looking at their increasing rates I would not be surprised
Other way around Malc, looks like Nicola, Boris and Arlene are all looking to shorten the free pass length but the Welsh are resisting because of their idiotic circuit breaker policy completely unravelling if they do because they sold it on the false basis of it allowing a normalish Christmas.
Looking at numbers unless I am going skelly they are rising significantly faster than every other country.
I think if there is a deal done then it will go into "provisional effect" or something and it will include a 6 month "deal implementation period" that essentially looks the same as the current transition period and comes with membership fees. That's the kind of fudge that would work becuase Boris gets his deal and 6 more months to figure out the customs border and supply chain changes, the EU gets 6 months to get it through 27 different parliaments and a €6bn bung.
It's not quite as simple as that, for a number of reasons. One is that the Commission can't provisionally apply anything other than a pure trade deal, and any deal we do sign will probably be 'mixed'. Another is that they can only provisionally apply a text, and that text has to be the legally-scrubbed version. Doing that in the remaining week in the midst of Covid-19 is unrealistic.
The other problems are political. The EP are already bitching about being sidelined, and they have a point. They don't want to be presented with a fait accompli. There's also a political/legal worry about whether this would fall foul of WTO rules. Of course, in practice that might not matter too much if no other countries object, which would probably be the case, but the EU doesn't want to be put in the position of breaking the rules.
There are various possible solutions, discussed in those tweets, but it's a pretty murky area. Basically we should never, ever have got to this insanely late stage.
God knows how businesses are supposed to plan. I expect that many will simply shut down all cross-channel shipments for a couple of months whilst they wait to find out what the hell is going on.
That's why I think a political solution to an extension will be found. They'll come up with some kind of wording but it means we stay in the transition period for another six months but a few days before the 31st of December we'll see Boris and Ursula in a room in London or Brussels signing this deal in front of the cameras.
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?
FPT - I just spent 10 minutes on the phone to a IT helpdesk guy at HMRC called John McClean - a week before Christmas.
What does this mean??
You're behind on your paperwork?
No, I'm working for them on the inland border posts. As of last week.
My laptop doesn't log on properly.
What's an inland border post?
Our new customs posts.
Where?
Warrington, Birmingham, Holyhead, North Weald, White Cliffs, Ebbsfleet etc. and a few others with contingency sites on top.
We're a member of the common transit convention now in our own right so lorries will only have to make customs declarations and pay import duties when they arrive at their final destination - and you can file some in advance and just have spot checks on top - which will reduce loads at ports.
Makes the heart soar to see what you have done to our country.
I think if there is a deal done then it will go into "provisional effect" or something and it will include a 6 month "deal implementation period" that essentially looks the same as the current transition period and comes with membership fees. That's the kind of fudge that would work becuase Boris gets his deal and 6 more months to figure out the customs border and supply chain changes, the EU gets 6 months to get it through 27 different parliaments and a €6bn bung.
It's not quite as simple as that, for a number of reasons. One is that the Commission can't provisionally apply anything other than a pure trade deal, and any deal we do sign will probably be 'mixed'. Another is that they can only provisionally apply a text, and that text has to be the legally-scrubbed version. Doing that in the remaining week in the midst of Covid-19 is unrealistic.
The other problems are political. The EP are already bitching about being sidelined, and they have a point. They don't want to be presented with a fait accompli. There's also a political/legal worry about whether this would fall foul of WTO rules. Of course, in practice that might not matter too much if no other countries object, which would probably be the case, but the EU doesn't want to be put in the position of breaking the rules.
There are various possible solutions, discussed in those tweets, but it's a pretty murky area. Basically we should never, ever have got to this insanely late stage.
God knows how businesses are supposed to plan. I expect that many will simply shut down all cross-channel shipments for a couple of months whilst they wait to find out what the hell is going on.
That's why I think a political solution to an extension will be found. They'll come up with some kind of wording but it means we stay in the transition period for another six months but a few days before the 31st of December we'll see Boris and Ursula in a room in London or Brussels signing this deal in front of the cameras.
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?
Then we end up in accidental no deal. It would be seen as a sign of bad faith negotiation by the EU if they didn't commit to the already agreed deal and implied they would seek to reopen it after a transition extension was signed.
LOL
I mean Max this govt was about to renege on the deal they signed moments ago.
When there was no deal agreed.
You don't mess around once a deal is agreed.
The deal was agreed and signed.
Prior deal. Not this deal. This is a new one being negotiated.
I think if there is a deal done then it will go into "provisional effect" or something and it will include a 6 month "deal implementation period" that essentially looks the same as the current transition period and comes with membership fees. That's the kind of fudge that would work becuase Boris gets his deal and 6 more months to figure out the customs border and supply chain changes, the EU gets 6 months to get it through 27 different parliaments and a €6bn bung.
It's not quite as simple as that, for a number of reasons. One is that the Commission can't provisionally apply anything other than a pure trade deal, and any deal we do sign will probably be 'mixed'. Another is that they can only provisionally apply a text, and that text has to be the legally-scrubbed version. Doing that in the remaining week in the midst of Covid-19 is unrealistic.
The other problems are political. The EP are already bitching about being sidelined, and they have a point. They don't want to be presented with a fait accompli. There's also a political/legal worry about whether this would fall foul of WTO rules. Of course, in practice that might not matter too much if no other countries object, which would probably be the case, but the EU doesn't want to be put in the position of breaking the rules.
There are various possible solutions, discussed in those tweets, but it's a pretty murky area. Basically we should never, ever have got to this insanely late stage.
God knows how businesses are supposed to plan. I expect that many will simply shut down all cross-channel shipments for a couple of months whilst they wait to find out what the hell is going on.
That's why I think a political solution to an extension will be found. They'll come up with some kind of wording but it means we stay in the transition period for another six months but a few days before the 31st of December we'll see Boris and Ursula in a room in London or Brussels signing this deal in front of the cameras.
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?
Why would they do that?
Because the two sides are apparently still not close enough, so it's a case of whether to continue talking with an extension or without one.
looking at their increasing rates I would not be surprised
Other way around Malc, looks like Nicola, Boris and Arlene are all looking to shorten the free pass length but the Welsh are resisting because of their idiotic circuit breaker policy completely unravelling if they do because they sold it on the false basis of it allowing a normalish Christmas.
