better grip on integration.
During the campaign I kept waiting for the Remain side to put out a broadcast showcasing a positive and optimistic view of Europe. Instead it was 100% fear.
Yes, and I was quite critical of the Remain campaign for this on PB at the time.
Indeed, the reason that Remain won in 1975 was because of positive campaigning about the many benefits of European integration.
But also the devious genius of the "no downsides, only considerable upsides" narrative (and I know that quote was post-Referendum, but it encapsulates a common vibe of the campaign).
The link between the annoying features of EU membership (not always getting exactly what we want, sometimes silly Eurorules) and the benefits (frictionless access to a huge market of rich people) were laughed off. The reality that you can only get the benefits by paying the costs was simply denied. And is still being denied.
Once political debate gets that decadent, democracy is in trouble. It's why "the government should have made Vote Leave put up a concrete plan" wouldn't have worked. VL would have proposed a unicorn. Had the EU said "that's a unicorn", the response would have been "of course they're saying that now, but when the UK shows some bulldog spirit..."
Because it's not a unicorn.
Trade and integration have no reason whatsoever to be linked. The idea that there's only one form of Europe is the biggest unicorn of all. Europe has always been a la carte with a pile of fudge on the side and it is only Europhile extremists who say otherwise.
How many seats is the next parliament btw - are we heading to 600 or sticking with 650. Are the 650 the same as now or different ?
My understanding is 650, and the seats will be redrawn.
The Tory majority will probably increase from 80 to about 100 as a result of the boundary changes.
Agreed, the effective Tory majority is ~ 100.
Just redrawing the Welsh seats will remove some safe Labour citadels. In fact, I think some Welsh MPs will jump to the Assembly in 2021. E.g., Swansea West, Gower and Llanelli have 3 Labour MPs fighting over likely two redrawn Westminster seats.
So, I predict some Welsh Parliamentary by-elections next year.
The new boundaries will be based on 650 seats. The main change is that Wales will lose its overrepresentation and so go down to around 32 seats, while the South East will be the main winner.
While the Tories will make gains, it isn't quite as much as perhaps it would have been before the 2019 election as quite a few of the Red Wall seats such as in the Potteries are undersized (also the Tories did well in Wales). There are also a few Lab areas where they will gain seats like East London.
The LDs are likely to be the biggest losers:
Caithness and Fife NE are both undersized. Edinburgh W could also see some change as the council ward boundaries have all changed. Westmorland is likely to be split up with some of it going in a cross-county seat with Morecambe. Oxfordshire is likely to gain a seat so the LDs may have to fight to keep the Oxford and Abingdon pairing.
No election till 2024, who knows what the political landscape will be like then
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
For most, given our woeful language skills, it was a theoretical freedom rather than a real one. The EU was also pretty bad at making a level playing field for professionals. I’m a fully qualified teacher here: which EU country would recognise my qualification and let me apply for a teaching post? What about lawyers or accountants (I genuinely don’t know about those: could they have moved seamlessly from one country to another)?
In IT, freedom of movement was real: I could have gone and worked pretty much anywhere in Europe & have friends that did exactly that. Brexit forced them to become citizens of their place of work in order to keep their livelihoods & I doubt they’ll be coming back.
Law, it seems to me, has a strong local element - you can’t reasonably expect to practise law in a given country without actually being familiar with the laws of that country, surely?
Some of the best years of my life were spent working as a software developer in Germany. I suppose it'll still be possible to do this in the future, but it will involve a lot more bureaucracy.
How fluent were you in German before you went, or was it not an issue because knowing C++ or whatever the relevant programming language you used was more important? I keep thinking that for many the biggest problem with moving to another EU state for work would be the fear that they could not cope with the language.
Not the EU, but I lived and worked in Zurich for almost two years. I guess the difference is that everyone in Switzerland speaks pretty good English, but I got by with some basic German and most countries offer free lessons to the recently migrated. My wife and I have been looking seriously at Italy if both of us can go remote a few years from now once the eventual kids reach school age.
