Punters remain confident that there will be a deal – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
Looking at numbers unless I am going skelly they are rising significantly faster than every other country.MaxPB said:
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.malcolmg said:
looking at their increasing rates I would not be surprisedMaxPB said:
Earlier it looked like the Welsh were.DavidL said:
Nicola wanting to break ranks I suspect.kle4 said:
Arguing over who gets the blame.williamglenn said:0 -
Why would they do that?williamglenn said:
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?MaxPB said:
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.Richard_Nabavi said:
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.MaxPB said:
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.
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.0 -
Makes the heart soar to see what you have done to our country.Casino_Royale said:
Warrington, Birmingham, Holyhead, North Weald, White Cliffs, Ebbsfleet etc. and a few others with contingency sites on top.TOPPING said:
Where?Casino_Royale said:
Our new customs posts.TOPPING said:
What's an inland border post?Casino_Royale said:
No, I'm working for them on the inland border posts. As of last week.williamglenn said:
You're behind on your paperwork?Casino_Royale 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??
My laptop doesn't log on properly.
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.
1 -
I was just jesting David, need something to laugh at nowadays.DavidL said:
Not really Malcolm. If you look at my other posts on the matter you will see that I agree with her!malcolmg said:
David, David, even you have joined the SNPBAD always club now.DavidL said:
Nicola wanting to break ranks I suspect.kle4 said:
Arguing over who gets the blame.williamglenn said:
PS: I will not give up my day job1 -
Targets?TOPPING said:
What's an inland border post?Casino_Royale said:
No, I'm working for them on the inland border posts. As of last week.williamglenn said:
You're behind on your paperwork?Casino_Royale 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??
My laptop doesn't log on properly.0 -
Prior deal. Not this deal. This is a new one being negotiated.TOPPING said:
The deal was agreed and signed.Philip_Thompson said:
When there was no deal agreed.TOPPING said:
LOLMaxPB said:
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.williamglenn said:
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?MaxPB said:
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.Richard_Nabavi said:
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.MaxPB said:
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.
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.
I mean Max this govt was about to renege on the deal they signed moments ago.
You don't mess around once a deal is agreed.0 -
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.Charles said:
Why would they do that?williamglenn said:
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?MaxPB said:
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.Richard_Nabavi said:
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.MaxPB said:
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.
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.0 -
The last time a monarch was selected by popular acclaim was in 1461, when Edward Earl of March was declared King by the Londoners.HYUFD said:
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.0 -
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 soonmalcolmg said:
Looking at numbers unless I am going skelly they are rising significantly faster than every other country.MaxPB said:
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.malcolmg said:
looking at their increasing rates I would not be surprisedMaxPB said:
Earlier it looked like the Welsh were.DavidL said:
Nicola wanting to break ranks I suspect.kle4 said:
Arguing over who gets the blame.williamglenn said:1 -
Will they get one of the Royals to open them by symbolically cutting some red tape?TOPPING said:
Makes the heart soar to see what you have done to our country.Casino_Royale said:
Warrington, Birmingham, Holyhead, North Weald, White Cliffs, Ebbsfleet etc. and a few others with contingency sites on top.TOPPING said:
Where?Casino_Royale said:
Our new customs posts.TOPPING said:
What's an inland border post?Casino_Royale said:
No, I'm working for them on the inland border posts. As of last week.williamglenn said:
You're behind on your paperwork?Casino_Royale 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??
My laptop doesn't log on properly.
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.0 -
I don't. There is neither enough enthusiasm to return under Boris' wing or cast the Union aside yet.williamglenn said:
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.ydoethur said:
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.Big_G_NorthWales said:Headline on ITV Wales news
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
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.
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 Davies0 -
Zoom drinks with Alan Bennett tonight. Wonder if I'll be able to hold my end up. Has to be doubtful.0
-
Why make it politically difficult for your counterpart to continue talking?williamglenn said:
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.Charles said:
Why would they do that?williamglenn said:
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?MaxPB said:
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.Richard_Nabavi said:
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.MaxPB said:
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.