Looking at numbers unless I am going skelly they are rising significantly faster than every other country.
Yeah it's a bit mental. Gove called the meeting this morning to discuss cutting the length of the free pass, it's ended without resolution. That means one of the four nations disagreed on cutting it, we know Nicola wants to cut the length, Gove called the meeting so he definitely does and Arlene reimposed lockdown so I'd be surprised if she doesn't. We also heard that the Welsh were unwilling to give up "hard won" Christmas concessions from the other three nations or something like that. Anyway, I'm sure the Daily Mail will have it from Gove's wife soon
FPT - I just spent 10 minutes on the phone to a IT helpdesk guy at HMRC called John McClean - a week before Christmas.
What does this mean??
You're behind on your paperwork?
No, I'm working for them on the inland border posts. As of last week.
My laptop doesn't log on properly.
What's an inland border post?
Our new customs posts.
Where?
Warrington, Birmingham, Holyhead, North Weald, White Cliffs, Ebbsfleet etc. and a few others with contingency sites on top.
We're a member of the common transit convention now in our own right so lorries will only have to make customs declarations and pay import duties when they arrive at their final destination - and you can file some in advance and just have spot checks on top - which will reduce loads at ports.
Makes the heart soar to see what you have done to our country.
Will they get one of the Royals to open them by symbolically cutting some red tape?
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.
It’s obvious that people have lost love for Welsh Labour, but so far they haven’t quite worked out who to turn to instead.
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.
I don't. There is neither enough enthusiasm to return under Boris' wing or cast the Union aside yet.
I believe Ydoethur's point is valid. Not impressed with the Welsh Labour Government but PC are in chaos and the people running the Welsh Conservatives are all of the calibre of Johnson, but without the charisma. My wife who is of the Remainer-Conservative faith can't bear, Paul and Andrew RT Davies
I think if there is a deal done then it will go into "provisional effect" or something and it will include a 6 month "deal implementation period" that essentially looks the same as the current transition period and comes with membership fees. That's the kind of fudge that would work becuase Boris gets his deal and 6 more months to figure out the customs border and supply chain changes, the EU gets 6 months to get it through 27 different parliaments and a €6bn bung.
It's not quite as simple as that, for a number of reasons. One is that the Commission can't provisionally apply anything other than a pure trade deal, and any deal we do sign will probably be 'mixed'. Another is that they can only provisionally apply a text, and that text has to be the legally-scrubbed version. Doing that in the remaining week in the midst of Covid-19 is unrealistic.
The other problems are political. The EP are already bitching about being sidelined, and they have a point. They don't want to be presented with a fait accompli. There's also a political/legal worry about whether this would fall foul of WTO rules. Of course, in practice that might not matter too much if no other countries object, which would probably be the case, but the EU doesn't want to be put in the position of breaking the rules.
There are various possible solutions, discussed in those tweets, but it's a pretty murky area. Basically we should never, ever have got to this insanely late stage.
God knows how businesses are supposed to plan. I expect that many will simply shut down all cross-channel shipments for a couple of months whilst they wait to find out what the hell is going on.
That's why I think a political solution to an extension will be found. They'll come up with some kind of wording but it means we stay in the transition period for another six months but a few days before the 31st of December we'll see Boris and Ursula in a room in London or Brussels signing this deal in front of the cameras.
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?
Why would they do that?
Because the two sides are apparently still not close enough, so it's a case of whether to continue talking with an extension or without one.
Why make it politically difficult for your counterpart to continue talking?
I think if there is a deal done then it will go into "provisional effect" or something and it will include a 6 month "deal implementation period" that essentially looks the same as the current transition period and comes with membership fees. That's the kind of fudge that would work becuase Boris gets his deal and 6 more months to figure out the customs border and supply chain changes, the EU gets 6 months to get it through 27 different parliaments and a €6bn bung.
It's not quite as simple as that, for a number of reasons. One is that the Commission can't provisionally apply anything other than a pure trade deal, and any deal we do sign will probably be 'mixed'. Another is that they can only provisionally apply a text, and that text has to be the legally-scrubbed version. Doing that in the remaining week in the midst of Covid-19 is unrealistic.
The other problems are political. The EP are already bitching about being sidelined, and they have a point. They don't want to be presented with a fait accompli. There's also a political/legal worry about whether this would fall foul of WTO rules. Of course, in practice that might not matter too much if no other countries object, which would probably be the case, but the EU doesn't want to be put in the position of breaking the rules.
There are various possible solutions, discussed in those tweets, but it's a pretty murky area. Basically we should never, ever have got to this insanely late stage.
God knows how businesses are supposed to plan. I expect that many will simply shut down all cross-channel shipments for a couple of months whilst they wait to find out what the hell is going on.
That's why I think a political solution to an extension will be found. They'll come up with some kind of wording but it means we stay in the transition period for another six months but a few days before the 31st of December we'll see Boris and Ursula in a room in London or Brussels signing this deal in front of the cameras.
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?
Why would they do that?
Because the two sides are apparently still not close enough, so it's a case of whether to continue talking with an extension or without one.
Three months of pure unadulterated Brexit might focus minds. Quite which minds is for debate, although I have my own ideas.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters as well as Leave voters want William to become the next King but LD voters and Remain voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
I think if there is a deal done then it will go into "provisional effect" or something and it will include a 6 month "deal implementation period" that essentially looks the same as the current transition period and comes with membership fees. That's the kind of fudge that would work becuase Boris gets his deal and 6 more months to figure out the customs border and supply chain changes, the EU gets 6 months to get it through 27 different parliaments and a €6bn bung.
It's not quite as simple as that, for a number of reasons. One is that the Commission can't provisionally apply anything other than a pure trade deal, and any deal we do sign will probably be 'mixed'. Another is that they can only provisionally apply a text, and that text has to be the legally-scrubbed version. Doing that in the remaining week in the midst of Covid-19 is unrealistic.