They'll be taking treble doses as a patriotic act in Larkie (though as many of the anti vaxxer types in Scotland seem to come from that demographic it may provide a bit of a dilemma).
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
Surely there are two issues. Will it cause harm and is it effective? If there is any doubt about the former, then it won't get the go-ahead - I've seen no evidence to suggest that it is dangerous. Whether or not it's effective and worth rolling out is another matter.
I know you like to be anti-Oxford, but you really ought to be careful on this subject. The Americans are clearly muck spreading at the moment - you shouldn't help them.
It's not anti Oxford, it really isn't now.
I absolutely despise antivaxxers and one of my perverse pleasures is checking out the thinking of current antivaxxers, and this is the sort of thing they live for.
There's much potential for fake news with the vaccine rollout, the government needs to really educate the public on this, right now the antivaxxers are filling the vacuum. We saw this with the MMR jab and so many needlessly died.
Social media gives every idiot a megaphone, and it has tragic consequences, see what happened in Samoa.
I love the way a discussion about changes in sexual mores and their possible consequences focuses on whether women should have sex and not at all on men’s responsibilities for the consequences of their actions.
Some things never change it seems.
It does indeed take two to tango. Men are just as responsible as women for broken homes and casual pregnancies.
More responsible. 9 times out of 10 it's the man who's done a runner, leaving the woman to look after the kids.
Comments
It doesn't help either that Celtic Nationalists and English Scocialists and Left Liberals (I'm looking at you Emily Thornberry) regard the EU as a way of taming English National Identity or Nationalism which is automatically, in their world view, regarded as a "v bad thing" whereas the cuddly Celtic variety is regarded as, at worst, acceptable.
I keep thinking that for many the biggest problem with moving to another EU state for work would be the fear that they could not cope with the language.
The one good bit of news is that the Guardian is reporting Prof. Sir John Bell as saying the full data should be published in the Lancet this weekend, so perhaps things will become a bit clearer then.
But the Leave campaign won, we lost (suck it up) and it is up to Leavers to demonstrate why their vision of the world is superior. I'm not going to take the blame for the shitshow that is coming, it has nothing to do with me. People can form their own judgements. I am going to be too focused on protecting my children's future to become an evangelist for rejoining, I don't think that will happen in my lifetime.
Personally, I have no contempt for people who voted Leave, but I do have contempt for the charlatans who told them we would end freedom of movement but stay in the single market, that a trade deal would be easy, that we held all the cards, that there would be more money for the NHS, that we would be swamped by Turks and Syrians and that EU migrants were a drag on the economy, all of which were lies.
Hence an aide to Cameron thinking aloud as to why he owed more of duty towards to the welfare of the people of the UK than anywhere else.
The problem is that in a democracy, the voters start thinking that the politicians owe them something. As opposed to knowing their place and doing what they are told.
But waiting until you educate/persuade the people of something is too much like hard work. Much easier to say "This is now the law".
Including costs as well as benefits and actually making a case would go a long way. Another problem, besides lack of voter choice, of a cosy political consensus is that politicians can forget other people think differently, and they get out of practice of making the case for what they believe.
Although I don’t really do speculation on whether there will be a deal. There are 2 reasons for this. One, because it’s a certainty. Is now and always has been. There is no way on earth we will move from frictionless trade with our largest market to basic WTO terms – simultaneously vandalising the economy and the sensitive accord over the Irish border. That is simply not happening under any PM other than John Redwood. So it’s pointless to discuss it.
However I’m no killjoy and pointless conversation can be fun, so this is not the reason for not playing. The main reason is that debate which allows for the serious possibility of no deal plays into the hands of the ghastly Johnson. It is great PR for him. It manufactures fear – which is real even though the source of it isn’t – and thus a flood of relief when the inevitable agreement is unveiled. Johnson can then surf on this tide of relief, selling his deal as a hard won triumph against the odds when it is anything but.