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.0 -
Grmpfydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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.0 -
Three months of pure unadulterated Brexit might focus minds. Quite which minds is for debate, although I have my own ideas.williamglenn said:
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.Charles said:
Why would they do that?williamglenn said:
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?MaxPB said:
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.Richard_Nabavi said:
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.MaxPB said:
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.
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.0 -
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 Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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.0 -
I’m not altogether sure how to respond to the faint tone of surprise there...Mexicanpete said:I believe Ydoethur's point is valid.
0 -
No, if there's no deal agreed before December 31st we will no deal.williamglenn said:
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.Charles said:
Why would they do that?williamglenn said:
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?MaxPB said:
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.Richard_Nabavi said:
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.MaxPB said:
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.
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.0 -
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.Charles said:
Why make it politically difficult for your counterpart to continue talking?williamglenn said:
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.Charles said:
Why would they do that?williamglenn said:
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?MaxPB said:
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.Richard_Nabavi said:
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.MaxPB said:
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.
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.1 -
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.1 -
I was understating my awe at your rather impressive analysis.ydoethur said:
I’m not altogether sure how to respond to the faint tone of surprise there...Mexicanpete said:I believe Ydoethur's point is valid.
0 -
Here is your annual reminder that Die Hard is NOT a Christmas movie. 52% of Brits say it’s not a festive flick, compared to only 30% who do
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1338916450275385346/photo/10 -
I think the EU now understands that this can is no longer for kicking.MaxPB said:
No, if there's no deal agreed before December 31st we will no deal.williamglenn said:
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.Charles said:
Why would they do that?williamglenn said:
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?MaxPB said:
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.Richard_Nabavi said:
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.MaxPB said:
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.
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.
0 -
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.0 -
FPT:
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.squareroot2 said:
I think we need proof of your assertion. .CorrectHorseBattery said: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.0 -
... and continue talking to get a deal, because long term we need one.MaxPB said:
No, if there's no deal agreed before December 31st we will no deal.williamglenn said:
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.Charles said:
Why would they do that?williamglenn said:
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?MaxPB said:
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.Richard_Nabavi said:
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.MaxPB said:
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.
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.0 -
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.0 -
When will Boris get the bollox to admit his No deal.MarqueeMark said:
I think the EU now understands that this can is no longer for kicking.MaxPB said:
No, if there's no deal agreed before December 31st we will no deal.williamglenn said:
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.Charles said:
Why would they do that?williamglenn said:
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?MaxPB said:
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.Richard_Nabavi said:
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.MaxPB said:
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.
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.0 -
Not quite getting the hereditary bit.HYUFD said:
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 Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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.0 -
No, UK/EU relations go into a deep freeze and that's it for a very long time while the UK looks to Asia.logical_song said:
... and continue talking to get a deal, because long term we need one.MaxPB said:
No, if there's no deal agreed before December 31st we will no deal.williamglenn said:
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.Charles said:
Why would they do that?williamglenn said:
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?MaxPB said:
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.Richard_Nabavi said:
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.MaxPB said:
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.
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.0 -
So are the lactose intolerant Japanese.MattW said:FPT:
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.squareroot2 said:
I think we need proof of your assertion. .CorrectHorseBattery said: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.0 -
Wouldn't want those turnips to rot in the fieds, would we malc?malcolmg said:
I was just jesting David, need something to laugh at nowadays.DavidL said:
Not really Malcolm. If you look at my other posts on the matter you will see that I agree with her!malcolmg said:
David, David, even you have joined the SNPBAD always club now.DavidL said:
Nicola wanting to break ranks I suspect.kle4 said:
Arguing over who gets the blame.williamglenn said:
PS: I will not give up my day job0 -
Doesn’t matterwilliamglenn said:
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.Charles said:
Why make it politically difficult for your counterpart to continue talking?williamglenn said:
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.Charles said:
Why would they do that?williamglenn said:
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?MaxPB said:
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.Richard_Nabavi said:
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.MaxPB said:
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.