The other problems are political. The EP are already bitching about being sidelined, and they have a point. They don't want to be presented with a fait accompli. There's also a political/legal worry about whether this would fall foul of WTO rules. Of course, in practice that might not matter too much if no other countries object, which would probably be the case, but the EU doesn't want to be put in the position of breaking the rules.
There are various possible solutions, discussed in those tweets, but it's a pretty murky area. Basically we should never, ever have got to this insanely late stage.
God knows how businesses are supposed to plan. I expect that many will simply shut down all cross-channel shipments for a couple of months whilst they wait to find out what the hell is going on.
That's why I think a political solution to an extension will be found. They'll come up with some kind of wording but it means we stay in the transition period for another six months but a few days before the 31st of December we'll see Boris and Ursula in a room in London or Brussels signing this deal in front of the cameras.
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?
Why would they do that?
Because the two sides are apparently still not close enough, so it's a case of whether to continue talking with an extension or without one.
No, if there's no deal agreed before December 31st we will no deal.
I think if there is a deal done then it will go into "provisional effect" or something and it will include a 6 month "deal implementation period" that essentially looks the same as the current transition period and comes with membership fees. That's the kind of fudge that would work becuase Boris gets his deal and 6 more months to figure out the customs border and supply chain changes, the EU gets 6 months to get it through 27 different parliaments and a €6bn bung.
It's not quite as simple as that, for a number of reasons. One is that the Commission can't provisionally apply anything other than a pure trade deal, and any deal we do sign will probably be 'mixed'. Another is that they can only provisionally apply a text, and that text has to be the legally-scrubbed version. Doing that in the remaining week in the midst of Covid-19 is unrealistic.
The other problems are political. The EP are already bitching about being sidelined, and they have a point. They don't want to be presented with a fait accompli. There's also a political/legal worry about whether this would fall foul of WTO rules. Of course, in practice that might not matter too much if no other countries object, which would probably be the case, but the EU doesn't want to be put in the position of breaking the rules.
There are various possible solutions, discussed in those tweets, but it's a pretty murky area. Basically we should never, ever have got to this insanely late stage.
God knows how businesses are supposed to plan. I expect that many will simply shut down all cross-channel shipments for a couple of months whilst they wait to find out what the hell is going on.
That's why I think a political solution to an extension will be found. They'll come up with some kind of wording but it means we stay in the transition period for another six months but a few days before the 31st of December we'll see Boris and Ursula in a room in London or Brussels signing this deal in front of the cameras.
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?
Why would they do that?
Because the two sides are apparently still not close enough, so it's a case of whether to continue talking with an extension or without one.
Why make it politically difficult for your counterpart to continue talking?
He made it politically difficult for himself by not taking the extension earlier in the year when Brexit supporters were willing to give him a free pass.
I think if there is a deal done then it will go into "provisional effect" or something and it will include a 6 month "deal implementation period" that essentially looks the same as the current transition period and comes with membership fees. That's the kind of fudge that would work becuase Boris gets his deal and 6 more months to figure out the customs border and supply chain changes, the EU gets 6 months to get it through 27 different parliaments and a €6bn bung.
It's not quite as simple as that, for a number of reasons. One is that the Commission can't provisionally apply anything other than a pure trade deal, and any deal we do sign will probably be 'mixed'. Another is that they can only provisionally apply a text, and that text has to be the legally-scrubbed version. Doing that in the remaining week in the midst of Covid-19 is unrealistic.
The other problems are political. The EP are already bitching about being sidelined, and they have a point. They don't want to be presented with a fait accompli. There's also a political/legal worry about whether this would fall foul of WTO rules. Of course, in practice that might not matter too much if no other countries object, which would probably be the case, but the EU doesn't want to be put in the position of breaking the rules.
There are various possible solutions, discussed in those tweets, but it's a pretty murky area. Basically we should never, ever have got to this insanely late stage.
God knows how businesses are supposed to plan. I expect that many will simply shut down all cross-channel shipments for a couple of months whilst they wait to find out what the hell is going on.
That's why I think a political solution to an extension will be found. They'll come up with some kind of wording but it means we stay in the transition period for another six months but a few days before the 31st of December we'll see Boris and Ursula in a room in London or Brussels signing this deal in front of the cameras.
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?
Why would they do that?
Because the two sides are apparently still not close enough, so it's a case of whether to continue talking with an extension or without one.
No, if there's no deal agreed before December 31st we will no deal.
I think the EU now understands that this can is no longer for kicking.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
I think if there is a deal done then it will go into "provisional effect" or something and it will include a 6 month "deal implementation period" that essentially looks the same as the current transition period and comes with membership fees. That's the kind of fudge that would work becuase Boris gets his deal and 6 more months to figure out the customs border and supply chain changes, the EU gets 6 months to get it through 27 different parliaments and a €6bn bung.
It's not quite as simple as that, for a number of reasons. One is that the Commission can't provisionally apply anything other than a pure trade deal, and any deal we do sign will probably be 'mixed'. Another is that they can only provisionally apply a text, and that text has to be the legally-scrubbed version. Doing that in the remaining week in the midst of Covid-19 is unrealistic.
The other problems are political. The EP are already bitching about being sidelined, and they have a point. They don't want to be presented with a fait accompli. There's also a political/legal worry about whether this would fall foul of WTO rules. Of course, in practice that might not matter too much if no other countries object, which would probably be the case, but the EU doesn't want to be put in the position of breaking the rules.
There are various possible solutions, discussed in those tweets, but it's a pretty murky area. Basically we should never, ever have got to this insanely late stage.
God knows how businesses are supposed to plan. I expect that many will simply shut down all cross-channel shipments for a couple of months whilst they wait to find out what the hell is going on.
That's why I think a political solution to an extension will be found. They'll come up with some kind of wording but it means we stay in the transition period for another six months but a few days before the 31st of December we'll see Boris and Ursula in a room in London or Brussels signing this deal in front of the cameras.
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?
Why would they do that?
Because the two sides are apparently still not close enough, so it's a case of whether to continue talking with an extension or without one.
No, if there's no deal agreed before December 31st we will no deal.
... and continue talking to get a deal, because long term we need one.
Burnley at #47 is the only LA in the 3 N England regions in the top 63 on Malmesbury's list. How swiftly things change! Almost all SE, London and Wales now.