We see through this bullshit now, don’t we? Surely we do. So let’s not do that “will there be a deal?” baloney. I think all of people’s critical attention should be directed to the matter of what sort of deal it will be. The details. Specifically, how much harder will trade and commerce with the EU be, how much additional bureaucracy will be needed to police it, what EU freedoms will we lose, and are there any significant tangible benefits – any at all - coming our way in the foreseeable future which make this look anything but an act of quite considerable stupidity.
Actually, it’s probably better that you weren’t.
How is Miss Cyclefree Jr doing? Any chance of adopting @isam ‘s idea to give each drinker a £1 Mac and Cheese ready meal or some such?
Hope she works something out anyway.
Since so much business in Germany is conducted in English anyway, I'd say that having the right IT skills will get you a job there, even if you don't speak German at all. But your life will become much richer if you do put the effort into learning the language.
Oxford and AZN have not covered themselves in glory with the presentation it is true. But this is a vaccine which clearly is safe, efficacious and easily deployable. Get on with it.
You are behaving like Nigel Farage, warning there will be disobedience if lockdown is not eased, or there will be riots if Brexit is blocked.
Of course, Nige does not want to see it happen 😉 he's just "mapping how things could pan out".
Indeed part of the crisis of masculinity is that the combination of reduced economic potential and lack of commitment to long term relationships means that for many women men have little to offer.
But that’s no reason to start trashing the product.
Very odd behaviours from Eagles.
Agree entirely, Mr. Malmesbury. Identities are tricky, and can be surprisingly brief (Normans) or persistent. I said it at the time, but Cameron's use of 'Little England' during the campaign, to the tittering of some Remainers, was bloody stupid.
They should have stuck with the 70 number, but go hard on how their measure is more rigorous than the others' by looking at infections rather than just serious symptoms, and how their vaccine is much easier to deploy.
Swinson not being PM, or indeed an MP, has obviously left its mark.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-55096851
Comparing me to Nigel Farage, you might as well serve me a pizza with only pineapple as toppings.
The reality is that we live in a globalised world economy. So much of our political debate is so parochial and meaningless, it is a total failure of political leadership. But of course that suits the people who are running the show, because it leaves governments too localised and powerless to be able to constrain them.
The idea that Brexit doesn’t affect me because I’m “skilled” is ridiculous. It puts frictional barriers between an EU company employing me and employing someone from within the EU.
Indeed, the reason that Remain won in 1975 was because of positive campaigning about the many benefits of European integration.
Is that still going ahead?
The replies to this post highlight another issue. People talking about sex and the nuclear family seem to forget that other freedoms have come along with the Sexual Revolution. Being gay no longer leads to prison, or finding a bottle of whisky and a revolver on your desk. Women are no longer seen as little more than cattle for producing children except by the more extreme religious nutjobs.
And if we are hankering back to a more moralistic heyday from (say) 100 years ago, then are we going to turn a blind eye once again to servants being raped by the master of household, of gay relationships taking place in secret or most men having mistresses? There was a MASSIVE amount of hypocrisy back then.
Is that what we should be aspiring to? Becoming hypocrites?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I
- the maths of a vaccine rollout mean that March is the earliest point at which vaccination could reach the overall population
- without strong restrictions, R rises above 1
Expecting there to be restrictions until March seems pretty obvious....
So on Covid-19 as with most things I am a seer.
#LegendaryModesty
Looking at those for whom a holiday is often a big financial stretch, let alone travelling around Europe for months such as many of my extended family, they see people better off than them go on holiday and take advantage of free movement, and in return for that they see unfamiliar faces in their town doing jobs while their lives don't improve (rightly or wrongly).
Hardcore Europhiles banging on about cheaper holidays and study abroad while small town Britain sees demographics changing before their eyes is not a vote winner, no matter how much I agree with freedom of movement.
I reckon I've prepared over 30 British students for the European Commission language test over the years. The ones that come after them can pick turnips in the King's Lynn - Fakenham - Thetford golden triangle I guess.