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.
0 -
Although it is right in the middle of the sky movies Christmas tree advertmalcolmg said:Here is your annual reminder that Die Hard is NOT a Christmas movie. 52% of Brits say it’s not a festive flick, compared to only 30% who do
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1338916450275385346/photo/10 -
#WillOfThePeoplemalcolmg said:Here is your annual reminder that Die Hard is NOT a Christmas movie. 52% of Brits say it’s not a festive flick, compared to only 30% who do
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1338916450275385346/photo/10 -
That loud popping noise you heard from the Midlands was my house collapsing due to a sudden case of head expanding.Mexicanpete said:
I was understating my awe at your rather impressive analysis.ydoethur said:
I’m not altogether sure how to respond to the faint tone of surprise there...Mexicanpete said:I believe Ydoethur's point is valid.
1 -
Don’t speak too loud TSE. By that logic, pineapple goes on pizza.TheScreamingEagles said:
#WillOfThePeoplemalcolmg said:Here is your annual reminder that Die Hard is NOT a Christmas movie. 52% of Brits say it’s not a festive flick, compared to only 30% who do
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1338916450275385346/photo/11 -
The party splits on the Christmas relaxation are interesting. Conservative voters noticeably keener on keeping the hall pass, but still solidly against.HYUFD said:
How short does it have to be to become pointless?0 -
Never!ydoethur said:
Don’t speak too loud TSE. By that logic, pineapple goes on pizza.TheScreamingEagles said:
#WillOfThePeoplemalcolmg said:Here is your annual reminder that Die Hard is NOT a Christmas movie. 52% of Brits say it’s not a festive flick, compared to only 30% who do
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1338916450275385346/photo/10 -
He did WHAT? Are we talking flagellation or just an attempt to get them to turn up?TheScreamingEagles said:1 -
I so want one of the insane fucker GOPer Senators to do it.TheScreamingEagles said:
Bring this in home.0 -
Final video full stop would be betterHYUFD said:0 -
This is very @jonworth :-)MaxPB said:
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.Richard_Nabavi said: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:
https://twitter.com/remkorteweg/status/1338890975889027075
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.
(which probably means 90% correct even if you disagree with him).
https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/13388617225394176160 -
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.ydoethur said:
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.williamglenn said:
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.ydoethur said:
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.Big_G_NorthWales said:Headline on ITV Wales news
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
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.
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 ?0 -
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".0 -
Joe Biden plans to nominate former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg to become U.S. Transportation Secretary, people familiar with the decision said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-selects-pete-buttigieg-to-lead-transportation-department-116080592071 -
They obviously didn't allow the answer "I couldn't GAF".malcolmg said:Here is your annual reminder that Die Hard is NOT a Christmas movie. 52% of Brits say it’s not a festive flick, compared to only 30% who do
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1338916450275385346/photo/11 -
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.Casino_Royale said:
Warrington, Birmingham, Holyhead, North Weald, White Cliffs, Ebbsfleet etc. and a few others with contingency sites on top.TOPPING said:
Where?Casino_Royale said:
Our new customs posts.TOPPING said:
What's an inland border post?Casino_Royale said:
No, I'm working for them on the inland border posts. As of last week.williamglenn said:
You're behind on your paperwork?Casino_Royale 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??
My laptop doesn't log on properly.
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.0 -
I am not that impressed myself but when Drakeford is the alternative it hardly mattersMexicanpete said:
I don't. There is neither enough enthusiasm to return under Boris' wing or cast the Union aside yet.williamglenn said:
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.ydoethur said:
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.Big_G_NorthWales said:Headline on ITV Wales news
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
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.