I think if there is a deal done then it will go into "provisional effect" or something and it will include a 6 month "deal implementation period" that essentially looks the same as the current transition period and comes with membership fees. That's the kind of fudge that would work becuase Boris gets his deal and 6 more months to figure out the customs border and supply chain changes, the EU gets 6 months to get it through 27 different parliaments and a €6bn bung.
It's not quite as simple as that, for a number of reasons. One is that the Commission can't provisionally apply anything other than a pure trade deal, and any deal we do sign will probably be 'mixed'. Another is that they can only provisionally apply a text, and that text has to be the legally-scrubbed version. Doing that in the remaining week in the midst of Covid-19 is unrealistic.
The other problems are political. The EP are already bitching about being sidelined, and they have a point. They don't want to be presented with a fait accompli. There's also a political/legal worry about whether this would fall foul of WTO rules. Of course, in practice that might not matter too much if no other countries object, which would probably be the case, but the EU doesn't want to be put in the position of breaking the rules.
There are various possible solutions, discussed in those tweets, but it's a pretty murky area. Basically we should never, ever have got to this insanely late stage.
God knows how businesses are supposed to plan. I expect that many will simply shut down all cross-channel shipments for a couple of months whilst they wait to find out what the hell is going on.
That's why I think a political solution to an extension will be found. They'll come up with some kind of wording but it means we stay in the transition period for another six months but a few days before the 31st of December we'll see Boris and Ursula in a room in London or Brussels signing this deal in front of the cameras.
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?
Why would they do that?
Because the two sides are apparently still not close enough, so it's a case of whether to continue talking with an extension or without one.
No, if there's no deal agreed before December 31st we will no deal.
I think the EU now understands that this can is no longer for kicking.
When will Boris get the bollox to admit his No deal.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters as well as Leave voters want William to become the next King but LD voters and Remain voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
I think if there is a deal done then it will go into "provisional effect" or something and it will include a 6 month "deal implementation period" that essentially looks the same as the current transition period and comes with membership fees. That's the kind of fudge that would work becuase Boris gets his deal and 6 more months to figure out the customs border and supply chain changes, the EU gets 6 months to get it through 27 different parliaments and a €6bn bung.
It's not quite as simple as that, for a number of reasons. One is that the Commission can't provisionally apply anything other than a pure trade deal, and any deal we do sign will probably be 'mixed'. Another is that they can only provisionally apply a text, and that text has to be the legally-scrubbed version. Doing that in the remaining week in the midst of Covid-19 is unrealistic.
The other problems are political. The EP are already bitching about being sidelined, and they have a point. They don't want to be presented with a fait accompli. There's also a political/legal worry about whether this would fall foul of WTO rules. Of course, in practice that might not matter too much if no other countries object, which would probably be the case, but the EU doesn't want to be put in the position of breaking the rules.
There are various possible solutions, discussed in those tweets, but it's a pretty murky area. Basically we should never, ever have got to this insanely late stage.
God knows how businesses are supposed to plan. I expect that many will simply shut down all cross-channel shipments for a couple of months whilst they wait to find out what the hell is going on.
That's why I think a political solution to an extension will be found. They'll come up with some kind of wording but it means we stay in the transition period for another six months but a few days before the 31st of December we'll see Boris and Ursula in a room in London or Brussels signing this deal in front of the cameras.
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?
Why would they do that?
Because the two sides are apparently still not close enough, so it's a case of whether to continue talking with an extension or without one.
No, if there's no deal agreed before December 31st we will no deal.
... and continue talking to get a deal, because long term we need one.
No, UK/EU relations go into a deep freeze and that's it for a very long time while the UK looks to Asia.
I think if there is a deal done then it will go into "provisional effect" or something and it will include a 6 month "deal implementation period" that essentially looks the same as the current transition period and comes with membership fees. That's the kind of fudge that would work becuase Boris gets his deal and 6 more months to figure out the customs border and supply chain changes, the EU gets 6 months to get it through 27 different parliaments and a €6bn bung.
It's not quite as simple as that, for a number of reasons. One is that the Commission can't provisionally apply anything other than a pure trade deal, and any deal we do sign will probably be 'mixed'. Another is that they can only provisionally apply a text, and that text has to be the legally-scrubbed version. Doing that in the remaining week in the midst of Covid-19 is unrealistic.
The other problems are political. The EP are already bitching about being sidelined, and they have a point. They don't want to be presented with a fait accompli. There's also a political/legal worry about whether this would fall foul of WTO rules. Of course, in practice that might not matter too much if no other countries object, which would probably be the case, but the EU doesn't want to be put in the position of breaking the rules.
There are various possible solutions, discussed in those tweets, but it's a pretty murky area. Basically we should never, ever have got to this insanely late stage.
God knows how businesses are supposed to plan. I expect that many will simply shut down all cross-channel shipments for a couple of months whilst they wait to find out what the hell is going on.
That's why I think a political solution to an extension will be found. They'll come up with some kind of wording but it means we stay in the transition period for another six months but a few days before the 31st of December we'll see Boris and Ursula in a room in London or Brussels signing this deal in front of the cameras.
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?
Why would they do that?
Because the two sides are apparently still not close enough, so it's a case of whether to continue talking with an extension or without one.
Why make it politically difficult for your counterpart to continue talking?
He made it politically difficult for himself by not taking the extension earlier in the year when Brexit supporters were willing to give him a free pass.
The party splits on the Christmas relaxation are interesting. Conservative voters noticeably keener on keeping the hall pass, but still solidly against.
There has been a lot of well-informed discussion on Twitter* on the question of whether it is legally and politically possible to agree a deal at this ludicrously late stage and have it apply on Jan 1st.
For example, see here and the various replies to this tweet and the quoted thread:
The truth seems to be that no-one really knows. It might be possible to fudge something, but it's far from certain. There might have to be some chaotic interlude where no-one quite knows what the rules are, and tariffs might have to be collected and possibly reimbursed later. Whatever happens, it's a God-awful mess.
* I know, I know - but if you follow the right people, there's a a lot of good stuff there.