Foreveeeeeeeeeeer!
Pineapple and banana.
"Somewhere a homeopath is screaming "JUST KEEP ADDING MORE WATER"."
Just redrawing the Welsh seats will remove some safe Labour citadels. In fact, I think some Welsh MPs will jump to the Assembly in 2021. E.g., Swansea West, Gower and Llanelli have 3 Labour MPs fighting over likely two redrawn Westminster seats.
So, I predict some Welsh Parliamentary by-elections next year.
The link between the annoying features of EU membership (not always getting exactly what we want, sometimes silly Eurorules) and the benefits (frictionless access to a huge market of rich people) were laughed off. The reality that you can only get the benefits by paying the costs was simply denied. And is still being denied.
Once political debate gets that decadent, democracy is in trouble. It's why "the government should have made Vote Leave put up a concrete plan" wouldn't have worked. VL would have proposed a unicorn. Had the EU said "that's a unicorn", the response would have been "of course they're saying that now, but when the UK shows some bulldog spirit..."
I expect our next Euro referendum to be much more positive about the social, cultural and economic opportunities of membership.
Not for a decade or so though.
But, you know, let's just keep trashing them instead.
The way it was said, the accent and the tone. The VictorianMineOwner vibe was very strong.
* They call this "succussion". Hahnemann used a leather-bound bible.
She is going down the “nice sandwich” or a “lovely pizza slice” route on the 2 days when she does not do a full menu - a free dor drinkers on other days. Important to keep the place open for drinkers no matter what because if closed people will forget you and it takes effort to build the business back up again. Some customers who had booked for a table with their friends are now asking for two adjoining tables. I suspect a lot of customers/places will do that. Whether that will provide enough trade when the PM is explicitly telling people not to go out and then turning his back on those businesses faced with no customers is another matter.
I’ve advised her - when taking bookings - to ask whether the booking is coming from a household, support bubble or a work meeting and marking that down so she has a record in case of any challenge.
It will be a miracle if she or any of the other nice places around here survive this. There is a very good “wet” pub in the next town, with a great reputation and awards for its beers, which will be in deep trouble the longer this goes on. I don’t think the government has any idea of the harm it is causing by this stop/start, too little, too late, cheese-paring approach to everything.
Edit: I should have said that in both cases they have made their permanent homes there.
I am a permanent resident outwith the UK now and from here I just don´t see why my business would be better off in a country with a chaotic business environment and an increasingly crappy attitude.
I am an accidental homeopath, I spent my childrens' entire childhood diligently applying arnica cream to bumps and bruises cos my wife bought it and I had no idea it was homeopathic.
As for the future, I'm confident that eventually upon a change of government, hopefully some slightly closer relations with Europe will make these opportunities easier to obtain again.
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1332278498753392640
Setting up bookings for tables of 2 in clusters might work.
Is there any enforcement of the one household rule though? Surely you can only take people at their word?
As all Leics is in Tier3, not applicable here.
While the Tories will make gains, it isn't quite as much as perhaps it would have been before the 2019 election as quite a few of the Red Wall seats such as in the Potteries are undersized (also the Tories did well in Wales). There are also a few Lab areas where they will gain seats like East London.
The LDs are likely to be the biggest losers:
Caithness and Fife NE are both undersized. Edinburgh W could also see some change as the council ward boundaries have all changed. Westmorland is likely to be split up with some of it going in a cross-county seat with Morecambe. Oxfordshire is likely to gain a seat so the LDs may have to fight to keep the Oxford and Abingdon pairing.
Perhaps raise the bar from go away and shut up in your 'criticisms', eh?
Trade and integration have no reason whatsoever to be linked. The idea that there's only one form of Europe is the biggest unicorn of all. Europe has always been a la carte with a pile of fudge on the side and it is only Europhile extremists who say otherwise.
Silly anti-Oxford comments play into the hands both of the anti-vax movement, and those seeking to profit from the pandemic.