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 Davies0 -
I have never watched die hard to be honestCharles said:
Although it is right in the middle of the sky movies Christmas tree advertmalcolmg said:Here is your annual reminder that Die Hard is NOT a Christmas movie. 52% of Brits say it’s not a festive flick, compared to only 30% who do
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1338916450275385346/photo/10 -
There's next to no lactose in Stilton (or indeed in any properly-produced mature cheese).Mexicanpete said:
So are the lactose intolerant Japanese.MattW said:FPT:
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.squareroot2 said:
I think we need proof of your assertion. .CorrectHorseBattery said: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.1 -
Australia deal please.malcolmg said:
When will Boris get the bollox to admit his No deal.MarqueeMark said:
I think the EU now understands that this can is no longer for kicking.MaxPB said:
No, if there's no deal agreed before December 31st we will no deal.williamglenn said:
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.Charles said:
Why would they do that?williamglenn said:
What if the EU just says you can have an extension or no deal, but doesn't commit to a deal?MaxPB said:
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.Richard_Nabavi said:
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.MaxPB said:
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.
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.0 -
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
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 issue0 -
Adopt the HY approach of allocating the don’t knows to the column of choice and once again we see the 52-48 division that has plagued us since 2015.malcolmg said:Here is your annual reminder that Die Hard is NOT a Christmas movie. 52% of Brits say it’s not a festive flick, compared to only 30% who do
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1338916450275385346/photo/11 -
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.HYUFD said:
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
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 issue1 -
Some are temporary contingency sites for "No Deal" and won't be here in 5 years.RochdalePioneers said:
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.Casino_Royale said:
Warrington, Birmingham, Holyhead, North Weald, White Cliffs, Ebbsfleet etc. and a few others with contingency sites on top.TOPPING said:
Where?Casino_Royale said:
Our new customs posts.TOPPING said:
What's an inland border post?Casino_Royale said:
No, I'm working for them on the inland border posts. As of last week.williamglenn said:
You're behind on your paperwork?Casino_Royale 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??
My laptop doesn't log on properly.
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.0 -
Plus Head of the Commonwealth isn't a hereditary position.MaxPB said:
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.HYUFD said:
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
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 issue0 -
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.Casino_Royale said:
Warrington, Birmingham, Holyhead, North Weald, White Cliffs, Ebbsfleet etc. and a few others with contingency sites on top.TOPPING said:
Where?Casino_Royale said:
Our new customs posts.TOPPING said:
What's an inland border post?Casino_Royale said:
No, I'm working for them on the inland border posts. As of last week.williamglenn said:
You're behind on your paperwork?Casino_Royale 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??
My laptop doesn't log on properly.
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.0 -
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).YBarddCwsc said:
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.ydoethur said:
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.williamglenn said:
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.ydoethur said:
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.Big_G_NorthWales said:Headline on ITV Wales news
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
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.
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 ?
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.1 -
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:Casino_Royale said:
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
- the problem of racism
- multi-faith society
- housing quality
- the environment
0 -
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?ydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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.0 -
Given Biden’s obsession with railways, he probably sees that as a plum job for a promising youngster.TheScreamingEagles said:Joe Biden plans to nominate former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg to become U.S. Transportation Secretary, people familiar with the decision said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-selects-pete-buttigieg-to-lead-transportation-department-116080592072 -
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.Malmesbury said:
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:Casino_Royale said:
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
- the problem of racism
- multi-faith society
- housing quality
- the environment0 -
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. .Malmesbury said:
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:Casino_Royale said:
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
- the problem of racism
- multi-faith society
- housing quality
- the environment0 -
Yeah, but Steve Baker would be very upset I bet.HYUFD said:0 -
Why do the Welsh vote for such shite leaders?YBarddCwsc said:
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.ydoethur said:
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.williamglenn said:
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.ydoethur said:
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.Big_G_NorthWales said:Headline on ITV Wales news
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
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.
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 ?