I think if there is a deal done then it will go into "provisional effect" or something and it will include a 6 month "deal implementation period" that essentially looks the same as the current transition period and comes with membership fees. That's the kind of fudge that would work becuase Boris gets his deal and 6 more months to figure out the customs border and supply chain changes, the EU gets 6 months to get it through 27 different parliaments and a €6bn bung.
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.
It’s obvious that people have lost love for Welsh Labour, but so far they haven’t quite worked out who to turn to instead.
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.
No. Because only a few fruitcakes on either side in Wales want either option. The question in constitutional terms is more powers first vs. competent governance first. But that frankly is a secondary issue to the problems in public services, rampant corruption and a fragile, unstable economy.
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.
The question is whether any of those problems are related to Wales' constitutional status.
In the 1960s, Welsh GDP was twice that of the Republic of Ireland. Now in the 2020s, the economy of the Republic of Ireland is four times that of Wales.
Why is that ? Why has an independent Ireland prospered mightily, whereas a Wales tied to Westminster become more and more impoverished ?
And is the pauperization of Wales related to the behaviour of the Westminster parties ?
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
Joe Biden plans to nominate former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg to become U.S. Transportation Secretary, people familiar with the decision said.
FPT - I just spent 10 minutes on the phone to a IT helpdesk guy at HMRC called John McClean - a week before Christmas.
What does this mean??
You're behind on your paperwork?
No, I'm working for them on the inland border posts. As of last week.
My laptop doesn't log on properly.
What's an inland border post?
Our new customs posts.
Where?
Warrington, Birmingham, Holyhead, North Weald, White Cliffs, Ebbsfleet etc. and a few others with contingency sites on top.
We're a member of the common transit convention now in our own right so lorries will only have to make customs declarations and pay import duties when they arrive at their final destination - and you can file some in advance and just have spot checks on top - which will reduce loads at ports.
A pity that the EU side of the border won't offer such a dispersed operating plan. Though the fact that so many lorry parks are being built in so many places demonstrates just how inefficient and expensively slow the new better system will be.
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.
It’s obvious that people have lost love for Welsh Labour, but so far they haven’t quite worked out who to turn to instead.
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.
I don't. There is neither enough enthusiasm to return under Boris' wing or cast the Union aside yet.
I believe Ydoethur's point is valid. Not impressed with the Welsh Labour Government but PC are in chaos and the people running the Welsh Conservatives are all of the calibre of Johnson, but without the charisma. My wife who is of the Remainer-Conservative faith can't bear, Paul and Andrew RT Davies
I am not that impressed myself but when Drakeford is the alternative it hardly matters
I think if there is a deal done then it will go into "provisional effect" or something and it will include a 6 month "deal implementation period" that essentially looks the same as the current transition period and comes with membership fees. That's the kind of fudge that would work becuase Boris gets his deal and 6 more months to figure out the customs border and supply chain changes, the EU gets 6 months to get it through 27 different parliaments and a €6bn bung.
It's not quite as simple as that, for a number of reasons. One is that the Commission can't provisionally apply anything other than a pure trade deal, and any deal we do sign will probably be 'mixed'. Another is that they can only provisionally apply a text, and that text has to be the legally-scrubbed version. Doing that in the remaining week in the midst of Covid-19 is unrealistic.
The other problems are political. The EP are already bitching about being sidelined, and they have a point. They don't want to be presented with a fait accompli. There's also a political/legal worry about whether this would fall foul of WTO rules. Of course, in practice that might not matter too much if no other countries object, which would probably be the case, but the EU doesn't want to be put in the position of breaking the rules.
There are various possible solutions, discussed in those tweets, but it's a pretty murky area. Basically we should never, ever have got to this insanely late stage.
God knows how businesses are supposed to plan. I expect that many will simply shut down all cross-channel shipments for a couple of months whilst they wait to find out what the hell is going on.
That's why I think a political solution to an extension will be found. They'll come up with some kind of wording but it means we stay in the transition period for another six months but a few days before the 31st of December we'll see Boris and Ursula in a room in London or Brussels signing this deal in front of the cameras.
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?
Why would they do that?
Because the two sides are apparently still not close enough, so it's a case of whether to continue talking with an extension or without one.
No, if there's no deal agreed before December 31st we will no deal.
I think the EU now understands that this can is no longer for kicking.
When will Boris get the bollox to admit his No deal.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.
Australia and Canada both have monarchist PMs and the opposition leader in Canada is also a monarchist, Ardern is a republican in New Zealand but has not prioritised the issue
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.
Australia and Canada both have monarchist PMs and the opposition leader in Canada is also a monarchist, Ardern is a republican in New Zealand but has not prioritised the issue
That's only while the Queen is there. Once she's gone the drumbeat for republicanism will get a lot louder in all of those countries.
FPT - I just spent 10 minutes on the phone to a IT helpdesk guy at HMRC called John McClean - a week before Christmas.
What does this mean??
You're behind on your paperwork?
No, I'm working for them on the inland border posts. As of last week.
My laptop doesn't log on properly.
What's an inland border post?
Our new customs posts.
Where?
Warrington, Birmingham, Holyhead, North Weald, White Cliffs, Ebbsfleet etc. and a few others with contingency sites on top.
We're a member of the common transit convention now in our own right so lorries will only have to make customs declarations and pay import duties when they arrive at their final destination - and you can file some in advance and just have spot checks on top - which will reduce loads at ports.
A pity that the EU side of the border won't offer such a dispersed operating plan. Though the fact that so many lorry parks are being built in so many places demonstrates just how inefficient and expensively slow the new better system will be.
Some are temporary contingency sites for "No Deal" and won't be here in 5 years.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.
Australia and Canada both have monarchist PMs and the opposition leader in Canada is also a monarchist, Ardern is a republican in New Zealand but has not prioritised the issue
That's only while the Queen is there. Once she's gone the drumbeat for republicanism will get a lot louder in all of those countries.
Plus Head of the Commonwealth isn't a hereditary position.
FPT - I just spent 10 minutes on the phone to a IT helpdesk guy at HMRC called John McClean - a week before Christmas.
What does this mean??
You're behind on your paperwork?
No, I'm working for them on the inland border posts. As of last week.
My laptop doesn't log on properly.
What's an inland border post?
Our new customs posts.
Where?
Warrington, Birmingham, Holyhead, North Weald, White Cliffs, Ebbsfleet etc. and a few others with contingency sites on top.
We're a member of the common transit convention now in our own right so lorries will only have to make customs declarations and pay import duties when they arrive at their final destination - and you can file some in advance and just have spot checks on top - which will reduce loads at ports.
Seems like a sensible list of locations. I may be biased but Warrington is a good choice for the Northwest when it comes to transport links.
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.
It’s obvious that people have lost love for Welsh Labour, but so far they haven’t quite worked out who to turn to instead.
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.
No. Because only a few fruitcakes on either side in Wales want either option. The question in constitutional terms is more powers first vs. competent governance first. But that frankly is a secondary issue to the problems in public services, rampant corruption and a fragile, unstable economy.
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.
The question is whether any of those problems are related to Wales' constitutional status.
In the 1960s, Welsh GDP was twice that of the Republic of Ireland. Now in the 2020s, the economy of the Republic of Ireland is four times that of Wales.
Why is that ? Why has an independent Ireland prospered mightily, whereas a Wales tied to Westminster become more and more impoverished ?
And is the pauperization of Wales related to the behaviour of the Westminster parties ?
No. And no. The problem in Wales is simple. It relied for its brief burst of prosperity on extraction of natural resources and heavy industry from that. The former became impracticable and the latter then became uneconomic (although Wales still does of course have a large steel industry).
When these went, its location and geographic limitations (being bloody hilly makes transport hard) made it unattractive to investment. That is despite the fact that a very great deal of hard work was put in by the then Tory government (working, uncharacteristically, with the unions) to try and persuade major firms to set up shop there.
That would (and did) happen regardless of who was in charge. Ireland, meanwhile, on the main route between Europe and America with strong links to both was able to prosper.
Does that mean it will always be this way? No. In an age when renewable energy is king, Wales, as one vast potential power station, could easily come into its own again.
But that DOES - to contradict myself - depend on half decent public services and a stable political and governmental system, which right now it hasn’t got.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:
- the problem of racism - multi-faith society - housing quality - the environment
Joe Biden plans to nominate former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg to become U.S. Transportation Secretary, people familiar with the decision said.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:
- the problem of racism - multi-faith society - housing quality - the environment
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:
- the problem of racism - multi-faith society - housing quality - the environment
Even more ironically, those are amongst the issues upon which the typical Tory is most content with the status quo and hates to have it disturbed, or wheh they want it disturbed they don't agrtee with the Duke of Rothesay. .
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.
It’s obvious that people have lost love for Welsh Labour, but so far they haven’t quite worked out who to turn to instead.
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.
No. Because only a few fruitcakes on either side in Wales want either option. The question in constitutional terms is more powers first vs. competent governance first. But that frankly is a secondary issue to the problems in public services, rampant corruption and a fragile, unstable economy.
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.
The question is whether any of those problems are related to Wales' constitutional status.
In the 1960s, Welsh GDP was twice that of the Republic of Ireland. Now in the 2020s, the economy of the Republic of Ireland is four times that of Wales.
Why is that ? Why has an independent Ireland prospered mightily, whereas a Wales tied to Westminster become more and more impoverished ?
And is the pauperization of Wales related to the behaviour of the Westminster parties ?
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:
- the problem of racism - multi-faith society - housing quality - the environment
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:
- the problem of racism - multi-faith society - housing quality - the environment
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:
- the problem of racism - multi-faith society - housing quality - the environment
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
He himself has said he wants to be defender of all faiths, not just the Anglican faith
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:
- the problem of racism - multi-faith society - housing quality - the environment
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.
It’s obvious that people have lost love for Welsh Labour, but so far they haven’t quite worked out who to turn to instead.
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.
No. Because only a few fruitcakes on either side in Wales want either option. The question in constitutional terms is more powers first vs. competent governance first. But that frankly is a secondary issue to the problems in public services, rampant corruption and a fragile, unstable economy.
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.
The question is whether any of those problems are related to Wales' constitutional status.
In the 1960s, Welsh GDP was twice that of the Republic of Ireland. Now in the 2020s, the economy of the Republic of Ireland is four times that of Wales.
Why is that ? Why has an independent Ireland prospered mightily, whereas a Wales tied to Westminster become more and more impoverished ?
And is the pauperization of Wales related to the behaviour of the Westminster parties ?
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.
Australia and Canada both have monarchist PMs and the opposition leader in Canada is also a monarchist, Ardern is a republican in New Zealand but has not prioritised the issue
That's only while the Queen is there. Once she's gone the drumbeat for republicanism will get a lot louder in all of those countries.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:
- the problem of racism - multi-faith society - housing quality - the environment
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Those qualities would seem to be taking the position back to its roots.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:
- the problem of racism - multi-faith society - housing quality - the environment
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
He himself has said he wants to be defender of all faiths, not just the Anglican faith
In which case he has no right to be Head of the C of E if he is defending heresies. What would Henry VIII have thought?
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:
- the problem of racism - multi-faith society - housing quality - the environment
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.
Australia and Canada both have monarchist PMs and the opposition leader in Canada is also a monarchist, Ardern is a republican in New Zealand but has not prioritised the issue
That's only while the Queen is there. Once she's gone the drumbeat for republicanism will get a lot louder in all of those countries.
Plus Head of the Commonwealth isn't a hereditary position.
Yet they've already chosen him to take it up. David Herdson did a very good piece on it.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:
- the problem of racism - multi-faith society - housing quality - the environment
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Sounds like he's a man of the people to me.
It is the hypocrisy of the Prince of Wales that boils my piss.
When it was revealed that James Hewitt slept with the wife of a brother officer he was effectively excommunicated by the army.
But when Prince Charles slept with the wife of a brother office the same didn't happen to him.
Liz Truss, the woman who negotiated a trade deal with Japan worse than what we already had, what a success.
She fits perfectly into the cabinet, utterly useless.
I think we need proof of your assertion. .
Writing from Blue Stilton country, I am satisfied.
So are the lactose intolerant Japanese.
There's next to no lactose in Stilton (or indeed in any properly-produced mature cheese).