0 -
Sounds like he's a man of the people to me.TheScreamingEagles said:
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.Malmesbury said:
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:Casino_Royale said:
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
- the problem of racism
- multi-faith society
- housing quality
- the environment0 -
Yes.DavidL said:
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?ydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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.0 -
He could take the name Henry as King?TheScreamingEagles said:
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.Malmesbury said:
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:Casino_Royale said:
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
- the problem of racism
- multi-faith society
- housing quality
- the environment0 -
He himself has said he wants to be defender of all faiths, not just the Anglican faithTheScreamingEagles said:
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.Malmesbury said:
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:Casino_Royale said:
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
- the problem of racism
- multi-faith society
- housing quality
- the environment0 -
Henry VIII says, on the contrary.TheScreamingEagles said:
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.Malmesbury said:
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:Casino_Royale said:
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
- the problem of racism
- multi-faith society
- housing quality
- the environment0 -
You obviously don't have proper respect for the age-old traditions of England, or the founding of its Church.TheScreamingEagles said:
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.0 -
It's more just useful to know what general perceptions are.ydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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.
You get what you ask for?Gardenwalker said:
Why do the Welsh vote for such shite leaders?YBarddCwsc said:
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.ydoethur said:
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.williamglenn said:
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.ydoethur said:
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.Big_G_NorthWales said:Headline on ITV Wales news
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
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.
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 ?0 -
Including this one.MaxPB said:
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.HYUFD said:
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
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 issue1 -
Those qualities would seem to be taking the position back to its roots.TheScreamingEagles said:
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.Malmesbury said:
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:Casino_Royale said:
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
- the problem of racism
- multi-faith society
- housing quality
- the environment2 -
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?HYUFD said:
He himself has said he wants to be defender of all faiths, not just the Anglican faithTheScreamingEagles said:
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.Malmesbury said:
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:Casino_Royale said:
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
- the problem of racism
- multi-faith society
- housing quality
- the environment0 -
Never seemed to hurt Edward VII.TheScreamingEagles said:
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.Malmesbury said:
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:Casino_Royale said:
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
- the problem of racism
- multi-faith society
- housing quality
- the environment0 -
Yet they've already chosen him to take it up. David Herdson did a very good piece on it.TheScreamingEagles said:
Plus Head of the Commonwealth isn't a hereditary position.MaxPB said:
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.HYUFD said:
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
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 issue0 -
It is the hypocrisy of the Prince of Wales that boils my piss.Gallowgate said:
Sounds like he's a man of the people to me.TheScreamingEagles said:
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.Malmesbury said:
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:Casino_Royale said:
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
- 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.0 -
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.Richard_Nabavi said:
There's next to no lactose in Stilton (or indeed in any properly-produced mature cheese).Mexicanpete said:
So are the lactose intolerant Japanese.MattW said:FPT:
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.squareroot2 said:
I think we need proof of your assertion. .CorrectHorseBattery said: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.0 -
Important position, but if anything like here, totally invisible - good for him to learn the ropes.TheScreamingEagles said:Joe Biden plans to nominate former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg to become U.S. Transportation Secretary, people familiar with the decision said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-selects-pete-buttigieg-to-lead-transportation-department-116080592070 -
That was in an era when women didn't have the vote, we've moved on since then.ydoethur said:
Never seemed to hurt Edward VII.TheScreamingEagles said:
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.Malmesbury said:
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:Casino_Royale said:
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
- the problem of racism
- multi-faith society
- housing quality
- the environment0 -
Because there are no good ones to vote for.Gardenwalker said:
Why do the Welsh vote for such shite leaders?YBarddCwsc said:
You have certainly given a very accurate diagnosis of endemic and intractable problems facing Wales in that last line.ydoethur said:
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.williamglenn said:
Do you think there's a chance of polarisation on constitutional lines happening? Abolish the parliament versus independence.ydoethur said:
Will be interesting to see if that’s reflected in the next Welsh barometer poll.Big_G_NorthWales said:Headline on ITV Wales news
Public support for the Welsh Government handling of covid collapses
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.