As someone as lactose intolerant as the Japanese, I am aware of that. I am still not convinced the deal is as awesome as Ms. Truss claimed, but hey if it floats your boat.
Joe Biden plans to nominate former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg to become U.S. Transportation Secretary, people familiar with the decision said.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:
- the problem of racism - multi-faith society - housing quality - the environment
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Never seemed to hurt Edward VII.
That was in an era when women didn't have the vote, we've moved on since then.
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.
It’s obvious that people have lost love for Welsh Labour, but so far they haven’t quite worked out who to turn to instead.
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.
No. Because only a few fruitcakes on either side in Wales want either option. The question in constitutional terms is more powers first vs. competent governance first. But that frankly is a secondary issue to the problems in public services, rampant corruption and a fragile, unstable economy.
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.
The question is whether any of those problems are related to Wales' constitutional status.
In the 1960s, Welsh GDP was twice that of the Republic of Ireland. Now in the 2020s, the economy of the Republic of Ireland is four times that of Wales.
Why is that ? Why has an independent Ireland prospered mightily, whereas a Wales tied to Westminster become more and more impoverished ?
And is the pauperization of Wales related to the behaviour of the Westminster parties ?
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:
- the problem of racism - multi-faith society - housing quality - the environment
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Sounds like he's a man of the people to me.
It is the hypocrisy of the Prince of Wales that boils my piss.
When it was revealed that James Hewitt slept with the wife of a brother officer he was effectively excommunicated by the army.
But when Prince Charles slept with the wife of a brother office the same didn't happen to him.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?
Yes.
Quite. The moment you depose Charles III you might as well start another Civil War of the Jacobites vs the Rest. I'm deeply shocked to find HYUFD even talking about the possibility of high treason of that kind by encompassing the fall of the king (though it's not clear if he is advocating it).
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.
Australia and Canada both have monarchist PMs and the opposition leader in Canada is also a monarchist, Ardern is a republican in New Zealand but has not prioritised the issue
That's only while the Queen is there. Once she's gone the drumbeat for republicanism will get a lot louder in all of those countries.
No, in Australia PM Scott Morrison is a monarchist whoever is monarchy, Labour leader Anthony Albanese is a republican but Morrison's coalition still leads polls for the next election.
In Canada both the PM Trudeau's Liberals and the Opposition Leader Erin O'Toole's Conservatives are monarchist parties, only the third party NDP leans republican.
So if there is to be a referendum New Zealand is likely to be first but Ardern has not made it a priority
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.
Australia and Canada both have monarchist PMs and the opposition leader in Canada is also a monarchist, Ardern is a republican in New Zealand but has not prioritised the issue
That's only while the Queen is there. Once she's gone the drumbeat for republicanism will get a lot louder in all of those countries.
Plus Head of the Commonwealth isn't a hereditary position.
Yet they've already chosen him to take it up. David Herdson did a very good piece on it.
They could still kick off.
Taking back control from unelected rulers might become all the rage.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?
Yes.
Quite. The moment you depose Charles III you might as well start another Civil War of the Jacobites vs the Rest. I'm deeply shocked to find HYUFD even talking about the possibility of high treason of that kind by encompassing the fall of the king (though it's not clear if he is advocating it).
I would complain Carnyx, it’s progress from invading Scotland to duff you you and your fellow Nats.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.
Australia and Canada both have monarchist PMs and the opposition leader in Canada is also a monarchist, Ardern is a republican in New Zealand but has not prioritised the issue
Of all the positions on the monarchy, the idea of William succeeding directly after HMQ is the most ludicrous. Either you believe in the principle of a hereditary monarchy or you don't. If you're going to depart from the proper line of succession and choose who becomes Head of State, it's not obvious that William Wales would be the ideal candidate, you'd probably want to cast the net a little wider.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?
Yes.
I'm still too afraid to see if this article is a parody or not
Prince Charles is ready to becoming king whenever his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, decides to step down from the throne. “Charles will serve as king with Duchess Camilla by his side,” a source exclusively says in the new issue of Us Weekly. “This is something he’s dreamed about his entire life — he sees it as his birthright, and Her Majesty would find it extremely difficult to deprive him of that
The transmission mechanism is quite something ... rather like Bigg Market or Grassmarket on a bad Friday night ...
"While most fungi spore once the host is dead, with strongwellsea, the host continues to live for days, carrying out normal activities and socialising with other flies while the fungus consumes its genitals, fat reserves, reproductive organs and finally its muscle, all the while shooting out thousands of spores on to other individuals.
After a few days, the fly lies on its back, spasms for a few hours and then dies."
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.
Australia and Canada both have monarchist PMs and the opposition leader in Canada is also a monarchist, Ardern is a republican in New Zealand but has not prioritised the issue
Of all the positions on the monarchy, the idea of William succeeding directly after HMQ is the most ludicrous. Either you believe in the principle of a hereditary monarchy or you don't. If you're going to depart from the proper line of succession and choose who becomes Head of State, it's not obvious that William Wales would be the ideal candidate, you'd probably want to cast the net a little wider.
It would be an odd way of deciding primogeniture should be junked. It's not universal in monarchies, but no one would suggest it seriously (I believe Bill Bryson makes reference to polling saying Will should be next in line in a book written 25 years ago for crying out loud)
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?
Yes.
Quite. The moment you depose Charles III you might as well start another Civil War of the Jacobites vs the Rest. I'm deeply shocked to find HYUFD even talking about the possibility of high treason of that kind by encompassing the fall of the king (though it's not clear if he is advocating it).
I would complain Carnyx, it’s progress from invading Scotland to duff you you and your fellow Nats.
I wasn't complaining, more stunned. It's certainly progress of sorts to find HYUFD even talking about the possibility of the rightful king losing his throne - and therefore himself committing treason under the Henrician settlement, IIRC.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.
Australia and Canada both have monarchist PMs and the opposition leader in Canada is also a monarchist, Ardern is a republican in New Zealand but has not prioritised the issue
Of all the positions on the monarchy, the idea of William succeeding directly after HMQ is the most ludicrous. Either you believe in the principle of a hereditary monarchy or you don't. If you're going to depart from the proper line of succession and choose who becomes Head of State, it's not obvious that William Wales would be the ideal candidate, you'd probably want to cast the net a little wider.