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 ?
Jonathan Morgan is a real loss to Welsh politics.0 -
The UK - it's who you know.TheScreamingEagles said:
It is the hypocrisy of the Prince of Wales that boils my piss.Gallowgate said:
Sounds like he's a man of the people to me.TheScreamingEagles said:
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.Malmesbury said:
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:Casino_Royale said:
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
- 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.0 -
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).ydoethur said:
Yes.DavidL said:
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?ydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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.0 -
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.MaxPB said:
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.HYUFD said:
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
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
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 priority0 -
They could still kick off.kle4 said:
Yet they've already chosen him to take it up. David Herdson did a very good piece on it.TheScreamingEagles said:
Plus Head of the Commonwealth isn't a hereditary position.MaxPB said:
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.HYUFD said:
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
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
Taking back control from unelected rulers might become all the rage.0 -
I would complain Carnyx, it’s progress from invading Scotland to duff you you and your fellow Nats.Carnyx said:
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).ydoethur said:
Yes.DavidL said:
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?ydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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.0 -
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.HYUFD said:
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
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 issue4 -
I'm still too afraid to see if this article is a parody or notydoethur said:
Yes.DavidL said:
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?ydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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.
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/0 -
O/T but just to show some people have it even worse when it comes to catching bugs -
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."0 -
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)OnlyLivingBoy said:
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.HYUFD said:
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
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 issue0 -
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.ydoethur said:
I would complain Carnyx, it’s progress from invading Scotland to duff you you and your fellow Nats.Carnyx said:
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).ydoethur said:
Yes.DavidL said:
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?ydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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.
0 -
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.OnlyLivingBoy said:
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.HYUFD said:
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
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 issue0 -
Parody.kle4 said:
I'm still too afraid to see if this article is a parody or notydoethur said:
Yes.DavidL said:
Isn't the point of monarchs (assuming that they have one) not that they are not really up for election?ydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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.
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/
The queen will never step down, and Charles of all people must know that.1 -
We're regularly informed we've moved backwards. By imperal nostalgists and self pitiers, getting it from both ends.TheScreamingEagles said:
That was in an era when women didn't have the vote, we've moved on since then.ydoethur said:
Never seemed to hurt Edward VII.TheScreamingEagles said:
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.Malmesbury said:
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:Casino_Royale said:
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
- the problem of racism
- multi-faith society
- housing quality
- the environment0 -
Putting the virus to one side, I wonder if people generally care much less about Christmas than is widely thought.
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.1 -
They've already done that.TheScreamingEagles said:
They could still kick off.kle4 said:
Yet they've already chosen him to take it up. David Herdson did a very good piece on it.TheScreamingEagles said:
Plus Head of the Commonwealth isn't a hereditary position.MaxPB said:
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.HYUFD said:
The Scottish figures have a split between Charles and William preferred to succeed the Queen.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
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
Taking back control from unelected rulers might become all the rage.
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.0 -
I am sure that they are all lining up for his assistance.HYUFD said:
He himself has said he wants to be defender of all faiths, not just the Anglican faithTheScreamingEagles said:
But he's a fornicator and adulterer, who has no place to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.Malmesbury said:
The ironic bit about Charles is that many of his embarrassing positions/ideas are rather in fashion now:Casino_Royale said:
I think Charles has mellowed in recent years, to be honest.MaxPB said:
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.ydoethur said:
And this has precisely Jack shit relevance to what actually happens.HYUFD said:
Interestingly both Tory and Labour voters want William to become the next King but LD voters still think Charles should succeed the Queenydoethur 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.HYUFD said:
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 should also point out in 1997 we saw the same thing after Fayed’s drunk driver killed Diana. It wore off.
I don't feel the same way about him I did 10 years ago, even though I think he still has "issues".
- the problem of racism
- multi-faith society
- housing quality
- the environment2
This discussion has been closed.