Yes, it will be a short period of Charles before it becomes clear he'll need to abdicate to let Wills take over becuase no one likes him or Camilla.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?
Yes.
I'm still too afraid to see if this article is a parody or not
Prince Charles is ready to becoming king whenever his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, decides to step down from the throne. “Charles will serve as king with Duchess Camilla by his side,” a source exclusively says in the new issue of Us Weekly. “This is something he’s dreamed about his entire life — he sees it as his birthright, and Her Majesty would find it extremely difficult to deprive him of that
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:
- the problem of racism - multi-faith society - housing quality - the environment
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Never seemed to hurt Edward VII.
That was in an era when women didn't have the vote, we've moved on since then.
We're regularly informed we've moved backwards. By imperal nostalgists and self pitiers, getting it from both ends.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.
Australia and Canada both have monarchist PMs and the opposition leader in Canada is also a monarchist, Ardern is a republican in New Zealand but has not prioritised the issue
That's only while the Queen is there. Once she's gone the drumbeat for republicanism will get a lot louder in all of those countries.
Plus Head of the Commonwealth isn't a hereditary position.
Yet they've already chosen him to take it up. David Herdson did a very good piece on it.
They could still kick off.
Taking back control from unelected rulers might become all the rage.
They've already done that.
Though in fairness that's why plenty of places that don't really care about the monarchy haven't yet done anythign about it, because it doesn't matter, and of course Charles taking over would seem an opportune moment for many. Several of the Caribbean nations have had political unanimity on the issue for years apparently and still not gotten around to it, though no doubt will eventually.
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queen
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
Charles is going to be the best chance for republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland to break away. I fear that the William won't be head of state in any of those countries when it's his turn because Charles is a disaster.
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:
- the problem of racism - multi-faith society - housing quality - the environment
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
He himself has said he wants to be defender of all faiths, not just the Anglican faith
I am sure that they are all lining up for his assistance.
Comments
PS: I will not give up my day job
Even then, he had to win a battle to confirm his usurpation and was at best shaky on the throne for a further ten years.
I really don’t see what popular opinion has to do with this. It would need parliamentary manoeuvres comparable to 1660 or 1688 to sideline Charles.
I believe Ydoethur's point is valid. Not impressed with the Welsh Labour Government but PC are in chaos and the people running the Welsh Conservatives are all of the calibre of Johnson, but without the charisma. My wife who is of the Remainer-Conservative faith can't bear, Paul and Andrew RT Davies
I should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1338916450275385346/photo/1
I believe the UK leaving makes the EU 3rd in free market areas after the USA and China. Writing from Blue Stilton country, I am satisfied.
How swiftly things change!
Almost all SE, London and Wales now.
How short does it have to be to become pointless?
Bring this in home.
(which probably means 90% correct even if you disagree with him).
https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1338861722539417616
The question is whether any of those problems are related to Wales' constitutional status.
In the 1960s, Welsh GDP was twice that of the Republic of Ireland. Now in the 2020s, the economy of the Republic of Ireland is four times that of Wales.
Why is that ? Why has an independent Ireland prospered mightily, whereas a Wales tied to Westminster become more and more impoverished ?
And is the pauperization of Wales related to the behaviour of the Westminster parties ?
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-selects-pete-buttigieg-to-lead-transportation-department-11608059207
Australia and Canada both have monarchist PMs and the opposition leader in Canada is also a monarchist, Ardern is a republican in New Zealand but has not prioritised the issue
When these went, its location and geographic limitations (being bloody hilly makes transport hard) made it unattractive to investment. That is despite the fact that a very great deal of hard work was put in by the then Tory government (working, uncharacteristically, with the unions) to try and persuade major firms to set up shop there.
That would (and did) happen regardless of who was in charge. Ireland, meanwhile, on the main route between Europe and America with strong links to both was able to prosper.
Does that mean it will always be this way? No. In an age when renewable energy is king, Wales, as one vast potential power station, could easily come into its own again.
But that DOES - to contradict myself - depend on half decent public services and a stable political and governmental system, which right now it hasn’t got.
- the problem of racism
- multi-faith society
- housing quality
- the environment
When it was revealed that James Hewitt slept with the wife of a brother officer he was effectively excommunicated by the army.
But when Prince Charles slept with the wife of a brother office the same didn't happen to him.
Jonathan Morgan is a real loss to Welsh politics.
In Canada both the PM Trudeau's Liberals and the Opposition Leader Erin O'Toole's Conservatives are monarchist parties, only the third party NDP leans republican.
So if there is to be a referendum New Zealand is likely to be first but Ardern has not made it a priority
Taking back control from unelected rulers might become all the rage.
Prince Charles is ready to becoming king whenever his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, decides to step down from the throne. “Charles will serve as king with Duchess Camilla by his side,” a source exclusively says in the new issue of Us Weekly. “This is something he’s dreamed about his entire life — he sees it as his birthright, and Her Majesty would find it extremely difficult to deprive him of that
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/inside-prince-charles-plans-if-queen-elizabeth-steps-down/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/15/scientists-find-two-new-species-of-fungi-that-turn-flies-into-zombies
The transmission mechanism is quite something ... rather like Bigg Market or Grassmarket on a bad Friday night ...
"While most fungi spore once the host is dead, with strongwellsea, the host continues to live for days, carrying out normal activities and socialising with other flies while the fungus consumes its genitals, fat reserves, reproductive organs and finally its muscle, all the while shooting out thousands of spores on to other individuals.
After a few days, the fly lies on its back, spasms for a few hours and then dies."
The queen will never step down, and Charles of all people must know that.
ie Families get together because everyone thinks they "have to" but privately many would be delighted if they didn't have to bother.
So Govt may have over-estimated how upset people would be if they couldn't have normal Christmas gatherings.
Though in fairness that's why plenty of places that don't really care about the monarchy haven't yet done anythign about it, because it doesn't matter, and of course Charles taking over would seem an opportune moment for many. Several of the Caribbean nations have had political unanimity on the issue for years apparently and still not gotten around to it, though no doubt will eventually.